Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#571312 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I just have you two versions if evolution yet you cling to your fantasy that there's only one version?
"Evolution" & "The Theory of Evolution" have different meanings.
Evolution is organisms evolve.
ToE is all organisms evolved from a single, common ancestor & are all related.
So will you continue to avoid the question and live in your fantasy?
which BTW the Theory of Evolution is supported by microbiology and the study of genomes. it seems all life on Earth has the same basic genetic markers

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571313 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
amazing...you put something in the Constitution that isn't there i.e. the U.S. is a christian nation
and totally dismiss actual historical facts i.e. The first amendment separation of gov't and religion and the Treaty of Tripoli stating the U.S. is not a christian nation
no wonder its impossible to debate with you as you make up facts and live in your own reality
It's you that is beyond debate. You argue the First Amendment and you don't even understand it.

It says that CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Meaning - the US can't have a national religion.

Before assuming the treaty of tripoli, read up. And this is only article 11:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The second half (or rather 4/5ths) of the statement is pretty important.“Is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is qualified with what that means in this instance. The Americans knew the history of the wars between Muslims and Christians in Europe. Wars fought over religion. This statement in its entirety was expressing to these Muslim nations that America’s Christianity was different than that of Europe. We had no intention of fighting a war solely based upon religion.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571314 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
which BTW the Theory of Evolution is supported by microbiology and the study of genomes. it seems all life on Earth has the same basic genetic markers
Yes I've heard. Humans closest relative is a potato...

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#571315 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, please.
Will you stop with your atheist assertions that Christianity is a plagiary. That's unfounded nonsense.
One thing to look out for when presented with copycat claims is the use of Judeo-Christian terminology. There have been many religions throughout history whose members participated in ritual baths but it was NOT baptism. Political and religious groups may have celebrated a communal meal but it was NOT a Eucharist. Followers may consider their god a savior of some sort but they are NOT called Messiah. Religions may speak of an afterlife but they do NOT consist of places known as Heaven and Hell.
Critics may use such terms to make their connections seem stronger but this is a misuse of terminology as these words are usually of Judeo-Christian origins.
In Hinduism, Krishna is believed to be the eighth avatar of Vishnu. Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths.
Though his works have been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched, many still ignorantly refer to his arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts.
Keep it up!
here's some videos for you to watch speculating on the origins of christianity



http://www.youtube.com/watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#571316 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I've heard. Humans closest relative is a potato...
hence mr potato head.....

too bad you're a scientific moron

Since: Apr 09

Elmont, Long Island NY

#571317 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I've heard. Humans closest relative is a potato...
let's stick to facts

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06...

Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.

"We're so closely related genetically, yet our behavior is so different," says team member and computational biologist Janet Kelso of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "This will allow us to look for the genetic basis of what makes modern humans different from both bonobos and chimpanzees."

The international sequencing effort led from Max Planck chose a bonobo named Ulindi from the Leipzig Zoo as its subject, partly because she was a female (the chimp genome was of a male). The analysis of Ulindi's complete genome, reported online today in Nature, reveals that bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA. This confirms that these two species of African apes are still highly similar to each other genetically, even though their populations split apart in Africa about 1 million years ago, perhaps after the Congo River formed and divided an ancestral population into two groups. Today, bonobos are found in only the Democratic Republic of Congo and there is no evidence that they have interbred with chimpanzees in equatorial Africa since they diverged, perhaps because the Congo River acted as a barrier to prevent the groups from mixing. The researchers also found that bonobos share about 98.7% of their DNA with humans—about the same amount that chimps share with us.

When the Max Planck scientists compared the bonobo genome directly with that of chimps and humans, however, they found that a small bit of our DNA, about 1.6%, is shared with only the bonobo, but not chimpanzees. And we share about the same amount of our DNA with only chimps, but not bonobos. These differences suggest that the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago, the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps retained this diversity until their population completely split into two groups 1 million years ago. The groups that evolved into bonobos, chimps, and humans all retained slightly different subsets of this ancestral population's diverse gene pool—and those differences now offer clues today to the size and range of diversity in that ancestral group.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

#571318 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
amazing...you put something in the Constitution that isn't there i.e. the U.S. is a christian nation
and totally dismiss actual historical facts i.e. The first amendment separation of gov't and religion and the Treaty of Tripoli stating the U.S. is not a christian nation
no wonder its impossible to debate with you as you make up facts and live in your own reality
Hmmmm, I don't see the word 'separation' in the first amendment. Something you put in that isn't there?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#571319 Dec 8, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, lets start with the fact that evolution is a very effective means of creating intelligently: evolutionary algorithm is now opening the doors to the creation of devices that posses artificial intelligence capabilities that other forms of algorithms were unable to.
1. WE KNOW FOR A FACT that the use or presence of the process of evolution is becoming of an intelligent creator. HENCE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CAN BE DEMONSTRATED USING "EVOLUTION TECHNIQUES".
2. Matter and energy have no demonstrable mental capacity; so there is an active "naturally intelligent "agent"" which creates mental capacities in creatures... unless you are a mindless product of mindless forces.
3. Furthermore, a physical entity is defined by limits; so while the universe has no limits, it cannot be said to be a physical thing. It may be concluded that we exist in a non-physical entity such as a type of "mind" (i.e spirit) as opposed to a purely physical space.
These are some suggestions are all scientifically testable and empirically measurable. Give them a try.
Hahahhah! That is good.
The difference being that in this case the "designer" is quite provable, and not "supernatural".
I will say that I do not totally(blindly) agree with all of the methods of evolution or the timelines and causes which are presented. But then, I have no agenda to prove by a "pat" Hypothesis or theory being in question.
If one wishes to venture into the realm of "dimensions" or "planes" of existence, then one needs to experiment and verify the hypothesis as peer approved evidence toward accepted theory. There IS evidence, however, it is not proven conclusive as proper theory.
Now, one could be foolish enough to try to incorporate the "god of the gaps" into the hypothesis, but it would eventually be disproved upon actual experimentation and the advent of better technology with which to make determination toward facts.
Philosophy does not prove actuality...actuality "may" prove philosophy.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#571320 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. So I'll assume that when that science teacher has that Darwin fish in the science class, you'll be right there at the school board getting him in trouble.
Ahh, I see, you want to believe the Jesus fish(symbol) has only ever been used in that way. It hasn't and the usage predates the Christian use.

That's fine, however, since that symbol doesn't change the fact of evolution, and you find that a point of contention.

Sure, the Darwin fish doesn't need to be there.

I just asked my son if he's seen one at his school, and he says no.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571321 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
here's some videos for you to watch speculating on the origins of christianity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =oZgT1SRcrKEXX
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Yes, I've seen videos like those. They're a little far-fetched, like that Ancient Aliens show.

Thanks for at least admitting that they're speculations.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#571322 Dec 8, 2012
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, please.
Will you stop with your atheist assertions that Christianity is a plagiary. That's unfounded nonsense.
One thing to look out for when presented with copycat claims is the use of Judeo-Christian terminology. There have been many religions throughout history whose members participated in ritual baths but it was NOT baptism. Political and religious groups may have celebrated a communal meal but it was NOT a Eucharist. Followers may consider their god a savior of some sort but they are NOT called Messiah. Religions may speak of an afterlife but they do NOT consist of places known as Heaven and Hell.
Critics may use such terms to make their connections seem stronger but this is a misuse of terminology as these words are usually of Judeo-Christian origins.
In Hinduism, Krishna is believed to be the eighth avatar of Vishnu. Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths.
Though his works have been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched, many still ignorantly refer to his arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts.
Keep it up!
I am not a-theist. I just can not subscribe to your cult's beliefs.
You simply refuse to see the truth of actuality. Others are more informed and not affected by your indoctrination. The fact that you are intellectually inhibited is your loss, and not the fault of others.
I have never even considered Kersey Graves as any kind of athority on anything. That is a strawman in the making by you.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#571323 Dec 8, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Well actually it does.
Whatever factors play a role in human history and development must be presented to the younger generations; at least for them to have a chance to think about it and make their own decisions.
But I doubt that you will be willing to differentiate between teaching a religion and promoting one; because you seem to be among those that fear that somehow the younger generations will see your ideas as nothing but an "abomination of desolation".
Then you'd agree that presenting the origins and mythologies associated with religions would be the appropriate way to present such a class.

That's all that can be said of any mythological religion and they all fall into that category - myth.
Darwin was an ape

Santa Cruz, CA

#571324 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
let's stick to facts
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06...
Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.
"We're so closely related genetically, yet our behavior is so different," says team member and computational biologist Janet Kelso of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. "This will allow us to look for the genetic basis of what makes modern humans different from both bonobos and chimpanzees."
The international sequencing effort led from Max Planck chose a bonobo named Ulindi from the Leipzig Zoo as its subject, partly because she was a female (the chimp genome was of a male). The analysis of Ulindi's complete genome, reported online today in Nature, reveals that bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA. This confirms that these two species of African apes are still highly similar to each other genetically, even though their populations split apart in Africa about 1 million years ago, perhaps after the Congo River formed and divided an ancestral population into two groups. Today, bonobos are found in only the Democratic Republic of Congo and there is no evidence that they have interbred with chimpanzees in equatorial Africa since they diverged, perhaps because the Congo River acted as a barrier to prevent the groups from mixing. The researchers also found that bonobos share about 98.7% of their DNA with humans—about the same amount that chimps share with us.
When the Max Planck scientists compared the bonobo genome directly with that of chimps and humans, however, they found that a small bit of our DNA, about 1.6%, is shared with only the bonobo, but not chimpanzees. And we share about the same amount of our DNA with only chimps, but not bonobos. These differences suggest that the ancestral population of apes that gave rise to humans, chimps, and bonobos was quite large and diverse genetically—numbering about 27,000 breeding individuals. Once the ancestors of humans split from the ancestor of bonobos and chimps more than 4 million years ago, the common ancestor of bonobos and chimps retained this diversity until their population completely split into two groups 1 million years ago. The groups that evolved into bonobos, chimps, and humans all retained slightly different subsets of this ancestral population's diverse gene pool—and those differences now offer clues today to the size and range of diversity in that ancestral group.
All of this because your dad looks like a rat. So, you are inclined ot believe that your oldest ancestor is a 200 million year old Jurassic rat. No wonder atheists also believe that an eternity as dirt is the destiny they die for, since humans also share DNA with dirt.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571325 Dec 8, 2012
Karma is a_______ wrote:
<quoted text>
let's stick to facts
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06...
Chimpanzees now have to share the distinction of being our closest living relative in the animal kingdom. An international team of researchers has sequenced the genome of the bonobo for the first time, confirming that it shares the same percentage of its DNA with us as chimps do. The team also found some small but tantalizing differences in the genomes of the three species—differences that may explain how bonobos and chimpanzees don't look or act like us even though we share about 99% of our DNA.
Even your geneticists disagree with each other...

"Everybody knows that humans' closest animal relatives are chimpanzees.

At least, that's been the accepted wisdom among scientists for more than 30 years. But now two biologists are arguing that orangutans, not chimps, are our closest cousins."

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/.../debate-rages-humans-...

But I said potato, which isn't animal life. Did you know that humans share a 50% similarity to a banana & 60% to a fruit fly?

Of course, according to you, that all happened ny accident...
Darwin was an ape

Santa Cruz, CA

#571326 Dec 8, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a-theist. I just can not subscribe to your cult's beliefs.
You simply refuse to see the truth of actuality. Others are more informed and not affected by your indoctrination. The fact that you are intellectually inhibited is your loss, and not the fault of others.
I have never even considered Kersey Graves as any kind of athority on anything. That is a strawman in the making by you.
So, you have a cult of your own delusion, so your point is made. However, you build a straw chick argument out of thin straws and mud. You cowardly assert nothing, out of fear of your own delusions being shredded and that is indeed your fault.
Think About It

Magalia, CA

#571327 Dec 8, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, I see, you want to believe the Jesus fish(symbol) has only ever been used in that way. It hasn't and the usage predates the Christian use.
That's fine, however, since that symbol doesn't change the fact of evolution, and you find that a point of contention.
Sure, the Darwin fish doesn't need to be there.
I just asked my son if he's seen one at his school, and he says no.
Do you have enough faith in your son to believe he is telling you the truth?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571328 Dec 8, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, I see, you want to believe the Jesus fish(symbol) has only ever been used in that way. It hasn't and the usage predates the Christian use.
That's fine, however, since that symbol doesn't change the fact of evolution, and you find that a point of contention.
Sure, the Darwin fish doesn't need to be there.
I just asked my son if he's seen one at his school, and he says no.
Well that's good. At a parent/teacher conference a few years ago, my sons science teacher had one proudly displayed on his desk. I said nothing to him, my son or the school. That is his right to display a mockery of Jesus, even if I disagreed with it. Later I asked my son if religion ever came up in class & he said no.

I never said nor implied that the Jesus fish has always been a Christian symbol, but it has been for 2,000 years. It's ours now, not the ancient Romans.

Which fact of evolution are you referring to?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571329 Dec 8, 2012
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>I am not a-theist. I just can not subscribe to your cult's beliefs.
You simply refuse to see the truth of actuality. Others are more informed and not affected by your indoctrination. The fact that you are intellectually inhibited is your loss, and not the fault of others.
I have never even considered Kersey Graves as any kind of athority on anything. That is a strawman in the making by you.
Your strawman argument is now "more informed and not affected by your indoctrination".

You know more, therefore you don't have to believe in God, therefore my belief in God must be false.

Right?

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#571330 Dec 8, 2012
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummmm, where was evolution theory before it was theorised? Evolution theory is just like a media analysis technique: it is nothing but an attempt to interpret.
Your reference to the characters of individuals who are less than virtuous in no way undermines the reality of God or disprove His existence. A cheap shot in the truest sense.
I would have to say that "evolution theory" was first a hypothesis emanating from the observance of the world around us by inquisitive individuals seeking answers. The evidence collected was then tested and verified as experiment and only then was it considered a viable theory. There was and is no intent on the part of science to prove or disprove any "supernatural", as it can not even enter into the equation as verifiable or viable as a testable element of experiment.
Why do you keep trying to intermingle the two when they are not even compatible or comparable in experiment...unless you are being less than honest.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#571331 Dec 8, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you'd agree that presenting the origins and mythologies associated with religions would be the appropriate way to present such a class.
That's all that can be said of any mythological religion and they all fall into that category - myth.
In the context of a public school setting, you're right.

As long as the subject is religion, the teacher MUST keep their own opinions out of it and simply teach the "facts" of said religion.

(Then when the students walk out, he/she can pray to God while looking at the cross hung over the door.)

:p

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min truth 559,497
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 17 min Uzi 119,653
Tamil vs Kannada. Which one is the oldest langu... (Oct '12) 33 min royal kannadiga 1,269
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 38 min truth 605,006
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 41 min who 265,145
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 1 hr Jolly 23,970
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 2 hr Al Capone 5,109
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 4 hr Lost In Transition 175,630
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 18 hr Native Indian 5,520
More from around the web