Cooky
Veteran Member
Good post.
It would be better if it didn't include my name in it -because it makes it sound like I was unaware of it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Good post.
Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?And I'm not specifically talking about you, but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike.
Why dear girl are lots of defenseless apes still around, yet all of the alleged ancestor species of humans are not.Here area couple of reasons I think our ancestors
got into tool use very early.
Imagine a band of basically defenseless apes.
out on the African plain. That is a very rough
neighborhood!
Leopards still like to eat people. I dont think
our ancestors could possibly have survived
except in sizable groups that were constantly
alert. Any predator would then be met with
a hail of rocks.
I learned as a child, a big mean dog will run
if you even stoop to pick up a rock that may
not even be there.
Another is, we dont have snouts and claws
such as would help dig for roots etc. You
need a digging stick. We dont have teeth
etc to crack nuts or open an ostrich egg.
I believe in micro evolution, that is the adaption of an organism to its environment. I do not ascribe to macro evolution.
Why dear girl are lots of defenseless apes still around, yet all of the alleged ancestor species of humans are not.
You would think that one isolated population might exist, on some island covered with jungle, somewhere, after all, their abilities to survive were superior to the apes.
Cro Magnon man simply out populated Neanderthal man, yet there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.
These alleged early hominids seemed to be very poor at survival.
Nor is there even one shred of evidence that indicates that there's this supposed magical wall between micro- and macro.Microevolution is what happens in the short term. It is a subset of the Theory of Evolution.
- Your comment is like saying you believe in taking steps but you don't believe in walking or hiking.
- Your comment is like saying you believe in arithmetic but you don't believe in mathematics.
- Your comment is like saying you believe in the solar system but you don't believe in the universe.
That all sounds pretty silly, doesn't it?
Why dear girl are lots of defenseless apes still around, yet all of the alleged ancestor species of humans are not.
You would think that one isolated population might exist, on some island covered with jungle, somewhere, after all, their abilities to survive were superior to the apes.
Cro Magnon man simply out populated Neanderthal man, yet there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.
These alleged early hominids seemed to be very poor at survival.
Just in the news is a newly discovered dinosaur,
whose existence was previously only indicated
by footprints that matched no known dinosaur.
How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright ? Or any of them ?By "dfenseless" I mean w/o the teeth, claws, speed etc that
say a baboon has.
Those that I refer to obviously had some ways of protecting
themselves. They lived with such as leopards, pythons,
hyaenas. So, it seemed to me, they were probably handy
with stick and rock. Monkeys throw things, why not
those guys.
Alleged early hominids? You are not denying their
existence are you? "Poor at survival". I guess
old T rex and the sabre tooth tiger were too.
But non human bipedal apes were around for
hundreds of thousands of years, certainly longer
than modern man. Let us not speak too soon, of
who is good at what!
As for tropical forest, that is about the worst place
there is for fossils. There is maybe one specimen of
a fossil chimp. Hard to say who did or did not
live there.
there are vast tracts of tropical forest that have never had encroachment from homo sapiens.
I dont know why you say that, as all such areas did have
and do have human population as far back as any records
can show.
Anyway...there are a good many fossils of "organisms"
(called that here so as to avoid saying just who they
may be related to) that are definitely not "Homo sapiens"
but that walked upright. Several species, of different
sizes and characteristics.
You do agree to that?
Nor is there even one shred of evidence that indicates that there's this supposed magical wall between micro- and macro.
Then you don't believe in objectively-derived evidence as found as the basis for biological science, ....
Seriously, how old is your information?How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright ? Or any of them ?
Why do none of them exist today, and why are there huge gaps of millions of years between they and the next creature up the line ?
That is good to hear. For a while I thought that you were a science denier. When did you accept the theory of evolution?I don’t believe silly ideas. But I am not against real scientific findings. All true observations are ok. And actually, there is no need for belief in observations that can be confirmed, they are true facts. All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.
Let me try to clarify something for you: first, I am certainly not a "scientist." And while I'm also an atheist, I think of myself (or perhaps I should say fancy myself) a thinker, with a leaning towards philosophy. I am the first person to tell you that science, to be useful and not harmful in human hands, has to be paired with some moral philosophy or other, whether that be religious or not is hardly the point.There are some useful points in this post. But with discussing science and religion, I feel like we're talking 'at' one another. I think our views are actually much closer than maybe we expected.
In any case, I shouldn't have entered into this debate. The true topic is not something I have any interest in... I got caught up in an 'aside', which should have been directed in a science sub-forum.
Let me try to clarify something for you: first, I am certainly not a "scientist." And while I'm also an atheist, I think of myself (or perhaps I should say fancy myself) a thinker, with a leaning towards philosophy. I am the first person to tell you that science, to be useful and not harmful in human hands, has to be paired with some moral philosophy or other, whether that be religious or not is hardly the point.
But in my view, any philosophy (or religion) that ignores the findings of science, or tries to claim them to be false because they contradict some assumption or belief, betrays itself. And in doing so, betrays all of us.
Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?
From what I see many religious people do not like thinkers and philosophers and disparagingly lump them into "elites".
That may be a problem with how we've communicated with each other. I certainly have not mistaken you for a religious fanatic. On the other hand, based on what I've read so far, I'm not really sure where you're coming from. That's not a bad thing, and nobody's to blame. These things take time, and more conversation.So then we agree. This is the second time though, that you mistook me as a religious fanatic. The other was in a thread about homosexuality.
How do you know they walked upright ? What methodology was used to determine that Lucy walked upright ? Or any of them ?
Why do none of them exist today, and why are there huge gaps of millions of years between they and the next creature up the line ?
Science is not a "silly idea", nor is the ToE a "silly idea". However, many people, although not me, consider any religion to be a "silly idea".I don’t believe silly ideas. But I am not against real scientific findings. All true observations are ok. And actually, there is no need for belief in observations that can be confirmed, they are true facts. All real scientific facts are nice and I accept them. But I don’t accept silly “scientific” beliefs that can be compared to old mother earth religion.
And I'm not specifically talking about you, but everyone who hates thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike.
Who are these people who hate thinkers, philosophers and the religious alike?
From what I see many religious people do not like thinkers and philosophers and disparagingly lump them into "elites".
Fundamentalists do not like thinkers. There are religious and scientific fundamentalists -people who reject anything new that is not already proven.
Mostly all of the greatest scientists were at some point heckled by their peers. I suppose such a thing is useful, but taken too far, it does more harm than good... Just like all radicalism.