poll: are you an ape?

[blü 2]

Why a poll on a fact? Would you do a poll on does 2 plus 2 equal 4?
Homo sapiens is a great ape. Simples.

Human - Wikipedia

2+2 = 11 (base 3).

Numbers are ideas, so you need to stay alert.

 

[blü 2]

Humans have conquers death. Well, only one really. So we’re a tad different from the humans portrayed in the fictional story of evolution imo.

What objective test will tell us whether Person A has "conquered death" or not?

 

[Kenny]

Yes, medication is the right comparison. You can obviously say what you want, but many medications are supposedly working for some while causing bad side effects or no good reaction for others. Snake oil might be when some people claim to be a medium and talk to the dead.

That certainly would be true… I might call it “serpent oil”.

 

[Heyo]

Science is backed and promoted by persons. "Beyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)—all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based." Misconduct in Science - On Being a Scientist - NCBI Bookshelf.

Yep, deception is what creationism preachers try to do. (Though it is not misconduct in science as they are not scientists.)
They lie about what science is, what scientists say and what is common knowledge in science. (And Hanlon's Razor doesn't cut it for them as the science has been explained to them.)

 

[1213]

and sorry .. but yes .. this means that God was impersonating the Supreme God EL and/or YHWH is the Enlil of the Sumerian Pantheon.

No, I don't say He was impersonating someone else.

and No .. beings who are not God .. are not being called Sons of God ..

I think these indicates otherwise.

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Ex. 4:22
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
2 Sam. 7:14
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

It is interesting that also Moses was called a god.

Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1

(I think that shows also nicely that the word Elohim, is not a proper noun in Bible, at least not always).

Now obviously and according to the consensus of modern Theological scholarship

Consensus is not useful, only that which has the best reasoning/evidence matters.

The present translation assumes this is a reference to the Canaanite high god El

Assumptions are not good enough.

The problem is that while you may wish to believe in monotheism .. and therefor there can't be other Gods that YHWH is defeating

In Biblical point of view there are other so called gods, but only one true God. Other maybe called gods, like the golden calf, but not real God.

… we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Cor. 8:4-6
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

 

[Sargonski]

No, I don't say He was impersonating someone else.

I think these indicates otherwise.

And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Ex. 4:22
I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
2 Sam. 7:14
But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 1:12-13
He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed: that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn’t commit sin, because his seed remains in him, and he can’t sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn’t do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn’t love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

It is interesting that also Moses was called a god.

Yahweh said to Moses, "Behold, I have made you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
Exod. 7:1

(I think that shows also nicely that the word Elohim, is not a proper noun in Bible, at least not always).


Consensus is not useful, only that which has the best reasoning/evidence matters.

Assumptions are not good enough.

In Biblical point of view there are other so called gods, but only one true God. Other maybe called gods, like the golden calf, but not real God.

… we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For though there are things that are called "gods," whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many "gods" and many "lords;" yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him.
1 Cor. 8:4-6
This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3

Yes .. you do say YHWH is impersonating someone else when you claim he was running around using the name EL -- as EL is another God ..

If you wish to say YHWH Is EL - the Enlil of the Sumerian Pantheon .. the God of the Flood indeed .. Father is Anu .. Brother is Enki - Creator .. Father .. God of the Patriarchs .. God who lives in a Mountain .. That is Fine .. and you are now on the right Track .. but God (EL) is still then impersonating someone else when he gives the name YHWH .. .. IFF this is in fact a name and not EL just telling moses "None of your business" I am who I am ..

Either way .. you agree that El is the God of the Patriarchs .. and the cult and covenant that Goes with it .. The High god of the Canaanites .. of the Phonecians .. Elamites .. but also the high God of the peopole who live in Abes home town Ur .. where Daddy is an idol maker .. because all of Noahs offspring believe in many Gods .. El being the High God on Earth.

So it makes complete sense that when Abraham decides he will worship only one God .. that this God would be EL .. The Most High - El -Elyon, The Supreme one El-Oliun, El Shaddia -- El who suffices (this one being a big guess by the translator as we don't know) I like the Translation myself .. Shaddai thought to be twin mountain peaks .. representing breasts = El Who suffices .. invoking the mother Goddess ..Asherah . .. could almost read this passage as El who's wife is Asherah .. Queen of Heaven .. but that is a stretch. EL Shaddai is also thought to be a Canaanite epiphet for EL .. and let us not forget one of the main epiphets .. Bull-EL "Toru-EL"

So the problem is not in your assessment that the High God of Abraham and the Patriarchs was EL .. I have been telling you this all along but, that El decides to masqurade and go under the name YHWH to the Israelites ... and how then do you explain the Golden Calf affair ?

As soon as Moses leaves for a few weeks ..the people "Israelites" - go right back to worshiping EL .... the whole affair orchestrated by Moses's brother Aaron.

What is going on here ? If YHWH is actually EL as you suggest .. and Moses knows this .. that YHWH is just another name for EL that he uses from time to time. Why then is Moses so upset when he comes down the mountain and the Israelites are worshiping the Most High God .. God of their Ancestors back to Abraham .. EL Elyon .. EL Shaddai .. El Oliun ? Is this not the God they are supposed to be worshiping ?

Leave it here .. since you are unable to handle more than one idea .. failing to address key points and answer key questions put to you in last post .. basically talking over them .. which is not cool .. but no worries .. we go one at a time .. I will get to the other points in a separate post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep, deception is what creationism preachers try to do. (Though it is not misconduct in science as they are not scientists.)
They lie about what science is, what scientists say and what is common knowledge in science. (And Hanlon's Razor doesn't cut it for them as the science has been explained to them.)

I appreciate things like smallpox vaccines, polio vaccines and things like that. Not all do. I am not against science. Plus I don't know what you think or believe about "creationist preachers," so I'm sure there are all sorts of different types of thinking about creation and/or evolution. To clarify, I do not believe that every day of creation is 24 hours long. I believe the evidence or rocks and fossils show that each time period of creation took longer than 24 hours each. The word day is used, in my opinion, in the creation account of the Bible as a time period with an opening and a close. Not 24 hours each 'day.' Geology shows different than 24 hours each said day. I have concluded the word day used there does not refer to a 24 hour period of time but rather a period that opens and closes and another period begins after that.

 

[Heyo]

I appreciate things like smallpox vaccines, polio vaccines and things like that. Not all do. I am not against science. Plus I don't know what you think or believe about "creationist preachers," so I'm sure there are all sorts of different types of thinking about creation and/or evolution.

The most notorious liars are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis church. And they are the most influential. I read their misconceptions repeated here in every creation vs. evolution thread (and elsewhere).
People may have forgotten what they learned in school or their school wasn't that good or they never went to school. When they listen to the propaganda they get a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and it is very hard to educate someone who thinks they know already.
Once you know and accept the facts and you understand the theory, you are very unlikely to dismiss it.

 

[YoursTrue]

The most notorious liars are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis church. And they are the most influential. I read their misconceptions repeated here in every creation vs. evolution thread (and elsewhere).
People may have forgotten what they learned in school or their school wasn't that good or they never went to school. When they listen to the propaganda they get a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and it is very hard to educate someone who thinks they know already.
Once you know and accept the facts and you understand the theory, you are very unlikely to dismiss it.

Until these recent posts I never heard of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham. I cannot account for certain things in the Bible scientifically, that's for sure. I am not discounting them, but I also cannot account for everything that is supposed to have happened according to the laws of science in reference to evolution.

 

[1213]

as EL is another God

I don't have any good reason to accept that, sorry.

If you wish to say YHWH Is EL - the Enlil of the Sumerian Pantheon

I don't have enough reason to think El in the Bible is the same as in Sumerian Pantheon.

and how then do you explain the Golden Calf affair ?

I think Bible explains it sufficiently.

As soon as Moses leaves for a few weeks ..the people "Israelites" - go right back to worshiping EL .... the whole affair orchestrated by Moses's brother Aaron.

Are you saying that you think the golden calf is the same as El? Why?

...comes down the mountain and the Israelites are worshiping the Most High God ...

why do you think the golden calf is the same as El?

 

[McBell]

Science is backed and promoted by persons. "Beyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)—all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based." Misconduct in Science - On Being a Scientist - NCBI Bookshelf.

Two points here:

1. The errors, regardless of source, are fleshed out fairly quickly.
2. 99% of the errors are fleshed out by other scientists.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science is backed and promoted by persons. "Beyond honest errors and errors caused through negligence are a third category of errors: those that involve deception. Making up data or results (fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification), and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate credit (plagiarism)—all strike at the heart of the values on which science is based." Misconduct in Science - On Being a Scientist - NCBI Bookshelf.

There are two reasons science deserves to be applauded. The first is that its loyalty is to evidence, not conclusions. The second is that it is self correcting. Because science requires replication of results, fraud is always eventually found out, as is things like sloppy statistical work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The most notorious liars are Kent Hovind and Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis church. And they are the most influential. I read their misconceptions repeated here in every creation vs. evolution thread (and elsewhere).
People may have forgotten what they learned in school or their school wasn't that good or they never went to school. When they listen to the propaganda they get a severe case of Dunning-Kruger and it is very hard to educate someone who thinks they know already.
Once you know and accept the facts and you understand the theory, you are very unlikely to dismiss it.

I think there is a difference between accepting or using certain technologies and claiming to accept science. The science behind these technologies may be from different disciplines studying different things, but the same basic scientific methodology is the same. You really can't claim to accept some technology--ick and choose--and deny some science--pick and choose--and claim to accept science at the same time.

For instance, paternity testing is a technology reliant on the same evidence and theoretical basis that supports the theory of evolution. A person is not accepting science by accepting paternity testing and, at the same time, denying the theory of evolution.

I don't think I am alone in seeing that as two contradictory positions being attempted by force to exist as both true at the same time. Something about non-contradiction that makes that untenable.

These sites not only produce misinformation and promote pseudoscience, but support a false sense that science can be accepted pick and choose as if the basis that some have for science that makes them uncomfortable in their ideology is different than the more acceptable science that doesn't.

Strict literalists seem to want to have it both ways.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are two reasons science deserves to be applauded. The first is that its loyalty is to evidence, not conclusions. The second is that it is self correcting. Because science requires replication of results, fraud is alwa

By the way, speaking of science, and since the subject of "science" is being discussed, discussions are evidently being considered that mankind is destroying the environment because of -- science. Namely space travel. Projected increase in space travel may damage ozone layer - NOAA Research
Once again, science can be helpful and it can be damaging.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think there is a difference between accepting or using certain technologies and claiming to accept science. The science behind these technologies may be from different disciplines studying different things, but the same basic scientific methodology is the same. You really can't claim to accept some technology--ick and choose--and deny some science--pick and choose--and claim to accept science at the same time.

For instance, paternity testing is a technology reliant on the same evidence and theoretical basis that supports the theory of evolution. A person is not accepting science by accepting paternity testing and, at the same time, denying the theory of evolution.

I don't think I am alone in seeing that as two contradictory positions being attempted by force to exist as both true at the same time. Something about non-contradiction that makes that untenable.

These sites not only produce misinformation and promote pseudoscience, but support a false sense that science can be accepted pick and choose as if the basis that some have for science that makes them uncomfortable in their ideology is different than the more acceptable science that doesn't.

Strict literalists seem to want to have it both ways.

I never heard of Kent Hovind and the other person until now.

 

[YoursTrue]

But meantime, I do believe the prospect by scientists that space travel may damage the environment. Destructive methods have not stopped science though. Such as bombs, and other destructive things. On the other hand, I am glad they developed things like vaccines.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

By the way, speaking of science, and since the subject of "science" is being discussed, discussions are evidently being considered that mankind is destroying the environment because of -- science. Namely space travel. Projected increase in space travel may damage ozone layer - NOAA Research
Once again, science can be helpful and it can be damaging.

Of course. It's a tool. It's like nuclear fission. You can make a bomb out of it, or you can light up a city. The problem is not the science, but human nature.

My point, which I am sticking to, is that science has done scads more to relieve real human suffering than religion has in its entire history.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course. It's a tool. It's like nuclear fission. You can make a bomb out of it, or you can light up a city. The problem is not the science, but human nature.

My point, which I am sticking to, is that science has done scads more to relieve real human suffering than religion has in its entire history.

1. Science has helped and hurt mankind.
2. Religion has helped and hurt mankind.
I do find there are variances within each category.
Meantime, as I understand it many persons are worried about WWIII happening.

American Public’s Concern About Nuclear War Growing, Survey Finds | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A new poll from the Reagan Institute found that one-third of respondents were extremely concerned about a potential nuclear war.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course. It's a tool. It's like nuclear fission. You can make a bomb out of it, or you can light up a city. The problem is not the science, but human nature.

My point, which I am sticking to, is that science has done scads more to relieve real human suffering than religion has in its entire history.

If I understand you correctly, I believe you do not believe the Bible, and yes I know there are some things hard to understand, but it says right from the start of human life on the earth, Adam's son killed his brother. Not with a bomb or scientific means but with other means handy. Problems existed right from the start. In addition, religion has caused a great deal of harm to mankind so I agree with you there. (But then so has, as you intimated, human nature contributes to a deleterious situation as well as does science.) Some humans will desist if possible from harming others. Yet others will not desist.
At this point, harm to the environment poses a grave risk to the continuance of life on earth.
Yet I believe God has the power and means to stop it and this is already foretold in the Bible. I believe these prophecies will come true.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1. Science has helped and hurt mankind.
2. Religion has helped and hurt mankind.
I do find there are variances within each category.
Meantime, as I understand it many persons are worried about WWIII happening.

American Public’s Concern About Nuclear War Growing, Survey Finds | Air & Space Forces Magazine

A new poll from the Reagan Institute found that one-third of respondents were extremely concerned about a potential nuclear war.

www.airandspaceforces.com

I'm only repeating myself, so I'm just going to move on to other threads. Be well.