• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are you Greater than an Ape?

for lack of ability?.....does animals believe?

  • no....they cannot

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • we are dust as they are dust

    Votes: 6 66.7%
  • faith saves

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    9
Status
Not open for further replies.

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
That is the story. It is as convincing as the story that Muhammad flew around the Moon on a horse. Also evolution is not a religion. Accepting the fact of evolution is based upon scientific evidence. There is no r reliable evidence for the resurrection tale, plus it is bad theology when looked at without bias.
Evolution "based upon scientific" evidence, realy?
So, your statement actually declares Evolution is not scientifically proved at all, but only "BASED" upon scientific evidence.
So if I say the Nebular Theory is "Based" upon Genesis, does that also count?
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
oh my! Hitler now. He was more of a Christian than any other religion. Besides that his statement had nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Why even bring it up?
Does one get a "More" and "Lesser" Christian?
Did Hitler say the Jews are the lowest human life form, they are rats that must be exterminated?
What did Hitler say about the Black man?
or the Gypsies?
Who was the superior race?
Every thing he said was due to evolutionary concepts in the early 20th century.

Now, we know Hitler was not a Christian, but lets assume he was...
Do you see what Darwinianism does to any person, whether a Christian or Communist?
It bad stuff guys!
And Evolution actually teaches one to kill to be the strongest!
Kill to remain the strongest.
And Life not in your agreement, is not worth to keep alive, kill it so all can have the same ideas.
Remember, the words:
Evolution, the theory where the fittest survive!
Nazism, Communism, Facism, all fruits of Evolution!
The human life is nothing more in value than that of an ape.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Did Hitler say the Jews are the lowest human life form...

There is no justification for what Hitler did in evolutionary theory - get over it. Even in principle, you can't turn a theory in science, which is, by definition, about what is, into political policy or moral statement of what ought to be. That is called the naturalistic fallacy.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Really.



:facepalm: Why do creationists refuse to ever learn anything about science? No theory is ever scientifically proved - none, never. That is not how science works.
Wow, so the theory of Thermo dinamics, electro magnetism, C, gravity, energy, angular momentum and and and..... are all now unproven!
When will you evolutionists learn that science is confirmed with observational and experimental science?
Not by "THEORETICAL" science!
No wonder you guys are confused about reality.
Theory is now fact?
Nonsense!
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
There is no justification for what Hitler did in evolutionary theory - get over it. Even in principle, you can't turn a theory in science, which is, by definition, about what is, into political policy or moral statement of what ought to be. That is called the naturalistic fallacy.
I agree!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Evolution "based upon scientific" evidence, realy?
So, your statement actually declares Evolution is not scientifically proved at all, but only "BASED" upon scientific evidence.
So if I say the Nebular Theory is "Based" upon Genesis, does that also count?
That depends. Do you think that gravity is "scientifically proved"? Then by that standard so is the theory of evolution since there is even more evidence for it. You are trying to use your ignorance of science as a weapon. That only works in the terribly ignorant.

There is no scientific evidence for creationism, and that is largely due to the cowardice of creation "scientists" . Why believe something that is not supported by evidence at all?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Wow, so the theory of Thermo dinamics, electro magnetism, C, gravity, energy, angular momentum and and and..... are all now unproven!
When will you evolutionists learn that science is confirmed with observational and experimental science?
Not by "THEORETICAL" science!
No wonder you guys are confused about reality.
Theory is now fact?
Nonsense!
Then once again by your standards evolution is proven.

Stay away from handguns if you value your toes.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Does one get a "More" and "Lesser" Christian?

Yes.

Did Hitler say the Jews are the lowest human life form, they are rats that must be exterminated?
What did Hitler say about the Black man?
or the Gypsies?
Who was the superior race?
Every thing he said was due to evolutionary concepts in the early 20th century.

Nope. His attitude towards Jews for example follows that of Luther. And you don't understand evolution so you have no clue. If anything it says the opposite of what Hitler said. There are no superior races in evolution.

Now, we know Hitler was not a Christian, but lets assume he was...

I have to stop you right there. You don't know that. He may not have been your sort of Christian, but I have noticed behavior from you that is not very "Christian" .

Do you see what Darwinianism does to any person, whether a Christian or Communist?
It bad stuff guys!
And Evolution actually teaches one to kill to be the strongest!

And Christianity teaches that if you nail someone to a tree you will live forever. See, I can make jaw dropping ignorant remarks too.

Kill to remain the strongest.
And Life not in your agreement, is not worth to keep alive, kill it so all can have the same ideas.
Remember, the words:
Evolution, the theory where the fittest survive!
Nazism, Communism, Facism, all fruits of Evolution!
The human life is nothing more in value than that of an ape.

Not at all. Evolution has nothing to do with politics. But do you know who was arguably an early communist? Think about it.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Wow, so the theory of Thermo dinamics, electro magnetism, C, gravity, energy, angular momentum and and and..... are all now unproven!

Of course they are unproven - although you seem somewhat confused about what constitutes a theory (and how to spell thermodynamics).

When will you evolutionists learn that science is confirmed with observational and experimental science?

That's called "evidence". Evidence either falsifies (disproves) a theory, if it is inconsistent with it, or confirms it. You can't prove a theory, no matter how much confirmation you have. All you can do is say that it is very well tested.

This has nothing to do with "evolutionists", this is basic, basic science. However, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science - that means there is lots and lots of consistent observations and experiments.

No wonder you guys are confused about reality.

It is you who are confused about the very basics of how science works.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Of course they are unproven - although you seem somewhat confused about what constitutes a theory (and how to spell thermodynamics).



That's called "evidence". Evidence either falsifies (disproves) a theory, if it is inconsistent with it, or confirms it. You can't prove a theory, no matter how much confirmation you have. All you can do is say that it is very well tested.

This has nothing to do with "evolutionists", this is basic, basic science. However, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science - that means there is lots and lots of consistent observations and experiments.



It is you who are confused about the very basics of how science works.
Thanks for your voluntary assistance in checking my spelling.
As you obviously noticed, I dont give a feather for spelling at all.
English is my third language.
But I think you can be of great help to see that I do improve my spelling.
As for science, remember, it must be observed, or proven with experimental scientific practices.
to Theorize on what something might be, is not evidence of fact, but remains theory untill proven with observational and experimental science.

If you were to take the theory that human development from an Hominid, by taking all the skulls discovered to date, and place them in a line showing intermediate changes between each skull, and coming to a conclusion that this is how the Human skull evolved, you are not practicing experimental science at all, but pseudo science.
All you did was to attempt to show how some distant ape MIGHT have changed into another, without evidence, but with preconceived ideas on how you think it could have changed.

A scientific theory should always be considered a theory, untill such time as observed, and replicated by experiment.
This is science and if you think theories are science, at best it remains theoretical science, not observed and experimental science at all.
Sorry to bust your bubble.
I know evolutionists are doing their best to call evolution a scientific fact, but untill there are any observed and experimental evidence, it is only a theory.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Of course they are unproven - although you seem somewhat confused about what constitutes a theory (and how to spell thermodynamics).



That's called "evidence". Evidence either falsifies (disproves) a theory, if it is inconsistent with it, or confirms it. You can't prove a theory, no matter how much confirmation you have. All you can do is say that it is very well tested.

This has nothing to do with "evolutionists", this is basic, basic science. However, the theory of evolution is one of the best supported theories in science - that means there is lots and lots of consistent observations and experiments.



It is you who are confused about the very basics of how science works.
Let us put it this way.
Newton, [Galileo, and Copernicus] had a theory that it is gravity that pulls everything to the earth, and he thought [THEORY] THAT IF HE COULD SHOOT A CANON ON A MOUNTAIN PEAK FAST ENOUGH TO HAVE THE CANONBALL FALL PERPETUALLY AROUND THE EARTH?
He followed this up with another theory, [THEORY] that the moon falls around the earth, and both fall around the Sun.
Newton then wrote his thesis' and explained with mathematics on the workings of gravity, devised how to measure it, work out the strengths and all these proveable facts about gravity.
This is called experimental science which removes the theoretical science to its newly aqquired level of science.
Then he worked out how other planets moved around the sun, work out how the inverted square on area and distance calculated.
Again he changed theory into Experimental and in this case, observational science.
he continued and invented much more mathematical principals to support his Theory with experimental science.
This he also did with optics!
He theorised, and said many men would have found what I did, if they think as hard as I did.
And he was able to reproduce his findings by experiment, and observation.

Now, show me one experiment or observation on Evolution!
And I will show you pre conceived bias and bull dung assumptions galore.
Evolution is only a theory pal, nothing less, and nothing more.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Evolution is only a theory pal, nothing less, and nothing more.
Obviously, you don't know how the word "theory" is used in science. Here:
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope. -- Scientific theory - Wikipedia
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Newton, [Galileo, and Copernicus] had a theory that it is gravity that pulls everything to the earth, and he thought [THEORY] THAT IF HE COULD SHOOT A CANON ON A MOUNTAIN PEAK FAST ENOUGH TO HAVE THE CANONBALL FALL PERPETUALLY AROUND THE EARTH?
He followed this up with another theory, [THEORY] that the moon falls around the earth, and both fall around the Sun.
Newton then wrote his thesis' and explained with mathematics on the workings of gravity, devised how to measure it, work out the strengths and all these proveable facts about gravity.
This is called experimental science which removes the theoretical science to its newly aqquired level of science.
Then he worked out how other planets moved around the sun, work out how the inverted square on area and distance calculated.
Again he changed theory into Experimental and in this case, observational science.
he continued and invented much more mathematical principals to support his Theory with experimental science.

And Newton's theory of gravity is wrong. Look, if you don't want to learn, I can't make you - I'm telling you about how science works. These are not my ideas, this the accepted way in which science works. Theories do not get proved. A well tested theory is as good as it gets in science.

Now, show me one experiment or observation on Evolution!

There are plenty - it's not a secret, anybody can find them.

And I will show you pre conceived bias and bull dung assumptions galore.

Except you've repeatedly failed to do so - or even show any understanding of the subject.

Quite apart from anything else, we have, on the one side, the overwhelming majority of those people who actually study these things (of many faiths and none), telling us the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt, and on the other, a tiny minority, most of whom belong to fundamentalist sects who have an obvious religious vested interest, and most of whom don't even understand how science works, what the word "theory" means in the context, or what the theory of evolution actually says.

Even without looking at the evidence, it should be obvious to anybody which side is more likely to be correct....
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Let us put it this way.
Newton, [Galileo, and Copernicus] had a theory that it is gravity that pulls everything to the earth, and he thought [THEORY] THAT IF HE COULD SHOOT A CANON ON A MOUNTAIN PEAK FAST ENOUGH TO HAVE THE CANONBALL FALL PERPETUALLY AROUND THE EARTH?
He followed this up with another theory, [THEORY] that the moon falls around the earth, and both fall around the Sun.
Newton then wrote his thesis' and explained with mathematics on the workings of gravity, devised how to measure it, work out the strengths and all these proveable facts about gravity.
This is called experimental science which removes the theoretical science to its newly aqquired level of science.
Then he worked out how other planets moved around the sun, work out how the inverted square on area and distance calculated.
Again he changed theory into Experimental and in this case, observational science.
he continued and invented much more mathematical principals to support his Theory with experimental science.
This he also did with optics!
He theorised, and said many men would have found what I did, if they think as hard as I did.
And he was able to reproduce his findings by experiment, and observation.

Now, show me one experiment or observation on Evolution!
And I will show you pre conceived bias and bull dung assumptions galore.
Evolution is only a theory pal, nothing less, and nothing more.
All of that has been done with the theory of evolution too. And you have been listening to liars, losers, and loons. You copied them too much with the term "observational science" .
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Under religion he lists Latter Day Saints. There seem to be quite a few differences among believers in that sect. I have heard that some LDS believe that they will become Gods of their own worlds, to be fair I have heard this denied as well. But that does seem to go with his beliefs.
And I found at least one usually reliable site that confirms it, but you know how religions are. Even in the same sect there can be strong disagreements. I will not.claim that anything I have found is the definitive LDS.
I think that if people were to actually pay attention when the Latter-day Saints explain their beliefs, there wouldn't be so much confusion. Here's our doctrine, in plain straightforward English: We believe that each and every human being who has ever been born or will be born is the spirit son or daughter of God and has the potential to someday become like their Father in Heaven. Two things that we don't believe are: (1) This is a transformation that's automatically going to take place upon death, and (2) It's a transformation reserved solely for Mormons. Actually, C.S. Lewis expressed the belief in much the same way as we have. He said:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top