Are Atheists Air Brushing History?

Originally posted by undo

Observation = Fact.

No, observation only equals fact by those who are willing to accept it as fact. You know this is true.

I do not. Facts do not require our paticipation. They exist whether we know they do or not, they exist even in our absence.

reply to post by Damien_Hell


i understand the concept of adaptation leading to speciation but as I mentioned before, you can take an animal, like a deer, and introduce it into a different climate and it will become the same deer as the indigenous deer but not a raccoon. You see what I'm saying? It takes only 1 deer for all the variations on deer, as the environment determines how that DEER will act and appear. But it doesn't make the deer something other than a deer. See what I mean?

bigwhammy you are an idiot, Chritsian religion is the most populated religion in the world, there are more christian then muslim, buddhist, hindus, all of them want their Gods to be the light of the world, in the other hand there are the atheist, the non believers, that most of them are scientists, politicians and other profession, if Christian wants to rule this world they must be active in science, politics, etc....
instead of complaining of how bully atheist are, you should pray for them, do what Jesus did.

Originally posted by pubbing

Originally posted by wytworm


I think what you are asking is, does it ever occur that lateral genetic transfer takes place? The answer is yes. There are examples where this occurs.

It is inarguable that humans are in fact animals. It is more correct to state that there are differences between humans and other species. If you are looking to quantify the genetic differences say, between humans and chimps, that difference is very tangible and very small (1.2% difference in base DNA units).

The universe doesn't have secrets. The chunk of the universe that we understand is probably smaller than the chunk that we do. It isn't arrogant to walk toward knowing more than we know now, any more than it would be to teach a child to read. Both are walking from a state of less to a state of more.

No what I am asking is when did a monkey give birth to a human. If this is the case then why are humans not giving birth to other species.

I understand that humans and animals and plants for that matter are made up of organic chemestry and all have various protiens that code their
DNA. But the difference between humans and monkeys is not genetic. Why are ther not books written by monkeys or other animals. Why do monkeys not build civilizations, buildings, and nations. You are saying that the human spirit and all human acomplishments can be explained by a 1.2% DNA difference.

When you understand the chemestry of the human body and all of the things that must take place for us to live, there is no dout that we are the product of some intellegent design. It takes more faith to believe that we are the products of some random DNA shuffeling then it does to believe that we were created.

It is not arrogent to strive to know more about the world that we live in but it is arrogent to think that we can know everything there is to know.

You are suggesting that evolution equates to monkeys birthing humans. That has nothing to do with evolution. I am not sure what point it is meant to make.

If you do not understand that there is a genetic difference between human's and monkeys, then i would suggest you revist your thought that you understand 'that humans and animals and plants for that matter are made up of organic chemestry and all have various protiens that code their
DNA.'

Geneticists are saying that the difference of 1.2% is there. In the absence of any other differences, it would seem likely that there is a causal link between this differences and the accomplishments of the individual species. Likely != fact.

Also, bear in mind the compound interest aspect. There is a time component involved that would amplify the results of the divergence.

Originally posted by wytworm

Originally posted by undo

Observation = Fact.

No, observation only equals fact by those who are willing to accept it as fact. You know this is true.

I do not. Facts do not require our paticipation. They exist whether we know they do or not, they exist even in our absence.

Axioms are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive reasoning. All proven facts can be traced back to certain axioms that are not proven. All models are based on assumptions and all facts are proved in this way. So in this way it does take a measure of faith to believe certain sciencies. Not saying that all science is wrong, but not all proven science is right either.

The key thing about religion is that it allows all sorts of atrocities to go on without question - because religion is indoctrinated into children. People mention the wars but let's not forget the burning of books/information to keep the poor people down- keep the power to the church (how many people could have later been saved from the Black Death later?).

Let's look at today and the diabolical way the catholic church has banned condoms in many African countries - hence the spread of AIDS to people and innocent children. As an Agnostic, I can look at this event coldy and summise that this unwanton death is unnecessary.

Christianity is no different to other religions - circumcision practised in various religions is simply unnecessary and physical abuse. As for simple basic human rights - equality to men and women - then Islam has a lot to answer for.

The problem is religious people cannot look at this obectively.

I would like to see a simple rule where NO RELIGION is taught until a child is 10 years old - if religion is so good - then see how many children become religions after this time.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Damien_Hell

 

i understand the concept of adaptation leading to speciation but as I mentioned before, you can take an animal, like a deer, and introduce it into a different climate and it will become the same deer as the indigenous deer but not a raccoon. You see what I'm saying? It takes only 1 deer for all the variations on deer, as the environment determines how that DEER will act and appear. But it doesn't make the deer something other than a deer. See what I mean?

The same deer in a new environment will not become a different deer. There will not be any difference in the deer on a genetic level introduced by virtue of a change in geography.

If however you take two deer herds one that has evolved in one part of the world and move it to another part of the world the visiting deer herd will most likely have its characteristics replaced over time or diluted by the indigenous deer, simply because the odds are the indigenous deer already is optimized for the environment throuhg natural selection over time. That does not preclude the possibility of a new characteristic being introduced by the visitng species, it just means there are more things 'right' for the environment contained in the ID than in the VD.

reply to post by wytworm


I would agree with this but for the observation that "facts" have often become "fictions." So they were never facts to begin with, merely promoted to be facts by men capable of doing so.

German Higher Criticism, when preparing to construct a feasible timeline for history, contended that the ancient greeks couldn't write, so they tossed out all greek writings as historically invalid. It was a fact that the ancient greeks couldn't write, as far as they were concerned, until they found out the ancient greeks could write. But alas, as is observed in history, backtracking and making repairs to faulty theory, has never been the strong suit of those in charge of disseminating the "facts."

This, by the way, was the beginning of the Enlightenment. So much for facts, eh? They also said gilgamesh was a fairy tale that never existed. that troy never existed. that bible had no archaeological or textual support (till archaeologists found sumer under eight foot of flood silt) and on and on. All these facts have since been shown to not be facts at all. But entire volumes about the MYTHs of ancient history, have continued to be written on entirely falsified accounts that have never been corrected. The evidence is truly right there, in front of their eyes, and they ignore it. Can you not see that you are falling for the same problems that have been observed in history? Want to end up as one of those people that insisted the earth was the center of the solar system? Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

"It is the style of the building, the type of masonry, the tooling of the stone, and not the name of a king, which date a building in Egypt’.”

Originally posted by pubbing

Originally posted by wytworm

Originally posted by undo

Observation = Fact.

No, observation only equals fact by those who are willing to accept it as fact. You know this is true.

I do not. Facts do not require our paticipation. They exist whether we know they do or not, they exist even in our absence.

Axioms are the basic assumptions underlying a given body of deductive reasoning. All proven facts can be traced back to certain axioms that are not proven. All models are based on assumptions and all facts are proved in this way. So in this way it does take a measure of faith to believe certain sciencies. Not saying that all science is wrong, but not all proven science is right either.

Facts do not need proof. They exist on their own without our intervention. They are the atomic expression of reality. Axioms are not directly related to facts and can exist by design in their absence.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by wytworm]

reply to post by undo

Personally, since I can love another person without any reason other than it's a good idea, I don't think it's biological. For example, two people can fall in love over the internet.

Exchange of pheromones not required. Not, at least, as far as modern medical science has been able to determine. It may yet be a part of it, but it's not essential.

The chemicals of love don't come from the other person. Your own body synthesizes and secretes them. If you fall in love with a person on the internet, you're still in love (God help you!) and you still have the same feelings. This is an example of culture perverting nature, if you like, but it's still nature giving you those feelings.

I don't think you've really got it yet. Try to put aside whatever beliefs you have that you cannot vouch for the truth of from direct, personal experience -- and I mean the bread-and-butter kind, not the lying-awake-at-night-thinking-deep-thoughts kind -- and then try to see it.

I don't mean to sound patronizing. I don't think of you as someone to be patronized. It's an experiment I've tried often myself. I find it yields very worthwhile results.

When you start studying Music and Math some things become very clear that there is a natural order to life and at one point someone or something (divine creator) Set this order to our universe. Only time will tell but alterations have been made in every generation for monetary regard as to please the people feeding them ............ "Views of the Church"

Joe

reply to post by templar knight

The problem is religious people cannot look at this obectively.

How much objectivity do you need? And do you think perhaps the word "religion" has been used to isolate and denigrate only some people and ideas, while allowing others who practice an approximation of religion" to have free passage to the point of forced education on the topic?

Originally posted by undo
i understand the concept of adaptation leading to speciation but as I mentioned before, you can take an animal, like a deer, and introduce it into a different climate and it will become the same deer as the indigenous deer but not a raccoon. You see what I'm saying? It takes only 1 deer for all the variations on deer, as the environment determines how that DEER will act and appear. But it doesn't make the deer something other than a deer. See what I mean?

No. The deer won't change to suit its environment, that dear will never change. Its children, grand-children, etc etc won't evolve directly to suit the environment either. What will happen is natural evolution but the ones that evolve best to suit the environment will prosper. The ones who don't will die off

Originally posted by Localjoe3
When you start studying Music and Math some things become very clear that there is a natural order to life and at one point someone or something (divine creator) Set this order to our universe. Only time will tell but alterations have been made in every generation for monetary regard as to please the people feeding them ............ "Views of the Church"

That whole idea shows you have no idea how the brain or psychology works.

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Damien_Hell]

Originally posted by undo

But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

Yep you are absolutley correct undo and that is yet another part of history Atheists are "airbrushing" . I have seen the original documents and they be hard to read but their is no doubt Thomas Jefferson was a Christian and says so. Hell a tour of every building in DC tells you what they believed. We have 45 state constitutions that are quite clear about belief in God

I am so sick of their lies and bastardization of our constitution their silly science of evolution etc,

Here is what Jefferson says

ultramedia.freehostia.com...

ultramedia.freehostia.com...

Debunk that atheist

- Con

Originally posted by Damien_Hell

Originally posted by undoi understand the concept of adaptation leading to speciation but as I mentioned before, you can take an animal, like a deer, and introduce it into a different climate and it will become the same deer as the indigenous deer but not a raccoon. You see what I'm saying? It takes only 1 deer for all the variations on deer, as the environment determines how that DEER will act and appear. But it doesn't make the deer something other than a deer. See what I mean?

No. The deer won't change to suit its environment, that dear will never change. Its children, grand-children, etc etc won't evolve directly to suit the environment either. What will happen is natural evolution but the ones that evolve best to suit the environment will prosper. The ones who don't will die off

Thats not macro evolution and even the finch on Darwit was studying the beaks went back to their original size once the rains went back to normal.

The adaptations you are talking about were already inherant in their DNA to start with thats HAS been proven.

Macro evolution is BUNK

- Con

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Thats not macro evolution and even the finch on Darwit was studying the beaks went back to their original size once the rains went back to normal.

The adaptations you are talking about were already inherant in their DNA to start with thats HAS been proven.

Macro evolution is BUNK

- Con

First off we weren't talking about macro evolution. Second your an idiot, no one person will ever witness macro evolution, it takes MILLIONS of years

reply to post by Damien_Hell


Yes, I understand, but let's take for example, black people. The theory is they developed more melanin in their skin to protect them from the sun - evidence of adaptation to their environment.

However, they are not furry, whereas apes are. When was the last time you saw a furry black man? If he's 25% monkey, he should still have alot of body fur, regardless of the climate, especially since monkeys are covered in it from head to toe! Where's a hairless monkey as a precursor to black people? I'm telling you evolutionary theory was just an idea concocted by some white guys who thought they were the highest thing on the food chain, and techinically, they were, but it doesn't naturally follow that this proves they were that far up the food chain because they evolved to that position, especially since you can "teach" another person your version of civlization and still not be truly civilized yourself, according to some other civilization.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by undo

 

Personally, since I can love another person without any reason other than it's a good idea, I don't think it's biological. For example, two people can fall in love over the internet.

Exchange of pheromones not required. Not, at least, as far as modern medical science has been able to determine. It may yet be a part of it, but it's not essential.

The chemicals of love don't come from the other person. Your own body synthesizes and secretes them. If you fall in love with a person on the internet, you're still in love (God help you!) and you still have the same feelings. This is an example of culture perverting nature, if you like, but it's still nature giving you those feelings.

I don't think you've really got it yet. Try to put aside whatever beliefs you have that you cannot vouch for the truth of from direct, personal experience -- and I mean the bread-and-butter kind, not the lying-awake-at-night-thinking-deep-thoughts kind -- and then try to see it.

I don't mean to sound patronizing. I don't think of you as someone to be patronized. It's an experiment I've tried often myself. I find it yields very worthwhile results.

Yeah you're absolutley correct on that but I don't know if she is talking about your typical phenylethlamine rush if you know what I mean.

Besides,, you can get that from chocolate lol.

- Con

Originally posted by Damien_Hell

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Thats not macro evolution and even the finch on Darwit was studying the beaks went back to their original size once the rains went back to normal.

The adaptations you are talking about were already inherant in their DNA to start with thats HAS been proven.

Macro evolution is BUNK

- Con

First off we weren't talking about macro evolution. Second your an idiot, no one person will ever witness macro evolution, it takes MILLIONS of years

Save the names Damien,, I've been called em. If you can't act like an adult then perhaps we should consider that your posts have all the credence of a kid in a playground.

WE have been here millions of years. I am certain we would have found at least SOME evidence. By the way smart guy,, just let me ask

are you a scientist?



[edit on 23-3-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by Damien_Hell

 

Yes, I understand, but let's take for example, black people. The theory is they developed more melanin in their skin to protect them from the sun - evidence of adaptation to their environment.

No they didn't your looking at it the wrong way. The moneys that became black could go outside for longer without being burned, so they got more food, those who didn't turn black got less and eventually died off

However, they are not furry, whereas apes are. When was the last time you saw a furry black man? If he's 25% monkey, he should still have alot of body fur, regardless of the climate, especially since monkeys are covered in it from head to toe!

They figured that out, its called evolution

Where's a hairless monkey as a precursor to black people?

They became black people

I'm telling you evolutionary theory was just an idea concocted by some white guys who thought they were the highest thing on the food chain,

Saying white people were once black? That would get you hung so fast back then

WE have been here millions of years. I am certain we would have found at least SOME evidence.

LOL theres a reason you've been called an idiot. Homo Sapiens are only 200,000 years old (ish) and no human has lived for millions of years

By the way smart guy,, just let me ask

are you a scientist?

Are you?

[edit on 23-3-2008 by Damien_Hell]