View Poll Results: Did we evolve from Apes?

Voters
133. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we evolved from Apes.

    71 53.38%
  • No, we have not evolved in any shape or form, we are the same biological beings we have always been.

    26 19.55%
  • Yes, we did evolve, but i do not think we evolved from Apes.

    36 27.07%
Page 21 of 52 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 517

Thread: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

  1. #201
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    The degree of accuracy often depends on the task at hand. The task was not to quote Einstein for the simple reason that evolutionists do not understand simple sentences. The task was to try to explain simple sentences in the words that possibly could be accessible to evolutionists.

    Would an evolutionist understand what does mean "Quantitatively... made little modification in Newton's theory, but qualitatively a deep-seated one."? No way.

    If you wish to compete in accuracy, let me know…




    More accurately,it made it quote more accurate and liable to exceptions end of quote.




    Next time do not include in the quote things which are not well said when you say ‘’well said’’ under the quote.




    You have not noticed how I characterized the rest of the post, have you? Why? Or may be you have ignored an indivisible part of my proof?


    You also put your signature under the statement ‘’Scientific theories are not verifiable; they are only falsifiable. Newton's iron laws, for example, were "verified" for hundreds of years’’
    You see I have told you that this is what they teach you everywhere. This is the danger, the damage evolutionists inflict on young brains. You see, Commi is a good man and he has a good personality and good brains. Evolutionists did not damage his brains but turned it completely up side down. Commi and you just agreed on some positions of scientific method I was lucky never been forced upon in my young years.

    Atheists have invented and called it scientific method to brainwash you and inflict a permanent damage on your brain . They start feeding it to you in schools, then in colleges, then… step by step.. How do you, guys swallow this delirium? What is verification, what is falsification? I could never understand…

    Appendices: III The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity. Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

    Experimental Confirmation is the verification. TOR was verified at the moment it was published. If you wish accuracy :
    ‘’up to the present we have been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does not also lead’’.
    Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920

    (Where did you get your quotes?)

    As well all Newton’s theories were verifiable upon publication of Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica. What I am telling you is not opposite to the absurd atheists tell you, their absurd has no relevancy because ‘’atheistic idea is such an absurd that I cannot express it in words’’ as Kelvin used to say. Moreover, a theory- if it is scientific -gets put in immediate use, such as – if in classical mechanics- in calculations of positions of celestial bodies in space and time as we observe them staring at them through telescopes. Look at these theories as we use them everyday: Amazon.com: Theory of Machines and Mechanisms: John J. Uicker, Gordon R. Pennock, the late Joseph E. Shigley: Books


    Amazon.com: Theory of Wing Sections: Including a Summary of Airfoil Data (Dover Books on Physics): Ira H. Abbott, A. E. von Doenhoff: Books

    Amazon.com: Theoretical Hydrodynamics: L. M. Milne-Thomson: Books

    and try to ‘’falsify ’’ them, or to ‘’falsify ’’ Newton’s Philosophia Naturalis Principia Mathematica aka Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein. Relativity: The Special and General Theory. TRANSLATED BY ROBERT W. LAWSON NEW YORK: HENRY HOLT, 1920
    Give it a shot. You see? You are a smart man you don’t have to play a poo all the time. You have to accept that atheism can happen only in a few types of brains – either in undeveloped ones or in damaged ones, or in ones which are turned upside down.



    First you want to be MORE accurate, then you say accuracy was irrelevant … God is in details. Accuracy of following rules of science has 2 qualities – either you follow or you don’t. And that is very relevant if you ever discuss anything from POV of science.



    I cannot recognize a thought here. I hope you don’t take drugs as many atheists do. What are you talking about? It is an indivisible property of humans – not to have a complete knowledge. Humans as species are characterized as ones not having a complete knowledge. This truth comes from all experiments and experience of humanity, not even mentioning that these experiments and experience of humanity just confirm the truth of the Bible. Science itself exists only due to the incompleteness of knowledge and Science itself maintains incompleteness of knowledge.

    Science does not seek ‘’truth’. It is you who does. It is you who finds.





    I am sorry, but I have difficulties to believe you. Poincare, for instance, was telling you that even a hypotheses (not even speaking about a theory) ‘’should be verified at the first opportunity and it should be verified as often as ever possible’’ (he had a specific meaning and service for a hypotheses). As well in my view there are other huge differences between his views and yours as I can see them, he would agree with me that science does not seek the truth, but you do. Still, I am glad to see you in the club. I have some disagreements with him, too.


    BTW Atheists often say also that Euclid’s geometry was wrong or had mistakes or was not advanced enough, - Poincare says that it is the same absurd as all other atheistic ideas, - let me translate it by memory, - ‘’one geometry cannot be more true than another one, - yes it may be more convenient [for a specific task] – but not more true’’. I am not even sure that this text is available in English. In the same way Relativity cannot be more true than Newton’s Principia.



    It may be so, but, - like everything else, - he is not known to evolutionists who live by fantasies.



    Well said Tucker!




    It is a declaration, a blind belief of yours, it is an assumption of yours - because you are ignorant of or you are ignoring the tools which allow to avoid such an assumption.

    There are tools, sure ways, litmus tests which would indicate exactly if it is a fantasy or a scientific theory. I have been using one of them – the easiest one and the first one required. A theory either follows rules of science or it does not. The rules are very simple and they all including. That’s all. Evolution does not pass the test. That’s all. From POV of science evolution is a fantasy. And as I have demonstrated each evolutionist has his own personal fantasy. However attractive and logical it looks to you meeting your personal taste and your personal logical abilities, from POV of science it is a ‘’written-in-stone "fantasy".”
    Verbosity is no substitute for coherency. Please, try again. And do try to minimize your ignorant ad-homs please.

  2. #202
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-29-10 @ 12:03 AM
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    3,379

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Verbosity is no substitute for coherency. Please, try again. And do try to minimize your ignorant ad-homs please.
    Submitting the ad hom ‘’your ignorant” as the only point of your reply proves your coherency to ad homs as to the only ability you can demonstrate in your posts.


    An ad hom: Your post is not a substitute for logic. Your words are not a substitute for logic. Your words are stupid. You are stupid.

    Thank you for another demonstration that atheists are not capable of anything but personal attacks. And I must say - the most primitive personal attacks. It seems like I have irritated an ape and got chunks of dirt thrown at me. I cannot believe the undeniable evidence that atheists are really apes as they claim. May be they are right… they are... they keep on insisting... they submit undeniable proofs post after post.

  3. #203
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke View Post
    Evolution is a complex process that never exactly stops. A species may not appear to be evolving at one point; in fact, the genetic makeup of some species has not changed significantly for many thousands of years. Very simplistic organisms have lived in the same ecosystems, the same way, using the same resources and being preyed upon similarly for long periods of time also. If this situation is stable, and certain genetic makeups are not being favored by natural selection in this species, evolution will not take place.
    This is a good observation. There's a common notion that evolution naturally leads to 'higher forms of life,' usually accompanied by our anthropocentric idea that man is the 'highest' evolved form, and often ending with the idea that the life we see today represents the logical end result of that process. But what's the measure of 'higher life form?' The ability to use language and reason and form complex belief systems? Is that the definition of 'higher life form?' How do we arrive at that definition?

    If we were to compare a gazelle to a dolphin, which would we consider to be the higher life form? What if we compare the gazelle to a cheetah, is the predator a higher form of life than than the prey? Is a gorilla a higher form of life than a gibbon or a macaque? By what measure?

    ..

  4. #204
    Royal Pain
    Duke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    06-06-11 @ 12:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,595

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    This is a good observation. There's a common notion that evolution naturally leads to 'higher forms of life,' usually accompanied by our anthropocentric idea that man is the 'highest' evolved form, and often ending with the idea that the life we see today represents the logical end result of that process. But what's the measure of 'higher life form?' The ability to use language and reason and form complex belief systems? Is that the definition of 'higher life form?' How do we arrive at that definition?

    If we were to compare a gazelle to a dolphin, which would we consider to be the higher life form? What if we compare the gazelle to a cheetah, is the predator a higher form of life than than the prey? Is a gorilla a higher form of life than a gibbon or a macaque? By what measure?
    Absolutely. Any standards that we create in regards to "higher life" will be purely self-referential. I have thought, "what defines a well-evolved species? Are WE a well-evolved species?" It's a silly question, perhaps. But what I like is a species that fits its ecological niche exactly, living and reproducing as an important part of the world around it (in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, maybe). It's just a thought.


    Duke
    The big majority of Americans, who are comparatively well off, have developed an ability to have enclaves of people living in the greatest misery without almost noticing them.
    -- Gunnar Myrdal


    The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
    -- Henry Kissinger


    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no
    account be allowed to do the job.
    -- Douglas Adams

  5. #205
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 03:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Duke View Post
    I have thought, "what defines a well-evolved species? Are WE a well-evolved species?"
    I think the best answer to that is that a well-evolved species is the one that is thriving in the environment in which it finds itself at the moment.

    If you suddenly found yourself treading water in the middle of the Pacific without a life jacket you'd soon come to the conclusion that the fish swimming around you were much better evolved than you... and you'd probably bargain away your advanced intellect for gills and fins as your horrific fate became evident.

    Somewhat the opposite of that age-old adage... like a fish out of water!


  6. #206
    Herzschmerz !
    Ahmed Shaheen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    04-29-14 @ 10:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,410

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by kaya'08 View Post
    Ahmed, i thought you was muslim and was expecting you to turn to creationism? Do you believe the process of evolution is currently happening all the time and has happened to us in the past?
    Easy kaya, I always like debate other theories wether I believe in them or no

  7. #207
    Sage
    kaya'08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    British Turk
    Last Seen
    05-12-14 @ 01:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    6,363

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ahmed Shaheen View Post
    Easy kaya, I always like debate other theories wether I believe in them or no
    Lol sorry i didnt mean to be spiteful if thats how you took it i just didnt write it very well. And thanks for that its good to see someone weigh out all the possibilities and take into account other peoples opinions without letting your own beliefs get in the way.
    "If religious instruction were not allowed until the child had attained the age of reason, we would be living in quite a different world" - Christopher Hitchens
    > Good to be back, but I'm only visiting for a few weeks. <

  8. #208
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    I'm Germanic Pagan.

    I believe in the theory of evolution, though not necessarily abiogenesis. I do not believe that the gods created humanity; I believe that creation myths are symbolic representations of the gods' role in shaping our ancestors' development from our humanoid forebears into the precursors of the tribes that crafted our mythology.
    It's kind of striking that I thought about this recently and now I see someone stating a coherent ideology based on it. I was thinking about the vast majority of religions seem to talk about ancient humans cohabitating with "god" and then he/she/it forced them out. I recently visited a hilltribe in China, home to the Naxi, and they believe that humans once lived with the gods but were made to leave and exist on their own.

    There definitely seems to be a theme among all these beliefs, even though they have been disconnected from contacting each other until recently.

  9. #209
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Quote Originally Posted by justone View Post
    Submitting the ad hom ‘’your ignorant” as the only point of your reply proves your coherency to ad homs as to the only ability you can demonstrate in your posts.


    An ad hom: Your post is not a substitute for logic. Your words are not a substitute for logic. Your words are stupid. You are stupid.

    Thank you for another demonstration that atheists are not capable of anything but personal attacks. And I must say - the most primitive personal attacks. It seems like I have irritated an ape and got chunks of dirt thrown at me. I cannot believe the undeniable evidence that atheists are really apes as they claim. May be they are right… they are... they keep on insisting... they submit undeniable proofs post after post.
    Ignorant means a lack of knowledge or understanding.

    Your repeated attacks regarding my own personal atheism are the embodiment of ignorance because, in order to have made them, you MUST have been devoid of the knowledge that, throughout this thread, I have repeatedly defended intelligent design, creationism, and even the existence of God on a philosophical level.

    So, instead of viewing my post as an ad hom -which it isn't- view it as constructive criticism. Your lack of understanding repeatedly leads you down a path time where you post incoherent, rambling, and downright nonsensical posts that illustrate repeatedly that you have failed to grasp the point of the posts to which you respond.

    This is because you allow your own personal biases to lead you down the path of ignorance where you totally ignore any and all disconfirming evidence that does not fit with your preconceived notions.

    Your posts indicate that you are more interested in tearing down atheism and atheists than you are in increasing your understanding of both yourself and others around you. My atheism is, and has ALWAYS been, irrelevant to the conversation at hand, but you felt the need to repeatedly bring it up and bash it because of one thing, justone thing.

    And that is your unparalleled ability to not only embrace your ignorance, but to wallow in it like a pig in a sty.

    You so consistently wallow in this sty of ignorance, that you repeatedly elicit responses from people which are then not ignored by you, but instead used as further evidence to reinforce the preconceived notions that are the roots of your own personal tree of ignorance.

    This then causes your posts to become a confused mess. They do not address the points being made. They instead focus primarily upon eliciting the responses you need to further fill your sty.

    I'm not posting this as an ad hom, but as a constructive criticism. Nobody responds to your "points" -and I use the term lightly here- because your posts uniformly fail to respond to their points.

    If you work on removing your biases and dispelling your ignorance, you may actually begin to comprehend the other poster's points in such a way that from there on out, you actually may be able to engage in legitimate discussions instead of berating others with ad homs.

    Unfortunately, I am not very optimistic that you will take my advice. It is my belief that you are far too enamored with your sty to relinquish it's soothing embrace.

    Instead, I fully expect you to respond to this with another incoherent diatribe regarding my atheism and how we always resort to attacks and some other such nonsense that "confirms" your already firmly entrenched, and totally inaccurate biases.

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: Evolution: Did we really evolve from Apes?

    Maybe all the cliches are true. Maybe what people generally believe to be true about life is true. Maybe there is a god in heaven who created us. Just like they say.

Page 21 of 52 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •