• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Human Race?

tosca1 said:
Oh for goodness sake. Stop repeating that childish, illogical statement!
Read post #42 - chew on that.

If you can't even grasp what "supernatural" is...... Philosophy, surely, isn't a place for you.
Click to expand...

If you can't produce your god, you don't know it.
 
tosca1 said:
~.......................All you naysayers are simply doing your knee-jerkings, with nothing else to support your ridiculous emotional outbursts! That's why I say......that stance is nothing more but a pathetic display of being in-denial!

Use logic, for crying out loud......after all, you're in Philosophy section!
Click to expand...
Irony meters exploding all around, what with the above coming from you, of all people.:mrgreen:

It's fairly apparent that you don't even understand what you cite in supposed support of your equally supposed argument, let alone your lacking the ability (or willingness) to apply logic to any of it.

Here, let me give a pointer:

The fact that science does not concern itself with the question of the existence of gods leads nobody to say that those are subsequently off the table. But if it leads you to say that gods are therefore ON the table where the field of scientific evidence is concerned, your logic definitely needs more work than that of others here does.

In addition to which it might truly benefit your standing if you were to read your countlessly repeated NAS citation to the point of you finally beginning to understand it.

There are probably many on which the concept of "if I can't dazzle them with brilliance, I'll smother them in bovine manure" works, but it is to be doubted that a philosophy forum is their primary gathering point.
 
tosca1 said:

Based on that NAS statement, here's the logical conclusion:
Click to expand...

You should really never, ever write a sentence like that and expect to be taken seriously.
 
tosca1 said:
Oh for goodness sake. Stop repeating that childish, illogical statement!
Read post #42 - chew on that.
Click to expand...
hot air doesn't really lend itself to chewing

If you can't even grasp what "supernatural" is...... Philosophy, surely, isn't a place for you.
Click to expand...
have a heart, the way you're going there won't be any irony meters left before long. :lol:
 
Chagos said:
Irony meters exploding all around, what with the above coming from you, of all people.:mrgreen:

It's fairly apparent that you don't even understand what you cite in supposed support of your equally supposed argument, let alone your lacking the ability (or willingness) to apply logic to any of it.

Here, let me give a pointer:

The fact that science does not concern itself with the question of the existence of gods leads nobody to say that those are subsequently off the table. But if it leads you to say that gods are therefore ON the table where the field of scientific evidence is concerned, your logic definitely needs more work than that of others here does.

In addition to which it might truly benefit your standing if you were to read your countlessly repeated NAS citation to the point of you finally beginning to understand it.

There are probably many on which the concept of "if I can't dazzle them with brilliance, I'll smother them in bovine manure" works, but it is to be doubted that a philosophy forum is their primary gathering point.
Click to expand...

I suspect that we are not the normal fodder for the 'pearls' they cast.
 
tosca1 said:
Speak for yourself!
God had given evidences!
We cannot fault God if people are blind to them. That's what being close-minded can do to people.

See my post above #42.


That statement is a good example why atheism is being likened to belief/faith.
Too bad that other thread is locked.....or I would've copied/pasted that. :lol:
Click to expand...

A stronger, more knowledgeable (one that understands God's Word better) Christian would know that God doesnt have to prove anything to us and that He expects us to believe in Him based on faith. Which I do, but apparently, you are so insecure in your beliefs that you struggle constantly (here on the forum) to PROVE He is real.

The good Christian knows this on faith, and seeks to spread His Word by offering His teachings and following in His steps, not by providing non-existent proof.
 
tosca1 said:
Science cannot say anything about God.
The supernatural is beyond science's realm.
God is not off the table.




FYI, for something to be BEYOND and SEPARATE, does not equate to negation or debunkment! :doh

For something to be "beyond," means something is.......FARTHER.
For something to be "separate," means something is......APART.

Science has no capability to go there (yet).

The supernatural is BEYOND the realm of science - it deals only with the NATURAL, science's capability is limited - THEREFORE, science cannot say anything about it!
Click to expand...


Yuh...and as I wrote of your original 3 line quote in blue: there wasnt a fact in it. Nothing you just wrote discusses fact, just vocabulary.

All the attempts at justification still dont indicate anything factual.

The large quote you offered ONLY says scientists acknowlege that some people believe in God and the supernatural and that they dont deny this and cannot prove that these fantasies exist...nor do they feel the need to.

And many scientists believe in God and many have managed to reconcile their beliefs with the science. That does not mean they have proven God exists. There's no 'facts' there, it's still just their beliefs in what may be possible.

You are so blindly dogmatic in your beliefs that you manage to read ONLY your own agenda in a rather large quote that says pretty much the opposite of what you think it says.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
A stronger, more knowledgeable (one that understands God's Word better) Christian would know that God doesnt have to prove anything to us and that He expects us to believe in Him based on faith. Which I do, but apparently, you are so insecure in your beliefs that you struggle constantly (here on the forum) to PROVE He is real.

The good Christian knows this on faith, and seeks to spread His Word by offering His teachings and following in His steps, not by providing non-existent proof.
Click to expand...
Refreshingly pertinent points in this abundant flurry of balderdash.

If it weren't for Christians like you piping in here, one might well understand the convenient take of some that religious faith brings cerebral malfunction along with it.

Fortunately these people in question are of such insignificant numbers that they can't have much of an impact on religion's standing.

Nor, to stay with the forum name and design, on that of philosophy.
 
Lursa said:
Yuh...and as I wrote of your original 3 line quote in blue: there wasnt a fact in it. Nothing you just wrote discusses fact, just vocabulary.

All the attempts at justification still dont indicate anything factual.

The large quote you offered ONLY says scientists acknowlege that some people believe in God and the supernatural and that they dont deny this and cannot prove that these fantasies exist...nor do they feel the need to.

And many scientists believe in God and many have managed to reconcile their beliefs with the science. That does not mean they have proven God exists. There's no 'facts' there, it's still just their beliefs in what may be possible.

You are so blindly dogmatic in your beliefs that you manage to read ONLY your own agenda in a rather large quote that says pretty much the opposite of what you think it says.
Click to expand...

You're missing the logic - what more can I say? :shrug:
 
tosca1 said:
You're missing the logic - what more can I say? :shrug:
Click to expand...

My original post was that your 3 line quoted post was empty of fact.
Science cannot say anything about God.
The supernatural is beyond science's realm.
God is not off the table.
Click to expand...

You have applied *no logic* to prove otherwise. (Nor to prove anything else)
 
Northern Light said:
Mitochondrial Eve came from sub-saharan Africa. Calculating the date of her emergence is done by reverse engineering the timing of the mitochondrial DNA replication. That's why we don't need fossils to know how old humans are. The DNA itself can tell us.

I forget where I learned this, but homo sapiens almost got wiped out at one point due to a climatic event in the sub-sahara. The fossil record shows a greater diversity of human phenotypes up until a point in history when the population got reduced to some 10,000 individuals. From them, humanity as we know it today was propagated.

Why Christians cling to Adam and Eve is beyond me. There was Lilith and there was Sarah. There could've also been more than one Adam, depending on how you read the Hebrew texts. The allegories describe two very distinct men, both called Adam. Either way, it's not meant to be taken literally. Saying that humanity is 6,000 years old is bogus for the simple reason that the Vedic texts in India and the Indus civilizations are even older than that. The world didn't start with Christianity so how can Christianity even claim to know the timeline.
Click to expand...

and, y chromosome adam is around 330K years.. there is about a dozen or so individuals that have a y-chromosome that is very divergent from anybody elses.. about about over 200K years.

https://uanews.arizona.edu/story/human-y-chromosome-much-older-than-previously-thought
 
So.... Just reading a few reply's to this silly topic can we all agree the original people of earth were or was or is dare. Say it "BLACK"?
 
Lursa said:
You should really never, ever write a sentence like that and expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Religion and logic. Never shall the twain meet.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
So.... Just reading a few reply's to this silly topic can we all agree the original people of earth were or was or is dare. Say it "BLACK"?
Click to expand...

I would say dark skinned, for sure...
 
Jaygodmedia said:
So.... Just reading a few reply's to this silly topic can we all agree the original people of earth were or was or is dare. Say it "BLACK"?
Click to expand...
probably pretty hairy as well.:mrgreen:
 
Jaygodmedia said:
So.... Just reading a few reply's to this silly topic can we all agree the original people of earth were or was or is dare. Say it "BLACK"?
Click to expand...

Or human beings maybe.
 
Jaygodmedia said:
So.... Just reading a few reply's to this silly topic can we all agree the original people of earth were or was or is dare. Say it "BLACK"?
Click to expand...

Of course they were dark. Pale skinned, Caucasian is an anomaly, freaks of nature originating in only one location. And, soon, they will be gone.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
If you shave a chimpanzee, what's the color of its skin?
Click to expand...

Not very well versed on biology, are ya?

Hint: fur kind of eliminates the need for dark skin.
 
calamity said:
Not very well versed on biology, are ya?

Hint: fur kind of eliminates the need for dark skin.
Click to expand...

I do know the theory that having shed the protectiveness of fur, dark skin was supposed to have been a protection from the sun.

The question is: if fur is a form of protection from the sun, why did the homo shed it?

Why did man become a naked ape? Do you know?
You seem to know all the answers - like there's no God .....so this must be easy.


No one can seem to answer that - there's always a theory, though.



What is the latest theory of why humans lost their body hair?
Why are we the only hairless primate?

The aquatic-ape hypothesis suggests that six million to eight million years ago apelike ancestors of modern humans had a semiaquatic lifestyle based on foraging for food in shallow waters. Fur is not an effective insulator in water, and so the theory asserts that we evolved to lose our fur, replacing it, as other aquatic mammals have, with relatively high levels of body fat.

The second theory is that we lost our fur in order to control our body temperature when we adapted to life on the hot savannah.

Recently, a colleague and I suggested that ancestors to modern humans became naked as a means to reduce the prevalence of external parasites that routinely infest fur.
Click to expand...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/

:roll:


Why didn't other primates do the same? :lol:
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
I do know the theory that having shed the protectiveness of fur, dark skin was supposed to have been a protection from the sun.

The question is: if fur is a form of protection from the sun, why did the homo shed it?

Why did man become a naked ape? Do you know?
You seem to know all the answers - like there's no God .....so this must be easy.


No one can seem to answer that - there's always a theory, though.




https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/latest-theory-human-body-hair/
Click to expand...
Fur was shed for cooling purposes, an essential survival mechanism for a slow moving endurance hunter.
 
calamity said:
Fur was shed for cooling purposes, an essential survival mechanism for a slow moving endurance hunter.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point! (as usual)

Read again! There are MANY THEORIES!

Yep- survival mechanism, huh?

If there's so many advantages for losing fur - if it's an essential survival mechanism - why are we the only primates who did so?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
You're missing the point! (as usual)

Read again! There are MANY THEORIES!

Yep- survival mechanism, huh?

If there's so many advantages for losing fur - if it's an essential survival mechanism - why are we the only primates who did so?
Click to expand...

Because we are the only ones who needed to do so, same reason we are the only ones who walk on two legs.
 
calamity said:
Because we are the only ones who needed to do so, same reason we are the only ones who walk on two legs.
Click to expand...

That's a very silly response.

Are you having a hard time with this simple question?

If we're related to primates - and it's a survival mechanism - why are we the only ones who needed to?
Losing hair.......it's gotta be a SURVIVAL NEED for ALL primates! To say the least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom