Chimpanzees Laughing

Obviously, the topic should be in the Science forum but seeing as it will degrade into creationists and realists bashing each other, I thought I would post it here instead. In that respect I suppose I am really just being a troll 😛!

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/chimps-apes-laugh.html

An analysis of the laughter, presented in the latest Current Biology, revealed that human laughter is most similar to that of chimpanzees and bonobos. Next in line, in terms of similarity, are gorillas, followed by orangutans and siamangs, which are lesser apes.

"These results coincide with the genetic topology of great apes and humans," Davila Ross said.

Obviously the fact that the degree of similarity in laughter between species closely matches the genetic relationships between them (and thereby, the current models of human evolution) in no way proves that we and they evolved from a common ancester. However, it is another set of data that lends further weight to the already mountainous amount of evidence for it.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
Obviously, the topic should be in the Science forum but seeing as it will degrade into creationists and realists bashing each other, I thought I would post it here instead. In that respect I suppose I am really just being a troll 😛!

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/04/chimps-apes-laugh.html

[i]An analysis of the laughter, presented in the latest ...[text shortened]... hat lends further weight to the already mountainous amount of evidence for it.

--- Penguin.

the data can be right. The 'missing link' scenario has a point. The creationists have a foothold on truth.
Is this drawing too long a bow?
Can we reconcile religion and evolutionary theory? Or are they forever to be enemies?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Can we reconcile religion and evolutionary theory? Or are they forever to be enemies?

As I can see it: Evolution can very well be created by an intelligence. This can very well be a part of a religious belief system. But it cannot be treated as science. Because if it was science, then we should define this intelligence. And that cannot be done scientifically.

However, within the domain of religion, this intelligence can be any god, not only the christian god. It could be a hindu god, a viking god, or a greek god. How would we know? Is it possible to do religious research? No, it isn't.

Bottom line: Religion and science cannot be mixed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
As I can see it: Evolution can very well be created by an intelligence. This can very well be a part of a religious belief system. But it cannot be treated as science. Because if it was science, then we should define this intelligence. And that cannot be done scientifically.

However, within the domain of religion, this intelligence can be any god, not ...[text shortened]... e to do religious research? No, it isn't.

Bottom line: Religion and science cannot be mixed.

Well I think they're going to have to be 'mixed'.
I take your points...all well made.
But really ...is not the universe a paradox?
Does it not entail at least two or more fundementally different viewpoints?
(i have heard you before when you said that science and religion do not mix. Well .. they're going to have to. Everything is to have a place ... 'in the new world'. God,now you got me sounding stupid. Still only your own doubt stops you)
The 'truth' will get through, whether it be religously based or scientificly based.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well I think they're going to have to be 'mixed'.
I take your points...all well made.
But really ...is not the universe a paradox?
Does it not enatail at least two or more fundementally different viewpoints?
(i have heard you before when you said that science and religion do not mix. Well .. they're going to have to. Everything is to have a place . ...[text shortened]... ou)
The 'truth' will get through, whether it be religously based or sciaentificly based.

It's like an integer is either negative, or positive. You cannot find an number being negative and positive at the same time. (Zero is neither.) The both classes of integers are in separate domains, like religion and science. Treating positive numbers as they would be negative, or vice versa, doesn't give good results.

To be religious, I define, is to belive in supernatural fenomena.
A science can only deal with natural things, not supernatural things.
And religion is not needed in natural things, like the laws of physics.

So whenever we talk about 'an intelligent designer' then we are out of physics. Hence creationism cannot ever be scientific. And the science of evolution doesn't have a need for any supernatural being.

Therefore Religion and Science don't need to be mixed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It's like an integer is either negative, or positive. You cannot find an number being negative and positive at the same time. (Zero is neither.) The both classes of integers are in separate domains, like religion and science. Treating positive numbers as they would be negative, or vice versa, doesn't give good results.

To be religious, I define, is to ...[text shortened]... need for any supernatural being.

Therefore Religion and Science don't need to be mixed.

(i choose zero)🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
(i choose zero)🙂

Something in between, a good choice.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well I think they're going to have to be 'mixed'.
I take your points...all well made.
But really ...is not the universe a paradox?
Does it not entail at least two or more fundementally different viewpoints?
(i have heard you before when you said that science and religion do not mix. Well .. they're going to have to. Everything is to have a place .. ...[text shortened]... ou)
The 'truth' will get through, whether it be religously based or scientificly based.

…is not the universe a paradox?
…

The universe is not a paradox.

If it was a paradox then it wouldn’t exist. But it does exist thus it isn’t a paradox.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…is not the universe a paradox?
…

The universe is not a paradox.

If it was a paradox then it wouldn’t exist. But it does exist thus it isn’t a paradox.[/b]

Again i ask you: why does it exist?
Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Again i ask you: why does it exist?
Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)

…why does it exist?
…

How do you know there is a “why”? -I don’t presume there is a reason “why” it exists.

….Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
.…

I’m not sure what you mean -do you mean how do I know it exists? If so, I have already answered that.

(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)
…

What are “imaginary thoughts” ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…why does it exist?
…

How do you know there is a “why”? -I don’t presume there is a reason “why” it exists.

….Or more precisely, by what factors do you measure its existence.?
.…

I’m not sure what you mean -do you mean how do I know it exists? If so, I have already answered that.

(because we are here and our imaginary thoughts aren't?)
…

What are “imaginary thoughts” ?[/b]

1.goto 2
2. humour me again?
3. imagenary 'religous ' thoughts and the like.You know what i mean? Stuff that people believe that is supposed to be outside the realms of 'existence'.
It does seem to shape our reality though....

The earth exists because God made it.

Originally posted by daniel58
The earth exists because God made it.

Your inability to frame your opinions beyond simple assertions shows how weak your opinions are.

But keep repeating them. I fear your fragile mind could not withstand otherwise.

That's not an argument.

Originally posted by daniel58
That's not an argument.

Yes, it is.

(since you're a Monty Python sketch, I guess I'd better play along)