Originally posted by karoly aczel Scientists would be only the "instruments" of the powers that be. They probably wouldn't know what was being intended for their work outside of their own speciality.
If they are engaged in any of the activities you mentioned, then I doubt that they are aware of it. Or have been paid or killed to be unaware of it.
Are you suggesting that Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne, Gould et al. Some of the greatest science writers on evolution are 'instruments of the powers that be'??
If that's the case how do the 'powers that be' go about influencing their writings?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Oh. You mean ethnicity. Really nothing to do with evolution, wouldn't you say?
I would say that the ethnic grouping of humanity strongly supports evolution. Given time and isolation, it seems likely that ethnic differences would increase and lead eventually to speciation. How does the creationist view account for ethnic variation among humans? How have the various differences between these groups arisen in the few thousand years since Adam and Eve?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Oh. You mean ethnicity. Really nothing to do with evolution, wouldn't you say?
What I talked about has everything to do with evolution. I was pointing out that the geographical dispersement of the human species in the last 80,000 years or so has resulted in the differences in appearance that we see today. There are of course other less obvious genetic differences too.
Many of the differences (such as skin color and in some cases, height) are directly tied to environmental pressures (such as sunlight and extremely cold temperatures). These are clear indications of evolution taking place in response to the environment. Some other differences may be simply genetic drift, but that too is part of evolution.
What we all have in common, such as intelligence, the ability to speak, etc were already present 80,000 years ago when we last had a common ancestor.
Originally posted by twhitehead What I talked about has everything to do with evolution. I was pointing out that the geographical dispersement of the human species in the last 80,000 years or so has resulted in the differences in appearance that we see today. There are of course other less obvious genetic differences too.
Many of the differences (such as skin color and in some cases, ...[text shortened]... ability to speak, etc were already present 80,000 years ago when we last had a common ancestor.
By no means did evolution create (ha-ha) ethnic diversity, which itself arose from conscience acts on the part of agents. You continue with harumph-harumph gibberish/counterfeits, attempting to pass off as authentic such scientific-sounding placebos as "geographical dispersement." The dispersement which occurred after the flood was not caused by geography, but rather, by (who woulda thunk) agents!
And, despite the passage of time between now and creation, we remain in the same position, relative to a common ancestor. God named him Adam and her Isha.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH You continue with harumph-harumph gibberish/counterfeits, attempting to pass off as authentic such scientific-sounding placebos ...
Once again, you have no real argument so you resort to attempts at ridicule.
By no means did evolution create (ha-ha) ethnic diversity, which itself arose from conscience acts on the part of agents. Next you'll be telling us that every single genetic difference between I and my son was planned and decided by God. Well, suit yourself, but you won't get very far persuading more rational people without some sort of evidence.
Luckily for me, my harumph-harumph gibberish/counterfeits is backed up by solid scientific research.
Originally posted by twhitehead Once again, you have no real argument so you resort to attempts at ridicule.
[b]By no means did evolution create (ha-ha) ethnic diversity, which itself arose from conscience acts on the part of agents. Next you'll be telling us that every single genetic difference between I and my son was planned and decided by God. Well, suit yourself, but you wo ...[text shortened]... y for me, my harumph-harumph gibberish/counterfeits is backed up by solid scientific research.[/b]
I don't need a real argument; I simply point to your lack of the same. It is you who is postulating the absurd conjecture that evolution is the causal agent for ethnic diversity--- which, itself is a correction of your blinkered insertion regarding the supposed multiple human races. My humble task is to point out that agents dispersed, agents regrouped, agents copulated and, as a result of said agents, ethnic groups appeared.
Next you'll be telling us that every single genetic difference between I and my son was planned and decided by God. You are prophetic, sir.
Luckily for me, my harumph-harumph gibberish/counterfeits is backed up by solid scientific research. I only hope you can appreciate the irony of your statement. It is rich and it is beautiful. Enjoy!
Originally posted by Proper Knob Are you suggesting that Dawkins, Dennett, Coyne, Gould et al. Some of the greatest science writers on evolution are 'instruments of the powers that be'??
If that's the case how do the 'powers that be' go about influencing their writings?
I was thinking more nuclear scientists, but who knows.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH My humble task is to point out that agents dispersed, agents regrouped, agents copulated and, as a result of said agents, ethnic groups appeared.
That is not clear at all. What agents are you referring to? Angels? God? People?
How did theses agents cause ethnic groups to appear?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Agents copulating isn't clear? In this scenario, agents=people. The action of people caused ethnic groups to appear, by way of their copulation.
No, it wasn't clear.
So how did this copulation create ethnic groups? Why not explain it a bit more thoroughly instead of all the vagueness?
Specifically, what are you saying that contradicts what I said?
Originally posted by vishvahetu "Forbidden Archeology" is the book that turned the scientific community upside-down, and finally put the last nail in the coffin of the debunkt Evolution Therory.
The evolution therory has been debunkt for a long time, but the puffed up pseudo scientists are clinging to this therory still, because to admit its failings is too painfull and embarrassing, ...[text shortened]... duty of every honest person to read this book and discover for yourself (the Truth).
Vishva
Oh Good Googly Moogly! Everytime I see one of these Flintstone arguments I have the overwhelming urge to punch myself in the nuts. Christ, can you really be serious? The Truth?
Originally posted by Una For the same reason they wanted to cover up the facts concerning Global Warming. It doesn't fit their liberal agenda, the facts are contrary to their lie.
Originally posted by Hand of Hecate Oh Good Googly Moogly! Everytime I see one of these Flintstone arguments I have the overwhelming urge to punch myself in the nuts. Christ, can you really be serious? The Truth?
you have arrived late at the party. if you look up other posts from vishva(by thor and kali, i can't imagine why you would want yo) you will see there is no need for nut punching. i mean you wouldn't punch yourself in the nuts if the village idiot yells nonsense, would you?
EDIT: it is best you don't try and debate vishva, he is delusional. he makes josephw sound like socrates.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi you have arrived late at the party. if you look up other posts from vishva(by thor and kali, i can't imagine why you would want yo) you will see there is no need for nut punching. i mean you wouldn't punch yourself in the nuts if the village idiot yells nonsense, would you?
EDIT: it is best you don't try and debate vishva, he is delusional. he makes josephw sound like socrates.
Maybe from a christian point of view vishva sounds delusional , but from my point of view, for example, the christians on this site sound delusional,(to varying degrees), in fact everyone has some amount of delusion in their limited knowledge of the universe. To be able to admit this, by taking a step back and trying to look at the arguements put forward from a neutral view, is necessary in order to develop a philosophy that is closer to reality.
Having said that, I believe you to be one of the less delusional christians on here.
And I dont think he makes josepwhw sound like socrates, this sounds like christian prejudice. But feel free to correct me if you think I've misread the situation🙂
Forbidden Archeology.
04 Aug '10 10:00
Back to Top