1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsmaybe you should actually hear dawkin's view on morality instead of a one-sided debate where dawkin's responses are omitted.
I suppose you would agree with Dawkins idea on morality
that there is no such think as good and evil, whatever happens
just happens, it is no ones fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNiCb0zf_Eg&NR=1
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritLook and listen to it yourself if you don't believe me. After all this time
no, i don't think that. i think you just want to lie about what he says.
of man being reported as having descended from apes, suddenly after a
questioner asks him to put up or shut up he can not answer the question
and finally comes back accusing the questioner of misunderstanding and
admits that man is not a descendant of apes at all. Then makes up another
story so he does not have to answer the question. Now man and the apes
are descendants of an imaginary creature that there is no evidence ever
existed. He never answers the question because he can't give the example.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsIt sounds to me like he was presenting truth. It is religions that lie. In the 40's and 50'a during the cold war years, there was a big anti-communistic movement. In 1960 when I first went to college, there were anti-communist tapes we could listen to that said, and I quote "Tell a lie, make it big enough, and people will fall for it".
Look and listen to it yourself if you don't believe me. After all this time
of man being reported as having descended from apes, suddenly after a
questioner asks him to put up or shut up he can not answer the question
and finally comes back accusing the questioner of misunderstanding and
admits that man is not a descendant of apes at all. Then makes up ...[text shortened]... the question because he can't give the example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
They were referring to the fundamental underpinnings of the communist manifesto.
But I would retune that phrase and say that is exactly what is going on with religions.
I don't think anyone here but Dasa would believe the lie that humans have been around for billions of years. Tell a lie, make it big enough, and people will fall for it.
But it doesn't just stop there.
That phrase works just as well for Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Jainism, Zoroastrianism. All based on lies. Make them big enough, people will fall for them.
Hook, line and sinker.
The sad part is when confronted with counter evidence, the 'faith' just gets driven in deeper, so well have the lies worked.
The faith of religion cannot by definition, change.
These faiths explicitly teach the faithful they will run into people who will try to dissuade them from that faith, with various methods of non-violence right on through to violence itself.
So they are taught when faith is tested, take that faith to another level, dig in, don't listen to those voices of reason and mad and dishonest science, take it on faith, we know what we are talking about because the truth is in our bible, Quran, Vedic knowledge, Buddhist prayer texts, whatever.
All based on lies. There is no such thing as a person who has a better handle on the big questions of life than any other person on the planet.
Whatever we worship, whatever we study about the big questions of how the universe came to be, all is based on stories, and lies.
Science, on the other hand, can and does change, now daily it seems. Old laws get overturned. Newton had a great answer for the question of what keeps planets moving. Einstein says, wait, not so fast, I see some other stuff here.
Darwin says evolution explains what happens to life after life started, however that may have been, with no ideas put forth about the origins of life, only how it reacts to stresses and such later on.
Creationists cannot change their weary tale that evolution is false BECAUSE it does not answer the question of what started life in the first place.
Creationists cannot find a real objection to evolution so they chip away at the base, hoping to topple the entire edifice with irrational logic, the logic of supernatural agents, invisible friends guiding every wiggle of every strand of DNA from a billion years ago to the present day, totally disregarding 150 years of very carefully thought out evidence.
Creationist attacks are based on lies, want only to topple evolution in a political sense, to control the propaganda basic to the christian faith, so new ideas will be cast to the dump heap of history and life goes on with everyone blind to what is really out there in the universe.
Tell a lie, Make it big enough, and People will fall for it.
Oh, and BTW, Dawkins NEVER said we descended from apes. Darwin never said that. What they really said was man and apes and chimps and all the other primates descended from some common ancestor millions and millions of years in the past, maybe 50 million years in the past.
Of course you, Hinds, believe one of the many BIG lies, the Earth is 10,000 years old. If you believe that, I have a GREAT bridge for sale......
Originally posted by RJHindsWe have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
Look and listen to it yourself if you don't believe me. After all this time
of man being reported as having descended from apes, suddenly after a
questioner asks him to put up or shut up he can not answer the question
and finally comes back accusing the questioner of misunderstanding and
admits that man is not a descendant of apes at all. Then makes up ...[text shortened]... the question because he can't give the example.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Now this is difficult for you I know because you have your own unique definition of "ape" and your own definition of "evolved" but try and do some study.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59The orignal question had nothing to do with whether or not we were
We have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
Now this is difficult for you I know because you have your own unique definition of "ape" and your own definition of "evolved" but try and do some study.
evolved from apes. Dawkins changed the subject so he would not
have to answer the question. Look at the video again.
1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpirit=================================
gasp! he won't debate bill "god of the gaps" craig?
hitchens already defeated craig's argument. no need to double-team the poor feller.
gasp! he won't debate bill "god of the gaps" craig?
hitchens already defeated craig's argument. no need to double-team the poor feller.
===========================
In your dreams. Hitchens came embarresingly unprepared to a debate with Craig. He seemed to take for granted that it would be an easy task. I think Craig was embarresed for him.
If there is a second chance at it I'd like to see it because Hithens is rhetorically skillful.
Funny, that a person with a tag of "VoidSpirit" would complain about "god of the gaps".
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseTell a lie, make it big enough and people will fall for it?
It sounds to me like he was presenting truth. It is religions that lie. In the 40's and 50'a during the cold war years, there was a big anti-communistic movement. In 1960 when I first went to college, there were anti-communist tapes we could listen to that said, and I quote "Tell a lie, make it big enough, and people will fall for it".
They were referri e Earth is 10,000 years old. If you believe that, I have a GREAT bridge for sale......
how about this one: God does not exist. Tell a lie, make it big enough and people will fall for it. You fell for that lie hook line and sinker.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by wolfgang59As far as I understand it we DID evolve from apes, but not the apes we see around today.
We have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
Now this is difficult for you I know because you have your own unique definition of "ape" and your own definition of "evolved" but try and do some study.
All the great apes today (which include us) descended from a common ancestor which
was the first creature we classify as a great ape, and that animal evolved into the
various species of ape that live today, including the branch that became humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
You can't look at modern great apes and say we descended from them.
but we did descend from the same common ancestor as them.
2 edits
Originally posted by wolfgang59=======================================
We have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
Now this is difficult for you I know because you have your own unique definition of "ape" and your own definition of "evolved" but try and do some study.
We have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
=====================================
But evolutionists get artists to draw out their theories in pictoral form. And what we see as a near ancestor to humans USUALLY LOOKS LIKE AN APE.
Maybe Evolution is really a movememt among imaginative artists.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by jaywillread my post just above yours
[b]=======================================
We have been through this before. No scientist (as far as I am aware) has ever said we evolved from apes.
=====================================
But evolutionists get artists to draw out their theories in pictoral form. And what we see as a near ancestor to humans USUALLY LOOKS LIKE AN APE.
Maybe Evolution is really a movememt among imaginative artists.[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe article says "possible" ancestors. So it is just a guess like I've said
As far as I understand it we DID evolve from apes, but not the apes we see around today.
All the great apes today (which include us) descended from a common ancestor which
was the first creature we classify as a great ape, and that animal evolved into the
various species of ape that live today, including the branch that became humans.
http:// ...[text shortened]... es and say we descended from them.
but we did descend from the same common ancestor as them.
before. There is no science fact in guessing. Anybody can do that. They
don't know what this imaginary ape ancestor even looks like, no fossil
records to prove any ideas even. This is more evolutionary bull crap.
I though scientist needed hard evidence, not just speculations.