Why do you reject the theory of evolution?

canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Wilksey said:
I agree with pretty much all of that, however, I can find no logical conclusion that would allow for our species, ALONE, to develop the ability to understand and manipulate fire when we did.

It just doesn't make sense.

Compare any biological species within a genus and you find that the intelligence levels are relatively streamlined, as is the use of tools, if any. This shows that nature is a lazy bitch that likes to repeat herself, and this repetition is also reflected in the cosmos, as evidenced by the multitude of stars and galaxies that share many of the same characteristics. Why did OUR species deviate from the "norms" found in nature when we came from the very same nature that produced everything else?

Polar bears, hell, BEARS developed fat layers and fur to keep warm. That makes sense and jives with everything else in nature. Humans, however, developed clothing and the use of fire instead. That's not natural, and no other species on the planet took that route. That intellectual and technological leap just seems far too large to be "natural", as no other species took that same route, or has taken it since.

The seemingly "exceptional" route our species has taken seems way, way, WAY out of place compared with our peers in the animal kingdom, and it is this "exceptionalism" that leads me to believe that evolution is only PART of the story concerning our species.

Granted, I could very well be giving our species FAR more credit than we deserve concerning "intelligence", but it seems to me that we are the proverbial square peg on a planet of round holes.
Click to expand...
what makes you think fire is not "natural", and how do you know sapiens are the only ones who manipulated it? Furthermore, there can only be a few if not a solitary apex predator.. This one happened to have hands. Dolphins or whales can't do fire.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
And your argument is ,,,,nothing? Just a vague rebuttal of someone elses view, kinda like,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,evolution?
I didnt come up with the missing link, and if that fairy tale has been proven wrong what did they come up with next? The big bang.

Lets do an experiment.
Go into your grow room and explode every seed one at a time , get back to me on what percentage became 'alive' oh yeah, first ,,,,,make your own seeds out of nothing.
Ignorance indeed.
Click to expand...
it wasn't "proven wrong", it isn't how evolution works. Religion and our education system has done us a grave disservice. The huge majority of skeptics have not the faintest clue of what evolution is, let alone the origin of the universe. Your comparisons make no sense and illustrate nothing. I am as abrupt as I am because I find that precious few skeptics will ever take the time to learn what it evolution really is.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
This is very convoluted , can you try and make it simpler for me because i have no idea what you mean.
Science predates the Bible? Faith? What is science / evolution except faith? Yes science IS a religion.
The bible full of myth? Really, the same book that said the earth was round thousands of years ago? The same one with an unparalleled record for proving prophecy? The same one that makes perfect sense IF YOU READ IT.
let me guess, whats next, how the earth was created in 6 days and the derision that comes along with people WHO DO NOT READ IT?
A day to god is like a thousand to us, yes thats in the bible, dinosaurs? Huh? Whats are you trying to say?

Im willing to bet those who hold the bible inderision do so out of either selfishness or because they where hurt by one of gods so called messengers ie the electrric church or someone else supposedly following christian princepals . The bible is very clear that there are some who 'have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power'

I find it very dissapointing when people make up their mind BEFORE reading BOTH SIDES. Of course the Bible has been dug through the mud by many many evil people over the centurys and made to look bad. But find a more accurate document that retells history warts and all.
Click to expand...
untill I changed, my major was theology. I have read and studied "one" of the bibles, now to which text are you refering? And which books? The ones that congesses of MEN chose to include? Religion is not science, it is self correcting. religion is not
 
W

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
what makes you think fire is not "natural", and how do you know sapiens are the only ones who manipulated it? Furthermore, there can only be a few if not a solitary apex predator.. This one happened to have hands. Dolphins or whales can't do fire.
Click to expand...
If you can share an example of another species manipulating fire, I'd be glad to read about it, however, I don't believe you'll find one.

I don't believe the intelligence that mastered fire is natural simply due to the exclusive nature of this kind of intelligence. There's plenty of other species with the dexterity and appendages needed to create and manage fire, and yet ours is the ONLY one with this ability....to my knowledge, at least.

If evolution is the only factor that drives the composition of a species, than why are we alone in both, our intellectual development and our efficient cooling system, compared with the rest of the animal kingdom? Why is there such a disparity between us, and the rest of our primate kin? This huge gap exists nowhere else in the animal kingdom, and that's why I don't believe it's simply a matter of "natural" evolution.

If it's "natural", we'd see it replicated elsewhere in the animal kingdom. But we don't.

/shrug
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Wilksey said:
If you can share an example of another species manipulating fire, I'd be glad to read about it, however, I don't believe you'll find one.

I don't believe the intelligence that mastered fire is natural simply due to the exclusive nature of this kind of intelligence. There's plenty of other species with the dexterity and appendages needed to create and manage fire, and yet ours is the ONLY one with this ability....to my knowledge, at least.

If evolution is the only factor that drives the composition of a species, than why are we alone in both, our intellectual development and our efficient cooling system, compared with the rest of the animal kingdom? Why is there such a disparity between us, and the rest of our primate kin? This huge gap exists nowhere else in the animal kingdom, and that's why I don't believe it's simply a matter of "natural" evolution.

If it's "natural", we'd see it replicated elsewhere in the animal kingdom. But we don't.

/shrug
Click to expand...

Homo Erectus - possibly 400,000 years ago was the first to manipulate fire. Why do you presume that ours is the only kind of intelligence that is able to deal with the survival of a species? As I said, it takes a particular combination of events and situations. Of course dolphins and whales will never manipulate fire, they may well be more intelligent than we are. It seems that man in his arrogance believes that the "proof" of intelligence is the ability to build things - not necessarily so.

Efficent cooling system? How so? every animal has something "better" than we. Why are dogs noses so sensitive and ours are not? We gave up plenty for our brains and some say it was the control of fire that gave us the ability to enlarge our brains in the first place.

There is very little disparity between our primate kin and ourselves - we both have a propensity to language, we care for our young for long periods of time, we teach rather than rely on instinct alone, and we both inpart knowlege across generations. The difference is only a matter of degree. Several apes or chimps who have been taught amislan have formed novel words, one at least has tought her children signing. For every item you attempt to claim as unique to man, the manipulaton of fire, and writing are the only two that make us different. Furthermore, your argument is not one against evolution.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
I cant believe how much you got right and how much you got right, pretty interesting , your mind works
Yes residing above the circle of the earth is the closest translation however the meaning is still clear.
My claim that evolution is a flat out lie, Darwin himself doubted it later in life .
Many of the things that would 'land you in jail' where the law of the land remember the mosaic law as written as a tutor leading up to the Christ an imperfectly implemented law implemented by imperfect men.
Sorry i dont multi quote well
Click to expand...

Myth, and myth alone. Darwin never expressed such dobut, nor did he recant on his death bed. The biggest problem I have with creationists is their need to lie (I am not saying that you are doing so, but your using this example as some sort of "proof" against evolution - and your assigning an entire scientific study, to a single human, is demonstration that someone in the community of creationists is intentionaly propagating a lie). If creationism is indeed the way of things and a mandate directly from God, then why do they need to lie?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
burgertime2010 said:
That is the most annoying part is the cherrypicking of the bible that people do. It is all or nothing but wives are no longer property, hell is not real, and all the wicked shit is conveniently missing or out of context. I want to see the revelation, the moment where the medication starts working for some people. At least some are Christ-like and he seems like a nice guy. The bible is all or nothing though...swallow the pill or don't. Science is not my religion but rational discourse and non-fiction I need in my life.
Click to expand...

Try the Jeffersonian Bible, you might like it. it strips out all miracles, and emphasises Jesus's WORDS and admonitions. It is a smart read actually.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
Someacdude said:
Oh i love science , it points to a creator, science cannot make life, can barely understand how we work, assumptions arent facts, theory isnt facts. Science changes every month, how many PROVEN fact are unproven or at least have science scratching its head wondering why these things allude them?
Click to expand...

WE have been at it for only about 300 years, and have gotten damn far. We can see out to the edge of the universe, we can see the beginnings of the big bang, we are unraveling DNA, and the human mind itself. Give us a little more time to figure out what took billions of years to come into being. Assumptions are not scientific theories. Science does not change "every month" but what it does do is self correct. Now, as far as Christianity is concerned, it has changed as well, does that disprove God or the Bible? do you really need concrete facts ONCE? Hell even the bible has two different stories of the creation of man. (or woman)
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
10 things are written 'in stone'. The rest is still being interpreted. When you read something in your particular area of scientific study, do you understand it the way someone like Hawking (etc) would? So does that invalidate your interpretation? Should you laugh at yourself?
Click to expand...
What 10 things are those?
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
It is very simple really. We have the evidence of our eyes and understanding, and we have a very old book made up of stories gleaned from even earlier times. Now, Unless two things can be explained within the context of the bible - ENTIRELY - the creation of coal and oil, and the creation of the hawaiian Islands, Then there is a critical disparity. The only logical conclusion is either that the Bible is wrong or We have a God who is purposefully misrepresenting himself through his works.

The final result is that either the book is NOT written or inspired by God or that God is falible, illogical, and not worth any effort on the part of humans.
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
Ten Commandments are 'in stone'. They resonate because they are in the bones, so to speak.
Click to expand...
To my recollection there are actually 4 sets of "ten commandments", which sort of takes the edge off that "written in stone" thingy. Which is why I asked. Is the commandment - "thou shalt not kill?" or is it " thou shalt not murder" - two entirely different things. - as example.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
To my recollection there are actually 4 sets of "ten commandments", which sort of takes the edge off that "written in stone" thingy. Which is why I asked. Is the commandment - "thou shalt not kill?" or is it " thou shalt not murder" - two entirely different things. - as example.
Click to expand...
Not looking for an edge, I think that is the "wedgy" between both parties. I'd prefer not to do either of the two ways you described that. Are there 4 ways, then?

You also assume I meant that in the western christian sense which is not at all valid.
 
Finshaggy

Finshaggy

Well-Known Member
"Where's the word Bible in the Bible? And do you have a problem with that?" - Polight

Have you heard of the new caucus mountain skull? It takes a few links out of the evolutionary chain.
 
DMTER

DMTER

Well-Known Member
SOOOOO many people here are mixing up Abiogenesis with with Evolutionary theory...take some time and learn


Minds are like parachutes....

They work better when they are open
 
canndo

canndo

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
Not looking for an edge, I think that is the "wedgy" between both parties. I'd prefer not to do either of the two ways you described that. Are there 4 ways, then?

You also assume I meant that in the western christian sense which is not at all valid.
Click to expand...


The commandments are not an issue of preference. Many claim that they are the most concrete section of the bible, those things which cannot be interpreted and yet i demonstrated that they were indeed interpreted to rather monumental effect. The command not to kill means not killing anything and not killing on behalf of the state or even God himself, yet God commands that people be killed in the old testament, furthermore He himself kills, violating his own commandments. "thou shalt not murder" has indications that there are allowable forms and reasons for killing - like for food, or for self protection, or for punishment. Again, my point is that even these "commandments" are subject to interpetation and of course lend themselves to being bent. Laura Slesenger claimed that the ten commandments were not ten suggestions. She was wrong, that is exactly what they are. Beyond even that are the punishments for violation of those commandments, what shall they be and who decides? Many a commandment can be violated during reparation for a violated commandment. What exactly is covetousness? Isn't our modern society and the free enterprise system based on that very clause? must we not covet what we see a snuggy before we go out and purchase one? Should we covet the woman who hovers about a brand new car - the promise of getting what one desires in the way of sex wth the purchase of that car?

No, the 10 commandments, when examined, is a quagmire, especially for those who most profess to abide by them. Some of them are decent rules for society, as those who "covet" space in the courthouse for those writ commandments, claim. Some have nothing to do with society in the natural sense. "thou shalt not take the lord thy God in vain". Adherence to this commandment is rather simple but either way, it contributes nothing to a moral and resonable society.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
The commandments are not an issue of preference. Many claim that they are the most concrete section of the bible, those things which cannot be interpreted and yet i demonstrated that they were indeed interpreted to rather monumental effect. The command not to kill means not killing anything and not killing on behalf of the state or even God himself, yet God commands that people be killed in the old testament, furthermore He himself kills, violating his own commandments. "thou shalt not murder" has indications that there are allowable forms and reasons for killing - like for food, or for self protection, or for punishment. Again, my point is that even these "commandments" are subject to interpetation and of course lend themselves to being bent. Laura Slesenger claimed that the ten commandments were not ten suggestions. She was wrong, that is exactly what they are. Beyond even that are the punishments for violation of those commandments, what shall they be and who decides? Many a commandment can be violated during reparation for a violated commandment. What exactly is covetousness? Isn't our modern society and the free enterprise system based on that very clause? must we not covet what we see a snuggy before we go out and purchase one? Should we covet the woman who hovers about a brand new car - the promise of getting what one desires in the way of sex wth the purchase of that car?

No, the 10 commandments, when examined, is a quagmire, especially for those who most profess to abide by them. Some of them are decent rules for society, as those who "covet" space in the courthouse for those writ commandments, claim. Some have nothing to do with society in the natural sense. "thou shalt not take the lord thy God in vain". Adherence to this commandment is rather simple but either way, it contributes nothing to a moral and resonable society.
Click to expand...
This is an exoteric perspective, not where I am coming from. No biggie, just not where I am coming from. I've pointed that out recently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top