RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stephenWells



Posts: 127
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:07   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

[b](a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

The fact that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors is as well established as the fact that the earth orbits the sun. That used to be controversial too. Should we let geocentrism have equal time in physics classes?

Looking at human society, behaviour, anatomy, physiology and genetics, our close evolutionary relationship to the great apes is obvious. Remember the vitC gene?

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:08   

A couple quick comments:

Quote
(Jeannot: ) - The divergence between chimps and human occurred 15 My ago, IIRC.
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago. About 50% longer ago for the (human/chimp)-gorilla divergence, and maybe about double that for the (human/chimp/gorilla)-orang utan divergence. Humans are more closely related to chimps (and bonobos) than chimps are related to gorillas.

Quote
(AFDave: ) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?  This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.
"We" don't know to your satisfaction, perhaps. But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.

I am quite confident that we "know" this as well as other conclusions we call "known" in science - like that the earth is billions of years old, or that ordinary matter is composed of atoms.

Are we "lying" when we teach these things in science class? Should we teach "both theories" about matter: that it is composed of atoms, and that it's not composed of atoms?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:09   

Well, going through the motions out of sheer boredom:

Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

It's a fact in the sense Gould described: attested to so thoroughly and without contradiction, by so overwhelming a body of consistent evidence, that it would be perverse to withhold tentative assent.

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.

Nope, it's not. If evidence is ignored or discarded, why bother teaching anything?

Quote
What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN

The problem here is, design is not a theory. It makes no predictions, has no hypotheses, has no track record, nobody is doing any research or even suggesting how research might be done. Claiming that design is a theory is a lie.

Quote
and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.

And of course, evidence doesn't matter. But in the world of science, evidence DOES matter. Theories in science are the best-fit explanations to the known evidence. No theory can EVER be proved, only the degree of evidential support can be reinforced. Evidence-based explanations aren't coin-flips or idle opinions. You are confusing science with religion.

Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.

Again, only if you regard evidence as irrelevant. But science is based on facts. Your tax dollars are going to show people still capable of thinking, how evidence leads to tentative conclusions. You may not LIKE the conclusions evidence leads to, and you may decide that evidence doesn't matter as a result. Too bad.

Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?

You will find little support for your defense of our children's right to remain totally ignorant, on a forum generally populated by people who have dedicated many years to dispelling their ignorance rather than wallowing in it. On the evidence, your opinions are simply incorrect.

Quote
Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.

But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy. Science is too closely tied to reality, where fact simply outweighs fiction and knowledge beats make-believe.

So the bottom line on this thread is that the evidence that humans are prime members of the great apes is so overwhelming that it's perverse to deny it. And your god-given right to remain stone ignorant of any relevant biology doesn't change this even a little bit.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:14   

afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:15   

To trot out an over used but apt comparrison.  A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map.  Does that mean that:

1)  We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2)  We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".

Popular opinion about the validity of a falsifiable fact should not be used to dictate education towards ignorance.  If anything, it means that efforts should be redoubled in those areas that people are ignorant in.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:18   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.

Should we teach them that god pushes every obect downward, but that we are not sure because it can't be proven?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:27   

:08-->
Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,14:08)
I think the consensus these days is more like 5 My ago.

I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:35   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...

(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.

and ...

(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.


OK?

Dave, we're as sure that humans and apes have a common ancestor as we're as sure of anything. The evidence of common ancestry is ironclad.

The fact that we don't have a perfect, mutation-by-mutation account of how and when humans and apes diverged from a common ancestor is due to two things: not all organisms leave fossils; and DNA doesn't fossilize.

No one will ever be able to prove whether common descent is as a result of natural laws which happened by accident of by the will of God, but such questions are beyond the realm of science.

That you don't believe the evidence is conclusive is largely due to your ignorance of the science, not due to the weakness of that science. If you were to take a course in evolutionary biology, and were honest enough to set aside your religious objections to the idea of humans and other apes sharing a common ancestor, you would have no doubts about its reality.



Quote
Now ... my BIG problem is this ...

Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?


Because it is a fact, Dave (well, except  that you're stating it wrong: it's not "ape to human evolution," it's "humans share a common ancestry with other apes") No one who actually has the training to evaluate the evidence doubts that. Do you honestly believe that all paleontologists who work in the field are deluded? What makes you think you are a better judge of the evidence than the people who have devoted their lives to studying it?

Quote
This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons.  What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide.


No we should not. Creationism is not a "theory" because it has no explicative power (saying "goddidit" doesn't explain anything), makes no testable predictions, and is unfalsifiable in principle. It's not a matter of "he said, she said." The only "parents" who are qualified to decide between the two are those who have the technical expertise to evaluate the evidence. You may think that's elitist, but it's the way of the world. How many parents do you think are competent to evaluate the evidence supporting superstring theory and that supporting loop quantum gravity?


Quote
My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction.  Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?  Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not?  Last time I checked IT WAS.


Dave, neither superstring theory nor loop quantum gravity are "provable." Do you object to one being taught over the other at state-funded universities? No? Could that be because neither one impinges on your religious beliefs the way evolution does?

Your objections to evolutionary theory have everything to do with your relgious beliefs and nothing whatsoever to do with the strength of the evidence. That has become abundantly plain throughout every thread you've started.

Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Despite the fact that you stated you're not prepared to address the impossibility of evolution, you're spending most of your energy trying to support that very assertion. It's plain at this point that your biggest objection to evolution is that evolution plainly implies that your ancestors at one point were ape-like? Would you care to explain exactly why that is?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:06)
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...

Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)

Ah, for cryin' out loud.  I had just replaced my top-of-the-line irony meter after davescot pulled the same trick earlier this week (i.e., breaking Godwin's Law in prominent fashion before invoking it to chastise all who reply).  This is getting bloody expensive.

Dave, a few simple questions (I have spent considerable effort trying to answer yours):

Can we agree to define science (as it is taught in schools) most simply as "what scientists do, how they do it, and what they uncover about the world around us as they do it"?  You have claimed to be objectively interested in fact and reality, and you seem strong in your faith, so I don't think you should have any trouble recognizing science not as a democracy, but as a meritocracy?

Now, as a YEC, it does not surprise me that you might want to see the Bible taught as the root of understanding that you believe it to be.  But can you get it through the front door of that meritocracy honestly?

The (sometimes unlikely) source of many a good idea has preceded it into science class.  For example, from my organic chemistry classes, I still smile at Kekule's reported "eureka" moment when he supposed deduced the elusive structure of benzene from a dream of a snake eating its own tail.  That's stuck with me, even though I'd be hard-pressed to draw hydrocarbon valences now.  There are pleny of other examples, some apocryphal, some not.  Why do I have no recollection of something along the lines of:

"Beginning from the idea that Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, marine biologists at Bob Jones University predicted that the gross morphology of the cetacean digestive system would accomodate the survival of a full-grown human.  Subsequent experiments employing undergraduate volunteers revealed this to be true.  Furthermore, a stastically significant proportion reported feeling thoroughly uncomfortable and "forsaken"."

In your previous thread, you learned how the idea that humans and other great apes shared a common ancestor led to the hypothesis that "missing" chromosome in humans likely indicated a fusion event, and how this hypothesis was later confirmed.  In the foreseeable future, students will be learning how evolution and common descent predicted a reality in microbiology.  Furthermore, if you succeed in your attempts to include "common design" alongside "common descent", they would learn how in this case (and many others), common descent predicted something in much finer detail than could be deduced from the vague concept of common design, and thus emerges as the superior hypothesis.  Same goes for the Vitamin C pseudogene -- "common design" didn't give us anything concrete and substantive to work with, but common descent predicted the presence of a "broken" gene.  At the moment, when I teach undergrads what scientists do, how they do it, and what we've learned, I don't compare the predictions and tests of descent and design. Do you really want me to start?

No doubt my teaching about common ancestry (especially regarding humans and apes) makes you feel uncomfortable, since you deny the starting premise.  So why not put up?  Exactly what do you want me to teach, DAve? What would a "science-minded" YEC like yourself have my students learn about the world that was predicted by the Bible and later born out unequivocally through experimentally tested hypotheses and observations?  Can you give us one example that is as clear and unambiguous as chromosome 2 or Vitamin C pseudogenes or the whole science of phylogeny or...  Can you give me a "snake eating its tail" seed that I can plant in the minds of my students for years to come?

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:44   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,13:36)
[b]Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT?

Because it's science, Dave.  The purpose of sitting in science class it to learn science.  If you don't like that don't sit in a science class.  If you want to learn religion go to church, no pesky science there.  But the purpose of sitting in science class is not to learn Shakespeare, basket weaving, cake baking, typing, grammar, or religion.  It is to learn science, and science was created by humanity to provide us with the best explanation we can get of how the world works and why.  It is a crying shame the conclusions of science don't agree with your religion, but maybe the religio-politico leaders of 7th century b.c. Jeruselum should have waited 2700 years before putting a plagiarised creation myth on papyrus.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:52   

"More evolved" is a difficult term and issue.  However, I don't think that it is truly meaningless in biology, nor that it would necessarily apply to the highly successful micro-organisms better than to multi-celled eukaryotes.

The human brain is generally considered to be more highly evolved than the H. erectus brain.  One reason is that it comes later, however that is not the only measure.  Size and apparent specialization, probably for speech or for more refined speech, would generally be used as criteria for using the term "more evolved".  We might very well see ourselves as "more evolved" than H. floresiensis, then, although I realize that the specialization (for instance, smaller size) of the hobbit is a credible argument against such a judgment.  More likely, then, we might judge our abstract abilities to be "more evolved" than the hobbits' (not demonstrated yet, but at least possible), while other factors might be "more evolved" in the hobbits.

Highly selected characteristics could be considered to be "more evolved", though of course more careful speech would simply use the term "highly selected characteristics".  Whole organisms/populations are not particularly good candidates for determining the "more evolved" species, using this criterion, while we may indeed think in terms of "more evolved" for certain characteristics.

If we do dare to think of whole organisms as more evolved, it is perhaps less likely that free-living bacteria are "more evolved" than are sexually-reproducing eukaryotes, at least those whose phenotypes and ways of living have changed dramatically through time.  For, although there is no doubt cyanobacteria have evolved in crucial ways through time, it is not unlikely that in many respects they have not evolved much at all.  That is how we tend to see them, in any case, since many of their metabolic activities seem rather "primitive" (for the most part).  However, their defenses against viruses and the like could hardly have been static for a couple billion years or so.

Most viruses do seem to be "highly evolved", all right, as one would expect from the arms races between parasites and hosts.  Yet one would probably do best to differentiate between what "highly evolved" means for viruses, and what it means for human cognitive abilities.  In eukaryotes, "more evolved" often can mean "more complex" (at least in non-parasitical organisms), while it rarely means that in prokaryotes.

The upshot is, of course, that "more evolved" or "more highly evolved" are slippery terms not generally used in more precise biological writings.  Nevertheless, these are not meaningless terms either.  And they are used, generally to denote improvements in selected capabilities of organisms.  "More evolved" refers best to traits, not to organisms themselves, while "more evolved" also has different meanings when we are discussing viruses than when we are discussing primates.

Within H. sapiens there is too little variation for "more evolved" to refer properly to human groups, and perhaps not even to any traits.  We almost certainly could be said to be "more evolved" than Neanderthals in some important aspects, which may also be partly why Neanderthals no longer exist.   I should add that Neanderthals were also more evolved than ourselves in physical adaptations to cold environments--if apparently these did not confer enough of an advantage for them to have survived.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,09:53   

:06-->
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:06)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. :)

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:06   

AFDave says
Quote
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...

(snip my observations on Dave's claim that Hitler was an Evolutionist)

is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...


Actually Dave, satire and parody work quite well in pointing out the gross inanity of your anti-evolution "argument".  Your peeved response shows that I did indeed hit the mark.

Quote
Could you maybe do some more?  Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)


Gee, looks like that "I can take it, I'm an AF pilot with a thick skin" was just an act of bravado.  I'll try harder not to hurt your sensitive feeling next time.

You can help too - if you don't like being embarrassed in public, then stop repeating such bloody stupid Creationist lies like "ToE = support for Nazis".

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:08   

Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14<!--emo&:0)
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?

Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!

Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!

How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???

Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved".  Any bets?


is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...

this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...

And by saying this you have completely missed his two points.  You suggested that because Hitler allegedly based his racism on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection that we must, at the very least, regard it with suspicion, or perhaps, ultimately reject it entirely out of hand.  This is so fallacious it's infantile.
And if you were dropped into the habitat of a great white shark without any of the fancy technology bequethed to you by the fancy brains of your ancestors would you regard yourself as 'more' evolved or 'less' evolved.  Evolution is about fitting envionmental niches.  Science uses its own definitions.  It is not required to use the ones AFDave wants to fob off on it.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:11   

Quote
I just found my notes on a conference I assisted. There, Yves Coppens (French paleo-anthropologist) said that pre-humans diverged from pan some 10 Mya.
(emphasis mine)
Well, there you go. Need I say more? I mean, it was the French who would have had us believe it was a mistake to invade Iraq. (Oh... wait a minute...)

But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

I refer you to Richard Dawkins's "The Ancestor's Tale" for the dates I'm (provisionally) going by.

Let me take this opportunity to repeat a point that AFDave seems not to have absorbed. Chimps, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans are all fully apes, right? No one of them is "apier" than another, right? Now, since humans are more closely related to chimps and bonobos than they are to gorillas, by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club? Speaking of humans as opposed to apes makes no more sense than speaking of humans as opposed to mammals.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Joe the Ordinary Guy



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:35   

Dave, as I understand the current arrangement, we as a society teach science to our children so that they will know a little science. We teach them English literature so that they will know a little English literature, and so on down the line. The exception is religion. We as a society do NOT teach religion to our children because people have significantly differing religious beliefs, and parents prefer to teach these to their children on their own. Thus, Catholic parents teach their children Catholicism, Muslim parents teach Islam, Hindu parents teach Hinduism, and so forth.

I can imagine that for those parents who teach a religion that makes testable world-claims, the task is complicated by the fact that their children will learn something contrary in school. I’ve always imagined that such parents, when confronted with the inevitable, “But why…” questions, would simply say that the religion version is true and the school version is false. Oh, and kids, you have to learn the false school version just well enough to pass the test, but don’t believe it.

In other words, because religious education falls to parents, those who need it ALREADY HAVE the “present both sides and let the kids decide” option available to them.

Why is this system inadequate for you?

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:41   

Quote (Paul Flocken @ May 08 2006,14:53)
Quote (afdave @ May 08 2006,14:0)
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...

When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes

I don't know.  Last time I checked I couldn't swing through trees 100 feet up in the air. <!--emo&:)

Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
thurdl01



Posts: 99
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:42   

And as a followup question to Joe's: Why should it be your religion that the government subsidises the teaching of?

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:44   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ May 08 2006,15:41)
Let's not forget that when caged an ape's poop flinging skill seems "more evolved" than a humans as well.

I dunno about that.  Exhibit A is JAD vs. DaveScot on Larry's blog.  Put them in an actual cage (as opposed to their metaphoric mental ones), take away their keyboards...I know where I'm putting my money.  I've watched apes: they get bored of poop flinging after a while.

  
Reluctant Cannibal



Posts: 36
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:47   

Hello AFDave,

I realise that you have a lot on your plate already, but I couldn't let this go:

Quote

"Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born."
Twisted Christianity had been.  You are correct.  It got so bad that a man named Martin Luther turned things upside down.  The result?  The translation of the Bible into the English language and the attendant success of the British Empire, followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also, again with great results.  Note also the DECLINE of the British Empire coincident with the REJECTION of the validity and authority of the Bible.


AFDave, it seems that the history of Christianity is another thing that you could learn more about. Next time you are researching, Google "Martin Luther" and anti-semitism. Read his actual writings. With regard to your claims about history, I will just observe that correlation is not causation.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:52   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:11)
But seriously, I think that the molecular evidence favors the more recent date, and my (American!;)) paleontologist friend says he's comfortable with that, too.

Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
About Sahelanthropus tchadensis:
Quote
The search for the earliest fossil evidence of the human lineage has been concentrated in East Africa. Here we report the discovery of six hominid specimens from Chad, central Africa, 2,500 km from the East African Rift Valley. The fossils include a nearly complete cranium and fragmentary lower jaws. The associated fauna suggest the fossils are between 6 and 7 million years old.

It doesn't confirm the 10 Mya, but if their datation is correct, -6 Mya is the upper limit regarding the split between our lineage and chimps.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6894/full/nature00879.html
(a French discovery ;) Paleo-anthopology the only scientifict field we have left, so let me be proud of it)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:53   

Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:
Quote

"Luther and the Jews"

See Martin Luther and the Jews and On the Jews and Their Lies
Luther's views on the Jews have been described as racial or religious anti-Semitism, [25] or as anti-Judaism. [26] He initially believed that the Jews had been prevented from believing in Christ by the actions of Christians, and the proclamation of what he believed to be an impure Gospel. He imagined that they would respond favorably to the evangelical message. When they did not, his fury was aroused, fanned by the appearance of a forged document purporting to be written by a Jew, which was insulting to Christian faith.
In his pamphlet Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies), published in 1543, he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time."[27] He also appeared to sanction their murder: [28] "Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world ... So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem ... We are at fault in not slaying them."[29]
British historian Paul Johnson has called On the Jews and their Lies the "first work of modern anti-Semitism, and a giant step forward on the road to the Holocaust."[30] Four centuries after it was written, the Nazis cited Luther's treatise to justify the Final Solution.[31] Since the 1980s, Lutheran church bodies and organizations have begun a process of formally denouncing these writings, though they carefully qualify their declarations to fall short of characterizing Luther as an anti-Semite.


A whole bunch more info is HERE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_the_Jews

So, uh, Dave, don't pretend Luther 'fixed' everything.

(And let's not even MENTION Luther's weird shit fetish...)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,10:57   

Quote
followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also
absolutely not.

Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:07   

Quote
Molecular datation can't contradict geological datation. It is calibrated from geological datation (fossils or other biogeographical data).
No, indeed. But with molecular data, you're not limited to the fossils of the particular animal in question; you get to use a much larger data set of animals with their attendant geological correlates - at least insofar as you can rely on molecular clock assumptions (a whole other discussion).

(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

But it strikes me that this is a much more productive subject to explore than whether AFDave accepts a round earth, atomic theory, or other elements of modernity. What do you say we start another thread?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:17   

[quote=Russell,May 08 2006,15:11]
Quote
by what possible criterion could humans not be fully certified, card-carrying, dues-paid-up members of the Ape Club?

I haven't paid any dues for that there club. ;)

  
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:19   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006)
(By the way, I think we just say "dating" in English).

The dictionary included in Mac OS X thinks that too.
I thought 'datation' was also an English word.

A perfect example of 'Frenglish'.  :(

About a dedicated thread, anytime you want Russel.
I'm not a expert in molecular clock calibration, but I may have to do some molecular datING in my study, so I'll have to get familiar with the subject.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:33   

Quote (Russell @ May 08 2006,15:57)
Quote
followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also
absolutely not.

Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.

Yes Russell, but you are not going by rightwingnut approved pre-1950's history.  All that history you learned is 'liberal' history.  Can't trust that, oh no. ;)

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:37   

Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...

We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:39   

Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...

We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2006,11:49   

Quote
most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer

Admittedly, we are evidence addicts, every one of us. Your ministry is desperately needed here.

  
  685 replies since May 08 2006,03:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (23) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]