Evolution

[Lucas]

I almost put this in the science thread thats not a science thread :p

Anyway, who read about the discovery of the new fossils found?

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/118907/Scientists_discover_new_human_species

These fossils are a completely new discovery. Whats funny is the recent discussions here about evolution and its timing to these findings. So as we can all see, regardless of how 'authorative' people may want to speak on evolution (or many facets of science in general), new discoveries always make current 'knowledge' subject to change.


on a side note. how about cloning dinosaurs (http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/118277/)?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I almost put this in the science thread thats not a science thread :p

Anyway, who read about the discovery of the new fossils found?

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/118907/Scientists_discover_new_human_species

These fossils are a completely new discovery. Whats funny is the recent discussions here about evolution and its timing to these findings. So as we can all see, regardless of how 'authorative' people may want to speak on evolution (or many facets of science in general), new discoveries always make current 'knowledge' subject to change.


on a side note. how about cloning dinosaurs (http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/118277/)?

What really keeps people from accepting evolution is, well, its a bit confusing for some to understand and for others, they THINK it goes against their religious views ( which in some cased because of how they interpret their religious texts, that may be the case).

Evolution is, quite simply, a living organism adapting to its environment.
The other issue is the confusion that some have about "man evolving from apes" when what evolution states is that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Not the same thing at all.

[Lucas]

there is this show supernatural. totally unrelated, but there is an interesting scene where an Angel is at the shore the moment that a creature first crawls out of the ocean. God tells that angel to watch over that life because of the importance of what it is to become. That scene of course following the common theory that all life started in the water, but putting a religious twist to it.

but the point is the common ancestory to all life.

[Lucas]

I'm not a religious person, but even I think if God is real, that God would give the creations the chance to grow and adapt and change. It would be extremely near sighted to not forsee the need to evolve.

[MasterKiller]

I'm not a religious person, but even I think if God is real, that God would give the creations the chance to grow and adapt and change. It would be extremely near sighted to not forsee the need to evolve.

D'uh....an omnipotent God could create conditions in which evolution was not required.

[David Jamieson]

I think people might need to probably stop thinking about god as a benign being in human form.
If god is everything and in everyone, then it is not a matter of someone sprinklling life here and there from a jug. :)

Secondly, SR is right. People do not understand the concept of evolution and it's factors in and of itself. many who rail against it are of the most ignorant mind that monkeys somehow became men. Not true, even by evolutionary standards.

adaptation, mutation and so on. Evolution has a greater seat in the factual than any god from any religion ever. Because we can see it to believe it and to not believe it and be outspoken is to expose yourself as ignorant if not a willful fool.

God belief is fine, but people need to keep that to themselves. Religious freedoms don't give people the right to push laws down people's throats to keep them in ignorance of truth. But, that is what religion seems to do as a constant.

[Lucas]

when i was a kid i had an ant farm. every now and then i would shake it up so i could watch the ants re build their tunnels.

[sanjuro_ronin]

there is this show supernatural. totally unrelated, but there is an interesting scene where an Angel is at the shore the moment that a creature first crawls out of the ocean. God tells that angel to watch over that life because of the importance of what it is to become. That scene of course following the common theory that all life started in the water, but putting a religious twist to it.

but the point is the common ancestory to all life.

There is no reason to believe that nature is NOT as God intended.
Why would God NOT equip a living organism with the ability to adapt and survive?
The very notion of God as being the greatest thing of which we can conceive ( and that being the beginning of understanding what God is) means that what we have in Nature POINTS to God.
One can postulate as many "what if's" or as many " God would do this" as you want, its all good, but none of that changes that there is no reason to view the universe as anything other than what it should be at any given time AND to also accept that due to knwo so little about it as e do NOW, our view of things "tomorrow" may well be very different.

[sanjuro_ronin]

when i was a kid i had an ant farm. every now and then i would shake it up so i could watch the ants re build their tunnels.

And to them, you were "God".

[sanjuro_ronin]

D'uh....an omnipotent God could create conditions in which evolution was not required.

He could but then it wouldn't be THIS Universe, would it?

[Lucas]

And to them, you were "God".

**** right i was, and dont you forget it!!

now as someone who doesnt believe in God, per se, when I talk about God its all just 'what ifs' so to speak. However another point is that sometimes, as the being in control, sometimes we just want to see our 'children' develop for themselves.

I mean if there is a God, there would be no point in creating man as anything other than what we are. Based on what little I do know of christianity, creating beings without the need or ability to evolve has already been done. Those are Angels, right?

But at the same time why cant God simply be the force that is behind all of creation, so far outside the commonly accepted understanding of what God really is? Why does God even have to be a sentient being? The power behind the big bang is unfathomable. There is a fact there though. The Universe happened. It came from somewhere. Our current 'understanding' through science is that the Universe simply 'sprang' into being. So then, in a way, is not the Universe itself God?

The universe is in a constant state of growth and thus 'evolution', everything is. Evolution, IMO, is the natural order of all that exists.

[sanjuro_ronin]

**** right i was, and dont you forget it!!

now as someone who doesnt believe in God, per se, when I talk about God its all just 'what ifs' so to speak. However another point is that sometimes, as the being in control, sometimes we just want to see our 'children' develop for themselves.

I mean if there is a God, there would be no point in creating man as anything other than what we are. Based on what little I do know of christianity, creating beings without the need or ability to evolve has already been done. Those are Angels, right?

But at the same time why cant God simply be the force that is behind all of creation, so far outside the commonly accepted understanding of what God really is? Why does God even have to be a sentient being? The power behind the big bang is unfathomable. There is a fact there though. The Universe happened. It came from somewhere. Our current 'understanding' through science is that the Universe simply 'sprang' into being. So then, in a way, is not the Universe itself God?

The universe is in a constant state of growth and thus 'evolution', everything is. Evolution, IMO, is the natural order of all that exists.

Angels are the messengers of God and they are "spirit" beings of variouis forms, but tend to show themselves to us in a human form, so that we don't **** a brick when we see them in thier REAL form.
They are the first beings created by God, BEFORE our universe/dimension came to be.
They are what we will "evolve" to in our ultimate form.
They started off pretty much like we did in their "universe/dimension".
That aside.

The Christian God is, by "His" very definition of being GOD, the source of all and I am not sure that we can ever say of God that he "just" created the universe in a moment of singular expression of "GOD".

We can't understand God, no more than those ants could understand that YOU have a conscious notion of who and what you are.

For all we know, we may find out that God is the FIRST ONE, the first ever sentient being of another universe of such infinite power that in His expression of "love", He created ALL so that ALL can share in the amazing experience of "being".

[Dale Dugas]

http://i679.photobucket.com/albums/vv155/Boston_Baguazhang/snapshot-1-1.jpg

[YouKnowWho]

I'm not a religious person, but even I think if God is real, that God would give the creations the chance to grow and adapt and change. It would be extremely near sighted to not forsee the need to evolve.

The only question that I want to ask a religious person is if God created the universe then why did he create so many stars?

If I'm the God, I'll create earth (for life forms), sun (for daytime light source), moon (for evening light source), and stop right there.

[bawang]

i follow the hawk.

the earth is formed from the corpse of the cosmic giant pangu.

[Lucas]

The only question that I want to ask a religious person is if God created the universe then why did he create so many stars?

If I'm the God, I'll create earth (for life forms), sun (for daytime light source), moon (for evening light source), and stop right there.

that is a good questiong. going off of the religious idea that we are the only life out there, maybe its for the future. like 100 billion years from now, maybe we will inhabit all of them?

[MightyB]

http://rlv.zcache.com/jiu_jitsu_evolution_postcard-p239701840993838053envli_400.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lcDVkHBr95E/SR84x8SrOdI/AAAAAAAAAgY/XdYCOUz-838/s320/evolution.jpg
..........

[Lucas]

i dont get the last image in the first one, what is that supposed to be? the sidekick assassin is awesome though. it kind of looks like someone on lying on their back with something on their legs or some such.

[YouKnowWho]

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4333/childk.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5708/youngu.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9782/oldfo.jpg

[MightyB]

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4333/childk.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/5708/youngu.jpg

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9782/oldfo.jpg

Too funny,
and sadly true.

[MightyB]

http://rlv.zcache.com/judo_2012_martial_arts_t_shirts-r82a109ec9b554dbaa7ae5e8321416040_f0czj_512.jpg?rl vnet=1
..........

[Lucas]

oh thats easier to see!!

[bawang]

i believe in jesus as the black revolutionary messiah. i dont believe in evolution, i believe in revolution.

[Lucas]

i believe in jesus as the black revolutionary messiah. i dont believe in evolution, i believe in revolution.

http://andelino.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/black-jesus1.jpg

http://www.blackartdepot.com/gallery/blackjesusart/blackjesus66.jpg

[Syn7]

What really keeps people from accepting evolution is, well, its a bit confusing for some to understand and for others, they THINK it goes against their religious views ( which in some cased because of how they interpret their religious texts, that may be the case).

Evolution is, quite simply, a living organism adapting to its environment.
The other issue is the confusion that some have about "man evolving from apes" when what evolution states is that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
Not the same thing at all.

yeah, whoever said "we come from monkees" needs to be drawn and quartered in the public square. Disinformation has been the name of this game for some time now. I guess we all have our agendas.

[Syn7]

There is no reason to believe that nature is NOT as God intended.
Why would God NOT equip a living organism with the ability to adapt and survive?
The very notion of God as being the greatest thing of which we can conceive ( and that being the beginning of understanding what God is) means that what we have in Nature POINTS to God.
One can postulate as many "what if's" or as many " God would do this" as you want, its all good, but none of that changes that there is no reason to view the universe as anything other than what it should be at any given time AND to also accept that due to knwo so little about it as e do NOW, our view of things "tomorrow" may well be very different.

So, using that argument, god may or may not exist. lol... Some foreward thinking sh1t right there playbwoy :p



I always figured if god gave free will then wh not evolution in a broader sense as well, no?

It's all semantics to me. I'm an agnostic at heart. Based on what I know today anyways. Who knows what "tomorrow" will teach me. I'm always open to change, I have no faith in that respect.

[Syn7]

D'uh....an omnipotent God could create conditions in which evolution was not required.

or not... duh

[ghostexorcist]

yeah, whoever said "we come from monkees" needs to be drawn and quartered in the public square. Disinformation has been the name of this game for some time now. I guess we all have our agendas.

That statement is not totally incorrect. The forbears of our ape-like ancestors were monkey-like. However, the statement is incorrect in that our most recent ancestor was an ape-like animal akin to the chimp and bonobo. Here is a chart comparing the arm to leg ratio of bonobos (who share 98.6% of our DNA according to the genome project) and australopithecus, an early human ancestor who lived some 4 million years ago. Some primatologists consider the bonobo to be a model for the joint human-chimp ancestor who lived 7 million years ago.

http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/OurInnerApe/photos/zihlman.jpg

I'm not a big fan of the way science-deniers use the term because it is so loaded with false misconceptions. The idea that humans were separate from and held dominion over animals first appeared in the bible. The ancient Greeks spread the idea that animals were mindless automatons, while humans were the pinnacle of nature because we could think and feel. This was expounded during the 17th century by the French philosopher Descartes. Yet, research has shown that animals, especially our ape cousins, are far more intelligent than what we give them credit for. Most importantly, our close genetic relatedness to chimps and the other great apes shows that we are ourselves apes. We just have less hair, upright posture, and more brains.

My mother just so happens to be one of the people who parrots this phrase. She is not a terribly religions women, and she is pretty intelligent considering that she is a radiation therapist and a billing analyst, but she just can’t accept the evidence. That’s primarily because her religious views are entrenched and she doesn’t feel the need to read up on the subject. This is a classic mistake that many people make. Some do look for information, but they usually get it from biased religious apologetic websites.

[Syn7]

Angels are the messengers of God and they are "spirit" beings of variouis forms, but tend to show themselves to us in a human form, so that we don't **** a brick when we see them in thier REAL form.
They are the first beings created by God, BEFORE our universe/dimension came to be.
They are what we will "evolve" to in our ultimate form.
They started off pretty much like we did in their "universe/dimension".
That aside.

The Christian God is, by "His" very definition of being GOD, the source of all and I am not sure that we can ever say of God that he "just" created the universe in a moment of singular expression of "GOD".

We can't understand God, no more than those ants could understand that YOU have a conscious notion of who and what you are.

For all we know, we may find out that God is the FIRST ONE, the first ever sentient being of another universe of such infinite power that in His expression of "love", He created ALL so that ALL can share in the amazing experience of "being".

Or maybe god is just one step above us in the pyramid and just seems godly even tho he has a creator and his creator has a creator and his creator has a creator and..........

Where did you cross the concept of angels being highly evolved humans? Or are they not human and we end up like them anyways??? I would love to read about this. What passages are you refering to. You say it with such certainty that I have to assume the concept is actually in the bible or some other highly christian-credible source or you are making some sort of leap here.

Bibliography please!?!?

[Syn7]

That statement is not totally incorrect. The forbears of our ape-like ancestors were monkey-like. However, the statement is incorrect in that our most recent ancestor was an ape-like animal akin to the chimp and bonobo. Here is a chart comparing the arm to leg ratio of bonobos (who share 98.6% of our DNA according to the genome project) and australopithecus, an early human ancestor who lived some 4 million years ago. Some primatologists consider the bonobo to be a model for the joint human-chimp ancestor who lived 7 million years ago.

http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/OurInnerApe/photos/zihlman.jpg

I'm not a big fan of the way science-deniers use the term because it is so loaded with false misconceptions. The idea that humans were separate from and held dominion over animals first appeared in the bible. The ancient Greeks spread the idea that animals were mindless automatons, while humans were the pinnacle of nature because we could think and feel. This was expounded during the 17th century by the French philosopher Descartes. Yet, research has shown that animals, especially our ape cousins, are far more intelligent than what we give them credit for. Most importantly, our close genetic relatedness to chimps and the other great apes shows that we are ourselves apes. We just have less hair, upright posture, and more brains.

My mother just so happens to be one of the people who parrots this phrase. She is not a terribly religions women, and she is pretty intelligent considering that she is a radiation therapist and a billing analyst, but she just can’t accept the evidence. That’s primarily because her religious views are entrenched and she doesn’t feel the need to read up on the subject. This is a classic mistake that many people make. Some do look for information, but they usually get it from biased religious apologetic websites.


Saying we have a common ancestor with all apes and saying "we come from monkeys" is not the same thing. One is either misinterpreted or meant to be misinterpreted and the other is a valid verifiable provable truth. Not merely fact, but truth. There is a difference. Fact is consensus, truth is truth. I doubt any of this is in dispute here with the cats in this thread. No need to hash it out. Does anyone here not understand the common ancestor thang?


Anyways the statement "we come from monkeys" is absolutely 100% false. In every way you look at it. It's somewhat complicated at first but only some monkeys share a common parvorder with apes and humans... and no monkeys are hominoids whereas all apes are. Humans are h0monini which is also the same class for some apes but not all and NEVER monkeys. Understand? We are both simiiformes but that is our last common juncture and calling it "monkeys" is so freakin' off, it's laughable. It isn't quite as ignorant as believing a dolphin is a fish, but it's pretty close and almost as misinformed.

One thing you are right about is that we are most closely related to the genus pan which is bonobos and chimps, they are our closest living h0monin relatives. And for the record we are h0mosapiansapians. No I didn't stutter. As for apes, the hylobatidae#now gibbons# split first and then the pongo#urangs# split second then the gorillini which left the h0monini which eventually branched into humans chimps and bonobos. Of course this is a very basic nutshell explanation, but it seemed called for at this point.


Anyone ever seen how bonobos play ball tag? They're h0rny lil fukcers. They give a whole new meaning to flirting.

[Empty_Cup]

Anybody see this article that came out recently?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19184370

Also, because I've seen some misconceptions out there of the actual mechanism of evolution (i.e. how it works) here is a reference that explains some more:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_14
and, of course the wikipedia page :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

An important point about the theory of evolution is that it is natural selection which is the mechanism of evolution. Natural, random variation within a species provides the background within which this mechanism can occur. This is subtly different from a common misconception that organisms actively change themselves to adapt to their environment.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The only question that I want to ask a religious person is if God created the universe then why did he create so many stars?

If I'm the God, I'll create earth (for life forms), sun (for daytime light source), moon (for evening light source), and stop right there.

A valid question, I'll ask HIM next time we speak :)

I asked and He said none of my business....:mad:

On a serious note, we have to understand and acknowledge that the (our) universe is the way it is because it can't be any other way.
The universe cam to be in an instant of amazing power and energy and what we know of it tells us that there are precise factors that make the universe the way it is, gravity for example, of the gravatational constant was too much, the universe would have imploded, too little, it would have been "flung apart".

To wonder why things are THIS way is to assume that in THIS universe they could have been any other and, so far, science has shown us that there are reasons for everything (so far).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Or maybe god is just one step above us in the pyramid and just seems godly even tho he has a creator and his creator has a creator and his creator has a creator and..........

Where did you cross the concept of angels being highly evolved humans? Or are they not human and we end up like them anyways??? I would love to read about this. What passages are you refering to. You say it with such certainty that I have to assume the concept is actually in the bible or some other highly christian-credible source or you are making some sort of leap here.

Bibliography please!?!?

No, angels are not "highly evolved humans", they are highly evolved beings that are NOT human BUT that we humans will, potentially "evolve" to ourselves.
To a certain degree of course.
Luke 20-
34Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Parallels to Mark 12:
25“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

We end up like them but do NOT become them ( their particular "species").
According to Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, he implies that we may be even MORE than them, since we will "judge the angels" ( perhaps a reference to judging the fallen ones).

[Empty_Cup]

No, angels are not "highly evolved humans", they are highly evolved beings that are NOT human BUT that we humans will, potentially "evolve" to ourselves.
To a certain degree of course.
Luke 20-
34Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Parallels to Mark 12:
25“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

We end up like them but do NOT become them ( their particular "species").
According to Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, he implies that we may be even MORE than them, since we will "judge the angels" ( perhaps a reference to judging the fallen ones).

SR, I respect your freedom to believe whatever you wish but disagree in using the Bible as a reference to provide any kind of evidence for angel's existence. As I'm aware there is currently no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

[David Jamieson]

SR, I respect your freedom to believe whatever you wish but disagree in using the Bible as a reference to provide any kind of evidence for angel's existence. As I'm aware there is currently no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

religious texts and treatises are the only texts and treatises that provide writing on angels really.

So, it is belief and it is based in religiosity. Not in scientific evidence.

I believe there are beings other than humans in this universe with equal or better levels of intelligence and ability than us. I believe that these beings, if they ever visited other planets such as ours would be mistaken for gods or angels or what have you by a more ignorant species.

It's hard to find an more ignorant species than humans. At this point, there is no evidence that what I believe is true either. :)

Belief and truth are two different things and shouldn't be passed off as equal. I agree. truth supersedes any and all held belief in my opinion.

[sanjuro_ronin]

SR, I respect your freedom to believe whatever you wish but disagree in using the Bible as a reference to provide any kind of evidence for angel's existence. As I'm aware there is currently no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

Dude, He asked me "what passages" I was referring to about humans becoming like the angels.
Where did you think he meant by "passages" ??

The bible is a valid area in which to expand on biblical issues, it is NOT a valid area on which to expand on science or needle point for that matter.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Belief and truth are two different things and shouldn't be passed off as equal. I agree. truth supersedes any and all held belief in my opinion.

Truth is a belief that has been prove to be correct.
Everything we think is a belief, everything is proceeded by a belief.
Truth doesn't carry any more or less weight than a belief, unless we are talking about concrete truths such as mathematical truths.
Most truths we have are abstract truths based on perception.
As the old saying goes, "what is truth?"

[MasterKiller]

He could but then it wouldn't be THIS Universe, would it?

Right. This universe where where kids get cancer, people starve because of famine and drought, and it's OK to kill women you rape if they don't marry you.

[ghostexorcist]

Saying we have a common ancestor with all apes and saying "we come from monkeys" is not the same thing. One is either misinterpreted or meant to be misinterpreted and the other is a valid verifiable provable truth. Not merely fact, but truth. There is a difference. Fact is consensus, truth is truth. I doubt any of this is in dispute here with the cats in this thread. No need to hash it out. Does anyone here not understand the common ancestor thang?

Anyways the statement "we come from monkeys" is absolutely 100% false. In every way you look at it. It's somewhat complicated at first but only some monkeys share a common parvorder with apes and humans... and no monkeys are hominoids whereas all apes are. Humans are h0monini which is also the same class for some apes but not all and NEVER monkeys. Understand? We are both simiiformes but that is our last common juncture and calling it "monkeys" is so freakin' off, it's laughable. It isn't quite as ignorant as believing a dolphin is a fish, but it's pretty close and almost as misinformed.

One thing you are right about is that we are most closely related to the genus pan which is bonobos and chimps, they are our closest living h0monin relatives. And for the record we are h0mosapiansapians. No I didn't stutter. As for apes, the hylobatidae#now gibbons# split first and then the pongo#urangs# split second then the gorillini which left the h0monini which eventually branched into humans chimps and bonobos. Of course this is a very basic nutshell explanation, but it seemed called for at this point.

I'm a physical anthropology major with an emphasis on primatology, so I fully understand what you are talking about. I still stand by what I said before about the forebears of our ape-like ancestors being monkey-like. The lineage that would produce modern apes split from that of old world monkeys around 30 million years ago. (Gibbons, the lesser ape, branched out around 20 million years ago and they are more monkey-like in anatomy and lifestyle than the apes who came after them.) Our ancestors were neither modern apes nor modern monkeys, hence the reason I said "monkey-like." I guess better terms to use would be "proto-ape" and "proto-monkey." We are both on the same page, I just think you initially misunderstood what I was trying to say in my first post.


Anyone ever seen how bonobos play ball tag? They're h0rny lil fukcers. They give a whole new meaning to flirting.

I've read several books on the the bonobo (one of which is where I first saw the above diagram). It would be surprising to people to learn that they also regularly take part in h o m o sexual activity (d a m n filter). For instance, when a new female enters a group she will try to ingratiate herself by performing what is known as "GG Rubbing" with other females. I'm sure you guys can figure that out without me elaborating. The males do stuff too. Anyways, sexual activity is the glue that holds their society together.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Right. This universe where where kids get cancer, people starve because of famine and drought, and it's OK to kill women you rape if they don't marry you.

Yep, that's the one.
Evolution at work son, don't be a hater !!
:D

[jdhowland]

It's amusing and a little exasperating to hear of people denying human evolution as being against fundamental Christian teaching when the concept was Christian to begin with.

Carl Linnaeus, the inventor of modern taxonomy was attempting to order biological forms to accord with their presumed relationship to God.

Of course the old idea of advancement towards an ideal form is passe in modern biology. We seem to adapt to current conditions, not towards a future goal (but this cannot be denied either to those who choose to believe in it). The oxygen saturated atmosphere in the days of the old megafauna would probably kill us if we had to live in it. They were perfectly adapted.

[Jimbo]

The only question that I want to ask a religious person is if God created the universe then why did he create so many stars?

If I'm the God, I'll create earth (for life forms), sun (for daytime light source), moon (for evening light source), and stop right there.

Maybe those stars are the suns of other earth-like planets with life of their own? The entire universe doesn't necessarily revolve around us to the exclusion of everything else.

[Lucas]

I think in terms of evolution and religion, religion kind of has to be in accordance with evolution. Which one has the most evidence to support its existance? The way I see it, for any religion to deny the existance of evolution, is to deny its own validity. For example: The Titan Helios was believed to draw the sun across the sky each day with his chariot. We know for a fact that this is not true, by this and many other facts we know, the Greek mythos cannot be validated as anything other than a myth.

If there is a God and an afterlife and all that jazz, it really doesnt matter what happens to us here. This flesh is impermanent. Now I'm not saying awful things are ok to have happen, but they happen. Actually, there is more evidence in this history of ours to support the fact that you cannot change that. Ever. Horrible things always have, and always will happen, its just a part of humanity. If there is an afterlife, the rest of eternity is a very long time to continue to be aware of existance, and to understand the existance of atrocities.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If there is a God and an afterlife and all that jazz, it really doesnt matter what happens to us here. This flesh is impermanent. Now I'm not saying awful things are ok to have happen, but they happen. Actually, there is more evidence in this history of ours to support the fact that you cannot change that. Ever. Horrible things always have, and always will happen, its just a part of humanity. If there is an afterlife, the rest of eternity is a very long time to continue to be aware of existance, and to understand the existance of atrocities.

Speaking as a Christian, what happens HERE AND NOW is very important because, like our Jewish brothers, we are stewards of creation and it is our job as the dominate species to take care of this planet and all its inhabitants.
That is the first lesson of Genesis.
The world is what it is and human are to ADAPT to this planet and care for it.
The things that WE CAN change are our responsibility to change and we will have to answer for our lack of activity in regards to our fellow humans, animals and this planet.
That bad things happen is part of the natural state of things, either directly caused by Man's fall OR by the nature of man NOT living in harmony with his environment.

That for us there is an afterlife makes us MORE aware and responsible for THIS life, not less.

[Lucas]

Oh I do agree that what happens here and now is important, but what happens to us is done. If it has happened to us, it is the past and cannot be changed. So from my point of view, its irrelevant in terms of trying to control it, because it has already happened. But we can learn from it, and its that knowledge that can create change that is needed. It's what we do, have done, and will do that is important.

I do see your point in regards to ending the cycle of harm. And I agree that it is the best thing that could ever happen to us. I guess from my point of view, seeing that it's never been done, (I suppose that does not necessarily mean it cannot be done), it's just that I don't see humanity every becoming a one, all embracing force that all adheres to the same ideologies, or beliefs. Its that aspect that makes me say it will never end. There will always be evil men, imo. I guess the apocolypse would take care of things...bring it on! :eek:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Oh I do agree that what happens here and now is important, but what happens to us is done. If it has happened to us, it is the past and cannot be changed. So from my point of view, its irrelevant in terms of trying to control it, because it has already happened. But we can learn from it, and its that knowledge that can create change that is needed. It's what we do, have done, and will do that is important.

I do see your point in regards to ending the cycle of harm. And I agree that it is the best thing that could ever happen to us. I guess from my point of view, seeing that it's never been done, (I suppose that does not necessarily mean it cannot be done), it's just that I don't see humanity every becoming a one, all embracing force that all adheres to the same ideologies, or beliefs. Its that aspect that makes me say it will never end. There will always be evil men, imo. I guess the apocolypse would take care of things...bring it on! :eek:

Well, according to scripture, even the angels rebelled.
Punany does that to beings, immortal or otherwise.
:D

Even after 1000 years of peace under Christ ( according to Revelation), when Satan is released there will still be those that follow Him against Christ for one final battle.
I don't think one can ever be "rid" of evil, free will needs the ability to do evil if doing good is to have any value.
We are not perfect beings and as such, perfection is not attainable to us.

There will always be dissension.

[Lucas]

so then let me ask you this. If there is a 'last battle', the word battle, to me, implies the option to actually lose.

so is it a possibility that lucifer can win that battle? i'm really just curious. i never asked any christians about their thoughts on that before.

[sanjuro_ronin]

so then let me ask you this. If there is a 'last battle', the word battle, to me, implies the option to actually lose.

so is it a possibility that lucifer can win that battle? i'm really just curious. i never asked any christians about their thoughts on that before.

A very good question.
See, the issue is that Lucifer is NOT God's adversary ( God is after all, GOD), he is OUR adversary.
The reason we get "angelic" help is because Lucifer is not alone, the fallen ones are with him.
Free will is obviously a characteristic of angelic beings as well.
So, yes, there is a possibility of losing the battle ( for Us humans) because what is INVISIONED is NOT preordained.
The vision given to John of Patmos was a Revelation of what was happening and what would come to pass and how it would end in a theological sense.
In the ULTIMATE END, however, Humans are the one that decide their own fate and that fate is to either be what we were created to be or something far less.

[Lucas]

so is it a literal apocolypse, actual battle, or is it more of a symbolic of an internalized war within humanity as a whole to overcome our own sins/evils, and as a species reach a degree of enlightenment?

and in turn is mass enlightenment a form of evolution?

[sanjuro_ronin]

so is it a literal apocolypse, actual battle, or is it more of a symbolic of an internalized war within humanity as a whole to overcome our own sins/evils, and as a species reach a degree of enlightenment?

and in turn is mass enlightenment a form of evolution?

Both.
Revelation is about the symbolic ( hence the imagery so typical of apocalyptic Jewish literature) and the future hope.
It speaks to us of the EVERYDAY struggle we have between good and evil BUT also reminds us that A FINAL battle shall be waged.
For that to happen though, the kingdom of God MUST enter into our plane of existence.
An event of that magnitude can NOT be described as anything other than in the terms put forth in Revelation, Daniel, Enoch, Isaiah, etc.

We don't know what John saw, we have what he was able to write down as best he could for the audience of HIS time.
We have to take those images and symbolisims for what they are, typical apocolyptic imagery of the time and culture he was from.

Personally I never focus much on that "end of days" stuff, I take Jesus' words to hear when he said to his dsiciples when THEY asked him about the end:
None of your freaking business !!
:p

[Lucas]

where do non believers fit into the picture? do we get to watch? i'll bring popcorn!

[sanjuro_ronin]

where do non believers fit into the picture? do we get to watch? i'll bring popcorn!

You know, it really isn't that complicated but yes, popcorn is always welcome !

Where do unbelievers fit in all this?
In all the NT, I don't think anyone puts it better than John:
John5 ( selected passages):
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and (W)believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and (X)does not come into judgment, but has (Y)passed out of death into life.

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, (Z)an hour is coming and now is, when (AA)the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who (AB)hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He (AC)gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to (AD)execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for (AE)an hour is coming, in which (AF)all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; (AG)those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.


What we have is that, for the believer, there is no judgment, but for the non-believer, He shall be judged on his deeds and perhaps more importantly ( though not mentioned here), on the INTENT behind their actions.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Of course that refers to the resurrection of the dead and final judgment, NOT the battle(s) between Good and Evil.
IN regards to the final battle:
There will be NO non-believers for THAT one.
All will take sides for there will no longer be any doubt.
Now, you may think,"well, if the big guy makes a grande appeareance, who will take the other side", right?
The point is that there WILL be those opposing Him, regardless.
The saying goes, " even the demons believe and shudder" BUT yet they rebelled, right?

[Lucas]

so for someone who believes but may be mostly a bad person, they get a free pass, but someone who is mostly a good person but does not believe will be judged? like the priests that do little boys dont get judged just because they believe? i get that as long as your intent was not evil the judgement should be mercy...but what about those believers that are not good people?

[sanjuro_ronin]

so for someone who believes but may be mostly a bad person, they get a free pass, but someone who is mostly a good person but does not believe will be judged? like the priests that do little boys dont get judged just because they believe? i get that as long as your intent was not evil the judgement should be mercy...but what about those believers that are not good people?

AH dude, you are way off on that one because, for anyone CLAIMING belief of them MORE will be asked. ( to those that much is given, much is asked).
There is ONE thing that is a guaranteed trip to "hell" and that is to Blasphemy the Holy Spirit and what that means is two fold:
To say one is a believer and to NOT act as one, causing others to stumble from God.
To KNOW the HS ( and by virtue of such God) and to reject Him.

To claim to be a believer INCREASE the stakes dude, not gives you a "get out of jail free card".
Far from that.

[Vajramusti]

Of course that refers to the resurrection of the dead and final judgment, NOT the battle(s) between Good and Evil.
IN regards to the final battle:
There will be NO non-believers for THAT one.
All will take sides for there will no longer be any doubt.
Now, you may think,"well, if the big guy makes a grande appeareance, who will take the other side", right?
The point is that there WILL be those opposing Him, regardless.
The saying goes, " even the demons believe and shudder" BUT yet they rebelled, right?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow- some fantasies!!

[Empty_Cup]

...and what happens to the non-Christians of this world who have a different version of the end of days? i.e. all other religions that far outnumber Christians. In your opinion would they also be involved in the final judgment?

[ghostexorcist]

Why has a thread about evolution turned into a debate over apocalyptic battles at the end of time according to the Judeo-Christian religion? Shouldn't this side discussion be moved to another thread?

[Vajramusti]

This truth and the rest is lies
The flower that once has bloomed
Forever dies

Omar Khayam

[Lucas]

Why has a thread about evolution turned into a debate over apocalyptic battles at the end of time according to the Judeo-Christian religion? Shouldn't this side discussion be moved to another thread?

because thats the way it evolved! :eek:

[Syn7]

A valid question, I'll ask HIM next time we speak :)

I asked and He said none of my business....:mad:

On a serious note, we have to understand and acknowledge that the (our) universe is the way it is because it can't be any other way.
The universe cam to be in an instant of amazing power and energy and what we know of it tells us that there are precise factors that make the universe the way it is, gravity for example, of the gravatational constant was too much, the universe would have imploded, too little, it would have been "flung apart".

To wonder why things are THIS way is to assume that in THIS universe they could have been any other and, so far, science has shown us that there are reasons for everything (so far).

Yeah but not all options within a juncture would automatically lead to bad things. Some things have to be the way they are, no doubt, but there are a ton of things that aren't nearly as significant. I know you were talking about stars, but this is especially true when dealing with evolution. Not all mutations were the only option for survival.

[Syn7]

No, angels are not "highly evolved humans", they are highly evolved beings that are NOT human BUT that we humans will, potentially "evolve" to ourselves.
To a certain degree of course.
Luke 20-
34Jesus said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, 35but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.

Parallels to Mark 12:
25“For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

We end up like them but do NOT become them ( their particular "species").
According to Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, he implies that we may be even MORE than them, since we will "judge the angels" ( perhaps a reference to judging the fallen ones).


Thanx for taking the time, I'll check that out.

[Syn7]

I'm a physical anthropology major with an emphasis on primatology, so I fully understand what you are talking about. I still stand by what I said before about the forebears of our ape-like ancestors being monkey-like. The lineage that would produce modern apes split from that of old world monkeys around 30 million years ago. (Gibbons, the lesser ape, branched out around 20 million years ago and they are more monkey-like in anatomy and lifestyle than the apes who came after them.) Our ancestors were neither modern apes nor modern monkeys, hence the reason I said "monkey-like." I guess better terms to use would be "proto-ape" and "proto-monkey." We are both on the same page, I just think you initially misunderstood what I was trying to say in my first post.



I've read several books on the the bonobo (one of which is where I first saw the above diagram). It would be surprising to people to learn that they also regularly take part in h o m o sexual activity (d a m n filter). For instance, when a new female enters a group she will try to ingratiate herself by performing what is known as "GG Rubbing" with other females. I'm sure you guys can figure that out without me elaborating. The males do stuff too. Anyways, sexual activity is the glue that holds their society together.

That's an awesome career path. I'm jealous.

We come from monkeys and we are monkey like is not the same thing though. There is no truth to we come from monkeys, and you know this. That's all I'm sayin'.

Bonobos are so sexual it's almost funny. I could go on for days, it's so funny to see. They work together much better than chimps too. It seams they are more cooperative, a lil bit less impulsive in that respect. I would love to interact with one on a long term basis.

[Syn7]

SR, I respect your freedom to believe whatever you wish but disagree in using the Bible as a reference to provide any kind of evidence for angel's existence. As I'm aware there is currently no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

He wasn't doing that. He gave me exactly what I asked him for. It wasn't about proving angels exist.

[Syn7]

A very good question.
See, the issue is that Lucifer is NOT God's adversary ( God is after all, GOD), he is OUR adversary.
The reason we get "angelic" help is because Lucifer is not alone, the fallen ones are with him.
Free will is obviously a characteristic of angelic beings as well.
So, yes, there is a possibility of losing the battle ( for Us humans) because what is INVISIONED is NOT preordained.
The vision given to John of Patmos was a Revelation of what was happening and what would come to pass and how it would end in a theological sense.
In the ULTIMATE END, however, Humans are the one that decide their own fate and that fate is to either be what we were created to be or something far less.

How do we know that the last 5000 years wasn't the battle itself? Or maybe it was WWII and the americans really did save the world ;):p

Is it gonna be some b@lls out demons and angels flying around while all the lil people choose sides real quick?

[ghostexorcist]

That's an awesome career path. I'm jealous.

We come from monkeys and we are monkey like is not the same thing though. There is no truth to we come from monkeys, and you know this. That's all I'm sayin'.

Bonobos are so sexual it's almost funny. I could go on for days, it's so funny to see. They work together much better than chimps too. It seams they are more cooperative, a lil bit less impulsive in that respect. I would love to interact with one on a long term basis.

I haven't had a chance to work up close with any chimps or bonobos yet, but I look forward to it. The local zoo has a bonobo colony, so I might try to volunteer there next summer to get some experience with them.

Another reason why bonobos are considered models for our proto-ape ancestor is because they have forward-facing vaginas like humans. They can copulate in the missionary position (http://pygmylorisreid.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/bonobos-mating.jpg) (the picture is not for the easily offended), while all other apes are only capable of doggie style. Sex certainly does play a large part in their more docile nature in comparison to chimps (see my posts here (http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Bonobos-as-models-for-human-ancestors?pid=118384#pid118384) and here (http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-Bonobos-as-models-for-human-ancestors?pid=122159#pid122159) on another forum).

Here is a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1zsSH9UUQtQ)of Kanzi the bonobo making a flake knife to cut a rope. He was shown how to make a proper blade using knapping techniques by an anthropologist, but Kanzi developed his own technique of bashing two rocks together until a sharp flake fell off. Notice how he goes back for a second try when the first flake isn’t sharp enough.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Why has a thread about evolution turned into a debate over apocalyptic battles at the end of time according to the Judeo-Christian religion? Shouldn't this side discussion be moved to another thread?

Lucus asked, I answered.
It was all in good fun.

[sanjuro_ronin]

How do we know that the last 5000 years wasn't the battle itself? Or maybe it was WWII and the americans really did save the world ;):p

Is it gonna be some b@lls out demons and angels flying around while all the lil people choose sides real quick?

Various interpretations are just that and it's all good, really.
High symbolism must be viewed as just that.

Look, looking at judeo-Christian-islamic religiosu mythology, or any other religious mythology for that matter, is fun and can be fascinating and gives us an amazing view of human history and beliefs and such BUT in the end, we do NOT know one way or another.

Maybe the bible is right or maybe it really was aliens, the reality is that we do NOT know.

What we do know is that living organizims adapt to the demands imposed on them bu the environments and because they can do this, they survive.
BUT I do want to make a comment/question:

What amazes me is that, life on this planet has gone through some SERIOUS issues, global catastrophes and yet, Life survives !
Note that this hasn't been the case on any other planet (that we know of ).

[David Jamieson]

We seem to be stuck with an ever present beginners mind on such matters of religion and science.

even our science is not that extremely well developed. Most of the machines we've made from our science are dangerous to us in some way.

We haven't extended the life span although we've improved surviving through childhood for the masses.

We don't take care of our resources.

We don't watch our birthrates and we don't control our birthrates and let them ebb and flow organically.

We practice husbandry on every animal we've ever domesticated including Human slaves, but we do not practice it on ourselves to eliminate disease and genetic failure et al.

Probably more than half of us are still superstitious or unquestioningly religious in our viewpoint and with that / those viewpoints, progress and understanding will be impeded severely. The record shows it and current events show that religion, religiosity and superstitious thought with no foundation in reality still holds us back on legal cases, political standpoints and educational needs.

If we continue to allow people who actually don't know to be the highest seats for us to look at in terms of who gets respected opinion on matters that concern us all, then we will be stuck in a rut for a very long time.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Yeah but not all options within a juncture would automatically lead to bad things. Some things have to be the way they are, no doubt, but there are a ton of things that aren't nearly as significant. I know you were talking about stars, but this is especially true when dealing with evolution. Not all mutations were the only option for survival.

I know that sometimes we think that we KNOW that there MAY have been better options for survival and that MAY be the case but we are only speculating.
I am sure we ( or those much smarter than us) can theorize how the world can be a much better place, how we don;t need earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados and volcanic eruptions BUT to me, the fact that these things are present in EVERY planet means that these things exist for a reason and it falls on US, as intelligent and evolved beings, to adapt to THEM and NOT "ignore and hope it goes away" and then "wail to the heavens" when a "natural disaster" happens and 100's of 1000's die.

EX:
The Tsunami of 2004 was a most horrific event and what was learned from it?
Nature kicks the butt of those that forget it's power.
Flash forward to the tsunami in Japan.

Here is the thing, Japan has a huge history of dealing with Tsunamis and with such a horrific one not to many years before, did they do anything to be able to deal with one in their back yard?
Nope.
Even though they DO HAVE a history of them !

Much like people building over a fault or in an area that has horrific tornadoes EVERY YEAR !

I think it may be time for humans to act as evolved as they THINK they are.

[Dale Dugas]

Nature treats all like straw dogs- Lao Tzu.

[Syn7]

Note that this hasn't been the case on any other planet (that we know of ).

Yeah, key words "that we know of" and given the timeline and amount of space involved, it isn't a surprise that we haven't found life. Statistically speaking, it's like googolplexplex to 1 that there is NOT other life out there, complex or otherwise.

We are just now, with the recent touchdown, looking to see if there was life on mars. Maybe it was an advanced civ like ours or more and evidence is gone cause it's just been so long, or some unimaginable catastrophe. We don't really know yet. Also it isn't out of the realm of possibility that an advanced species would purposely hide from outsiders. We have no real way to confirm that what we see thru things like hubble are actually there. They apear to be, but then I can give you a ton of examples of things that are not as they seem.

I can go on for days about this. Basically the sheer amount of unknowns trump any theory or idea about what may or may not exist or have existed. Don't get me wrong, the theories are very important for progressive movement, but we should always remember that we don't know sh1t, and that includes us not knowing how much we don't know. Unknown unkowns are a motherfukcer, just ask Rumsfeld.

[Syn7]

We seem to be stuck with an ever present beginners mind on such matters of religion and science.

even our science is not that extremely well developed. Most of the machines we've made from our science are dangerous to us in some way.

We haven't extended the life span although we've improved surviving through childhood for the masses.

We don't take care of our resources.

We don't watch our birthrates and we don't control our birthrates and let them ebb and flow organically.

We practice husbandry on every animal we've ever domesticated including Human slaves, but we do not practice it on ourselves to eliminate disease and genetic failure et al.

Probably more than half of us are still superstitious or unquestioningly religious in our viewpoint and with that / those viewpoints, progress and understanding will be impeded severely. The record shows it and current events show that religion, religiosity and superstitious thought with no foundation in reality still holds us back on legal cases, political standpoints and educational needs.

If we continue to allow people who actually don't know to be the highest seats for us to look at in terms of who gets respected opinion on matters that concern us all, then we will be stuck in a rut for a very long time.

Yeah, but we aren't all pulling in the same direction. So far the war has been quite civil. It got a wee bit nasty a few hundred years ago, but the big battles have yet to be fought. Our Economics and politics are in direct conflict with our longterm wellbeing. Untill we deal with that problem we will continue to play this stupid game of tug-of-war that goes nowhere nice.

You sound like a eugenicist David. Unless we all all the sudden got smart enough to choose our mates more appropriately this is something that will end in being oppressive. The lower specimens will bread with the other lower specimens in an attempt to survive and that will create a whole new meaning to the term "underclass". I dunno David, I'm not fully decided yet. but I'm leaning towards the school that believes we all move foreward together or not at all. The only other solution is to completely eradicate the "undesirables". That would make us stronger, in theory, but it would also make us d1ckheads on a magnitude of unprcedented proportions.

[bawang]

if we ever get visited by aliens ,they will bring down the white power structure, and free the peeple of eart from the tentacles of the white man. then we set off fireworks and dance like in return of the jedi.


The only other solution is to completely eradicate the "undesirables". That would make us stronger, in theory, but it would also make us d1ckheads on a magnitude of unprcedented proportions.

the biggest mistake of eugenicists is focusing only on the outside, but not on the inside. ive never heard of eugenicists speak about selecting for morality, restraint or empathy. these traits all have GENETIC factors.

[Syn7]

I know that sometimes we think that we KNOW that there MAY have been better options for survival and that MAY be the case but we are only speculating.
I am sure we ( or those much smarter than us) can theorize how the world can be a much better place, how we don;t need earthquakes and hurricanes and tornados and volcanic eruptions BUT to me, the fact that these things are present in EVERY planet means that these things exist for a reason and it falls on US, as intelligent and evolved beings, to adapt to THEM and NOT "ignore and hope it goes away" and then "wail to the heavens" when a "natural disaster" happens and 100's of 1000's die.

EX:
The Tsunami of 2004 was a most horrific event and what was learned from it?
Nature kicks the butt of those that forget it's power.
Flash forward to the tsunami in Japan.

Here is the thing, Japan has a huge history of dealing with Tsunamis and with such a horrific one not to many years before, did they do anything to be able to deal with one in their back yard?
Nope.
Even though they DO HAVE a history of them !

Much like people building over a fault or in an area that has horrific tornadoes EVERY YEAR !

I think it may be time for humans to act as evolved as they THINK they are.

Thought you had an IQ of 180 SR? That makes you the smartest cat here by like 40 points and puts you in the top 100 on the planet. :eek:

Japan didn't change anything because they couldn't sell it politically until after a disaster.

Smart people don't build on fault lines SR, greedy people and stupid people do. The goal is to take as many out of the stupid column and get them in the informed column. As for the truly greedy who play fast and loose with everything but their own net worth, I'm not opposed to a lil ass kicking in that respect.

The only other reason for having poorly placed living areas is tradition. People who have lived there forever and can't even begin to contemplate leaving. I guess that is their choice, but I don't think taxpayers should foot the same bill every year coz some cats don't want to admit they need to move. If you wanna live in tornado valley, fine, but don't expect me to pay for the inevitable mess. As for freak occurrences like the tsunami, these are different and somewhat rare. Once in a life time type stuff. Whereas the tornado victims are every freakin year. Apples and Oranges, better yet, apples and onions seems more apt.

[Drake]

if we ever get visited by aliens ,they will bring down the white power structure, and free the peeple of eart from the tentacles of the white man. then we set off fireworks and dance like in return of the jedi.



the biggest mistake of eugenicists is focusing only on the outside, but not on the inside. ive never heard of eugenicists speak about selecting for morality, restraint or empathy. these traits all have GENETIC factors.

Coming from a place where people cheer as heads are caved in with rocks, children are sodomized, and people are blown up by their own bombs, I would have to agree.

Some cultures ****ing suck.

[Hebrew Hammer]

The only other solution is to completely eradicate the "undesirables". That would make us stronger, in theory, but it would also make us d1ckheads on a magnitude of unprcedented proportions.

This sounds much better in the original German.

[Syn7]

if we ever get visited by aliens ,they will bring down the white power structure, and free the peeple of eart from the tentacles of the white man. then we set off fireworks and dance like in return of the jedi.



the biggest mistake of eugenicists is focusing only on the outside, but not on the inside. ive never heard of eugenicists speak about selecting for morality, restraint or empathy. these traits all have GENETIC factors.

I have... It isn't just about bone structure. All factors are considered by the more serious eugenicists.

[Syn7]

This sounds much better in the original German.

Zee undesiiiiirablze muzt goe!




Better?

Word to bawangs moms!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Thought you had an IQ of 180 SR? That makes you the smartest cat here by like 40 points and puts you in the top 100 on the planet. :eek:

Japan didn't change anything because they couldn't sell it politically until after a disaster.

Smart people don't build on fault lines SR, greedy people and stupid people do. The goal is to take as many out of the stupid column and get them in the informed column. As for the truly greedy who play fast and loose with everything but their own net worth, I'm not opposed to a lil ass kicking in that respect.

The only other reason for having poorly placed living areas is tradition. People who have lived there forever and can't even begin to contemplate leaving. I guess that is their choice, but I don't think taxpayers should foot the same bill every year coz some cats don't want to admit they need to move. If you wanna live in tornado valley, fine, but don't expect me to pay for the inevitable mess. As for freak occurrences like the tsunami, these are different and somewhat rare. Once in a life time type stuff. Whereas the tornado victims are every freakin year. Apples and Oranges, better yet, apples and onions seems more apt.

You may have missed my point and it has zero to do with intelligence.
My point was that, as humans, we are able to and obligated to do much better and that we don't, is OUR fault.
AS the old saying goes, "you can put a man on the moon but you can't fix *insert problem here*"

[Syn7]

No, I understood what you were saying. I don't see it quite the way you do, but I understand what your saying. Meez cans reeds gud!;)

I mentioned the IQ thing because of your lil side note about smarter people. I'm just sayin' If you really do have an IQ of 180 you are wasting you talents. That figure puts you in the top 0.0001% that is the 99.9999th percentile, those are stats for like 172 or so. That literally means that there aren't very many people smarter than you at 180. Dudes with IQ's of like 150 have absolutely blown me away with their insight. So far you have not. You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but I mean, come on...

[sanjuro_ronin]

No, I understood what you were saying. I don't see it quite the way you do, but I understand what your saying. Meez cans reeds gud!;)

I mentioned the IQ thing because of your lil side note about smarter people. I'm just sayin' If you really do have an IQ of 180 you are wasting you talents. That figure puts you in the top 0.0001% that is the 99.9999th percentile, those are stats for like 172 or so. That literally means that there aren't very many people smarter than you at 180. Dudes with IQ's of like 150 have absolutely blown me away with their insight. So far you have not. You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but I mean, come on...

I had my IQ tested at Ryerson University when I was finishing up my degree in Mechanical Engineering, it was something they were doing at the time.
It was higher than the 169 I had a few years before when I was going to the University of Toronto getting my degree in Business.
If you wan the exact number, I can't recall.
You really should put THAT much "faith" in testes by the way, the only difference between that test and the one I took earlier at UofT was that I learned how to take the test ( the one at Uof T was the first one I had ever taken).
By the way, I recall that, when I did take the test at UofT, there had been a few guys that had scored in the "genius level", whatever that means.

As for "impressing" you with my insight...dude...seriously?

I have found that people get impressed (with others) when people state things they AGREE with and have notices that far less get "impressed" when people point out things they disagree with.

But that is just an observation, so...

[bawang]

isnt ryerson like 99 percent women students? you must have been the supreme pimp daddy over there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

isnt ryerson like 99 percent women students? you must have been the supreme pimp daddy over there.

No comment.
:D

[bawang]

i first wanted to go there for the poonany, but i kept being hit on by lesbians. they thought i was extreme butch.

[Syn7]

I had my IQ tested at Ryerson University when I was finishing up my degree in Mechanical Engineering, it was something they were doing at the time.
It was higher than the 169 I had a few years before when I was going to the University of Toronto getting my degree in Business.
If you wan the exact number, I can't recall.
You really should put THAT much "faith" in testes by the way, the only difference between that test and the one I took earlier at UofT was that I learned how to take the test ( the one at Uof T was the first one I had ever taken).
By the way, I recall that, when I did take the test at UofT, there had been a few guys that had scored in the "genius level", whatever that means.

As for "impressing" you with my insight...dude...seriously?

I have found that people get impressed (with others) when people state things they AGREE with and have notices that far less get "impressed" when people point out things they disagree with.

But that is just an observation, so...

I tons of faith in my testes bruh!

Honestly, I don't put that much faith in tests and I also understand that success requires more than pure intelligence. What I am saying is that a person with an IQ over 170 is either one of the most intelligent people on the planet or the facts are wrong. I don't want to call you a liar because I like you, but it is highly unlikely. And if you do have that score you can get some serious grant money for any project you want. It's worth pursuing and is no hassle at all. There is no reason not to. You can support your fams with whatever you do for a living or you can do it by researching anything and everything your heart desires. Don't tell me you get all that from your day job whether you love your work or not.


I am impressed when somebody says something so out the box that it changes the way I see something. You have not done that. Of course I don't expect you to have any desire what so ever to impress me, but then that goes to my point. If one isn't even trying and still gets the job done, now that is a really insightful person, at least in whatever subject is being talked about.


As for the tests themselves, there are more than one type of quotient and they all score differently. Where 140 is amazing in one, it's simply above average in another. Every day it gets more and more complicated. Knowing exactly what test you took would put a ton of context to this story. And for the record, I scored 167 on an IQ test given to me by an Ametuer for practice at UBC and I know for a fact that is not my true score. The test givers could have been sh1t and you should not have taken the same test twice. That being said, honestly, I really do hope you are that smart. It's a resource I would put great value on.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I tons of faith in my testes bruh!

Honestly, I don't put that much faith in tests and I also understand that success requires more than pure intelligence. What I am saying is that a person with an IQ over 170 is either one of the most intelligent people on the planet or the facts are wrong. I don't want to call you a liar because I like you, but it is highly unlikely. And if you do have that score you can get some serious grant money for any project you want. It's worth pursuing and is no hassle at all. There is no reason not to. You can support your fams with whatever you do for a living or you can do it by researching anything and everything your heart desires. Don't tell me you get all that from your day job whether you love your work or not.


I am impressed when somebody says something so out the box that it changes the way I see something. You have not done that. Of course I don't expect you to have any desire what so ever to impress me, but then that goes to my point. If one isn't even trying and still gets the job done, now that is a really insightful person, at least in whatever subject is being talked about.


As for the tests themselves, there are more than one type of quotient and they all score differently. Where 140 is amazing in one, it's simply above average in another. Every day it gets more and more complicated. Knowing exactly what test you took would put a ton of context to this story. And for the record, I scored 167 on an IQ test given to me by an Ametuer for practice at UBC and I know for a fact that is not my true score. The test givers could have been sh1t and you should not have taken the same test twice. That being said, honestly, I really do hope you are that smart. It's a resource I would put great value on.

I can appreciate your sentiments and respect your views of course.
I don't lie and fine no need to lie, even less so on a internet forum, LOL !
I don't know what type of IQ test it was so I am willing to accept that it may not have been as "stringent" as it could have been ( my ego is not so fragile that it would bother me in the slightest).
As for being blown away by what some says as a sign of anything...well... have read Dawkins and Hawkins and others and NOT been blown away AT ALL, I personally do NOT find that a good "barometer" for anything and find those two ( for example) to be quite intelligent people.
Then again I was not "blown away" by Pascal, Kant or any other philosopher that I have read also, so...

[ghostexorcist]

Has anyone here heard of "Y-Chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve"? These are naturally not the Adam and Even of the bible. They are the man and woman from whom all humans alive today are descended. The weird thing is that both of them lived thousands of years apart. How could this be? The men and women of the original small human population of Africa passed on their genes just like everybody else does. But not all of those separate lineages survived. Some of the original people either didn't have children due to injury, disease, or death, or someone in their lineage down the line didn't have children due to those same reasons. Countless lineages have gone extinct just like different animals species. The Mitochondrial DNA (that passed from a mother to her children) of one woman living 200,000 years ago was lucky enough to survive the dangers of prehistoric life to be passed on to every human alive. The Y chromosome of one man living around 50,000 years after her was also lucky enough to survive. The chart below is a good illustration. Notice how some of the top lineages either don't get started or stop only a few generations down. The black figures represent Mitochondrial Eve's lineage:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution.svg

[Syn7]

I can appreciate your sentiments and respect your views of course.
I don't lie and fine no need to lie, even less so on a internet forum, LOL !
I don't know what type of IQ test it was so I am willing to accept that it may not have been as "stringent" as it could have been ( my ego is not so fragile that it would bother me in the slightest).
As for being blown away by what some says as a sign of anything...well... have read Dawkins and Hawkins and others and NOT been blown away AT ALL, I personally do NOT find that a good "barometer" for anything and find those two ( for example) to be quite intelligent people.
Then again I was not "blown away" by Pascal, Kant or any other philosopher that I have read also, so...

Yeah, cause none of them had an IQ in the top 99.9999999th percentile, and you didn't get to sit face to face and ask questions.


I don't think you are lying, but I do think you may be mistaken. Or just took a bad test or had bad testers. If you don't even know which test you took then I doubt we'll ever know the truth unless you do it again, properly.

SJ, when you talk to a true genius, you know it. Maybe not right away, and maybe not if you don't get into anything beyond the superficial, but if you go past that you will be impressed. This I promise you. Since genius isn't really as rare as people seem to think, I'm willing to bet you've already had an experience like I have described. The trick is to make sure that you are intellectually impressed, not emotionally. There is a HUGE difference. I'm talking intellectual here. I am not talking about inspiration.

For the record, I am referring to a high functioning genius when I say "genius". Not just some cat who simply scored a 140.

[Syn7]

Has anyone here heard of "Y-Chromosomal Adam" and "Mitochondrial Eve"? These are naturally not the Adam and Even of the bible. They are the man and woman from whom all humans alive today are descended. The weird thing is that both of them lived thousands of years apart. How could this be? The men and women of the original small human population of Africa passed on their genes just like everybody else does. But not all of those separate lineages survived. Some of the original people either didn't have children due to injury, disease, or death, or someone in their lineage down the line didn't have children due to those same reasons. Countless lineages have gone extinct just like different animals species. The Mitochondrial DNA (that passed from a mother to her children) of one woman living 200,000 years ago was lucky enough to survive the dangers of prehistoric life to be passed on to every human alive. The Y chromosome of one man living around 50,000 years after her was also lucky enough to survive. The chart below is a good illustration. Notice how some of the top lineages either don't get started or stop only a few generations down. The black figures represent Mitochondrial Eve's lineage:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution.svg

Yeah, spencer Wells has done some great documentaries for the layman.

If anyone is truly interested I would suggest first checking out The Journey of Man; A Genetic Oddyssey. It's a great place to start if you don't have any background.



by the way, your chart didn't load. Maybe it's just me, dunno. Just sayin... Here's the link for anyone that wants to see it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/MtDNA-MRCA-generations-Evolution.svg

[ghostexorcist]

Yeah, spencer Wells has done some great documentaries for the layman.

If anyone is truly interested I would suggest first checking out The Journey of Man; A Genetic Oddyssey. It's a great place to start if you don't have any background.

by the way, your chart didn't load. Maybe it's just me, dunno. Just sayin... Here's the link for anyone that wants to see it.

Here is a PBS documentary on Spencer Wells' work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MLh775nMBHQ

The chart shows up for me. That's weird.

[Syn7]

Here is a PBS documentary on Spencer Wells' work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MLh775nMBHQ

The chart shows up for me. That's weird.

That link is the Journey of Man.

He has an mtdna doc too, but the Journey of man deals specifically with the Y chromosome and the migratory paths of man.

[ghostexorcist]

That link is the Journey of Man.

He has an mtdna doc too, but the Journey of man deals specifically with the Y chromosome and the migratory paths of man.

This is the one I was thinking of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkexKLCak5M