By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Greatest scientific evidence for evolution?

Slimebeast on 11 October 2009
bdbdbd said:
@Slimebeast: We didn't come from gorillas. We and gorillas share a common ancestor.
That's basically pretty common misunderstanding of the consept. At the time when humans started to become its own breed, the other apes weren't what they are today either.

Closest genetical relative to us is bonobono with chimpanzee as number two. Gorilla is much more distant.

It was a joke lol. See I love that kind of humor.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 11 October 2009

Btw, I don't think it's proven Bonobos are closer genetically to us than chimpanzees are. I think it's just speculation because Bonobos are showing homosexual and other behaviours that reminds of human behaviour.



bdbdbd on 11 October 2009

@Slimebeast: Well, every one who is a member of christian church, is a christian. I myself am an atheist, but as a member of christian church, in every population chart, i'm christian. Besides, in my namegiving, the christening (or what's the correct term) was made.

In the 1969(?) religion conference, christianity was defined so, that trinity was included.

Trinity keeps 3 god charcters inside, which makes it polyteist.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Slimebeast on 11 October 2009
bdbdbd said:
@Slimebeast: Well, every one who is a member of christian church, is a christian. I myself am an atheist, but as a member of christian church, in every population chart, i'm christian. Besides, in my namegiving, the christening (or what's the correct term) was made.

In the 1969(?) religion conference, christianity was defined so, that trinity was included.

Trinity keeps 3 god charcters inside, which makes it polyteist.

You really believe both of this? Despite the fact that 99% of believers in Christianity disagree?



Baroque_Dude on 11 October 2009
Final-Fan said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Final-Fan said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Final-Fan said:
And at what point exactly did the Pope say it's OK to "believe in evolution"?  Because otherwise that whole part of the post falls apart.  

Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that. Therefore, I replied. However, that statement, whether true or false, insn't the only one to regret to the Pope, but that's not the topic, here.

Good night.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

No, in the quoted post he said nothing of the sort about what the Pope said.  Nothing of what highwaystar101 said about what the Pope said supports what you apparently got out of it.  

About the Christian "bias" if you will. I've never understood the whole evolution/big bang Christian thing anyway. Obviously there are a few problems between the two but I believe it was pope John Paul II who said something like...

"Evolution and the big bang are perfectly compatible theories with Christianity, as long as long as you accept god was the creator then why couldn't evolution and the big bang just be his methods of creation?".

I think that was severely paraphrased as it was from memory, but you get the point. If there is a god then why shouldn't these be his methods of creation? They obviously work, regardless of who or what started it.

He didn't say that the Pope said that the ideas in those theories were something Christians could put faith in, just that the theories did not contradict Christianity.  

Although now that I'm thinking about it, I'm interested in why ... no, no, I think it's best to avoid expanding this.   

Kind of messed, don't you think?
- highwaystar101 indeed quoted the Pope.
- The Pope said that both elements in discussion, here, are compatible.
- I criticized what the Pope said.
That's it.

I don't think that you and me should actually argue on that, mate. Maybe you didn't understand or I explained something not the best way at some point.

I must leave, now.
Good night.

Here's something you can read in the morning, then:  

One may embrace creationism or not, but if you call yourself a Christian (that means not only accepting Christ as your Saviour, but also accepting what He taught and He didn't change the Old Testament nor the Creation account), it's utterly stupid to believe "in" evolution. I repeat, I'm not referring to discuss if evolution is true or not, I'm pointing out that saying to be Christian and believing in evolution isn't simply compatible. If you believe in evolution, good for you, but do "Christianity" a favour and don't call yourself a Christian because you're rejecting the very base.

Some people (both Christians and atheists/agnostics) understand this very well while others seem to keep smashing their heads against a wall, by saying that is compatible. Thank you, Pope, for one more of your stellar contributions to Christianity.

Now, although a close reading reveals that you don't explicitly combine "believing IN evolution (and claiming to be Christian) is stupid" and "the Pope's quote is stupid", your post seems constructed to give that impression.  If giving that impression is both unintentional AND contrary to what you meant to say, well, whatever.  

[edit:  Plus you're contradicting yourself now.  When I asked where the Pope said it's OK to "believe in evolution", you said, "Well, I "believed in" highwaystar101, he mentioned that."  But now you are backing up and claiming you never meant to argue that, only that the Pope is wrong about evolution theory being "compatible" with Christianity, and nothing more.  If that was true you would not have said that -- it makes no sense.  

[Also, you're wrong when you say that HWS101 "quoted" the Pope; he explicitly said it was a paraphrase at best.]

You got muddled.

I explain it all in my posts. Read them again. You're the only user that is arguing with me because "you said that he said, but you said what you're now saying that you don't said, etc.". Others are arguing with me because of what I said, so I think that, although not sharing my opinion, they understood my point.

Read my posts again, I don't want to go in circles. Thank you.



"I think that I don't think."

- Soli Deo Gloria -

The FUTURE is the FUTURE. Now... B_E_L_I_E_V_E!

Around the Network
Baroque_Dude on 11 October 2009
bdbdbd said:
@Baroque_dude: Christian means a member of christian church, so anyone who is a member, is christian. No matter whether the person believes in gods or doesn't.

Christianity is polyteistic and requires supporting the trinity of father, son and holy spirit. For example monoteistic Jehovas Witnesses aren't christian, although JW otherwise would fit christianity.

Slimebeast took my reply.

Christianity is not polytheistic. You must understand it the right way (maybe reading the Bible, you will).



"I think that I don't think."

- Soli Deo Gloria -

The FUTURE is the FUTURE. Now... B_E_L_I_E_V_E!

Baroque_Dude on 11 October 2009
Rath said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Rath said:
@Baroque. I think it is supremely arrogant to believe that your interpretation of Christianity is the only one that is really Christian.

I'm feel kind of bad that a serious user like you has misjudged me.

I'm not arrogant, at all, just for expressing my opinion. Don't you express yours? Does that make you arrogant? Did I say that you're arrogant because you're fighting here who believes in intelligent design (in other words, you're explaining that your opinion is better and why)? I don't agree with your opinion, but I didn't call you arrogant for this.

What you said is like: "you're arrogant because you think that your opinion is the best".

...

If I said that my particular beliefs were the only true version of atheism I would indeed be being arrogant. However I am quite understandingof the fact that atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs.

 

I have no problem with your version of Christianity, it's your claiming that other peoples view of Christianity 'isn't really Christianity' that annoys me.

"atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs".

Christianity isn't the same, because yes, there are some spots that are subject to discussion, but we have some elementary beliefs. It's like you saying that "I don't like when other atheists say that there's maybe some kind of god, because in that case they should call themselves agnostics, not atheists".

But ok, ok, I'm an awful arrogant, be annoyed. I can't do anything to change your mind about me because I already took an effort to explain it again, it depends on how you understand what I say.



"I think that I don't think."

- Soli Deo Gloria -

The FUTURE is the FUTURE. Now... B_E_L_I_E_V_E!

Kasz216 on 11 October 2009
Baroque_Dude said:
Rath said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Rath said:
@Baroque. I think it is supremely arrogant to believe that your interpretation of Christianity is the only one that is really Christian.

I'm feel kind of bad that a serious user like you has misjudged me.

I'm not arrogant, at all, just for expressing my opinion. Don't you express yours? Does that make you arrogant? Did I say that you're arrogant because you're fighting here who believes in intelligent design (in other words, you're explaining that your opinion is better and why)? I don't agree with your opinion, but I didn't call you arrogant for this.

What you said is like: "you're arrogant because you think that your opinion is the best".

...

If I said that my particular beliefs were the only true version of atheism I would indeed be being arrogant. However I am quite understandingof the fact that atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs.

 

I have no problem with your version of Christianity, it's your claiming that other peoples view of Christianity 'isn't really Christianity' that annoys me.

"atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs".

Christianity isn't the same, because yes, there are some spots that are subject to discussion, but we have some elementary beliefs. It's like you saying that "I don't like when other atheists say that there's maybe some kind of god, because in that case they should call themselves agnostics, not atheists".

But ok, ok, I'm an awful arrogant, be annoyed. I can't do anything to change your mind about me because I already took an effort to explain it again, it depends on how you understand what I say.

Christanity has some elementry beliefs NOW.

Christianity was not always so.  Christanity used to be one of the most diverse religions out there until it was mainstraimed and widdled down by the romans itno an exact "Roman" way of christanity by mans hands.

Most of these core beliefs were made so then.  Including creationism.

You shouldn't be so angry at people who wish to undue some of the harm the Roman empire has done to Christanity.

The only REAL core christian belief is that Jesus died for peoples sins as a martyr... a symbol of god accepting us despite us mostly using freewill to be selfish, prideful dicks.

Even Jesus' divinity wasn't a core christian principle until after the romans took over.

The community was actually split fairly even to that fact.  The Divinity folks winning out mostly because it would play better with people.  Rome having a fine history of demi-gods already. 



Slimebeast on 11 October 2009
Kasz216 said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Rath said:
Baroque_Dude said:
Rath said:
@Baroque. I think it is supremely arrogant to believe that your interpretation of Christianity is the only one that is really Christian.

I'm feel kind of bad that a serious user like you has misjudged me.

I'm not arrogant, at all, just for expressing my opinion. Don't you express yours? Does that make you arrogant? Did I say that you're arrogant because you're fighting here who believes in intelligent design (in other words, you're explaining that your opinion is better and why)? I don't agree with your opinion, but I didn't call you arrogant for this.

What you said is like: "you're arrogant because you think that your opinion is the best".

...

If I said that my particular beliefs were the only true version of atheism I would indeed be being arrogant. However I am quite understandingof the fact that atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs.

 

I have no problem with your version of Christianity, it's your claiming that other peoples view of Christianity 'isn't really Christianity' that annoys me.

"atheist is indeed a very broad term that covers a lot of different people and quite a range of beliefs".

Christianity isn't the same, because yes, there are some spots that are subject to discussion, but we have some elementary beliefs. It's like you saying that "I don't like when other atheists say that there's maybe some kind of god, because in that case they should call themselves agnostics, not atheists".

But ok, ok, I'm an awful arrogant, be annoyed. I can't do anything to change your mind about me because I already took an effort to explain it again, it depends on how you understand what I say.

Christanity has some elementry beliefs NOW.

Christianity was not always so.  Christanity used to be one of the most diverse religions out there until it was mainstraimed and widdled down by the romans itno an exact "Roman" way of christanity by mans hands.

Most of these core beliefs were made so then.  Including creationism.

You shouldn't be so angry at people who wish to undue some of the harm the Roman empire has done to Christanity.

The only REAL core christian belief is that Jesus died for peoples sins as a martyr... a symbol of god accepting us despite us mostly using freewill to be selfish, prideful dicks.

Even Jesus' divinity wasn't a core christian principle until after the romans took over.

The community was actually split fairly even to that fact.  The Divinity folks winning out mostly because it would play better with people.  Rome having a fine history of demi-gods already. 

Wow, I didn't expect this from you Kasz. I didn't know u had such a distorted view of the early Church history with the Church fathers, and Christianity's first couple of hundred of years.

Someone needs to address the untrue claims you make, but I can't be bothered with it at the moment cos I'm off playing Quake Wars in a moment.




WessleWoggle on 11 October 2009

The only thing I think Kasz said that was untrue was

"The Divinity folks winning out mostly because it would play better with people."

I don't think they won because "it would" play better with people, they won because it did play better with people.