turtlespeed 226 #1 September 8, 2009 . . . is it acceptable to agree with thier core beliefs regarding their descension, and refer to their ancestors as monkeys and gorillas? If not, then WHY not . . . after all, by doing so, you are confirming their beliefs, are you not?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #2 September 8, 2009 >is it acceptable to agree with thier core beliefs regarding their >descension, and refer to their ancestors as monkeys and gorillas? It would be wiser to correct them. We did not descend from "monkeys and gorillas" any more than you descended from your niece. However, we do share a common ancestor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #3 September 8, 2009 Quote It would be wiser to correct them. We did not descend from "monkeys and gorillas" any more than you descended from your niece. However, we do share a common ancestor. I agree, but correcting them is useless. I remember in my sociology class the professor asked a show of hands of who all believed that men has one less rib than women. Half the class raised their hand. But like most people (including myself) that choose to accept the truth, it has to start somewhere. Whenever someone argues against human evolution and brings "monkeys" into the debate.....well, I tend to end the arguement right then because they obviously have not researched either side. Modern humans, genus = homo, species = sapien, did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from an ancestor similar to modern apes. But I really would not call it an "ancestor", I reserve that name for our lineage within modern humans, as in same species. But that's just meSomewhere around 8+- mya this common ancestor "split" in to two seperate lineages, one went on to become modern gorillas and chimps and the other became hominids, genus-homo (ie: homo erectus, neanderthals, etc...), and around 200,000+- years ago became "modern" man, or homo sapiens. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #4 September 8, 2009 So, cousin might be a better analogy? Or is there no shorter way to make a correlation. You know, maybe some type of slang, or layman's term. Do we really have to go about saying all that you stated above to describe the, what would you call it "being"of the "pre 8 +/- mya" split that you speak of?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #5 September 8, 2009 >So, cousin might be a better analogy? Sure; literally, a very distant cousin. >Or is there no shorter way to make a correlation. "We have a common ancestor." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #6 September 8, 2009 QuoteDo we really have to go about saying all that you stated above to describe the, what would you call it "being"of the "pre 8 +/- mya" split that you speak of? Yes, why not? It's the only provable scientific explanation we have. Everything else is sci-fi and cannot be proved using any scientific method. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #7 September 8, 2009 Quote >So, cousin might be a better analogy? Sure; literally, a very distant cousin. >Or is there no shorter way to make a correlation. "We have a common ancestor." Ok . . . then I'll just edit his comment to include your words and everything is acceptable again. No apology needed. From the NY Daily News Quote Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors very distant cousins - probably harmless." See, no apology needed - just a short, but according to Michell, a factual answer. And yes - her husband freely admits that they believe in evolution Which completely negates the claim that they are Christian. You can't believe one way, if you believe the other.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #8 September 8, 2009 The idea that a rib was used came about as a result of translation/assumptions. My understanding is that, it is said she was made from his side - not at all so specific as to mean a rib. I don't claim to be a Jewish scholar, just passing on some indication that there are significant differences in the meaning as the Jewish Bible "evolved" People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #9 September 8, 2009 Wow, so Christians can't believe in evolution in your world? And what would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "Relax, it's probably just one of Laura Bush's distant cousins?" Outrage, I expect. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #10 September 8, 2009 QuoteWow, so Christians can't believe in evolution in your world? And what would your reaction have been if a Democrat had said, "Relax, it's probably just one of Laura Bush's distant cousins?" Outrage, I expect. No . . . because I know he'd be wrong. Is she upset because she thinks it to be true?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #11 September 8, 2009 >See, no apology needed - just a short, but according to Michell, a factual >answer. Right. And if someone said your girlfriend was a bitch, I'm sure you would assume that they were just commenting on her evolutionary relationship to female canines. You should be fine with that, right? No apology needed. >And yes - her husband freely admits that they believe in evolution. >Which completely negates the claim that they are Christian. Plenty of Christians believe in evolution. Why, some even believe that gays should not be put to death, and that people with glasses should be allowed in church! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #12 September 8, 2009 Quote>See, no apology needed - just a short, but according to Michell, a factual >answer. Right. And if someone said your girlfriend was a bitch, I'm sure you would assume that they were just commenting on her evolutionary relationship to female canines. You should be fine with that, right? No apology needed. >And yes - her husband freely admits that they believe in evolution. >Which completely negates the claim that they are Christian. Plenty of Christians believe in evolution. Why, some even believe that gays should not be put to death, and that people with glasses should be allowed in church! Nope. People that THINK they are Christians, but are not, believe those things.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #13 September 8, 2009 Quote Quote >So, cousin might be a better analogy? Sure; literally, a very distant cousin. >Or is there no shorter way to make a correlation. "We have a common ancestor." Ok . . . then I'll just edit his comment to include your words and everything is acceptable again. No apology needed. From the NY Daily News Quote Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors very distant cousins - probably harmless." See, no apology needed - just a short, but according to Michell, a factual answer. And yes - her husband freely admits that they believe in evolution Which completely negates the claim that they are Christian. You can't believe one way, if you believe the other. I don't accept they are mutually exclusive. From my experience, Jews are not so confined into such all-or-nothing exclusives, why should a Christian? I understand that some Christian sects/leaders tell their followers it must be all or nothing, but that shouldn't constrain an individual.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #14 September 8, 2009 >People that THINK they are Christians, but are not, believe those things. I am a Christian, and understand the principles behind Darwinian evolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #15 September 8, 2009 Quote Ok . . . then I'll just edit his comment to include your words and everything is acceptable again. No apology needed. From the NY Daily News Quote Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors very distant cousins - probably harmless." I clearly stated that me not using the word "ancestor" is a preference of my own, because I use that word for modern relatives vice our hairy onesEither way, I'm glad you accepted and did not argue that we have evolved from apes. You have not argued that once, you've just knit-picked my usage of the word ancestor. Quote Which completely negates the claim that they are Christian. You can't believe one way, if you believe the other. Why not? I'm a Christian who believes in evolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #16 September 8, 2009 QuotePeople that THINK they are Christians, but are not, believe those things. Who died and made you God? Have you been ordained with the authority to label people as Christians and non-Christians? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #17 September 8, 2009 Quote>People that THINK they are Christians, but are not, believe those things. I am a Christian, and understand the principles behind Darwinian evolution. Understanding the principals is different that believing that they are the way things happened. I understand the principal of an alien life form abducting a woman from her bedroom. Understanding the principal does not make it true.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #18 September 8, 2009 QuoteQuotePeople that THINK they are Christians, but are not, believe those things. Who died and made you God? Have you been ordained with the authority to label people as Christians and non-Christians? That is the single funniest post I have read in a LONG time.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #19 September 8, 2009 >Understanding the principals is different that believing that they are >the way things happened. They are quite similar. Evolution works in the lab, there is solid evidence it has happened in the world throughout history, and a great many scientific disciplines (biology, genetics, chemistry, paleontology, geology) support it. My understanding of it makes it easy to realize that it is how we came to be. >I understand the principal of an alien life form abducting a woman >from her bedroom. Really? Well, dude, if you understand reactionless drives, teleportation and xenobiology, what the hell are you doing posting on a website? Write a few papers and make billions. (Or maybe you just meant "I read some stories." In which case you really don't "understand the principals" of alien abductions, you're just making an asinine argument.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 September 8, 2009 QuoteQuotePeople that THINK they are Christians, but are not, believe those things. Who died and made you God? Have you been ordained with the authority to label people as Christians and non-Christians? I have two rubber stamps to label people that way. I keep them in a bag and pick one out randomly for each person I meet. Usually they don't even say thank you - they just go off and wash their foreheads instead and mumble angrily. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #21 September 8, 2009 QuoteUnderstanding the principals is different that believing that they are the way things happened. I understand the principal of an alien life form abducting a woman from her bedroom. Understanding the principal does not make it true. Whoa, ok. I see whay's going on here. You're one of them "all or nothing" people. Ok, this thread is officially over. There are some people who just can't have a good debate on evolution without derailing with bashing on other's beliefs and Chrisitanhood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #22 September 8, 2009 Quote Whoa, ok. I see whay's going on here. You're one of them "all or nothing" people Really it's an all or nothing religion-most are. You can agree or disagree but you can't half agree and still be a true member, and calling yourself something doesn't make it so.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #23 September 8, 2009 QuoteReally it's an all or nothing religion-most are. You can agree or disagree but you can't half agree and still be a true member, and calling yourself something doesn't make it so. Does this apply to the Christians who were executed or locked up for believing the earth was not the center of the universe? Were they real Christians? Or fake ones because they believed in science and had faith? Shame on them for believing in science! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #24 September 8, 2009 Many Christians have no problem agreeing with scientific principles. In fact, the largest and oldest Christian denomination has no problem with Evolution as a theory. To be a Christian means you accept Jesus Christ as your savior. That's the requirement. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #25 September 8, 2009 I'd be inclined to think that the power mongering church hierarchy was more likely not really Christian. Don't confuse the Church with the Religion.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
