We Evolved From the Monkey, huh?

fair enough, glad you want to learn

wikipedia and project gutenberg, as well as the members of this forum are such a great resource to learn about science and religion and life in general, its almost overwhelming at times and i find myself spending way too much time on the internet because of this lol

religion is so primitive it is laughable to me, because it incorporates ancient science that has obviously long be disproven and should be discounted based on new revelations, obvservations, data, and analysis, yet people are willing to submit their full knowledge base and understanding of all things to such practices

people forget many religious text were written in the desert, where its hot, people were dehydrated, exhausted, hungry. They were under the influence of shroms, peyote, '___', among other things that were plentiful in such regions. It was a constant state of hallucination, suffering, and the need for escape

Naturalists and Scientist like Darwin, Lamark, Dawkins, et al, spent their entire lives researching and devoting their livelihood to one topic, evolution and natural selection. They spent hours and hours, years and years, invariably observing, studying, recording, and theorizing about what they saw. Gathering an inordinate amount of data, and discovering new things about life that even challenged their beliefs. And each of these scientist at one point in their study underwent a full 180 from what they formerly believed, which is the true mark of a genius. Objectivity, open-mindedness, flexibility of thought. Religion does not embrace objectivity. Religion is the paradigm of obstinance.

So to me it is a discredit to humanity to denounce or not even try to understand evolution. You don't have to agree with it wholeheartedly, but there are many certain aspects of evolution that are undeniable.

The ET angle is too enigmatic of an enterprise for me. It's possible, judging just be the sheer vastness of space and time. Time is relative to where you are and how fast you're going, so yes it is within the realm of science that some non terrestial entity came to earth and manipulated terrestial DNA of organic life forms to induce our level of intelligence and consciousness. And if this so happened around 1 million years ago or maybe 500,000 years ago, it may only be 5 years, 5 months, 5 days, or 5 minutes to another race of beings from another planet/dimension/galaxy/universe.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by uva3021]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by uva3021]

Originally posted by impaired
Ok, good point. But then why are humans literally light years more intelligent than Monkeys and Apes? The gap in knowledge between us and any other creature on this planet is enormous, to say that least.

We are more intelligent because we found a way to store our knowledge over generations : language then writing.

I don't think we were "light years more intelligent than Monkeys and Apes" before we invented the langage.

Just like apes invented tools to gather food, we invented tools to gather knowledge.

Without teachings, the humans are not so much more intelligent than monkeys.

Also when teached correctly, some animals can be more intelligent than some people on earth. And I'm not only talking about apes here, also birds, dogs, etc...

Also, what about the technology jumps we have had? Right around biblical times (Sumeria to be exact) we learn agriculture and learn to be more civil (for the most part).

Every evolution is always made by jumps. The evolution of animal species is made by "jumps". We had various technology "jumps" over our history when we discovered fire, language, writing, iron, steam, electricity, electronics, internet, ... It's not strange. It's how nature works.

Are you suggesting that each time we were teached by gods/annunakis/aliens ?

"Ok boys, today we will learn how to use steam. I'll come back in 50 years to teach you electricity, OK ?"


To finish on that part again :

Also, what about the technology jumps we have had? Right around biblical times (Sumeria to be exact) we learn agriculture and learn to be more civil (for the most part).

Do you suggest those technological jumps are a consequence of "the biblical times" ? Why not seeing it the other way around ? The "biblical times" are a consequence of our technology jump ?

We discovered agriculture, thus we need to spend less time for war, we can sustain cities, learn to live in community, and invent a new religion accordingly (from chamanism/animism to theism).

Why should my analysis be less valid than yours ? You provide no proof of causal links for your assumptions.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

Originally posted by uva3021
religion is so primitive it is laughable to me, because it incorporates ancient science that has obviously long be disproven and should be discounted based on new revelations, obvservations, data, and analysis, yet people are willing to submit their full knowledge base and understanding of all things to such practices

I think you will find, your statement here is wrong. Where do scienc often get its ideas.

Just look at cern and the particle they are going after is, what george lucas descibed in star wars. Go back and listen how the film star wars described the force. Then goto and get the description, of teh particle that cern is after.

I think george lucas, got it pretty right. You see plenty of science is into the occult, but they do not believe in god.

Originally posted by andy1033

Originally posted by uva3021
religion is so primitive it is laughable to me, because it incorporates ancient science that has obviously long be disproven and should be discounted based on new revelations, obvservations, data, and analysis, yet people are willing to submit their full knowledge base and understanding of all things to such practices

I think you will find, your statement here is wrong. Where do scienc often get its ideas.

Just look at cern and the particle they are going after is, what george lucas descibed in star wars. Go back and listen how the film star wars described the force. Then goto and get the description, of teh particle that cern is after.

I think george lucas, got it pretty right. You see plenty of science is into the occult, but they do not believe in god.

Are you seriously mixing sciences and Star Wars here ?

Also it is not the "God particle" but the "Higg's boson". The nickname was given because it would unify theories, nothing to do with God.


You know what the problem REALLY is between religion and sciences ? To find the answer, you have to know that the differences exist only for monotheist religions. Buddhism for exemple has absolutely no problem with sciences.

Then what is the difference between monotheistic religions and buddhism, animism, chamanism, etc ?

The description of time.

For buddhism, the time is CYCLIC, just like in the Nature (season, orbits, cycles, etc) and just like in sciences. The question of beginning and end is, at our scale, pointless.

For monotheistic religions, the time is LINEAR. There is a beginning and an end. This is why they cannot agree with science. Sciences are not even sure there is a beginning, and if there is one, it certainly not 8000 years ago.

But the truth is that science is closer to the Nature and the reality than monotheistic religions.

Sciences are not opposed to spirituality. Buddhist spirituality can be explained by sciences.

Science is opposed to monotheistic religions, because they are stating in an act of faith that there is an end. So Science is their ennemy when saying that the time is cyclic and that there is no end.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by SpaceGoatsFarts]

reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts


agree with your sentiments on buddhism

the only religous text of sorts that I've read cover to cover is Urantia, and in all honesty from what I can gather, it broaches all religions somewhat comprehensively and tries to incorporate all of man's view points into one compendium of human knowledge

Try starting with what God has already written. Then think. Why is everyone so willing to accept every far flung idea that makes no sense? Really, try starting with what the Bible tells us then go from there.

Pray for understanding first. Tell God that you really want to know the truth. He will by no means deny someone who diligently seeks Him. Really, I believe He wants you to be curious and ask the questions that you ask. Just don't be fooled by what you know is foolishness.

Proverbs 15:14 The heart of him that hath understanding seeketh knowledge: but the mouth of fools feedeth on foolishness.

Originally posted by jackflap

Try starting with what God has already written. Then think. Why is everyone so willing to accept every far flung idea that makes no sense? Really, try starting with what the Bible tells us then go from there.

Far flung ideas...

The earth is about 6,000 years old. A wizard in the sky created the universe, created us, knew the future - but went along with it. I mentioned what I'm about to type already.

How the hell is what I typed a far flung idea any more than taking the bible literally?? I really just don't get it. Everyone who says this almost sounds the same. It's the same thing over and over again. Circular logic...

reply to post by SpaceGoatsFarts


Yeah. We discovered fire. How the hell did we do that??? How did someone just happen to figure that out?? That's not something that someone or something just comes across like that. I believe THAT is a huge jump in itself right there.

And no animal is smarter than the dumbest person. I really hope you were just exaggerating.

Back to what I was saying before: There are a lot of things that we have discovered that I really wonder about sometimes - like "Who would of thought of doing that"??? Certain medicines and drugs, I mean (I just woke up - brain a bit mushy), the list goes on.

reply to post by impaired


Fair enough impaired. I just wanted to give you the idea for further research. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then take it literally and ask the questions that you ask. God says whoever asks it will be given. You just have to approach it as you would any other theory.

Good thread by the way. S+F!

Originally posted by urwatu8
reply to post by impaired

But first, I would like to say that I am an Agnostic. I believe SOMETHING created the universe. And yeah, I believe Jehova and his gang created us humans. But He is/was not the creator of everything. He didn't create the universe. Jehova and his gang were ET.

ET comes down, tinkers with apes and monkeys. Prototypes emerge (no particular order): Neanderthal, Homo Erectus, Floresiensis, Habilis, rhodesiensis, and many more...

def: Agnostic n. [from the Greek a (not) gnostic (knowing)]
a person who believes that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause, or anything beyond material phenomena

Dude you are so NOT an agnostic.

I'll just leave this right here:

a⋅the⋅ist
–noun
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag⋅nos⋅tic
 –noun
A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

So yeah, umm. I am an Agnostic. I believe something created the universe, but I have no idea what this entity is.

I just don't like to use the G word "God" too much, because I honestly think that word is a gross misnomer.

Suggesting that we have all evolved from a monkey is obviously ludicrous. Gordon Brown shows no signs of having evolved at all.

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by impaired

 

Fair enough impaired. I just wanted to give you the idea for further research. If the Bible is to be taken literally, then take it literally and ask the questions that you ask. God says whoever asks it will be given. You just have to approach it as you would any other theory.

Good thread by the way. S+F!

Thanks. Like I said before, I believe the bible on a historical level to an extent, but it was taken from other writings (Sumeria and more).

I'm just uncomfortable with the fact that religions were made out of these writings. Just my opinion.

And I'll say it again. Throw ET into the mix and that explains Jehova, Angels, Demons, Satan, and the rest of the gods.

There are so many other stories of others gods, so how can we not assume that there is SOME truth to this? Perhaps it just wasn't translated or TRANSCRIBED the way it should have been. There weren't words for ET's back then (especially when the bible was written).

So how COULD people say they were ET? They thought the Earth was flat and was the center of the Earth.

How can people not see this?

But thanks. Happy Turkey day!

Originally posted by aristocrat2
Suggesting that we have all evolved from a monkey is obviously ludicrous. Gordon Brown shows no signs of having evolved at all.

I dont know if one sees the michelle obama google photo fake it is obvious,last POTUS was pictured as a chimp too-perhaps as this is a conspiracy site the real shadow lords who pull the strings on our banking elite and NWO are Chimps!Its all an act,there not that dumb-there studying us like lab rats as we merrily go around our lives

joking aside I would love to buy the chap who blinded Brown in one eye a pint and shake his hand!

But at least we are more informed than the people who lived 50 thousand years ago. They did not have the "Written Word" that we have today. Imagine what kind of existence these people had to endure.

I like the fact that you are willing to consider multiple perspectives and possibilities, back I would like to add some harsh truth, of which I am sure you have considered. In many ways, as reflected in our politics and human relations in general, we are still poo slinging monkeys. Yahweh(man) trying to rule through domination and logical control. Satan(woman) trying to rule through manipulation and through the enchantment of created dramas, with man as the character in her drama. Religions utilize both concepts. That is why I think it quite ironic that Yeshua(Jesus) was trying to put an end to ritual (religion). This whole Yahweh/Satan dynamic is killing us and sucking the life out of our very souls. It creates war, domination and manipulation, divide and conquer, and slavery. In our narcissism, we often refuse to get out of these loops. Each man and woman has a mixture of both, BTW, although one tends to gravitate towards one or the other per social acceptability. I would argue that we should try and evolve now, before it is too late.

This thread should really be moved to the RANT section of BTS.

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by XyZeR

 

"human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees"
^^^And what do we have here???

[edit on 11/26/2009 by impaired]

Not true, that figure comes from a very flawed study.
I could not find where there were any studies to correct it.

It should be obvious simply from comparing the outer appearance of the 2 that there are far more differences thatn a mere 1,6%. One would really have to have bad eyesight to miss that.

Originally posted by factbeforefiction
This thread should really be moved to the RANT section of BTS.

Perhaps. I don't really hang around BTS a lot. I thought BTS was more of just a general BS'ing area.

If so, I'm down. If the mods wanna do it, cool.

reply to post by orwellianunenlightenment


I really don't believe that Men are Yahweh and Woman are Satan. Sounds something like "Men are good and women are evil". That theory seems to put women in a negative light. I don't dig that. I think we are all equal. At least spiritually and mentally (Sorry women, males of MOST species are physically the stronger ones).

Just my belief of course. Like everything I've said in this thread.

reply to post by impaired


I understand how it can sound like that, but that is not what I am saying at all. By definition, on omniscient being would have the right to both dominate and manipulate, as this being would know what is best. We humans, in our vainglory, think we are the end all be all much of the time. Therefore, when we employ domination and manipulation, we are merely trying to achieve a world that reflects our own current self-image; we are trying to be like God, so to speak. Does this sound like a being that is discussed in all spiritualities to you?

What I am rather saying, is that our need to control others is evil. It is counter to life itself. Both domination and manipulation fall into this category. They are both seeds of the age of war and slavery we live in. As I see things in a holistic light, I am attempting to share the responsibility for the hells we have created. Blaming men or blaming women keeps the merry-go-round spinning. I am saying we all have shared responsibility; we are all guilty. However, we can all forgive each other and ourselves as well. Domination and manipulation are necessary for a time, as we use them to discover what we are not. I think that time is almost over, as we are finally realizing who we are, the center of our logic. This center causes Logos and Pathos to intertwine, if you catch my drift.

To further elaborate, I think, we as humans are dancing in the dark. We are always searching for that light which illuminates the dark, a Holy Grail of sorts. Manipulations, or woven dramas, force a character to logically solve the problems of the drama. Once the problems of a story our solved, then the essence of the author is revealed. If the author does not like his/her current self-image, he or she weaves another drama. The cycle reiterates. Eventually the author has discovered everything he or she is not, and so realizes what he or she is. I think we are realizing what we are. All that being said, perhaps you were detecting a frustration of mine in the previous post. I think both Yahweh and Satan, so to speak, are full of it. I think in the West, Yahweh has been shunned, but Satan has been embraced. This creates yet another severe lack of balance, but we will find our way back to peace. It is not only possible; it is inevitable.

Edit: This, I believe, is the blessing behind the split of men and women. Religion and women wove the dramas, while men assumed characters, trying to conquer and logically solve the drama. As the essential nature of the drama is obvious, one of war, divide and conquer, and slavery, one in which the animal alphas rule over the spiritual alphas, it is clear what must be amended. When two humans love each other, they become as one. The male and the female become one. But each far too often fears the other, forbidding love to blossom. Too much domination and manipulation, real or perceived, it doesn't matter. If women and men truly loved each other, we would both be androgynous. The process is unfolding, but women have assumed the androgynous mantle first. People are still craving that difference in a sexual encounter, so this leaves many men a zero. As said, men and women far too often fear the other, so the sexes are at WAR. This is certainly not man or woman's fault individually, but it is a present dynamic. Soon, both sexes will come together, and there will be healing. When men and women are at peace, so too shall the world be.......

[edit on 26-11-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by orwellianunenlightenment]