Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


It seems the survey may have flaws. Most agree how it was created but by whom is the variable factor, which isnt included in most of the options.

So yes the are a lot of those who believe in creation but from my time here I know that many are fearful to mention God here in fear of retaliation. it's sad that most are atheists. I also assumed that Muslins also knew the book of Genisis and other denominations.

I will pray, as well. Not that it matters on this particular site. We cant save them so I only sneak in a try at that on occassion. We all differ as individuals, which makes for nice diversity.

I did add up some numbers and depends on where to thow the nuetral people and why they are nuetral. Despite the results I still hope for ant-semitism and to stop the hate. Being Christian I vowed to protect any Jews on here and Muslims if they are not radical.

reply to post by MrXYZ



you said When i asked why you considered Enmerkar a mythological person

Again, you're mixing myths with history without any regard to what's myth and what isn't...

For some reason if the ancient history comes from Iraq you think it's all myth, including the kings and rulers mentioned, even if the places they were at, are verified places. but if it comes from Egypt, not the same problem. You agree that the Egyptian places were real AND THE PEOPLE were real, just some of the data about their beliefs was not. What is your reasoning for believing Egyptian Pharaohs really existed as far back as 3000 BC but Akkadian Kings did not (even in the same or later time frame)?

.

reply to post by undo


Pippen's back, sorry for forcing Jordan to carry the load. Really though you shouldn't bother arguing with MrXYZ he'll just change your words and force untrue titles on you. Furthermore all myths can't be lies because it was their literature, sure there are exaggerations but in some of these myths isn't it true that the people aren't made up ? So why shouldn't we take some of the stories as being at least possibly true accounts of what happened that are considered exaggerations because it might have been their only way of explaining science or eyewitness accounts. The people in the past did not have the benefit of a fiction and non-fiction section so all of this stuff is considered made up but surely all of it can't if it included real people describing sometimes real events(there is evidence of wars in the regions of israel in the Book of Joshua) so should we take the stories as complete lies if there is evidence of wars in a region(many dead bodies, broken walls) and actual historical accounts(myths, bible stories)? And also in a myth, the idea of what is being exaggerated has to be taken into account. For instance in David and Goliath the myth claims that an Israelite named David was able to beat a giant Goliath. This is probably just a way of describing the Israelites defeating The Phillistines as they were the underdog, or perhaps even the epic of gilgamesh using the flood as an act of gods to punish people even though it might have been just a flood. The Question is what possible idea could be taken out of the indian story describing a nuclear war? Could it have just been a story to entertain because I cannot take any other symbolic or reasonable idea from it. They cannot be taken as accurate historic accounts but at least be regarded with suspicion if they aren't describing some symbolic idea or work of nature especially if there is some evidence of a war taking place.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by KingJames1337

 

But it's not an explanation if it isn't based on facts!!

You are speculating about a nuclear war for which you have no proof...yet you seem to imply a nuclear war happened. So unless you're just saying there is a high concentration of radiation, you are using the argumetn from ignorance. Even worse, the whole radioactive human remains claim comes from BLOGS, aka unreliable sources.

Didn't you hear what I said that some of this # isn't true. By the way there is more facts to prove this besides radiation, how bout that crater with apparent non meteorite origins and the green glass if there really is some at the site did they just get there magically. Though some sources say there is no green glass let's just say there was some, and a crater, and a nuclear warhead dated back to 8000 B.C., and even a grounded saucer at the site, would that be enough for alien nuclear war? No, not for you because you think you know it all, and unlike undo you do not know it all so go # yourself. I originally came here to apologize for the things i said but # it, you don't care much for fair debate and are nothing more than a word changer. And by the way you never answered to changing my words because I never said it is 'the best explanation and better than none'. I assume this is because you were too much of a pussy to admit your lies. If you admit your word-changing and untrue attacks on my argument I will apologize for the things said here and before.

reply to post by MrXYZ

You realize you had to change my words to It(the nuclear war) is the 'best explanation and better than none' to claim i was using the argument from ignorance. My claim was an 'outlandish explanation with evidence is better than done'. Realize this would include any explantion you provided that was reasonable and backed by evidence. Basically what I said is it would be a better explanation than none but not the best and maybe worse than a reasonable explantion backed with evidence. Give yourself a round of applause. And thank yourself for providing such an illustrative example of a douchebag.

By the way stop starring your own posts you chicken#....

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Has anyone ever told you that picture you have looks a lot like a white Sir Mix-a-lot. By the Way good survey.

unlike undo you do not know it all

reply to post by KingJames1337


eek, sorry i come off like such a know it all.
i will refrain from posting in subjects i know anything about so i don't launch into the tendency to share what i know ......to the exclusion of all else. lol, that will solve it. too bad there's not an embarrassed smilie.

I think most of the fossils we've found and claimed to be human ancestors are really extinct apes and the more human-like extinct variations of human morphology.

reply to post by thyextendedself


yes damn that missing link that doesn't seem to be there. Evolution was a nice story though.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

you said When i asked why you considered Enmerkar a mythological person

Again, you're mixing myths with history without any regard to what's myth and what isn't...

For some reason if the ancient history comes from Iraq you think it's all myth, including the kings and rulers mentioned, even if the places they were at, are verified places. but if it comes from Egypt, not the same problem. You agree that the Egyptian places were real AND THE PEOPLE were real, just some of the data about their beliefs was not. What is your reasoning for believing Egyptian Pharaohs really existed as far back as 3000 BC but Akkadian Kings did not (even in the same or later time frame)?

Probably because the Sumerian king list and myths from which we know him place him in their own prehistory as a legendary predecessor.

the King lists, after all, record several rulers with reigns of upwards of 20,000 years. Enmerker himself supposedly ruled 420, and his successor 1200.

He is credited with all sorts of things such as founding Uruk, inventing writing and other activities often associated with legendary predecessors. Uruk itself was apparently funded some time around 5000 BC ((wiki article on Uruk), so if he founded it he actually considerably predates the 3000 BC date you suggest.

All these factors make it not unreasonable to consider him as legendary - at a comparable period of Egyptian history we have not even that much to go on!

Originally posted by thyextendedself
I think most of the fossils we've found and claimed to be human ancestors are really extinct apes and the more human-like extinct variations of human morphology.

Well good thing DNA testing fully backs up the record then. At least that way, you can be sure even if you don't trust the fossil record. There's ZERO doubt that we evolved from Homo Erectus and the other ancestors. Hell, a relatively large % of the world's population has neanderthal DNA.

So in short, if your argument against evolution is the fossil record...try again

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by thyextendedself
I think most of the fossils we've found and claimed to be human ancestors are really extinct apes and the more human-like extinct variations of human morphology.

Well good thing DNA testing fully backs up the record then. At least that way, you can be sure even if you don't trust the fossil record. There's ZERO doubt that we evolved from Homo Erectus and the other ancestors. Hell, a relatively large % of the world's population has neanderthal DNA.

So in short, if your argument against evolution is the fossil record...try again

I think the DNA was placed there by god just to test our faith. There are different ways of interpreting the evidence, I'll side with the god way because I'm too lazy to read a book