It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Borders of Europe by haplogroups

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
...
For someone to dismiss basic biology and favor a story book written in the 6tu century BCE is not only ignorant but arrogant and stuffed to the gills with cognitive dissonance.

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.
...
[Box on page 21]

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS


“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

Lame tactics following the pattern set out by Isaiah 5:20,21 (a bit like the pot calling the kettle black when the kettle is white and the pot is black):

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!


Can't really be bothered to waste more time on it or explaining that "congenital deformities and severe cognitive issues" are not a necessarily expected (immediate or near immediate, as in a couple of generations) result of inbreeding slightly over 6000 years ago when the human genome was vastly different and less corrupted or degraded as it is now; when someone needs such "personal invective" to add strength to their argument and convince possibly themselves and others that they're smarter and more reasonable. That's a fail from the get-go. You can keep your intellectual superiority complex to yourself or keep feeding it, I don't need to see it nor do I have time for it. People affected as such won't actually listen to reason anyway (on average, or at first, perhaps when something profound happens in your life that changes your view of yourself as to how intelligent or reasonable you truly are, and not merely what you've been told, conditioned, or convinced yourself of, i.e. wise and discreet* in your own eyes).

* the word "discreet" relates to discernment. A person who is discreet shows good judgment in speech and in conduct. According to Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, the discreet person is also “capable of preserving prudent silence.” Yes, there is “a time to speak,” and there is “a time to keep quiet,” and the discreet person appreciates the difference. (Ecclesiastes 3:7) Often, there is good reason to keep silent, for the Bible states: “In the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression, but the one keeping his lips in check is acting discreetly.”​—Proverbs 10:19.
edit on 16-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
Oh, what the hell...I'll share these details for those more open to the possibility of longer life spans before the flood:

A person might reason, ‘How could men of ancient times have lived for centuries when very few today live to be even as much as a hundred years of age? It is impossible.’ In this connection, it may be noted that no one can say just at which point the human life-span comes to its ultimate limit. The Encyclopædia Britannica (1976 edition, Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 911) states: “The exact duration of human life is unknown, although there is presumably a maximum life-span for the human race established in the genetic material. At first thought, this statement seems irrational. Surely no human being can live 1,000 years. Even though all may agree that the likelihood of an individual living 1,000 years is infinitesimal, there is no scientific proof that this statement is or is not true.

Accordingly, from a scientific standpoint, no absolute evidence can be presented to prove or to disprove what the Bible says about the long life-span of certain men in ancient times. The Biblical statements, therefore, stand on their own merit. Does the context in which they appear show that they are indeed factual?

That men once lived for hundreds of years is in full harmony with the context of the entire Bible. From the Holy Scriptures we learn that the first man Adam was created perfect. He had set before him the prospect of an endless life-span. The beautiful garden home in which he was placed contained everything needed for human life to be sustained indefinitely. In the first book of the Bible, we read: “Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden.” (Gen. 2:9) That “tree of life” represented God’s guarantee of continued life to those entitled to partake of it. When the first man Adam disobeyed God’s law, he forfeited his right to eat of this tree and, therefore, was expelled from his delightful paradise home.​—Gen. 3:22-24.

At the same time Adam, through his disobedience, ruined his perfection and this shortened his life-span and that of his descendants.​—Rom. 5:12. (and caused genetic defects to show up in subsequent generations, getting worse and worse over time, relating to what I said in my previous comment about "'congenital deformities and severe cognitive issues' are not a necessarily expected (immediate or near immediate, as in a couple of generations) result of inbreeding slightly over 6000 years ago when the human genome was vastly different and less corrupted or degraded as it is now.")

In the perfect state, Adam’s body had the potential of being sustained forever and that would also have been true of other sinless humans. So, since man was created to enjoy an endless life-span, it logically follows that Adam and his early descendants must have lived far longer than their later descendants who were farther removed from perfection.

This is exactly what the Bible shows to have been the case. After the great flood of Noah’s day that occurred over sixteen centuries from the time of Adam’s creation, human life expectancy dropped sharply. Among those born after the Flood, life expectancy continued to decline more gradually.

Hence, according to the Bible, men once did live for centuries. This is of more than passing interest. It testifies to the fact that God’s original purpose for man was that he might enjoy an endless life-span. This purpose will yet be realized when Jehovah God fulfills his word to bring into existence an earth free from sickness, pain and death.​—Rev. 21:3, 4.
Did People in Bible Times Really Live So Long? (2010)

JEANNE LOUISE CALMENT died on August 4, 1997, in her hometown in southeast France. She was 122 years old!
...
Myth or Reliable Record?

According to a document published by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany, researchers validated the age of Madame Calment, mentioned earlier, through the gathering of some “simple verifiable statements” made by her. These had to do with her or her relatives at the time when certain events took place. What she said was then compared with civic, notarial, and church records, as well as with newspaper articles and population censuses. Interestingly, although it was impossible to confirm each and every detail, the direct and indirect evidence available made it possible to confirm the duration of her life.

What about the accounts in the Bible? Have they proved to be trustworthy? Absolutely! Although not all details have been confirmed by available secular sources, evidence has shown again and again that what is stated in the Bible is reliable from historical, scientific, and chronological standpoints.* That should come as no surprise, for the Bible itself states: “God tells the truth, even if everyone else is a liar.” (Romans 3:4, Contemporary English Version) Yes, being a book “inspired of God,” the Bible allows no room for fiction.​—2 Timothy 3:16.

Moses, who was guided by Jehovah God to write the Pentateuch, or the first five books of the Bible, must be ranked as one of the most influential and respected men in human history. Jews consider him the greatest among all their teachers. Muslims regard him as one of their greatest prophets. As for Christians, Moses is a forerunner of Jesus Christ. Would it be reasonable to conclude that the writings of such an important historical figure are not to be trusted?

...

Archaeology also comes into the picture, for it agrees with Bible statements about long-lived individuals. About the patriarch Abraham, the Bible says that he was from the city of Ur, that he later resided in the city of Haran and then in the region of Canaan, and that he fought and defeated Chedorlaomer, king of Elam. (Genesis 11:31; 12:5; 14:13-17) Discoveries have confirmed the existence of these places and people. Archaeology has also shed some light on features of the lands and customs of the peoples mentioned in connection with Abraham. Since these Bible statements about Abraham are accurate, why should there be questions about his age of 175 years?​—Genesis 25:7.

There is, therefore, no reason to be skeptical about the Bible’s statements regarding the extraordinarily long lives of some people in ancient times. But you may ask yourself, ‘Why should it matter to me whether those people lived so long or not?’

You Can Live Longer Than You Think!

The outstanding longevity of those men living prior to the Flood proves that the human body has a remarkable potential for life. Modern technology has enabled scientists to take a closer look at the human body and its marvelous design, including its amazing capacity for regenerating and healing itself. Their conclusion? It is capable of living indefinitely. “[Aging],” says Professor of Medicine Tom Kirkwood, “remains one of the great mysteries of medical science.”

To Jehovah God, though, aging is neither a mystery nor a problem without a solution. He created the first man, Adam, perfect and purposed that humans should live forever. Sadly, Adam decided to turn his back on God. As a result, he fell into sin and became imperfect. Herein lies the explanation scientists have been looking for: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.” (Romans 5:12) It is because of sin and imperfection that we get sick, grow old, and die. [whereislogic: and develop genetic defects over subsequent generations and as a result of persistent* inbreeding; *: I think even for the Hapsburgs it took a while before the first problems showed up, and they already started with a corrupted genome filled with hidden defects that hadn't surfaced yet in the form of "congenital deformities and severe cognitive issues".]

However, the purpose of our loving Creator has never changed. As a remarkable proof of that, he provided the ransom sacrifice of his Son, Jesus Christ, which opened the door to perfection and everlasting life. The Bible states: “Just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) People before the Flood were closer to perfection than we are, and that is why they lived longer​—much longer—​than we do at present. But today we are closer to the time when God’s promise will be fulfilled. Soon all traces of sin and imperfection will be gone, and people will not have to degenerate and die.​—Isaiah 33:24; Titus 1:2.

...



posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: whereislogic

With that said, your arguments are made to appeal to skepticism and incredulity rather than measuring any form of deliberate footprint...

Even though that comment was twisting and inaccurately describing my argument of induction (or comment and article based on inductive reasoning) in that thread, it is however applicable to your comment, with a minor change at the end. Which I like to change to:

... 'rather than any "scientific proof that" these bliblical statements are or are not true.' In the words of the Encyclopædia Britannica (1976 edition, Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 911) Or "absolute evidence ... to prove or to disprove what the Bible says about the long life-span of certain men in ancient times." (quoting from my previous comment)

Even though you were commenting in that thread, you didn't seem to feel the need to object to Tzarchasm's objection of my comment there, even though you just demonstrated what Tzarchasm falsely accused me of (with the implication that therefore my entire comment was invalid reasoning or not worth considering or not that useful or convincingly powerful because of that; and I wasn't even doing that, I wasn't appealing to skepticism or incredulity in that comment, on the contrary, I was talking about measuring the footprint, as he put it and as elaborated on in my response, 3 comments).

If you were the same person, I could be talking about double standards now. At least you're both coming from the same position concerning skepticism of the Bible's statements and no true skepticism applied to evolutionary philosophies, possibly a universe from nothing, and possibly a big bang without a legitimate cause (can't really remember your stance on the latter 2 positions, but that is what it usually boils down to when I dig a little deeper in the minds or thinking of philosophical naturalists, atheists and the majority of agnostics*; i.e. start asking questions about it).*: or let's go with "the majority of bible critics and those looking for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe and life on earth" (without success and often falling back on the agnostic cop-out and empty promise of 'we don't know yet, but we're making great progress in figuring it out'*). *: Which isn't true:

...
Other equally respected scientists who also support evolution disagree. They speculate that the first cells or at least their major components arrived on earth from outer space. Why? Because, despite their best efforts, scientists have been unable to prove that life can spring from nonliving molecules. In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.”(1)
...
(1) How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.

Source: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...
“Some writers,” says Robert Shapiro, professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University, “have presumed that all life’s building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller-type experiments and were present in meteorites. This is not the case.”(2) * [*: Professor Shapiro does not believe that life was created. He believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood. In 2009, scientists at the University of Manchester, England, reported making some nucleotides in their lab. However, Shapiro states that their recipe “definitely does not meet my criteria for a plausible pathway to the RNA world.”]
...
What if, despite the extremely small odds, both proteins and RNA molecules did appear by chance in the same place at the same time? How likely would it be for them to cooperate to form a self-replicating, self-sustaining type of life? “The probability of this happening by chance (given a random mixture of proteins and RNA) seems astronomically low,” says Dr. Carol Cleland *, a member of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Astrobiology Institute. “Yet,” she continues, “most researchers seem to assume that if they can make sense of the independent production of proteins and RNA under natural primordial conditions, the coordination will somehow take care of itself.” Regarding the current theories of how these building blocks of life could have arisen by chance, she says: “None of them have provided us with a very satisfying story about how this happened.”(6) [*: Dr. Cleland is not a creationist. She believes that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood.]

Long live the Great 'we don't know yet, but Nature and Chance did it anyway, somehow "not yet fully understood"'-god of the agnostic gaps and arguments from feigned ignorance (because Creation isn't allowed, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards, so we'll just feign ignorance regarding the argument of induction).

Fraud in Science—The Greatest Fraud of All (Awake!—1990)

...
It takes tremendous credulity to think that intelligence of this magnitude resides in blind, brainless chance. It is a faith comparable to that of the pagan religionists of the prophet Isaiah’s time: “But you men are those leaving Jehovah, those forgetting my holy mountain, those setting in order a table for the god of Good Luck and those filling up mixed wine for the god of Destiny.” (Isaiah 65:11) Evolutionists look to millions of “lucky” chances to produce man from rock, but they haven’t got off the ground to reach the first rung of their evolutionary ladder. Their “god of Good Luck” is a bruised reed.

...

Alice, in the tale Through the Looking-​Glass, incredulous at the strange logic of the White Queen, could only laugh. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things.” The queen responded: “I dare say you haven’t had much practice. When I was your age I did it for half an hour a day. Why sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Evolutionists are the White Queens of today. They have had infinite practice in believing impossible things.


...
Belief in Evolution—An Act of “Faith”

Why do many prominent evolutionists insist that macroevolution is a fact? Richard Lewontin, an influential evolutionist, candidly wrote that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because they “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” * Many scientists refuse even to consider the possibility of an intelligent Designer because, as Lewontin writes, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”30 [*: “Materialism,” in this sense, refers to a theory that everything in the universe, including all life, came into existence without any supernatural intervention in the process.]

In this regard, sociologist Rodney Stark is quoted in Scientific American as saying: “There’s been 200 years of marketing that if you want to be a scientific person you’ve got to keep your mind free of the fetters of religion.” He further notes that in research universities, “the religious people keep their mouths shut.”31

If you are to accept the teaching of macroevolution as true, you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists will not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings. You must believe that mutations and natural selection produced all complex life-forms, despite a century of research that shows that mutations have not transformed even one properly defined species into something entirely new. You must believe that all creatures gradually evolved from a common ancestor, despite a fossil record that strongly indicates that the major kinds of plants and animals appeared abruptly and did not evolve into other kinds, even over aeons of time. Does that type of belief sound as though it is based on facts or on myths? Really, belief in evolution is an act of “faith.”

Source: Evolution—Myths and Facts
edit on 16-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Oh dear I got to almost 10 minutes, can't watch anymore. Sad stuff.

It's just bad stuff
and I'm trying to keep away from that emotional level.



posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
...
Long live the Great 'we don't know yet, but Nature and Chance did it anyway, somehow "not yet fully understood"'-god of the agnostic gaps and arguments from feigned ignorance (because Creation isn't allowed, no matter what the evidence is pointing towards, so we'll just feign ignorance regarding the argument of induction)....

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton)

And certainly not evaded by 'we don't know yet' (and all variations of conveniently selective agnosticism and arguments from feigned ignorance). Come on man, they don't even have a working storyline, let alone a testable hypothesis. Where's my < set to ignore > button?

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

...
Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

- Be observable

- Be reproducible by controlled experiments

- Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.” [*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.]

Source: Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries! (Awake! 2015)

Coming back to the phrase "not yet fully understood", hmmm, what does that remind me of (note the statements concerning a lack of understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity by the Cardinal quoted below):

How did Newton put it? “A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true.”

By the way, concerning the footnote about "materialism" in the last article of my previous comment, I prefer to use the term "philosophical naturalism" to avoid any confusion (there's another application and definition for the word "materialism" than the one given there). It also includes a reminder that this is a philosophical belief (connected to pantheism by the way, the notion that 'everything is God', 'nature is God', i.e. the notion of 'Mother Nature' or 'Mother Earth', swapping out God with nature or the universe, as in Stephen Hawking's statement that the universe created itself, or statements like 'nature found a way to evolve a ...', fill in any biomolecular machine or system of machinery), not a scientific position, it has nothing to do with real science (from the Latin scientia meaning "knowledge", which is also still a synonym; Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/truths/certainties/realities* acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. *: i.e. things that are absolute/factual/certain/true/conclusive/correct, without error. A hint regarding the agnostic mantra that "science does not deal with absolutes" and all its variations. Denying the very meaning of the word "science". I guess they forget to add "our pseudo...". That pseudoscience covering the speculative unverified philosophies of cosmic, chemical and biological evolution, the multiverse, string theory, M-theory and the part in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that speaks about the role of the observer that leads to the paradox/contradiction pointed out by Schrödinger in his example about a cat, which he pointed out to stress his issues with that part of the Copenhagen Interpretation; perfectly resolved by Freeman Dyson when he debunks it in his conclusion #2 of the video of him I regularly use in this subforum. So I won't go into that again.)
edit on 16-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Now you know why some people make monkey noises towards black players in various sports. Where it came from. Thanks Darwin (and the Greek Pagan philosophers Plato, Artistotle, Anaximander, who were the forerunners of evolutionary philosophy along with some gurus in Hinduism; the latter focusing specifically on skin color in their evolutionary tree, placing the white Brahmin at the top of evolutionary development and the darker skinned people down at the bottem of human evolution, right after monkeys; even Darwin still used the term "monkeys" rather than "apes", a clue showing where he got his ideas from, although he also admitted it in his own words as quoted after 3:30 in the video below, so you don't actually need that clue).

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Part 2 (in case you won't click the playlist link, this part starts right away with the racism issue, although it starts at the end of part 1):

edit on 16-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2021 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Whereislogic when I referred to my schizophrenic friend advising a trip to the monkey house, this was in order to help me understand the nature of all humanity.

For some reason you have hijacked my post and this thread with some racial agenda. Please leave this out.


edit on 16-9-2021 by ufoorbhunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I would say that those who imply that studying monkeys (and/or apes) teaches us something about humanity, and even went as far as putting dark skinned humans in a zoocage with monkeys to further underscore this point as well as that dark skinned people are more closely related to monkeys (and/or apes) on the evolutionary tree than white skinned people, are the ones with the racial agenda here.

As is clearly demonstrated in the documentary about human zoos and this pseudoscientific propaganda campaign's effect, effectiveness and influence on human thinking is clearly demonstrated by people at sports events that make monkey noises towards darker skinned people.

Darwin and his band of cohorts (supposedly 'intellectual' fans of unverified evolutionary philosophies and myths) are racists who have been instrumental in fostering racism amongst anyone who takes them seriously, plain and simple.

I'm sorry if you think it's hijacking this thread but you brought it up first by demonstrating how you've been affected by these clearly (originally) racist evolutionary myths, and it happens to be very relevant to this subforum. I already knew it wasn't something you want to hear or acknowledge. I was just responding to your suggestion by giving you my (and others') opinion on the implication described at the start of this comment (before the comma), which you just further demonstrated accurately represents your thinking on the matter. Perhaps you are willing to consider that if anyone was doing any hijacking of someone else's comment, it might be your response to my comment; which said nothing about monkeys, it (my comment) didn't bring the topic of monkeys and the evolutionary notion that monkeys teach us something about humanity into the discussion. That was entirely your suggestion and/or the implication of your initial reply and subsequent reply. I wouldn't call it hijacking my comment and this thread though (guess I'm not as strict as you when hearing something I don't want to hear, perhaps looking for a way to get it deleted so I don't have to think about it).

No, monkeys teach us nothing about humanity. And I've just elaborated on why I'm wary of this suggestion or implication. So thank you for sharing your experience about supposedly gaining "a deeper understanding of the human type" by going on "a number of tours around zoos and" concentrating "mostly on the monkey houses", but I have a different opinion on that having that effect. And if it's too off-topic, I will expect your comment to be removed as well (of course, that's much less of an issue to you cause you didn't spend so much time and effort on your commentary as I did when talking about evolutionary mythology, also in response to peter vlar who shares your mode of thinking concerning the evolutionary relationship between monkeys and/or apes and humans; making all these comments vulnerable to deletion by a moderator with the same reluctance to hear this information and using the same justification for getting rid of that which they don't want to hear or others to hear. And there's little I can do about it cause I got suckered into responding to these topics because of the responses to one particular statement in my 1st comment from both you and peter vlar that both of you disagree with, which I felt deserved a response in spite of it perhaps going a little too off-topic once one starts to respond to it; but whatever, just hoping at least some people who are a little bit more openminded to what I had to say in response to both of your commentary will have read it before then. I would say that if only my commentary gets deleted and not yours and peter vlar's initial reply to my 1st comment, that there is a certain measure of applying double standards going on, that may be affected by a moderator being more inclined to favor your side of that discussion. So I'm also hoping a little that this will affect any moderator's decision on what to do with these comments, since unlike the commentary that was deleted on page 1 for another reason, it does little harm to this thread; especially once you start thinking about why the OP might find the topic in the thread title interesting, which relates to the topic I brought up in response to your commentary).

Besides that, the topic of (evolutionary*) racism is most definitely linked to trying to categorize human beings in different haplogroups. *: as in motivated by evolutionary mythology. To me, which haplogroups people belong to is totally uninteresting because we are all part of the same human family and descendants of the same human pair, no matter what haplogroup you assign to a specific group because of genetic markers (that are all over the place anyway, with lots of intermingling in different countries that isn't considered when doing this, what about gypsies all over Europe? Which haplogroup do they belong to and why isn't that shown on the map in a particular color? What about Jews, they're all over the place as well and according to modern-day Nazis, have their own specific genetic markers. Why are they not considered in this colored map but only have their own color in Israel and apparently Turkey? Is there no one in the J1, E and I2 areas with J2 genetic markers? Obviously this is not what the map implies, so what's the use of this map? What's so interesting about it? And why would it combat conflict if it divides people into different groups while the reality is that it's all intermingled anyway, with only a majority in a particular country belonging to a specific haplogroup? I noted that the colors in the map follows the borders of countries, surely in the border areas of a country the haplogroups are much more intermingled?)

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) states that “all human beings belong to a single species and are descended from a common stock.”—Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, 1978.
edit on 17-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You mean we need a creationist moderator?




monkeys teach us nothing about humanity.


On the contrary, it teaches that apes and humans share more than 99% of their genomes, which automatically makes apes at least 99% interesting in what concerns studying humans. It also teaches that there were interbreeding between humans and some ape species, therefore at some point in history it seems Adam's descendants fell in love with Lucy's descendants.

It also teaches us that the concept of species is blurry and fuzzy.



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: whereislogic
...
On the contrary, it teaches that apes and humans share more than 99% of their genomes, which automatically makes apes at least 99% interesting in what concerns studying humans. ...

Oh...

That old debunked chestnut again? It's nowhere near 99%. You even got the bogus claim wrong, cause they say that of chimpanzees specifically, not just any ape. And the claims started out at around 90%, then varied from 95%-99%. If you can't even get the claim right, it just shows you've been affected by and following a mantra or meme. I doubt you know much detail about this claim or the objections to it, possibly because you don't care, it just sounds like a nice argument for the myth that apes and humans are evolutionary related (the 99% claim itself being a myth as well). So because you don't care to hear out those who object to all the claims throughout history ranging from 90-99%, I'll leave it at that. If I'm mistaken about that and you do care to hear them out, I'm sure there are lots of youtube videos that refute all of them, as well as many articles here:

Search Results for “99% similarity” | Evolution News

On youtube, I personally like the points made in this video at 31:42 - 37:42:

Sadly, it's an old video so for me it now switches to 240p as the maximum quality, making things that he's showing a little harder to see.
edit on 17-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You mean Darwin and an ape are different?



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne
Isn't that obvious already? What's also obvious, is that humans and apes can't interbreed. And that the belief in evolutionary mythology creates a motive for making it appear that the concept of "species" is unclear, and therefore supposedly allows for different conflicting definitions to be used (by those with an evolutionary agenda using a definition that best suits their argument*, who are experts in twisting and re-defining words such as "species", "information", "design", "nothing" and "random", to name a few), and is therefore supposedly "blurry and fuzzy". I'm not buying it. Especially since it has been my experience that all claims in evolutionary mythology are intentionally "blurry and fuzzy", i.e. vague enough to evade scrutiny by means of the scientific method described by Newton in Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica that I quoted earlier (which when properly applied or used, leads to conclusions which Newton would refer to as "certain truths" and no ambiguity, or the way he described it in Rule IV, which was a bit more open to future refinement).

*: leading to Darwin and his cohorts talking about different finches with differently sized and shaped beaks (1 species, namely the finch) as different species that evolved from eachother. In spite of them interbreeding and therefore conflicting with the original definition for species before Darwin's scam, an original definition which looked at the ability to interbreed to classify it as 1 species. Details about "Darwin's finches" and their interbreeding can be found in this article under "Myth 2. Natural selection led to the creation of new species." (the points there being build upon what is said about "Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species."):

Evolution—Myths and Facts

For those who actually want to know the facts and how they conflict with these myths. And for those who are willing to read that article, don't miss the footnote about the term "species":

While the word “species” is used frequently in this section, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis. There we find the term “kind,” which is much broader in meaning. Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.

edit on 17-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I see... But are you aware humans have created new species in the lab? I think they call it synthetic biology. Apart from that, humans can tweak existing species and make glowing rats, featherless hens, and flies with three eyes.
All that means the concept of species becomes fuzzy. Even the concept of life form is fuzzy. Take viruses, for instance; are they life forms?

All in all my view is that all of these experiments prove that you don't need God to create life forms, or, if you prefer, that creating an Adam and an Eve is not such a big deal.

If you insist that the glory and majesty of God (any god or goddess) is creating life forms, I presume we will have billions of gods and goddesses pretty soon.



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: whereislogic

I see... But are you aware humans have created new species in the lab? ...

See my last edit. In particular the footnote and everything Dr. Lönnig says about "properly definied species" in that article under ""Myth 1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species."

What may also be of interest, are the articles that show up in this list:

Search: hybrid species (WOL)

Just calling it a new species (because of intentionally created ambiguity regarding the definition for that term), doesn't make it one.

...
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”

So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22

Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

...

22. Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.


Take viruses, for instance; are they life forms?

No, and there is no ambiguity there. And viruses are dependent on life forms to propagate themselves, if all life were to disappear from the earth, viruses would eventually degrade and disappear as well, it's called entropy as covered in Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics. You know, there is a lot of science/knowledge (facts/certainties/truths/realities) that you can learn from Newton, as well as the proper methodology to discover them (facts). You might want to take note of it (including his warnings about hypotheses and the accompanying neurotic speculation) one day, rather than listening to types like Neil deGrasse Tyson twisting his position and painting his arguments and mode of reasoning as something different than what it really is, bringing up the God of the gaps-stuff in the style of Isaiah 5:20,21:

20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!


And Tyson uses phrases like "Newton, my man." (what a charlatan and fraud, Newton isn't 'your man', and if he were alive today, he'd expose you for the charlatan you are, a philosopher and propagandist of himself posing as a scientist and someone worthy to listen to for your daily dose of science; what are your contributions to the sciences again? Any significant factual discoveries akin to the discovery of the law of gravity or the fact/certainty/truth/reality that E=MC^2? Pfff, agnosticism, the biggest fail amongst many of those who call themselves "scientists"; have you guys come up with the term "Venusoid" yet to pretend you're clever and doing something useful?).
edit on 17-9-2021 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




viruses are dependent on life forms to propagate themselves


Uh oh! That's unnerving... I mean, don't humans need other humans too to propagate themselves?

But this rises a question, a deep one: what does a god need to propagate itself (himself)? I mean, creationist or simply believer, what does the bible say about why god created humans? Was there a need? Please, show me the exact verse in the bible stating the reasons for God to create Adam. I'm honestly interested; let's see whether there was a need or not.



posted on Sep, 17 2021 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

As usual you post pages of word salad supported by your cults interpretation of the bible and a bunch of bull s# from Awake! You don't have a single independent thought of your own and simply parrot what your cult tells you to believe. Are you capable of independent thought? You are so out of touch with anything resembling science that it's not worth responding to the points you think you are making. Post something clear and concise without quoting the bible and JW rags and use actual science to support your position and perhaps a conversation can be had. As it stands, trying to read your word salad gives me a migraine. Especially when it's 3 separate replies that don't say the same thing in different ways. Sorry, but Asked and Watchtower oops er have no place in a discussion about science. Especially when you try to make people like me out to be racists or at least perpetuating racist ideology. Use science to support your claims. Your cult has no place in a discussion about legitimate Scientific Theories.




top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join