1645: The Civil War II

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

Seriously Stu? how does that make us MORE like dolphins than apes?

Guess what apes have?
thumbs [on hands]
two [non-fused] legs
belly buttons [all mammals have this]
2 nostrils [on their face, not the back of their heads]
Hair [quite a bit more than humans or dolphins, granted]
sex for pleasure [see bonobos]

Your theory is whack.

only one or two monkey species have sex for pleasure, not all apes. one of the big similarities between apes and dolphins are the brain to body ratio, proportion of limbs and bones, they have large brains and the communication sections are very similar. How they raise their young is similar as well. The bones in the hands are more similar to humans than an ape as well...and humans are very different from apes with how their neck and facial features are. Yep, the dolphin nostrils are on the back of their head, but they are right next to each other seperated by tissue like a humans, not two seperate nostrils away from each other like an ape.

Dolphins act more like humans than apes and are extremely intellegent, we get more communication out of them than the apes we spend years teaching sign language...we just need to learn how to read a dolphin. Dolphins can put together complex sentences and show compassion as well as problem solving. And yes, a few apes can do, but on a much lower level.

I'm not negating apes at all, just trying to show likenesses because it shouldn't just be "humans and apes come from the same ancestor" if your arguing similarities between species.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

LOL, OK scientist

Yes, they point at cards and put together sentences. Apes can put together basic sentences with sign language...we can't read dolphins in this way because we can't comprehend their language.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Lord of the Cock Rings

LOL, OK scientist

they can solve complext problems, too. it is just harder to judge their intellegence. does that clear it up?

[Enunciated Piffle]

Sorry to interrupt the primate discussion, but does anyone know where to find the books of the Bible that were omitted? [I'm kinda sorta looking at you, Stulagu...]

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by stulagu

I'm saying, though, that teaching our beginnings with evolution is the same as teaching it started from a heavenly being. Neither can be proven or disproven.

Creationists say that the world is 6,000 years old. That is easily proven false right there.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Carbon-Dating and Mitochondrial DNA: both have often been called a "MotherFucker" by religious followers, worldwide.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Sorry to interrupt the primate discussion, but does anyone know where to find the books of the Bible that were omitted? [I'm kinda sorta looking at you, Stulagu...]

There are many texts that are not considered Biblical canon. You might want to start with the Gnostic Gospels:

Gnostic Gospels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Enunciated Piffle

Carbon-Dating and Mitochondrial DNA: both have often been called a "MotherFucker" by religious followers, worldwide.

Well yeah, because it disproves their fairy tales.

[Enunciated Piffle]

Thank you, Blitz. I'm hoping there is a collection, in english, somewhere out there...

[DWarrior]

I'm not negating apes at all, just trying to show likenesses because it shouldn't just be "humans and apes come from the same ancestor" if your arguing similarities between species.

The ancestral tree as compiled by biologists describes a "similarity" between species as defined by Biologists. It's useful for them, but their concept of "similarity" may not be useful for you.

I would say deadliness is a more useful measure of similarity in real life than percentage of shared genes. Thus, lions and HIV are more similar for practical purposes than lions and cats.

Originally Posted by stulagu

My sister was taught this in public college...I totally believe evolution exsists. I'm saying, though, that teaching our beginnings with evolution is the same as teaching it started from a heavenly being. Neither can be proven or disproven.

Nothing can be proven (beyond some theories in mathematics). A specific theory of evolution can be disproven (which means it will have to be revised to account for new evidence). "Evolution" is a description of the general framework, so it can't be disproven per se. If somebody finds another mechanism to explain biological diversity that has better explanatory/predictive power, we can scrap Evolution in favor of that new framework.

It's more about having a consistent world-view and seeking to resolve inconsistencies that arise.

[DWarrior]

But ultimately, I study math and science because it makes my brain feel fuzzy and connected. And I avoid scripture because it throws me back to the days of "You must do _____ because we're your parents and we're telling you to" which makes me feel bad.


But I guess if you got a sense of awe and might out of that, then I could see why you'd be drawn to religion.