The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Science: Macaque Monkey Goes Totally Bipedal
Freshly Exhumed writes "Add another bonus point for the
Darwinians/evolutionists. A macaque at the Safari Park Zoo in Ramat Gan,
Israel has recovered from a near-fatal illness in an unusual way: she has
switched exclusively to walking on her hind legs. Given theories of human
history that stress the effect of disease on events and changes, as in
William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, what if an illness was the cause
of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote
imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No
matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain
functions."
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/07/21/monkey_israel040721.html[/URL]
Freshly Exhumed writes "Add another bonus point for the
Darwinians/evolutionists. A macaque at the Safari Park Zoo in Ramat Gan,
Israel has recovered from a near-fatal illness in an unusual way: she has
switched exclusively to walking on her hind legs. Given theories of human
history that stress the effect of disease on events and changes, as in
William H. McNeill's Plagues and Peoples, what if an illness was the cause
of the shift to bipedal motion by our evolutionary ancestors, and rote
imitation by offspring or another set of circumstances locked it in? No
matter, this could be a fascinating study of the macaque's altered brain
functions."
[URL]http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/07/21/monkey_israel040721.html[/URL]
Page:
Your Honour wrote:
> What suprises me is that Lights fervor to dis-prove religion, is
> almost as bad as FF's fervor to convert everyone to it...
Umm...I've said on numerous occasions that I believe in God. I've also made it perfectly plain that the only problem I have with organised religion is the way it is used as a tool of control. The only thing I'm interested in disproving is the assertion of fundamentalists like Mary that all one needs in ones life is complete dedication to the literal word of the Bible. I mean Jesus, if I were fervent about disproving the existence of God, would I have posted to Ant about how straightforward it is to reconcile the story of creation in Genesis with the more widely accepted evolutionary theories?
Maybe it's just cos I'm tired this morning, but YH; this post has managed to seriously annoy me. Mainly because of the ignorant assumption that, because I'm opposed to the more totalitarian aspects of organised religion, I must be some sort of agnostic crusador. I'm interested in pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of fundamentalism. If someone is going to be so monumentily dumbassed as to assume that means something else, then I wonder why on earth I actually bother.
If you want to make acerbic little remarks, it may help you to check your facts first.
[edit] Jesus I'm in a mood...sorry YH; you seem to be getting the brunt of it, which is stunningly unfair. My apologies to you.
> What suprises me is that Lights fervor to dis-prove religion, is
> almost as bad as FF's fervor to convert everyone to it...
Umm...I've said on numerous occasions that I believe in God. I've also made it perfectly plain that the only problem I have with organised religion is the way it is used as a tool of control. The only thing I'm interested in disproving is the assertion of fundamentalists like Mary that all one needs in ones life is complete dedication to the literal word of the Bible. I mean Jesus, if I were fervent about disproving the existence of God, would I have posted to Ant about how straightforward it is to reconcile the story of creation in Genesis with the more widely accepted evolutionary theories?
Maybe it's just cos I'm tired this morning, but YH; this post has managed to seriously annoy me. Mainly because of the ignorant assumption that, because I'm opposed to the more totalitarian aspects of organised religion, I must be some sort of agnostic crusador. I'm interested in pointing out the lies and hypocrisy of fundamentalism. If someone is going to be so monumentily dumbassed as to assume that means something else, then I wonder why on earth I actually bother.
If you want to make acerbic little remarks, it may help you to check your facts first.
[edit] Jesus I'm in a mood...sorry YH; you seem to be getting the brunt of it, which is stunningly unfair. My apologies to you.
"As a Christian who does accept evolution as a fact I also want to point out that as a Christian I am also a creationist, in that I believe that "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." Far from being a religious belief that begins with "there is no God", evolution is simply one of the tools that God created to run His creation. Other tools include gravity, electromagnetism and the strong nuclear force. The Bible says that God holds all things together. Yet modern science tells us that the three forces I just mentioned are what hold all of matter together, from protons and neutrons all the way up collosal galactic clusters. In other words, God is not needed. Does this mean that those three forces are really religious beliefs that begin with "there is no God"? The Bible also says that God is the cause of all disease and the cure for all disease. Does this mean that the germ theory of disease and the immunological theory of disease resistance are beliefs that begin with "there is no God" because God is no longer needed to explain epidemeology?
It is certainly true that God transcends the natural universe and could have made it any way He wanted to. However, His creation -- the universe -- is by definition a natural phenomenon. It is controlled by naturalistic, mechanistic forces and what we can see of it appears to evolve over time. Unless God is trying to fool us, it would appear quite obvious that God indeed has used evolution to create and develop the modern universe.
Yes, before you start this is not my own, but still a point I happen to agree with. Religion and Evolution can go together and anyone who says different is wrong.
It is certainly true that God transcends the natural universe and could have made it any way He wanted to. However, His creation -- the universe -- is by definition a natural phenomenon. It is controlled by naturalistic, mechanistic forces and what we can see of it appears to evolve over time. Unless God is trying to fool us, it would appear quite obvious that God indeed has used evolution to create and develop the modern universe.
Yes, before you start this is not my own, but still a point I happen to agree with. Religion and Evolution can go together and anyone who says different is wrong.
What suprises me is that Lights fervor to dis-prove religion, is almost as bad as FF's fervor to convert everyone to it...
If anyone needs any proof of evolution, read Animal Farm.
But yeah, though I'm vastly uniformed about evolution, i seem to believe in it.
But yeah, though I'm vastly uniformed about evolution, i seem to believe in it.
Science is the disproval of one thing to prove another. Perhaps we are looking at things from the wrong perspective.
Charles Fort wrote that there can be many things not alike that exist in the same space, that everything is differenciated by the few different qualities that they have from the other.
Charles Fort wrote that there can be many things not alike that exist in the same space, that everything is differenciated by the few different qualities that they have from the other.
Hmm, I choose to believe in the Bible because I believe in the Christian God...it's kinda hard to explain because much of my faith comes down to one experience I had during a baptismal service at my parents church...I turned into a Christian basically overnight.
I believe in the Bible, but I rarely read it. Maybe that makes me hypocritical...since I tend to argue the case of Christianity in most of these topics, despite not really knowing that much about the facts and history behind it...whereas you guys obviously seem to know quite a lot about evolution and other such theories. But I find it impossible not to defend Christianity because, judging from my own experiences and those of others I know, the idea of their not being a God just seems totally implausible to me.
I suppose the main reason is because around a year and a half ago I really wasn't enjoying life, I was 15 and really I just needed a spark in my life...so I asked God for one. Couple of weeks later I got it, and my life has been on the up ever since...obviously I still have tough times and there are times when I ask God what the hell he's doing up there, heh, but looking at my life in general perspective it's quite obvious that since becoming a Christian my life has changed for the better.
Selfish? Maybe, but I don't see anything wrong with that...and by chatting in topics like this I can spread 'the word', if you will, without appearing too arrogant or too...teachery.
Haha...what a great way to end a nice, serious post. Teachery.
And I thought I was good at English.
I believe in the Bible, but I rarely read it. Maybe that makes me hypocritical...since I tend to argue the case of Christianity in most of these topics, despite not really knowing that much about the facts and history behind it...whereas you guys obviously seem to know quite a lot about evolution and other such theories. But I find it impossible not to defend Christianity because, judging from my own experiences and those of others I know, the idea of their not being a God just seems totally implausible to me.
I suppose the main reason is because around a year and a half ago I really wasn't enjoying life, I was 15 and really I just needed a spark in my life...so I asked God for one. Couple of weeks later I got it, and my life has been on the up ever since...obviously I still have tough times and there are times when I ask God what the hell he's doing up there, heh, but looking at my life in general perspective it's quite obvious that since becoming a Christian my life has changed for the better.
Selfish? Maybe, but I don't see anything wrong with that...and by chatting in topics like this I can spread 'the word', if you will, without appearing too arrogant or too...teachery.
Haha...what a great way to end a nice, serious post. Teachery.
And I thought I was good at English.
Ant wrote:
> What I mean is that I can understand why people believe in it...I
> know some Christians have said that perhaps it was God who instigated
> Evolution, and that therefore both theories can help each-other.
>
> I'm not so sure though - I don't think Creation is any more
> implausible than Evolution, but I guess that's a religious view going
> against a scientific view. If you're a religious person then Creation
> is totally acceptable, whereas others will find it just impossible to
> even consider.
If you understand why people believe in it, do you yourself accept the process of evolution as plausable ?
I suppose if you try to reconcile the two, you've (probably) decided you don't believe evolution began with dna forming in primodeal soup / wherever else (space-born dna being a popular idea lately, it seems).
(Although techniclly they could still be reconciled at that very early stage..)
Then if you accept that the processes of evolution probably do happen (given that I've never seen any solid argument that they don't - not an invite FF ;^) ) then whatever stage creationis 'started us' from, be it monkeys, men or bacteria, then everyone buys into evolution, whether also religious or not...
> But anyway, point I'm making is that a Christian I think I should
> believe what is in the Bible (at least the gist (sp?) of it anyways)
> and so I'm still in favour of Creation. Personally I don't think it
> matters anyway - it's my personal faith and relationship with God
> that is the most important thing, and so I've never really been too
> bothered about the facts/contradictions of Christianity.
Hmm, so you'd say you choose to believe in the bible because you're a christian, rather than the other way round ?
(When I say 'the other way round', I mean someone believing in god, then finding one religious text / general theology to buy into, and labelling themself christian (or whatever else) from that.)
I suppose in a way it goes to the question of how similar you consider all the religions to be, whether it really matters which one you consider to most accurately represent god (considering all to be oriented to the same god, just with disagreements over what he's done / stands for...
I did sleep, but only for a few hours, so I'm still struggling a little bit today :^)
> What I mean is that I can understand why people believe in it...I
> know some Christians have said that perhaps it was God who instigated
> Evolution, and that therefore both theories can help each-other.
>
> I'm not so sure though - I don't think Creation is any more
> implausible than Evolution, but I guess that's a religious view going
> against a scientific view. If you're a religious person then Creation
> is totally acceptable, whereas others will find it just impossible to
> even consider.
If you understand why people believe in it, do you yourself accept the process of evolution as plausable ?
I suppose if you try to reconcile the two, you've (probably) decided you don't believe evolution began with dna forming in primodeal soup / wherever else (space-born dna being a popular idea lately, it seems).
(Although techniclly they could still be reconciled at that very early stage..)
Then if you accept that the processes of evolution probably do happen (given that I've never seen any solid argument that they don't - not an invite FF ;^) ) then whatever stage creationis 'started us' from, be it monkeys, men or bacteria, then everyone buys into evolution, whether also religious or not...
> But anyway, point I'm making is that a Christian I think I should
> believe what is in the Bible (at least the gist (sp?) of it anyways)
> and so I'm still in favour of Creation. Personally I don't think it
> matters anyway - it's my personal faith and relationship with God
> that is the most important thing, and so I've never really been too
> bothered about the facts/contradictions of Christianity.
Hmm, so you'd say you choose to believe in the bible because you're a christian, rather than the other way round ?
(When I say 'the other way round', I mean someone believing in god, then finding one religious text / general theology to buy into, and labelling themself christian (or whatever else) from that.)
I suppose in a way it goes to the question of how similar you consider all the religions to be, whether it really matters which one you consider to most accurately represent god (considering all to be oriented to the same god, just with disagreements over what he's done / stands for...
I did sleep, but only for a few hours, so I'm still struggling a little bit today :^)
Ant wrote:
> But anyway, point I'm making is that a Christian I think I should
> believe what is in the Bible (at least the gist (sp?) of it anyways)
> and so I'm still in favour of Creation.
As a christian though, isn't it possible to reconcile the two? If we take the story of Genesis to be an allegorical one, there isn't a huge amount of difference between the Big Bang theory and "In the beginning there was nothing...". It's only when certain extremists of either view begin to insist that their story is the literal truth, with absolutely no possibility of anyone disagreeing or offering their own interpretation, that all this religion vs science rubbish begins.
> But anyway, point I'm making is that a Christian I think I should
> believe what is in the Bible (at least the gist (sp?) of it anyways)
> and so I'm still in favour of Creation.
As a christian though, isn't it possible to reconcile the two? If we take the story of Genesis to be an allegorical one, there isn't a huge amount of difference between the Big Bang theory and "In the beginning there was nothing...". It's only when certain extremists of either view begin to insist that their story is the literal truth, with absolutely no possibility of anyone disagreeing or offering their own interpretation, that all this religion vs science rubbish begins.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> And I acknowledge evolution...doesn't mean I believe in it though.
>
> Curious. What do you mean?
What I mean is that I can understand why people believe in it...I know some Christians have said that perhaps it was God who instigated Evolution, and that therefore both theories can help each-other.
I'm not so sure though - I don't think Creation is any more implausible than Evolution, but I guess that's a religious view going against a scientific view. If you're a religious person then Creation is totally acceptable, whereas others will find it just impossible to even consider.
But anyway, point I'm making is that a Christian I think I should believe what is in the Bible (at least the gist (sp?) of it anyways) and so I'm still in favour of Creation. Personally I don't think it matters anyway - it's my personal faith and relationship with God that is the most important thing, and so I've never really been too bothered about the facts/contradictions of Christianity.
> Ant wrote:
> And I acknowledge evolution...doesn't mean I believe in it though.
>
> Curious. What do you mean?
What I mean is that I can understand why people believe in it...I know some Christians have said that perhaps it was God who instigated Evolution, and that therefore both theories can help each-other.
I'm not so sure though - I don't think Creation is any more implausible than Evolution, but I guess that's a religious view going against a scientific view. If you're a religious person then Creation is totally acceptable, whereas others will find it just impossible to even consider.
But anyway, point I'm making is that a Christian I think I should believe what is in the Bible (at least the gist (sp?) of it anyways) and so I'm still in favour of Creation. Personally I don't think it matters anyway - it's my personal faith and relationship with God that is the most important thing, and so I've never really been too bothered about the facts/contradictions of Christianity.
Forest Fan wrote:
> - my solution is simple I just don't go around saying the whole name.
> It's not a big deal to me, because it's just a game.
So, it's not a big deal to you, but you won't say the word?
It's just a word Mary; you're not going to get sent to hell just for saying "evolution".
Any danger of my questions being answered by the way?
> - my solution is simple I just don't go around saying the whole name.
> It's not a big deal to me, because it's just a game.
So, it's not a big deal to you, but you won't say the word?
It's just a word Mary; you're not going to get sent to hell just for saying "evolution".
Any danger of my questions being answered by the way?
Page: