There are actual historical writings from the time of the old Testament disproving most of what the jews wrote. If they lied about Moses being a secret Pharoah don't you think they lied about a lot of other stuff too? Most of the old Testament is the jew putting his spin on much older historcial events and myths that they had no real knowledge of or participation in. It's all hogwash.

So what’s your point have to do with anything I wrote about.

I don't think it's as simple as black or white, you either believe in it or you don't. A theory of evolution is just a theory, it's not proven entirely, it's not religious text set in stone. A lot of theories are based around the knowledge we have, or at least small pieces of a larger puzzle that makes sense on a larger scale. Theories can change as we learn, make new discoveries and progress further as a race.

The point here and a big difference between religions and science is that science has been able to help us understand how everything works and help us make sense of it all, or at least as I said uncover some parts of it. A lot of these theories are based around that knowledge, which can't be said about religious text, which is just nonsense.

Either way, evolution can't answer larger, existential questions about where we came from and where we are going but neither can religion. There's nothing wrong with wanting to answer these questions and seek answers, especially from a spiritual point of view, but man-made religions like Christianity, Islam or any other text is just nonsense. They have done nothing but cage human mind and stop progress in every direction.

They are 100 percent incompatible unless you are a smooth brain.

In the bible, when Jesus says to love your neighbor as yourself. Is this nonsense? If not, what knowledge is it based around? Did he do science to figure this out?

That’s simply not true

Hobbes, saint augustine, Erasmus, philo of Alexandria, martin Luther, Montaigne, tons of free thinkers have existed which made huge philosophical free thinking contributions to society and all came from reconciling things like Plato or Aristotle with Christianity.

And you are correct in it shouldn’t be black and white and it should be accepted as a theory. But go look at people’s responses based of how the theories are questioned and I think you will find when they shift the focus from viewing the questions scientifically; to somone trying to make the same harmony between religion and science these days, and you will find they take that very hardline dogmatic belief.

Yes when the Romans wrote the new Testament 300 years after Jesus and everyone who even knew he existed were dead, they incorporated a lot of philosophical writings from the popular stoics and other mainstream philosophers of their day.

The new (Roman) Testament has nothing to do with the jew creation myth that this thread is discussing.

So being chained to one way of thought is symbolic of intelligence now. Real bright guy here!

I know you hate Christianity, but the point is actually about how science is the study of the natural world and things like ethics can't be learned through science.

Have you read this "Roman" new Testament you claim to know the history of? The plot involves a Jewish man going around telling the Jews that he is the God of the old testament. Almost everything he says is a direct quotation from the old testament. But sure, it has "nothing to do with the jew creation myth".

I have nothing against free thinkers who have made huge contributions and helped us evolve into a society we are today, even under the banner of religion.
My issue has always been with strict man made religions that have done the opposite and limit the development to preserve the control over the people.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make but I don’t see how you need religion to have morals, or understand that you do. It’s not a complex concept to understand that hurting someone else can be a bad thing.

Philosophy and natural science are two different fields. Philosophy and psychology are useful for controlling dim populations. Natural sciences are generally beyond their grasp. Remember, peons like you weren't even allowed to read the Bible until a guy named Martin Luther came around. It's mostly a philosophical text written with lots of ancient fables and myths sprinkled with psychology which was found to be pretty effective at controlling dim people for a few thousand years. It's mostly run it's course now though. People aren't as backward thinking as they once were. Most can read and write now, even silly outdated books like the bible.

there is, we call him Getter_done

If we were to page Darwin from beyond the grave, I'm sure he'd peruse this thread and agree that not all apes are wise.

Some people need to be told what to think and what to do. If you need to be told to be a decent human being and don't generate that organically, I don't know what to tell you. The ironic thing is that these hardcore and dogmatic religious folks are usually the worst type of people you'll meet.

During the time of Martin Luther, Metaphysics/philosophy was the forefront of natural sciences.

Which of these disciplines did you use to determine that the book about the Jewish guy telling the Jews he is the God of the Jews has nothing to do with the Jewish creation story?

Also, they produced the bible to "control dim populations" to do… what, exactly? Love one another?

How do you understand this, though? You know this for no reason?

I mean stoics, platonists, daoists, and many other philosophies came up with morals out of reason with no input from religions.

You're such a tranny retard. They've found plenty of fossils of missing links. Or do you think those were all faked?

god put those there to test the faith of the true believers.

dinosaur bones are the temptation of the devil.

Has OP ever seen a black "person"?

Theres the answer.

Yeah the evidence of ardi or Lucy being a direct human ancestor versus a direct ape ancestor probably isn’t the hill you want to die on.

Everybody in here is wasting their time. OP regularly schizoposts on things he has no idea about. Anybody going "hurr durr missing link" "why are there still monkeys" does not want to understand, and nothing you type on the internet will make them want to

Wings

Dolphins

Giraffes

And the eyeball

All make evolution as we believe we understand it false.

Wings because….the concept of a minimal difference within a species giving it an advantage such that it grows Wings over 2 million years makes no sense. If you don't have functional semi-flight already, no amount of minimal difference will lead to an impact full advantage. Find me the human male and female who can "fly" better than any other human. At one point, nothing had Wings, just like humans, and to find the few that could "fly" better than others despite not having flight is nonsense.

Giraffes have long necks. They evolved this way because reaching the higher leaders allows them an advantage to get food. Early giraffes didn't have long necks. But in order to grow from 12" to 9 feet, it stands to reason that the neck must pass every inch in between. If not having a 9' neck is such a death sentence, how did the entire species make it through the whole 2 foot phase???

Additionally for giraffes…if having the inability to reach top leaves is such a death sentence that all shorter neck giraffes died before they could reproduce, why is there not one single other long necked animal in Africa? If there was at least 1 or 2 it would make a tiny bit more sense, but there isn't one.

Dolphins. 2 milly years ago it was a hairy pig. Evolved to live on land. Loves the land. Finds food on land. Mates on land. Births on land. Parents lived on land. Grandparents lived on land. All species on land. Lol brb our entire species is gonna decide together to live in water now. None of us are adapted for water, but we're gonna do it. All of us. For 2 million years. Lol wtf

Eyeballs. Some mechanisms aren't a single trait. Some mechanisms, flight included, require IMMENSE detail and multiple mechanics working in tandem in order to exist. Without 1 feature, the entire mechanism fails. For flight you don't just need Wings, you need your entire body to be prepared for flight. An eyeball is too complicated for all things to evolve perfectly within the body to create sight.


Disclaimer: evolution experts acknowledge these holes in the theory. DO NOT try to argue these points if you're pro-evolutioncel. The experts don't argue them. They just nod and say "ya we don't know that (yet)" so don't embarass yourself

Mind is full of fuk right now

They were basically the same discipline, it was known as Natural Philosophy.

I think evolution is not legit for a different reason.

The strongest groups are not always the groups who survive.

Many times survival comes down to luck more than fitness, for example, you can have two species who compete directly with one another though one usually wins when they compete. Now imagine you have an outside anomalous event which is detrimental to the dominant species but beneficial to the submissive species which leads to the previously less fit species becoming the fittest. The same thing happened to ancient Egypt, they had many enemies who they beat back numerous times but when they were in internal turmoil due to floods, famine, earthquakes, ect, their enemies returned and were able to conquer a far greater civilization.

Evolving does not equal getting more intelligent. Evolution is the gradual, incremental changes that occur in populations over successive generations. It explains biodiversity.
One of the mechanisms of evolution is natural selection, which suggests morphological changes in response to the environment. For example insects becoming smaller in response to lower oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
WiseOldApe is a complete idiot, possibly the worst case of Dunning-Kruger I've ever witnessed(unless he's trolling).

Some poster clearly answered his question, which is a legit question if asked by an inquiring and genuinely curious five year old and he completely disregarded said poster.

In human societies, they don't start to develop higher arts until their basic needs are met, this means they need a reliable source of food, water, shelter and a reserve of these resources for hard times sure to come.

Chimps have to focus on food, water and not getting eaten, they can't store food for a surplus because other animals would steal it and they can't preserves it anyway.

That is why the most developed human societies have ready access to necessities, allow ownership of property and have a rule of law.

His last statement, "The whole point of evolution is that it gets us up Mount Improbable without miracles." i.e. "without God".

Incredible thing to say. He says outright that the purpose of evolution is to explain things without God. Not that the purpose is to explain things accurately, or that it is the clear and obvious result of what we see. Too bad for Dawkins, the most impossible miracle is the creation of everything - not whether eyes evolved or not.

Thank you for watching the video.