What happened to the ape-men?

curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
What happened to the ape-men?

Its like this.  IF we humans did evolve from apes, and both apes and humans still exist, then how come we no longer have these transition animals or ape-men that evolved between apes to men? 

Doesn't common sense dictate that if the lowest form exists and the highest form exists, then the forms in between should exist as well?

 If indeed it is true that nature promotes the survival of the fittest, then how come the apes which are supposed to be the lowest transition form in the evolution of man survived, and yet the supposedly "higher" form of apes on the route to the evolution to man no longer exist? Not only that, but scientist are hard pressed to prove that they even existed at all?


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
We do.  They're called

We do.  They're called Italians.

 This conversation is occurring but with real world data at: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/evolution_of_life/9339

[edit: inserted latter half to avoid a purely intolerant post.]

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Good point.  My ancestors

Good point.  My ancestors came from Europe and there are still Europeans.  So I must really be a Native American.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Christians were jews before

If christians were jews before christ why are there still jews?


Textom
Textom's picture
Posts: 551
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I really just want to think

I really just want to think that Curiousjoe is a troll, but what if these are serious questions?  I can't resist answering, just in case...

Humans didn't descend from apes.  Apes & humans both descended from a common anscestor, who was not human and was not an ape.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

What common sense dictates is a matter of opinion.  The scientific evidence shows that lots of species die out all the time--there are more extinct species than there are living species.  Many forms "in between" do exist, but in many cases they've gone extinct.

Real evolutionary theory (not the creationist strawman version) doesn't talk about "lower" and "higher" forms.  Organisms survive because they're better adapted to the environment than competing organisms, which does not necessarily mean that they're "higher" or more advanced.  Bacteria and viruses are the simplest organisms, and the best survivors on Earth.

If thousands of well-documented fossils is "hard pressed," then  I must not understand the meaning of the term.

 

"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
*rolls eyes into back of

*rolls eyes into back of head*

curiosjoe wrote:

Its like this. IF we humans did evolve from apes, and both apes and humans still exist, then how come we no longer have these transition animals or ape-men that evolved between apes to men?

You are referring to the twelve known species that resulted form the cladogenistic divergence of the Pan and Homo genus that occured 4 million years ago? Homo habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster, erectus, florensienses, antecessor, heidelbergensis,neanderthalis, rhodesiensis, cepranenesis, georgicus and finally, Homo Sapiens, the last of the Homo genus line.

They are all, except us, extinct. It is the natural order of an ecological niche where the evolution of the Homo line depended mostly on the expanding neocortex. Hence, as the Homo genus developed higher intelligence, they could outhink their predecessors, and most of the Homo genus murdered the previous species from which they descended. The last Homo genus conflict was 250,000 years ago, when humans wiped out the Neanderthals, which left us as the last hominid. The Pan genus was never part of thic conflict, being that the Homo genus divergence was cladogenistic, not (as you suggested) anagenistic, which is why they are still here.

As for the Pan/Homo genus split itself, your comment shows incredible ignorance of evolutionary biology and population dyamics. Along the phylogenic arms of a cladogenesis split, the divergence will leave the predecessing species intact unless destroyed by its ancestry. Only anagenistic divergence produce the morphological characteristic whereby species are genetically outmoded, but this is not the case for Hominid evolution.

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


phooney
phooney's picture
Posts: 385
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Pwned.

Pwned.


curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
So many shots fired, yet

So many shots fired, yet all misses.

So far, all i've seen are jokes, insults and useless scientific-sounding gobbligook.

Thousands of fossils proving evolution?  Thousands?  Praytell where can i read of them being found? 

Good thing no one included the Nebraska man, Piltdown man and the Java man.  I wonder how many more men like them will be found.  Oh well, only time will tell.

 Homo Habilis - lately been disowned 

 rudolfensis - a rather new member to the evolution family, born in 1986 i think. an idea based on the discovery a single skull and nothing much else.

florensienses -  a bit controversial, this one. scientists can't agree on whether its truly a new species or just a person with a disease causing its head and brain to be smaller.

Oh and deludedgod of course i'm incredibly ignorant of biology.  I'm just a layman.  I never said i was smart.

Not everybody is as smart and as egocentric as you are.

Although i do appreciate the effort you made in trying to explain your point. 


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
This looks like a job for

This looks like a job for the sanity police...


curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
nice... another insult.

nice... another insult.

So this is how some atheists deal with people who dare ask questions... how very IRrational

sheesh some people here are no different than religious bigots.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
But of course there is

But of course there is controversy  regarding some of the Homo genus, our picture is not fully assembled. But your question pertained to the Pan/Homo split, and everyone knows what happened to the Homonidae. It would be like demanding a flipbook of a murder to convict the criminal. Paleontology is like a detective science,like forensics. Sometimes we don't have a lot to go on. On the other hand, for some other links, we do have plenty of fossils and DNA. Regardless, your question about why the Pan genus remains while most of the Homo genus is gone has been answered, so don't pretend it has not. 

curiousjoe wrote:

So far, all i've seen are jokes, insults and useless scientific-sounding gobbligook

ad ignorantium. If someone is actually educated in the subject at hand and hence uses the proper terminology, your only defence is that you don't understand it, hence you are reduced to calling it "gobbledygook". It makes perfect sense to me. 

curiousjoe wrote:

 Thousands of fossils proving evolution?  Thousands?  Praytell where can i read of them being found?

In a paleontology textbook.

curiousjoe wrote:

 Oh and deludedgod of course i'm incredibly ignorant of biology.  I'm just a layman.  I never said i was smart.

Then why argue pertaining to that which you have admitted ignorance? Seriously, an internet forum is not exactly the place to answer questions which could be resolved with a few keystrokes or the consulting of a science book?

Oh yeah, and habilis being disowned? Where'd you find that?

curiousjoe wrote:

 Good thing no one included the Nebraska man, Piltdown man and the Java man.  I wonder how many more men like them will be found.  Oh well, only time will tell.

Anecdotal fallacy and chronological snobbery fallacy. Java man was not a hoax, it was a homo erectus. As for Piltdown and Nebraska man, the scientific community acknowledges they are hoaxes, and hence couldn't care less about them. Only creationist invoke them, which is pretty pathetic since they occured decades ago (it would be akin to finding an error in Maxwell's equations to disprove electrogmagnetic induction)

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe wrote: Its like

curiousjoe wrote:
Its like this. IF we humans did evolve from apes, and both apes and humans still exist, then how come we no longer have these transition animals or ape-men that evolved between apes to men?

Doesn't common sense dictate that if the lowest form exists and the highest form exists, then the forms in between should exist as well?

If indeed it is true that nature promotes the survival of the fittest, then how come the apes which are supposed to be the lowest transition form in the evolution of man survived, and yet the supposedly "higher" form of apes on the route to the evolution to man no longer exist? Not only that, but scientist are hard pressed to prove that they even existed at all?

If poodles did evolve from wolves, and both wolves and poodles still exist, then how come we no longer have these transition animals or poodle-wolves that evolved between wolves to poodles?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
I hope you realize the

I hope you realize the fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution, or even the most compelling evidence, one only needs to look into the genetic research to see the weight of that evidence far outweighs the fossil record.

Deludedgod, care to take it from here? 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Sure, BGH! I always found

Sure, BGH! I always found paleontology rather dull, so it is good to talk about something which is actually my field and which I am more confident on. As I have shown here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/proteomics_and_its_applications_for_evolutionary_mechanisms_indisputable_proof_of_evolution_and_...

http://www.rationalresponders.com/reading_the_common_descent_endogenous_retrovirals_and_mitochondrial_dna_a_very_short_page

http://www.rationalresponders.com/blood_clotting_and_evolution_a_critique_of_one_of_behes_four_arguments_of_irreducible_complexity

The most convincing evidence for evolution comes from the proteome and genome. Hox genes, Notch control systems, retrotransposon-like elements, retrovirals, recombinative mutations, protein structure and function, all point to evolution, and DNA is preserved far better than fossils, a convenient book to read.

As we speak, I am finishing off something new about the exciting field of evolutionary developmental biology, which studies genetic control systems, embryonic development and Hox Genes to show how the evolution of the structures of multicellular organisms takes place. So when IDiots talk with glazed eyes about the complexity of the heart, or the eye etc ad infinitum, we can use evo-devo's findings to explain with pinpoint accuracy precisely how such functions can evolve. This is a really good field, a synthesis of molecular biology, genetics and developmental biology. It is also the field of our good friend PZ Myers.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote: *rolls

deludedgod wrote:

*rolls eyes into back of head*

curiosjoe wrote:

Its like this. IF we humans did evolve from apes, and both apes and humans still exist, then how come we no longer have these transition animals or ape-men that evolved between apes to men?

You are referring to the twelve known species that resulted form the cladogenistic divergence of the Pan and Homo genus that occured 4 million years ago? Homo habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster, erectus, florensienses, antecessor, heidelbergensis,neanderthalis, rhodesiensis, cepranenesis, georgicus and finally, Homo Sapiens, the last of the Homo genus line.

They are all, except us, extinct. It is the natural order of an ecological niche where the evolution of the Homo line depended mostly on the expanding neocortex. Hence, as the Homo genus developed higher intelligence, they could outhink their predecessors, and most of the Homo genus murdered the previous species from which they descended. The last Homo genus conflict was 250,000 years ago, when humans wiped out the Neanderthals, which left us as the last hominid. The Pan genus was never part of thic conflict, being that the Homo genus divergence was cladogenistic, not (as you suggested) anagenistic, which is why they are still here.

As for the Pan/Homo genus split itself, your comment shows incredible ignorance of evolutionary biology and population dyamics. Along the phylogenic arms of a cladogenesis split, the divergence will leave the predecessing species intact unless destroyed by its ancestry. Only anagenistic divergence produce the morphological characteristic whereby species are genetically outmoded, but this is not the case for Hominid evolution.

 

 

Nice fairy tale.

 The problem of your 12 species is that they are just a bunch of shady characters.  Controversy surrounds every one of them, since they came from either mere fragments of fossils, or from skeletal remains of either diseased humans or extinct species of ape.  Add to the fact that previous hoaxes by Atheist scientists were uncovered and we have a couple of species with truly questionable backgrounds.

Oh, and not everyone is a biologist and a chemist and a physicicicsisisist, and most people are just like me, ordinary in intellect, gets alot of details wrong most of the time, but curious nonetheless. 

In other words, deludedgod, if you insist in talking in scientific goobligook and not even try explaining stuff in layman's terms and belittleling someone for their lack of knowledge and for every minor mistake they make, then i'm sorry to say that most of the time, your message will not ever come across and you'll just end up looking like a showoff and...rather...deluded.

Is that too much to ask?  Maybe.  But i've come across some pretty intelligent people (doctors, chemists, biologists though i haven't met a quantum physisisicicicist yet) who were able to answer my questions quite clearly and thoroughly.  If others can do it, then maybe you can too.  But that is entirely your choice.  Who am i to dare question my intellectual betters? 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe wrote: So many

curiousjoe wrote:

So many shots fired, yet all misses.

So far, all i've seen are jokes, insults and useless scientific-sounding gobbligook.

Useless scientific sounding gobbligook = the actual answer, which was given to you at least twice, went so far over your head that it needed clearance from airport.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe

curiousjoe wrote:
deludedgod wrote:

*rolls eyes into back of head*

curiosjoe wrote:

Its like this. IF we humans did evolve from apes, and both apes and humans still exist, then how come we no longer have these transition animals or ape-men that evolved between apes to men?

You are referring to the twelve known species that resulted form the cladogenistic divergence of the Pan and Homo genus that occured 4 million years ago? Homo habilis, rudolfensis, ergaster, erectus, florensienses, antecessor, heidelbergensis,neanderthalis, rhodesiensis, cepranenesis, georgicus and finally, Homo Sapiens, the last of the Homo genus line.

They are all, except us, extinct. It is the natural order of an ecological niche where the evolution of the Homo line depended mostly on the expanding neocortex. Hence, as the Homo genus developed higher intelligence, they could outhink their predecessors, and most of the Homo genus murdered the previous species from which they descended. The last Homo genus conflict was 250,000 years ago, when humans wiped out the Neanderthals, which left us as the last hominid. The Pan genus was never part of thic conflict, being that the Homo genus divergence was cladogenistic, not (as you suggested) anagenistic, which is why they are still here.

As for the Pan/Homo genus split itself, your comment shows incredible ignorance of evolutionary biology and population dyamics. Along the phylogenic arms of a cladogenesis split, the divergence will leave the predecessing species intact unless destroyed by its ancestry. Only anagenistic divergence produce the morphological characteristic whereby species are genetically outmoded, but this is not the case for Hominid evolution.

 

 

Nice fairy tale.

I think your religion is the nice fairy tale, and that what DG has given you is the actual scientific response.

Quote:
 

The problem of your 12 species is that they are just a bunch of shady characters. 

NO, the real problem is that you don't know enough to realize when your question has been answered.

Why don't you do something original and just concede that you don't have the slightest fucking idea what was just said to you, that this is all new to you (as proven by your original question) and that you need to learn a bit more before proceeding? Would that really be so hard?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe

curiousjoe wrote:

Thousands of fossils proving evolution? Thousands? Praytell where can i read of them being found?

You can always go to the American Museum of Natural History, they have more than a million fossils there available for viewing.

http://nsdl.org/resource/2200/20061002152936101T

As for your disdain for the humor that's what you often get when you display such poor argumentation. 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Textom wrote: I really

Textom wrote:

I really just want to think that Curiousjoe is a troll, but what if these are serious questions? I can't resist answering, just in case...

Humans didn't descend from apes. Apes & humans both descended from a common anscestor, who was not human and was not an ape.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

What common sense dictates is a matter of opinion. The scientific evidence shows that lots of species die out all the time--there are more extinct species than there are living species. Many forms "in between" do exist, but in many cases they've gone extinct.

Real evolutionary theory (not the creationist strawman version) doesn't talk about "lower" and "higher" forms. Organisms survive because they're better adapted to the environment than competing organisms, which does not necessarily mean that they're "higher" or more advanced. Bacteria and viruses are the simplest organisms, and the best survivors on Earth.

If thousands of well-documented fossils is "hard pressed," then I must not understand the meaning of the term.

 

I will point out that no other members of the genus Homo are alive today, which is kind of odd.  The fossil record shows quite a few species, yet we're the sole survivors.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote:

todangst wrote:
curiousjoe wrote:

So many shots fired, yet all misses.

So far, all i've seen are jokes, insults and useless scientific-sounding gobbligook.

Useless scientific sounding gobbligook = the actual answer, which was given to you at least twice, went so far over your head that it needed clearance from airport.

Useless scientific sounding gobbligook = the actual answer (which cannot be understood) = Useless scientific sounding gobbligook

Garbage in Garbage out.

the answer never reached the airport. It crashlanded somewhere in the atlantic.

Didn't i just explain in simple terms WHY i couldn't understand your gibberish? Or need i repeat myself?

Atheists will REMAIN the minority if you people insist in explaining your ideas in your own language, which i now define as scientific-sounding goobligook.

I will say this then AGAIN.

Not everyone is as smart as you people, which is why it is called above-average intellect. Not the norm.

Continue in addressing people's questions the way you do with contempt, crude language, equally crude jokes and disdain, and you succeed only in puffing up your own ego and that of your relatively few contemporaries but with the price of insulting and alienating the very people you wish to enlighten, which is the greater majority who are of AVERAGE intellect (though some say the majority is currently of BELOW Average intellect, but that's another topic) AND still not get your point across.

You guys have just shown me that you are of truly above-average intellect, but endowed with the EQ of an 8 year-old.

At least religious fanatics know how to deal with and talk to people (based on the multitudes they have fooled into their faith). They have mastered the art of expressing their faith in simple terms which the masses can understand, whereas you are too busy putting yourselves in an intellectual pedestal to notice that no one really understands you. So how to explain the uber complexities of scientific theories in layman's terms? I don't know. You're the geniuses. You figure it out.

Theist scientists could. 

As far as i'm concerned while the theists are at the cutting edge in human interaction and phsychology, you guys are still at the stone age in that department, and that's why you lose.

Anyway, at least i learned one thing. Unless you learn to talk in layman's terms or what is popularly known as ENGLISH, I truly cannot get any decent answers from you people.

I guess you're just too smart for me.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
As I said before, an

As I said before, an internet forum is not the place to ask a question about evolutionary biology which you could answer yourself if you took the time to open a book! Yes, this is a complex topic, so there is complex terminology attached! If you don't understand the terminology, then study the topic! If you still don't understand the concepts behind it, then open a book. It really is no loss. Your right to call my answer a "fairy tale" is precisely nil given that you have admitted to having engaged in no study of the topic. Honestly, todangst is right. 90% of internet debates end up being teaching someone something they could have just read in a fucking library, save that they were too lazy to do so. Perhaps you could read a book about evolutionary biology, Hominid evolution or paleontology before returning, and then with some assurance that you do have at least an iota of knowledge pertaining to what you are attempting to talk about...then, we will not treat you with scorn. Otherwise, you just appear intellectually lazy.

Also, why do you spell physicist in such an odd fashion? Just curious.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


curiousjoe
Posts: 8
Joined: 2007-08-10
User is offlineOffline
  deludedgod wrote: Also,

 

deludedgod wrote:

Also, why do you spell physicist in such an odd fashion? Just curious.

Twas my futile attempt to a joke (futile since apparently no one got it).  You know, like a lisp, only with a keyboard. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe wrote:

curiousjoe wrote:
todangst wrote:
curiousjoe wrote:

So many shots fired, yet all misses.

So far, all i've seen are jokes, insults and useless scientific-sounding gobbligook.

Useless scientific sounding gobbligook = the actual answer, which was given to you at least twice, went so far over your head that it needed clearance from airport.

Useless scientific sounding gobbligook = the actual answer (which cannot be understood) = Useless scientific sounding gobbligook

  The fact that you're don't understand that your question has been answered doesn't render the answer useless, it only renders it useless to you. 

Quote:
 

Garbage in Garbage out.

No. It's not garbage in, although I have no doubt that it's garbage out, for you.

Quote:
 

Didn't i just explain in simple terms WHY i couldn't understand your gibberish?  

Didn't I just explain in simple terms, that it's NOT gibberish? The fact that you can't grasp the answer doesn't mean that you  get the right to call an answer gibberish. If you don't get the answer, all you can say is that you don't understand it.

Here's what you need to do. Seeing as I've already said this once, I'll break it down for you this time.

1) Concede that you don't know what you're talking about.

2) Go to a library and get a book written at a level you can grasp.

3) Read the book. 

4) Admit that even after reading it, there's much you still don't understand.

5) Stop accusing the world for speaking gibberish when the real problem is that you're entering into a conversation that you're not prepared to enter. 

 When you bring a knife to a gun fight, don't start whining about the bullet holes in your chest.

Quote:
 

Atheists will REMAIN the minority if  

You can stop right there. Atheists will remain in the minority because most people are unwilling to give up the comforting illusions of religion.

For example, people can choose to admit that they are ignorant, or they can pretend that 'god' is the answer to every thing they can't grasp. They can admit to being uncertain, or they can pretend to have certainty in their 'jesus'. 

To admit to ignorance requires maturity and courage. It's hard to say "This isn't gobbligook at all, it's just that I don't know anything about this subject, and I should actually do something about that first.

Do you really think most people will have the bravery to concede ignorance? Do you really think most people won't choose to boost their pride and egos by pretending to have 'the answer'

You sound like you're pissed off that the world is more complex than you'd like it to be. You can't whine and expect the world to slow down to match your speed. Most people will never be atheists because most people aren't willing to give up illusions that help them pretend to be smarter than they really are.... 


 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe

curiousjoe wrote:

deludedgod wrote:

Also, why do you spell physicist in such an odd fashion? Just curious.

Twas my futile attempt to a joke (futile since apparently no one got it). You know, like a lisp, only with a keyboard.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that 'no one got it' just because no one responded to it. 

 

PS Was your spelling of "phsychology" a joke we all missed too?

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe wrote: though

curiousjoe wrote:

though some say the majority is currently of BELOW Average intellect, but that's another topic

Please tell me this statement is just a joke, and that you are smart enough to realize the contradiction present within it.

If you don't, then maybe we should be making fun of you. 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod

deludedgod wrote:

curiousjoe wrote:

though some say the majority is currently of BELOW Average intellect, but that's another topic

Please tell me this statement is just a joke, and that you are smart enough to realize the contradiction present within it.

If you don't, then maybe we should be making fun of you.

 Hehehe...  reminds me of the about how President Eisenhower was shocked to learn that fully half of. all public school students were below average. ...

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Topher
Topher's picture
Posts: 513
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
curiousjoe,

curiousjoe,

We did not evolve from apes. Our common ancestor evolved into a number of separate species, collectively called the apes… humans, chimps, etc

curiousjoe wrote:
Oh and deludedgod of course i'm incredibly ignorant of biology.

So you admit that you’re ignorant on the topic in which you’re trying to argue against!

curiousjoe wrote:
As far as i'm concerned while the theists are at the cutting edge in human interaction and phsychology, you guys are still at the stone age in that department, and that's why you lose



"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Troll account/10.

Troll account/10.


King Nothing
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
What happened to BIGFOOT?

What happened to BIGFOOT?


King Nothing
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-08-06
User is offlineOffline
 What happened to

 What happened to BIGFOOT

do they even existed at all?