Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne

Gord_in_Toronto said:
I do not claim purpose; for that would be wrong. But surely you have to admit upon revisiting the OP that the discussion of Adam's penis has actually improved the thread.
Click to expand...
haha true! At least something controversial to discuss as opposed to the OP's opinion that aliens did it!:covereyes

There is no way to find a hidden deeper meaning or moral code in alien woo.:rolleyes:
 
I think we should all take a breath and read the OP again. Cos the opinion expressed in the OP might not be the OP's opinion.
 
hecd2 said:
I think we should all take a breath and read the OP again. Cos the opinion expressed in the OP might not be the OP's opinion.
Click to expand...
I am fairly certain zooterkin does not hold the same opinion as his post. Pretty sure he made that post to show how wooish some ancient alien theories are and his remark as sarcasm. I think that goes without saying.
 
Last edited:
AdamSK said:
Yes, it is instructive of how ridiculous our caricatures of those we consider different from ourselves can become.

No, every individual does not believe that "his or her interpretation is the only and obviously correct one." In ACTUAL churches, where REAL PEOPLE discuss this stuff, this is quite a bit more room for discussion, for change, for (gasp!) heterodoxy.

Whatever contempt you have for the religious, please recognize they are not all calcified intransigents like they apparently are in your imagination.
Click to expand...
i entirely agree with that. My disagreement is addressed to a very different contention, that "literalism" is new and that it has NEVER been intended to be taken seriously.
Red Baron Farms said:
... The fact remains that this literalist view is a relatively new thing, and in my opinion mainly driven by those trying to attack religion in general, and using science to do it. It's the old if someone pushes, the natural reaction is to push back. If you don't push in the first place and simply discuss it rationally, you will find that it was NEVER intended to be taken literally. At least not by educated people.
Click to expand...
 
AdamSK said:
Yes, it is instructive of how ridiculous our caricatures of those we consider different from ourselves can become.

No, every individual does not believe that "his or her interpretation is the only and obviously correct one." In ACTUAL churches, where REAL PEOPLE discuss this stuff, this is quite a bit more room for discussion, for change, for (gasp!) heterodoxy.

Whatever contempt you have for the religious, please recognize they are not all calcified intransigents like they apparently are in your imagination.
Click to expand...
Agreed - so would you accept: "It is instructive to realise how vastly divergent are the interpretations of almost every verse in the Old Testament (and many in the New); and how many individuals believe his or her interpretation is the only and obviously corrrect one."
 
Craig B said:
i entirely agree with that. My disagreement is addressed to a very different contention, that "literalism" is new and that it has NEVER been intended to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Numerous (authentic) early writings stress that "literalism" is a heresy.
 
Peregrinus said:
Numerous (authentic) early writings stress that "literalism" is a heresy.
Click to expand...
Do they? If they are as numerous and authentic as all that, perhaps you could reference some of them. But even if what you say is accurate, does it mean that the texts were NEVER intended to be taken literally? I have already shown that not to be true, from the pen of a Pope, no less.

ETA
In my view, the concept of literalism became clearly defined following the Enlightenment, with the rise to significant prominence of non-literal interpretations necessitated by modern science's refutation of the content of the canonical texts. Before that, the concept was not current: not because literalism was unknown, but - to the contrary - because it was (more or less) universal, and therefore had no specific name or definition.
 
Last edited:
Peregrinus said:
Numerous (authentic) early writings stress that "literalism" is a heresy.
Click to expand...
Somebody should have told Pope Leo XIII, who wrote in 1880
We call to mind facts well-known to all and doubtful to no-one: after He formed man from the slime of the earth on the sixth day of creation, and breathed into his face the breath of life, God willed to give him a female companion, whom He drew forth wondrously from the man’s side as he slept. In bringing this about, God, in His supreme Providence, willed that this spousal couple should be the natural origin of all men: in other words, that from this pair the human race should be propagated and preserved in every age by a succession of procreative acts which would never be interrupted.​

Cited in http://kolbecenter.org/the-traditional-catholic-doctrine-of-creation/
 
Red Baron Farms said:
Gord,
A better quote from your source would be, My bold. Sure people have strong feelings and get angry when this is pointed out to them. The fact remains that this literalist view is a relatively new thing, and in my opinion mainly driven by those trying to attack religion in general, and using science to do it. It's the old if someone pushes, the natural reaction is to push back. If you don't push in the first place and simply discuss it rationally, you will find that it was NEVER intended to be taken literally. At least not by educated people.

ETA; Just to clarify, by push I mean try to convert to atheism.
Click to expand...

Have no problem with whatever silly stuff (and I do not call it that if they are otherwise rational) they choose to believe as long as it is not science related.
They have a problem with real science we will likely never become friends since that I do not deal well with.
 
AdamSK said:
In ACTUAL churches, where REAL PEOPLE discuss this stuff, this is quite a bit more room for discussion, for change, for (gasp!) heterodoxy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, I have to LOL about that, because for a large part (and still recent) of history of christianity heresy had only a swift conclusion, and the language used for mass was nigh incomprehensible for the mere mortal which was told what to believe by priests, since they knew nothing of latin. ETA: And yes it was in many part a literal interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
ALso I could be wrong but a cursory reading of :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism#History

Shows that while both metaphorical/litteralist interpretation are old, only litteralism was widespread later on, and that recently changed due to the increased understanding of the world which could not be reacquainted with litteralism.
Click to expand...

Kinda shows how badly it's written, if you can interpret the stories so differently...

After all, should a God know how to explain stuff clearly?

[Unless the confusion is deliberate, of course]

[If God(s) exists of course]
 
Rincewind said:
Kinda shows how badly it's written, if you can interpret the stories so differently...

After all, should a God know how to explain stuff clearly?

[Unless the confusion is deliberate, of course]

[If God(s) exists of course]
Click to expand...

"Against stupidity the very gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich Schiller
 
Designated Hitter said:
The evolution of man from ape like creatures is one of the most effective lies told in all of history. No proof exists for this, only speculation as wild as that in the OP.
Click to expand...

If selftaught American preachers of limited education can see through the lie, it can't be that effective
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I am fairly certain zooterkin does not hold the same opinion as his post. Pretty sure he made that post to show how wooish some ancient alien theories are and his remark as sarcasm. I think that goes without saying.
Click to expand...
That said he deserves having his fingers rapped. It should be evolution to humans not the evolution of humans. Warne talks about the evolution of Aliens to Humans.

"I’m saying, Aliens. We started from aliens."

Mind you he talks about a regressive evolution. A highly intelligent species that made pyramids into a less intelligent species that couldn't make them!

Perhaps a better example of regression through the evolution process would be English prisoners to Australians.
 
Designated Hitter said:
Yeah. You pay attention too much to the likenesses and ignore the differences. The differences are HUGE, in case you didn't know.
Click to expand...

The differences are huge but are still only 2%.

Physical appearance and function is only part of the picture.

I am quite familiar with your theory, it's strengths and many, many weaknesses.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure your "familiarity" with the theory is limited to creationist perspectives, not the actual scientific consensus. Why do you think that the people who actually learn this theory as a living disagree with creationists? And before you answer, remember that there is not much money or prestige in science for agreeing with other scientists.

A bunch of deadbeat answers.
Click to expand...

You'll need a better attitude than that if you want to engage other people in discussion, especially since you're not the first one to spout the same claims, and many posters here have grown weary of repeating the same facts to people who can't be bothered to educate themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom