We did not evolve from chimps.

[Catterjune]

Jesus H. Jones, everyone in this topic, both the religiously inclined and the angstheists are acting like f***ing idiots.

[Dark]

Jesus H. Jones, everyone in this topic, both the religiously inclined and the angstheists are acting like f***ing idiots.

 

1.) Make sure your post is on-topic and contributes to the topic.

2.) No cursing in general or its sub-sections.

 

I'm not trying to mini-mod, but it's hilarious.

 

It's also ironic, since I break those rules every other thread. Or at least, that's what the mods think! :]

 

Also, what is an angsthe- oh, you sneaky...

[Tentacruel]

Teehee. This thread is pretty funny. 99% of it is atheists ranting about religion, with no rebuttal whatsoever. Thus, I repeat.

 

Pointless thread is pointless.

 

Now, its fine to have a discussion, but this in the debates forum.

[Nexev]

Except that not everyone agrees on that. A whole load of people have no idea what evolution is.

We and chimps do not evolve from a common ancestor.

 

I evolved from a evee with a Sun Stone. >.>

 

I actually do know what evolution is as I had biology class last year, I just wanted to say that.

 

 

Anyway I heard it was actually orangutans we were closer related to.

 

Are you a f***ing idiot?

 

Okay fine.

 

Screw it.

 

From your logic then, GOD IS AWESOME SAUCE.

 

He's awesome for letting his son die and becoming a cosmic Jewish zombie.

 

He's awesome for letting hate and racism into the world.

 

He's awesome for war and diseases.

 

He's awesome for letting people have small penises because they play easy mode on Touhou.

 

He's awesome for not appearing to people when they need him the most.

 

He's awesome for letting man forget and disprove his existence.

 

He's awesome for letting millions of people kill other millions of people in his name even though he said not to kill people.

 

He's awesome for letting me try to join the Church of Satan and then fail.

 

He's awesome for letting perverts rape and kill women and children.

 

Yeah.

 

Your lord is awesome.

 

Anyhow, humans and all live evolved from bacterium when we were introduced to new environments.

 

We changed to adapt and live.

 

The strongest and most built to adapt, change, and survive lived and populated the world.

 

The first cell was created when amino chains were created and a shred of protein formed and made a membrane.

 

Then the cell divided after eating and growing.

 

One became two, two became four and so on.

 

Then different types of cells came into existence.

 

Then one day, a bacterium adsorbed but didn't digested some other cells. Those cells made sugars and food for the cell thus it growing more and becoming more common.

 

This is slightly proven today by the fact that the mitochondria has it's own sets of DNA separate from the cell.

 

Also,

 

*presses Crab signal*

....He just said god created humanity.

 

Why are you suddenly using that as an excuse for attacking

his religon?

 

I don't care if Christianity is proven or disproven, but your argument is irrational, illogical, and simply rude.

 

Sure, let's assume god is a dick. How did this suddenly disprove Intelligent Design?

 

I have a half and half belief really, that there is a god, he made life, BUT he isn't perfect and he is slowly shaping nature in order to make perfection via evolution.

 

Basically God plays Spore.

[Dark]

I don't think you fully understand his argument.

 

If God (the God of the Bible) is real, and is the same as how he's depicted in the Bible, he's obviously a serious ass with no regard for anyone.

 

As such, why should you call him God? Isn't god supposed to be some happy, golden figurine that does happy-happy stuff? That's the general definition. But now that the God of the Bible is all mean and angry and QQ, there seems to be no reason to worship him whatsoever.

 

Also, I really don't care what you believe, I care when you try to deny facts. If you think that God created "life", that's your view on things. But when someones says that evolution is incorrect, it shows that they are a blatant idiot with no regards for proven science.

 

His post was completely valid; the first half was talking about how the Christian view of a God shouldn't even be regarded as correct whatsoever, and the second half, from what I can tell, was him summarizing human evolution.

 

Sure, he was flaming, but how else are you going to tell ignorant people what is fact and what is not? Not like they'll listen either way.

 

 

[J-Max]

Bullshit. XD We still have a very small stub at the base of our Spine that is what`s left of a Tail. Also chimps display a high level of inteligence.

 

Or is this a Puddingroll?

[Dark]

Bullshit. XD We still have a very small stub at the base of our Spine that is what`s left of a Tail. Also chimps display a high level of inteligence.

 

Or is this a Puddingroll?

 

I'd like to assume you are trolling. Did you even read any of the posts after the first one?

 

We did not evolve directly from chimps. We share a common, fairly recent ancestor with them.

[J-Max]

I jumped in at the title alone lol.

[Great Unclean One: VK]

I don't think you fully understand his argument.

 

If God (the God of the Bible) is real, and is the same as how he's depicted in the Bible, he's obviously a serious ass with no regard for anyone.

 

As such, why should you call him God? Isn't god supposed to be some happy, golden figurine that does happy-happy stuff? That's the general definition. But now that the God of the Bible is all mean and angry and QQ, there seems to be no reason to worship him whatsoever.

 

Also, I really don't care what you believe, I care when you try to deny facts. If you think that God created "life", that's your view on things. But when someones says that evolution is incorrect, it shows that they are a blatant idiot with no regards for proven science.

 

His post was completely valid; the first half was talking about how the Christian view of a God shouldn't even be regarded as correct whatsoever, and the second half, from what I can tell, was him summarizing human evolution.

 

Sure, he was flaming, but how else are you going to tell ignorant people what is fact and what is not? Not like they'll listen either way.

 

 

Dark, your correct on what I was ranting on.

 

There might be a god, but not one that wants us to stop "sins" and the such.

 

If you think about the conditions of which we were made from, there might be a ALIEN GOD.

 

But no God or deities in mythologies.

 

Anyhow, I was ranting on a God or Gods that want us to be nice to each other and play well with each other.

 

There are no such gods.

 

Unless a Alien Intelligence manage to fool millions of people, start a cult, and force us through mind control, force, etc.

 

We didn't evolve from chimps, but from a recent ancestor due to our homologies.

 

I think that was the correct term.....

 

But if you want proof that we share a common ancestor, look at our skeletons.

[Catterjune]

1.) Make sure your post is on-topic and contributes to the topic.

 

Hmm, follow me on this if you'd please.

 

We've got about 3 types of people in this topic.

 

The first ones are going "Lawl, I love gawd and gawd loves me. We're a great big fa-muh-lee." Completely shutting down every single possible means of a proper debate since the answer to every question is just a tautology.

 

The second posters are going "F[orget] you! F[orget] your god! F[orget] everything you've held as true and were raised to believe since the moment you first learned to speak!!" as though abandoning what you've known and held to be true for your entire life is as easy as flicking a switch.

 

The third posters respond to everything with just "Lawl, read a book" rather then explaining what, specifically, is the faulty rhetoric in the first user's arguments.

 

And somehow, all these posts are fine and dandy and on-topic and contribute to the discussion at hand, but me telling people to stop acting like mouth-breathing asshats is not okay by you?

 

... Fascinating.

 

2.) No cursing in general or its sub-sections.

 

I don't believe I've ever read that as a rule, so I'll kindly ask you to cite your source for this one.

 

That being said, there's auto filters put in place, aren't there? Unless the word [f - followed by 3 asterisks] became a swear recently, I'm perfectly within this (possibly non-existent) rule.

[Dark]

Just because everyone else is off-topic doesn't mean you are compelled to be off-topic. Actually, you aren't even compelled to be in this thread at all. I may be being a huuuge hypocrite right now, but why come to the thread if you aren't going to post anything remotely on-topic?

 

Also, I assumed that you actually typed out the word instead of putting an f and three asteriks. I thought the filter MADE it an f and three asteriks. mah bad

 

 

[CrabHelmet]

Because whether Pika self-censored or was filter-censored totally alters the content of the post.

 

Also, I fail to see how telling people that their "debate" sucks contributes less than the sucky "debate" we have. Explain, Dark.

[Nexev]

I don't think you fully understand his argument.

 

If God (the God of the Bible) is real, and is the same as how he's depicted in the Bible, he's obviously a serious ass with no regard for anyone.

 

As such, why should you call him God? Isn't god supposed to be some happy, golden figurine that does happy-happy stuff? That's the general definition. But now that the God of the Bible is all mean and angry and QQ, there seems to be no reason to worship him whatsoever.

 

Also, I really don't care what you believe, I care when you try to deny facts. If you think that God created "life", that's your view on things. But when someones says that evolution is incorrect, it shows that they are a blatant idiot with no regards for proven science.

 

His post was completely valid; the first half was talking about how the Christian view of a God shouldn't even be regarded as correct whatsoever, and the second half, from what I can tell, was him summarizing human evolution.

 

Sure, he was flaming, but how else are you going to tell ignorant people what is fact and what is not? Not like they'll listen either way.

 

I think you call God, God cause well... that's his name.

 

I see what you mean by the second half but just cause a bible says someone is nice but is also a dick via his one actions doesn't change much.

 

See if you acknowledge he is a dick cause he did that, you have to acknowledge he did everything, thus he created humanity.

 

Inversely, if you do not acknowledge god being a jerk because of what he did and thus not acknowledging his actions the arguement is rendered pointless.

 

Maybe the bible is wrong on some cases, I never read it in my life, but even if god was a jerk does that simply change everything?

 

Plus of course the bible will say god is great, it was allegedly written by god or something, therefore God merely has an ego problem.

 

You can't deny a fact on grammar, and while I really don't believe human's popped up just cause of gods sayso, I do not believe that the argument that god is a dick yet it tells you he's great works.

 

Second half I didn't read, I'm sorry and my only excuse is that I really didn't want to.

 

@Crab: Oh.... now I feel guilty.

 

Whatever.

 

 

Anyway, why is this debate if it's a fact that humans didn't involve from chimps?

 

There is nothing to debate about really.

 

This forum is confusing.

[Dark]

Because whether Pika self-censored or was filter-censored totally alters the content of the post.

 

Also, I fail to see how telling people that their "debate" sucks contributes less than the sucky "debate" we have. Explain, Dark.

 

I forgot that the General rule only applied to bypassing the curse filter. My apologies on that.

 

However, it's generally assumed that when one posts on a forum (on a thread, rather), the post will be on-topic and contribute to the discussion at hand. Again, while this is ironic coming from me, Pika's post was not on-topic whatsoever. I don't necessarily think it matters that the debate at hand was shitty, but if she really wanted to post here, she could have gone through the effort of contributing to that debate. And if she didn't want to contribute to the debate, she was by no means forced to post here.

 

Although I'm fighting a losing argument.

 

I think you call God, God cause well... that's his name.

 

I see what you mean by the second half but just cause a bible says someone is nice but is also a dick via his one actions doesn't change much.

 

See if you acknowledge he is a dick cause he did that, you have to acknowledge he did everything, thus he created humanity.

 

Inversely, if you do not acknowledge god being a jerk because of what he did and thus not acknowledging his actions the arguement is rendered pointless.

 

Maybe the bible is wrong on some cases, I never read it in my life, but even if god was a jerk does that simply change everything?

 

Plus of course the bible will say god is great, it was allegedly written by god or something, therefore God merely has an ego problem.

 

You can't deny a fact on grammar, and while I really don't believe human's popped up just cause of gods sayso, I do not believe that the argument that god is a dick yet it tells you he's great works.

 

Second half I didn't read, I'm sorry and my only excuse is that I really didn't want to.

 

@Crab: Oh.... now I feel guilty.

 

Whatever.

 

 

Anyway, why is this debate if it's a fact that humans didn't involve from chimps?

 

There is nothing to debate about really.

 

This forum is confusing.

 

If God is actually the same as he's depicted in the Bible, that being a huge dick, no one should worship him. Would you call someone that incurs wrath on humanity, forces people into poverty, and kills babies (yes, God asked for a baby to be killed, if you've ever read the Bible (I think it was Abraham's)) a divine being? That's not what you think of when you think of God. So why worship someone who is a huge dick? Assuming he did exist, I'd rather acknowledge his existence but refuse to worship him simply based on common sense and morality.

[Nexev]

Yeah but see, the fact that he isn't worthy of worship doesn't change whether or not he did what he said he did.

 

Which was my point.

[Dark]

That entire passage about him being a dick was assuming that the Bible was actually correct about everything it says, which is obviously not the case. <___<

[Catterjune]

Just because everyone else is off-topic doesn't mean you are compelled to be off-topic. Actually, you aren't even compelled to be in this thread at all. I may be being a huuuge hypocrite right now, but why come to the thread if you aren't going to post anything remotely on-topic?

It's a topic posted by a friend of mine on a public forum on the internet. Can you give me a valid reason as to why I shouldn't be allowed to post here?

 

 

However, it's generally assumed that when one posts on a forum (on a thread, rather), the post will be on-topic and contribute to the discussion at hand. Again, while this is ironic coming from me, Pika's post was not on-topic whatsoever.

Oh I'm sorry, maybe the rest of this post will be more to your liking then?

 

"lol bible, lol torah, lol quaran. pics or it didnt happen"

[Dark]

I'm not saying you can't post here, that'd be blatantly stupid. I'm saying that if you are going to post here, it might as well be something on-topic rather than whatever crap you posted earlier.

 

Also, don't say pics or it didn't happen, or speak for yourself. Some idiot will take a picture of the Bible and consider that proof that the Bible is correct.

 

You've been on this forum for awhile, so I don't know why you haven't fully understood how General (and by extension, Debates) works. If there is any thread involving religion, you have the lolbiblists, the few people that actually make sense, and the overly-religious-idiots. That doesn't mean you or this thread is excluded from posting on-topic, which is a forum rule, am I right?

[Nexev]

@Dark: Whatever you say, I still think it was just done to spark a whole religious flame war.

 

Anyway I want to know, what exactly does the animal we evolved from look like? Or at least it's name?

[Great Unclean One: VK]

@Dark: Whatever you say, I still think it was just done to spark a whole religious flame war.

 

Anyway I want to know, what exactly does the animal we evolved from look like? Or at least it's name?

 

We evolved from many species of animals.

 

Be specific.

 

What era or time period?

[Nexev]

....How am I supposed to know? That is what I asked.

 

Anyway how can we have evolved from several species? A species evolves INTO several species, not FROM.

 

If it did we would have allot less diversity.

 

But basically the subject is we didn't evolve from apes but a common ancestor.

 

I want to know what exactly this common ancestor is.

[Yasu]

You guys are paying too much attention on how religion interpret(ed) God. This is getting really monotonous.

[Hydra of Ages]

....How am I supposed to know? That is what I asked.

 

Anyway how can we have evolved from several species? A species evolves INTO several species, not FROM.

 

If it did we would have allot less diversity.

 

But basically the subject is we didn't evolve from apes but a common ancestor.

 

I want to know what exactly this common ancestor is.

 

That's a complex question. Technically, the last complete species that we evolved from was Homo heidelbergensis, which developed into two distinct species, Homo sapiens (us) and Homo neanderthalensis (who went extinct, leaving us as the only species in the Homo genus).

 

If you're asking which ancestor we have common to both the Great Apes and the genus Homo, however, the closest guess we have is Australopithecus afarensis, whose descendants were Homo Erectus, our earliest ancestors in the Homo genus. While Australopithecus afarensis did have other descendants not of the Homo genus (and would therefor be more similar to apes), they're extict.

 

Mind you, I'm not a specialist in this. I just know some cursory facts and have access to Wikipedia.

[The Dark One]

Quick sidenote at a post earlier on this page: God is most certainly not anybody's name. The Judeo-christian god's name is represented by the tretragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew bible. This has been variously translated as Jehovah and as Yahweh. It is only in later years, when crazies though to censor his name for no apparent reason that it became proper form to refer to him by various descriptions of himself (He, God, Lord, Father, etc.).

[MortalKombatSmoke]

Well, there is no argument. It is not a theory it is proven fact that we evolved from chimps which evolved from fish which evolved from single celled bacteria. Also just to point this out, It's a common misconception that the Catholic Church(Well at least most Catholics) aren't against the theory of Evolution. Hell a lot of the people who helped the theory along were in fact very serious Catholics. Anyway there is no argument, I believe, no, I know that Evolution really did take place. I mean the evidence is all there! If you argue it didn't happen it's like... well let me give you a scenario. A murder happened and now you are at court in the audience watching the judgment play out to see if John(let's call him) really did kill Greg(the victim). Greg's Lawyer takes out evidence of a knife covered in Greg's blood that was found burred deep in Greg's skull. the knife not only had all of John's finger prints all over the knife, but he also left a picture of him killing John and something was written on it and it said, "Look! I killed Greg!" and he left a bunch of personal information on the back of the picture, some of the stuff that only John would know. Is he guilty? Yes. But then John says that the evidence doesn't justify that he committed the murder. Then the Lawyer pulls out a security camera tape that shows John killing Greg. There is no mistake that it is John who is killing Greg but he still Deny's it. John represents everyone who still doesn't think Evolution is correct. If you looked at the evidence you can clearly see Evolution taking place. You can actually TOUCH the evidence.