Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival? In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
I asked a question. Can you answer it?
You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
Again, I asked a question to get back on topic. I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates. Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question. They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby. Graphic, so you may not want to watch. Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it. The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way. They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
Speaking of which, to get back to the topic, do monkeys/apes kill each other besides survival? In other words, they may do it for fun or pleasure.
Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
I asked a question. Can you answer it?
You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
Again, I asked a question to get back on topic. I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates. Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question. They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby. Graphic, so you may not want to watch. Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it. The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way. They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
Support your statement that monkeys/apes may kill each other for fun.
I asked a question. Can you answer it?
You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
Again, I asked a question to get back on topic. I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates. Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question. They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby. Graphic, so you may not want to watch. Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it. The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way. They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
We don't know that. You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop. Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun. Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct. They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun. We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys. You said they kill due to territory. Do they have a prey instinct? I would think they do. So, they could kill for fun. I think they have sex for fun, too. It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
Do animals have sex for pleasure?
I asked a question. Can you answer it?
You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
Again, I asked a question to get back on topic. I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates. Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question. They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby. Graphic, so you may not want to watch. Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it. The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way. They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
We don't know that. You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop. Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun. Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct. They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun. We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys. You said they kill due to territory. Do they have a prey instinct? I would think they do. So, they could kill for fun. I think they have sex for fun, too. It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
Do animals have sex for pleasure?
A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
The charlatans tactic used here is to point out a difference between two species and then say it is somehow evidence that one is not descended from or related to the other. of course as any 7th grader knows what shows us that one species is descended from or related to another are the similarities between the two species not the differences.This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys.
You made an utterly indefensible statement which you obviously cannot support.
Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
Bands of chimpanzees violently kill individuals from neighboring groups in order to expand their own territory, according to a 10-year study of a chimp community in Uganda that provides the first definitive evidence for this long-suspected function of this behavior.
Read more at: Why chimpanzees attack and kill each other
For myself, I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). Furthermore, we consistently see humans -- with no specific religious connotation, have survival-based laws that preclude wanton murder and thievery. Further still, we see simple indigenous tribes have better morality than industrial nations have -- for instance, many tribes have no concept of thievery because they communally share everything.
You made a statement that you refuse to support. Can you support it?
Again, I asked a question to get back on topic. I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates. Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question. They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby. Graphic, so you may not want to watch. Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it. The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way. They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
We don't know that. You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop. Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun. Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct. They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun. We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys. You said they kill due to territory. Do they have a prey instinct? I would think they do. So, they could kill for fun. I think they have sex for fun, too. It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
Do animals have sex for pleasure?
A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys. Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society. So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring. Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions. Another fail for evolution? I think so.
Again, I asked a question to get back on topic. I don't think it's just territorial, but to attract better mates. Both exhibit behaviors to attract better mates.
Monkey Reproduction - Monkey Facts and Information
Here's two troubling, puzzling videos though which triggered my question. They are attacking their own as food and also killing a defenseless baby. Graphic, so you may not want to watch. Your link discusses it and tries to tie it to human warfare which has nothing to do with it. The so-called apes to humans theory is suppose to be the other way. They can be trained to be social and domesticated, but the wild monkeys are dangerous to humans.
So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
We don't know that. You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop. Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun. Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct. They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun. We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys. You said they kill due to territory. Do they have a prey instinct? I would think they do. So, they could kill for fun. I think they have sex for fun, too. It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
Do animals have sex for pleasure?
A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys. Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society. So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring. Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions. Another fail for evolution? I think so.
What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.So, there is no indication that monkeys kill for fun.
Why would you suggest they do and then retreat from providing support fir your suggestion?
Otherwise, the “apes to humans” nonsense is a narrative coming from those ignorant of science and/or the crackpots associated with the ID’iot creationist cults.
We don't know that. You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop. Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun. Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct. They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun. We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys. You said they kill due to territory. Do they have a prey instinct? I would think they do. So, they could kill for fun. I think they have sex for fun, too. It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
Do animals have sex for pleasure?
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys. Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society. So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring. Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions. Another fail for evolution? I think so.
What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is the creation scientist's argument that we didn't develop from monkeys. The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans. Care to try again?
A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.We don't know that. You didn't answer why the baby monkey was killed after taking control of the troop. Other animals like a cat kills a mouse for fun. Some dogs chase squirrels due to their prey instinct. They can kill squirrels for what appears to be fun. We see this aggressive behavior from monkeys. You said they kill due to territory. Do they have a prey instinct? I would think they do. So, they could kill for fun. I think they have sex for fun, too. It appears they do and this does not follow the evolutionary thinking and explanations.
"Sex, we are told, is pleasurable. Yet you probably wouldn’t think that if you waded through the scientific literature. That's because most scientific accounts of sexual behaviour rest upon evolutionary explanations rather than the more immediately relevant mental and emotional experiences. To say that we have sex because it helps us to preserve our genetic legacies would be entirely accurate, but the more fleeting, experiential, pleasurable aspects of that most basic of social urges would be missing. It would be like staring at a painting with half the colour spectrum removed from it."
Do animals have sex for pleasure?
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys. Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society. So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring. Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions. Another fail for evolution? I think so.
What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is the creation scientist's argument that we didn't develop from monkeys. The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans. Care to try again?
What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
A dominant male in species including but not limited to chimpanzees may kill a juvenile to increase the likelihood of the female going into heat.
Male Sexual Aggression: What Chimps Can Reveal About People
It has nothing at all to do with killing for fun.
This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys. Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society. So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring. Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions. Another fail for evolution? I think so.
What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is the creation scientist's argument that we didn't develop from monkeys. The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans. Care to try again?
What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
Now you're going off from what we were discussing. Believe me, my faith does not drive my science. Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works. The only supernatural is what's in Genesis. There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like. To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today? Atheism is a religion.
Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution. Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so. The only thing observable is natural selection.
Instead, today the lie has taken over. Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past. Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories. This was not so before the 1850s. So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more. The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs. Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science. People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated. Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists. Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism. See my list of famous scientists of the past below. They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today. There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
Creation scientists - creation.com
Well I assume you meant creation science was tied to creationists' faith. In which case it's based on faith that the Bible is the word of God, for which no demonstrable evidence exists.Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible,
Well I assume you meant creation science was tied to creationists' faith. In which case it's based on faith that the Bible is the word of God, for which no demonstrable evidence exists.Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible,
This sexual behavior nor killing babies isn't the norm with people, so it still doesn't follow that humans came from monkeys. Certainly, killing babies in order to mate more isn't the acceptable norm in human society. So far, we found that evolution doesn't explain the cannibalistic behavior nor the violent behavior of aggressive male monkeys to females and their offspring. Instead, we find that the actual behaviors do not match the evolutionary clinical descriptions. Another fail for evolution? I think so.
What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.
I believe our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that resides in us still, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures.
We have evolved a sense of survival, it is evident in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we also see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive.
Also, why would the gods create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would the gods do this, particularly when the bibles says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that the gods purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?
Another fail for fear and superstition? Yes.
>>What you are missing is that humans have evolved a much more complex brain than Apes, Chimpanzees, etc. Humans are sentient creatures.<<
I stopped reading after the first sentence. This is the creation scientist's argument that we didn't develop from monkeys. The evos claim it was due to bipedalism in monkeys that led to humans. Care to try again?
What I've found truly alarming about the creationist / religious arguments is just how unsupported they are.
They entirety of the creationist / religious agenda is managed toward using supernaturalism as the cause of existence. Where science will flex and adjust to new evidence and methods of testing, the creation ministries test nothing.
The creation ministries never provide the results of rigorous testing and methodology for peer review because they can't. They never seek to provide positive evidence of their outrageous claims because they can't. Thus, the difference between science and religious claims. Science will test, falsifying and confirm through the process of study and peer review. Creationism only tries and fails to tear down science to promote a claim not available for investigation.
Now you're going off from what we were discussing. Believe me, my faith does not drive my science. Why do the majority, if not all, atheists think creation science is tied to their faith? Sure, it's based on the Bible, but it only takes what God has said in regards to how the world and universe works. The only supernatural is what's in Genesis. There are no ghosts, fortune tellers, monsters, goblins, witches, aliens and the like. To the contrary, isn't belief in atheism tied to secular science or atheist science today? Atheism is a religion.
Creation science was what was considered science and true before the atheists came up with uniformitariansim and evolution. Both of the latter are theories or hypothesis and not something that is observable science although evolutionists like to think so. The only thing observable is natural selection.
Instead, today the lie has taken over. Today, the God theory, the supernatural (Genesis only) and the Bible cannot be discussed or peer reviewed anymore like it was done in the past. Atheist science or secular science, since uniformitarianism and evolution took over, has systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as theories. This was not so before the 1850s. So today, the greatest scientists of the past, i.e. creation scientists, are no more. The ones who believe in creation have to lie to keep their jobs. Creation science has been systematically eliminated from science. People like Sir Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling and those who invented today's modern science and theories have been eliminated. Almost all of the great scientists of the past were creation scientists. Even Einstein came to believe in pantheism. See my list of famous scientists of the past below. They were systematically eliminated by Charles Darwin whose own theories have been rendered pseudoscience today. There's still good science, but the areas of biology, geology, zoology and paleontology are the worst because evolution and evolutionary thinking has taken over.
Creation scientists - creation.com
A couple of points. First, it's dishonest to arbitrarily and retroactively assign the label of "creation scientist" to those mathematicians and biologists of the past. Many of them were persecuted by the church which literally held back science and investigation for 800 years.
Secondly, the idea that even today, fundamentalist ministries are still promoting a flat earth and a geocentric model is nearly beyond comprehension. You need to be honest with yourself and others regarding the role of the religious entities in literally crushing science and investigation which furthered the Dark Ages.
The earth is not flat. The planets orbit the Sun. Gravity, while a theory, is not to be dismissed as irrelevant because it is a theory.
The fact is, Psychology and Physiology began the evisceration of metaphysics as the province of philosophy and theology (although it is only right to recognize the assistance of both theologian and philosopher in this task) and carried much of the pursuit for knowledge to the scientific arena where hard physical truths must be accounted for. In a similar way the development of the scientific method and the consensus it brings, combined with the academic and intellectual freedoms of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, left less and less room for literal interpretations of any creation stories.
We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
Pursuing a natural explanation for phenomena has been validated again and again. Even the work of great intellects who sought to use their scientific discoveries as proofs of the glories of the Christian Gods, men like Copernicus and Newton, has been pressed into the service of naturalism. Their methods and the evidence thereby derived were completely sound; their motivations being the pursuit of knowledge. Nevertheless, the naturalist has encompassed their learning and driven on, pushing back the limitations of naturalism further and further into the past, bringing us up even to the threshold of the instant of the expansion of the universe itself.
The second reason is to some extent predicated on the first – as naturalism has had such coruscating success, why place limits on what it might achieve? Introducing supernaturalism into the picture is an unnecessarily limiting factor, particularly when the existence of various supernatural creators is itself speculative. Some would argue that this is a contradictory position to take; that locking out the divine from the picture is blinkered thinking. But I have yet to see a convincing argument as to how allowing for supernatural creation really advances our understanding. Without a plausible framework to show us how we are to know the sculptors hand or understand the tools that he used, it is futile.
Until theology or creation science can come up with a plausible means to investigate the method of supernatural creation, some tentative hypothesis, a beginnings of a framework, then what useful role can they have in advancement of knowledge? Even the more sophisticated arguments of intelligent design only seem to serve as foils for complexity, not as alternative mechanisms. In physics, when infinity shows up as a result of equations, the equations are not considered solved; they are considered to have no real-world validity. Supernatural intervention as a function seems to have a similar deadening effect.
Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?
And that promise is only true to believers of that particular religion?Bond, what do you believe your afterlife consists of? Where? And why?
"The New Heaven and the New Earth
Then I saw ya new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more." Revelation 21
The Bible states that God will get rid of the universe and the faithful will live on a new Earth as paradise. It's God's promise. Also, we will have new and perfect spiritual bodies. The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire. This could be the cause of weeping, gnashing of teeth and eternal woe.
No it doesn't. Claiming something isn't demonstrating evidence. There's similar claims Thor exists, but you maintain a selective faith based atheism.Demonstrable evidence exists everywhere.
Care to demonstrate?The non-believers will have theirs destroyed by the lake of fire.
