Religion and logic

[lilpixieofterror]

No, that is not the same. People do not apply Pride and Prejudice as a way to live, or as real life, unless they are absolutely insane. Now, the bible does have historical context to it, as do the stories, but there is no proof to many people that it is inspired by God. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that something as intangible as God, to many skeptics, just cannot be proven. You can't prove that God did in fact inspire the bible, you can say that people said they were inspired by God, which for all we know they could or couldn't have been, but that is not proof.

So we are going to special plead our way out of a bad argument to simply not admit an argument is bad? That's pretty funny to see really, it is also funny to see you say at one moment, that it is wrong to view Pride and Prejudice as a way to live and at the very next, hear that liturature has no right or wrong ways to view it. Yet you say that I contradict myself? That's pretty entertaining to hear.

You contradict yourself.

You have to show it first, not assert it.

Also, I've never had a class that told me there is a wrong way to view literature. You can claim what ever you want, and you could be right, because unless the author clearly states their intentions, it will never be known. However, you are expected to back up your interpretations on things from the time-period, and the novel its self. Much the same can be done to the bible, but again, we cannot know for sure.

So you do not think it's wrong to view Pride and Prejudice as a true story instead of a fictional story? So what is it, is there a right and wrong way to view liturature?

No, I never said that, and you know I was joking. You can take what the writers say as fact, but to many people word of mouth to explain something as important as science or God, is not enough. The views and assertions that it is inspired by God are just as provable as the assertions and views that it wasn't inspired by God. Point being, neither can be proven, and just because you quote some scholars does not mean you've dismissed anything. Being an expert in a subject does not make someone right, unless they can back it up with facts beyond a doubt.

And if it is an historical truth that Jesus died and rose again... what would that say about the truth of Christianity? That it is true or will you debate that and say that you can't know that for a fact? I have done plenty to prove my argument and show plenty of support that everything that was said, isn't true of Christianity. Isn't it funny how that works? What have you presented... that you can't know that for sure?

Also, there are plenty of Christians out there who say the Bible is the word of God. Just because you don't view it that way doesn't mean other people don't, that they're any less "Christian", or that anybody is right or wrong.

There is a difference between 'the word of God' and 'being written by God'.

The way I see it is Religion and Science are two separate things, that in the end cannot prove the other. I don't find it possible to judge religion completely on the scientific method, but I also don't try to prove science by using religion. They are different things.

Please quote me where I said that science and religion at the same thing because I said nothing of the sort. I said that there is no conflict between science and religion and this so called 'conflict', is the invention of a few people, pushing their agenda.

And let me make it clear, I am not trying to prove your beliefs right or wrong, nor am I agreeing or disagree with your beliefs, I'm just refuting some arguments you have made.

What I have seen thus far, isn't a refution at all. Basically, it was just a list of assertions and 'you can't know this for sure'. Can you know for sure that other universes exist? Nope. So why is this view pressed as being 'scientific' when there is no scientific evidence to back it up? If anything, my argument has continued to hold water because there is no connection between being written by man = no correct interpretation, is there?

 

[bamf]

Fiction=/=true life, so yeah you're crazy for saying Pride and Prejudice is real. Also, you can interpret fiction any way you want, but you have to back it up.
Is the Bible fiction? If it is, then interpret it any way you want. However, seeing as people guide their life by it, it must be something different than fiction, so you view interpretations differently than you would those of fiction.


Actually, you know what...forget it. Have your "win."

 

[VH]

Ummm VH, the council of Nicea was not about establishing the cannon, it was more about determining the diety of Christ.

It was in fact about establishing canon. The deity of Christ was well established by the time of Nicaea, as Christianity had developed into a solid religion. The only reason Nicaea was called for was because Constantine changed the state religion of Rome to Christianity while the vast majority of the empire had no idea what that meant. They needed an instruction manual.

Nicaea lasted for a ridiculous amount of time as various factions argued over which books, letters, and writings should be included in the official handbook for the religion. Eventually, they agreed to only include the books that were unanimously accepted by all factions. There were many books, letters, and writings that were not included that supported the notion of the deity of Christ, some of them even better than the ones that are included in the Bible.

Obviously, the books of the New Testament are Christcentric, because the faith is Christcentric - hence the name Christianity, but it clearly wasn't the goal of Nicaea to focus on that. They needed to establish the faith in a way that could be shown to the Roman masses who had no idea how to practice it.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Isn't it important to determine what the truth is? Shouldn't we go about to demolish bad argument and to get ourselves a better understanding of the world around us? Besides, isn't it important to know if one religion is true?

If you get yourself thinking that there is one truth, or that truth applies the same way to all people, then you're going to run yourself around in circles. The thing about religion is, many times people get to thinking that it describes one great truth, and, well, it doesn't. The thing about science is, people get to thinking that it uses logic to find that one big truth, and, well, it doesn't. Science proves and disproves itself almost constantly; it's hardly much more of a "truth." Religion has created many truths for many people, but can be neither directly proven nor directly disproven. And arguments can be very valid from both sides, sometimes even when they seem contradictory.
As for truth -- who's to say one religion is true? What if none of them are? What if ALL of them are? What if it just depends on how you look at them or approach them? You can question it all day, but I guarantee you will not find "truth." Or, you might find a personal truth, but that doesn't mean it will apply to your neighbor.

I don't see were I 'bashed' anybody or where I was pushy. If anything, I gave arguments and reasons to defend Christianity with and exposed bad arguments and showed why they are false. What is more important, the truth or protecting feelings? If a religion is true, shouldn't that be the most important thing to know?

I didn't aim any personal attacks, hun And honestly, sometimes feelings are truths and truths are feelings, so I can't say it's fair to compare them. However, there comes a point where you have to count your losses and have the good sense to realize that as you're "exposing bad argument," other people are simultaneously exposing your arguments as the same, and that sometimes you can't really find an absolution no matter how hard you try or how strongly you believe.

 

[lilpixieofterror]

Fiction=/=true life, so yeah you're crazy for saying Pride and Prejudice is real. Also, you can interpret fiction any way you want, but you have to back it up.

Didn't you just get done saying:

"There are no real right or wrong answers when it comes to literature."

So, what happened to that goal post? It was here a minute ago...

Is the Bible fiction? If it is, then interpret it any way you want. However, seeing as people guide their life by it, it must be something different than fiction, so you view interpretations differently than you would those of fiction.

Tisk tisk tisk... the argument was that if a book was written by man, there was no right interpreatation. Now it seems the argument isn't that anymore. How is that goalpost change working out for you?

Actually, you know what...forget it. Have your "win."

And still nothing that actually deals with my argument... merely all sorts of changing of the goal post and assertions, funny how that works, huh?

 

[lilpixieofterror]

It was in fact about establishing canon. The deity of Christ was well established by the time of Nicaea, as Christianity had developed into a solid religion. The only reason Nicaea was called for was because Constantine changed the state religion of Rome to Christianity while the vast majority of the empire had no idea what that meant. They needed an instruction manual.

Nicaea lasted for a ridiculous amount of time as various factions argued over which books, letters, and writings should be included in the official handbook for the religion. Eventually, they agreed to only include the books that were unanimously accepted by all factions. There were many books, letters, and writings that were not included that supported the notion of the deity of Christ, some of them even better than the ones that are included in the Bible.

Obviously, the books of the New Testament are Christcentric, because the faith is Christcentric - hence the name Christianity, but it clearly wasn't the goal of Nicaea to focus on that. They needed to establish the faith in a way that could be shown to the Roman masses who had no idea how to practice it.

That isn't what I found on the council of Niccea at all, here is what I found was discussed:

Canon 1: On the admission, or support, or expulsion of clerics mutilated by choice or by violence.
Canon 2: Rules to be observed for ordination, the avoidance of undue haste, the deposition of those guilty of a grave fault.
Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.
Canon 4: Concerning episcopal elections.
Canon 5: Concerning the excommunicate.
Canon 6: Concerning patriarchs and their jurisdiction.
Canon 7: confirms the right of the bishops of Jerusalem to enjoy certain honours.
Canon 8: concerns the Novatians.
Canon 9: Certain sins known after ordination involve invalidation.
Canon 10: Lapsi who have been ordained knowingly or surreptitiously must be excluded as soon as their irregularity is known.
Canon 11: Penance to be imposed on apostates of the persecution of Licinius.
Canon 12: Penance to be imposed on those who upheld Licinius in his war on the Christians.
Canon 13: Indulgence to be granted to excommunicated persons in danger of death.
Canon 14: Penance to be imposed on catechumens who had weakened under persecution.
Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to pass from one church to another.
Canon 16: All clerics are forbidden to leave their church. Formal prohibition for bishops to ordain for their diocese a cleric belonging to another diocese.
Canon 17: Clerics are forbidden to lend at interest.
Canon 18: recalls to deacons their subordinate position with regard to priests.
Canon 19: Rules to be observed with regard to adherents of Paul of Samosata who wished to return to the Church.
Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

I don't see anything in here that mentions bibical cannon...

 

[lilpixieofterror]

If you get yourself thinking that there is one truth, or that truth applies the same way to all people, then you're going to run yourself around in circles.

Is that absolutly true?

The thing about religion is, many times people get to thinking that it describes one great truth, and, well, it doesn't. The thing about science is, people get to thinking that it uses logic to find that one big truth, and, well, it doesn't. Science proves and disproves itself almost constantly; it's hardly much more of a "truth." Religion has created many truths for many people, but can be neither directly proven nor directly disproven. And arguments can be very valid from both sides, sometimes even when they seem contradictory.

Hummm, being a science student as well as a Christian, I have noticed that many people seem to think the two are at odds with one another, when in reality, they are not. Science is all about finding one truth and rejecting all others as much as any religion is about. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this, why do scientist reject claims that the earth is 6,000 years old? It is because that isn't what the evidence says, aka, the truth is that the earth is billions of years old, so therefore, any view that says otherwise, is not true. This is a pretty standard thing you'll find in any field of study, some views are discussed as being right, others as wrong, and others not sure about and religion is no different.

As for truth -- who's to say one religion is true? What if none of them are? What if ALL of them are? What if it just depends on how you look at them or approach them? You can question it all day, but I guarantee you will not find "truth." Or, you might find a personal truth, but that doesn't mean it will apply to your neighbor.

Well, let me discuss this:

1. None religions are true. That's a logically valid argument, it can be possible that every religion is wrong, but I personally don't believe this one.
2. All religions are true. That's impossible, since all religions contradict each other. This would be like saying the earth is both billons of years old and just a few thousand years old at the same time. Both views can't be true.

Now, my view is obviously that one religion is true, and all other are false, but I tend to agree with CS Lewis on the fact that some are closer to the truth then others. As a Christian, I can believe that all religions have some truth in them, but some are not as close as others.

I didn't aim any personal attacks, hun And honestly, sometimes feelings are truths and truths are feelings, so I can't say it's fair to compare them. However, there comes a point where you have to count your losses and have the good sense to realize that as you're "exposing bad argument," other people are simultaneously exposing your arguments as the same, and that sometimes you can't really find an absolution no matter how hard you try or how strongly you believe.

Hummm... I haven't seen anybody expose any 'bad arguments' thus far. I have seen tons of goal post changing and non answers, but no actual arguments to address what I said. Funny how that works, huh?

 

[Barnabas]

I feel like we've stolen this thread, even though everything here is on topic. Jess, there alot of good advice in here, but the decision is yours to make in the end.

Don't think that your too smart for anything, relgion or otherwise. At your age it's all a huge learning process, It was the same thing for me less then three years ago and it still holds true today.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Is that absolutly true?

We'd have to wait and see

Hummm, being a science student as well as a Christian, I have noticed that many people seem to think the two are at odds with one another, when in reality, they are not. Science is all about finding one truth and rejecting all others as much as any religion is about. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this, why do scientist reject claims that the earth is 6,000 years old? It is because that isn't what the evidence says, aka, the truth is that the earth is billions of years old, so therefore, any view that says otherwise, is not true. This is a pretty standard thing you'll find in any field of study, some views are discussed as being right, others as wrong, and others not sure about and religion is no different.

Yes, I know this. But you missed the fundamental point of my argument. People take science as a fundamental truth, and it's not. For instance, many areas of science are constantly evolving. Many current "truths" of science will be exposed as incorrect, or flawed, or lacking. Many models will change. And this will continue for as long as humans are flawed.
I'm quite familiar with scientific study. I'm quite familiar with philosophical study. And I'll tell you, I have not once found a "truth." I have found many simple givens (i.e., if you drop a ball, it will fall), but those are all observable; those can all be perceived by anyone who has the senses to note them. Once you get into history, religion, the universe, literature, or any other, more abstract area, though, you are going to be dealing with different perceptions, and out of perceptions there will only be "most likely"s and majority viewpoints.

Well, let me discuss this:

1. None religions are true. That's a logically valid argument, it can be possible that every religion is wrong, but I personally don't believe this one.
2. All religions are true. That's impossible, since all religions contradict each other. This would be like saying the earth is both billons of years old and just a few thousand years old at the same time. Both views can't be true.

You probably haven't studied religion from an objective stance, then, because there are really more similarities than differences. There are many differences in DOCTRINE. But doctrine is what is fundamentally flawed in any religion, because it involves historical contexts, anthropological differences from certain cultures and eras, spoken-to-written discrepancies, time-created changes, translations issues, etc. It's almost assured that any doctrine will be part myth and part social/cultural tradition in addition to the religious fundamentals. Of course they will be very different.

The basic messages are not. God, as the creator of all, has been seen as one entity in some religions, and many in others. However, take Hinduism: the various deities are actually all avatars of the same deity. Many faces to one God. So, then, what is God? Is God one or many? Or, is God actually both? If you think about it, across religions, God could actually be different faces of the same thing (or, at least, that's a possibility to be explored).
Also, no matter what religion it is, the highest members all have achieved the same thing: a spiritual truth, or a form of enlightenment. This is the goal of basically all religions; to live as close to spiritual rapture as possible. In fact, I rather believe that many of the rules of doctrine involve creating the discipline necessary to reach this point, much as Buddhist monks go through very rigorous lifestyles to reach that enlightenment.

The details are different. That can be just as much culture as religion, though. Don't overlook that.

Now, my view is obviously that one religion is true, and all other are false, but I tend to agree with CS Lewis on the fact that some are closer to the truth then others. As a Christian, I can believe that all religions have some truth in them, but some are not as close as others.

I can respect that. Good luck proving it, though

Hummm... I haven't seen anybody expose any 'bad arguments' thus far. I have seen tons of goal post changing and non answers, but no actual arguments to address what I said. Funny how that works, huh?

Funny, yeah. I had it in my head that your argument was actually quite narrow

 

[lilpixieofterror]

We'd have to wait and see

So it's not true so therefore... nobody has to listen to it?

Yes, I know this. But you missed the fundamental point of my argument. People take science as a fundamental truth, and it's not. For instance, many areas of science are constantly evolving. Many current "truths" of science will be exposed as incorrect, or flawed, or lacking. Many models will change. And this will continue for as long as humans are flawed.

Depends on what scientific field you are talking about and what you mean, some points in the scientific field are rather fundamental to the entire foundation of science. The scientific method, is the foundation of science and without it... all of science falls apart. Another fundamental truth of science is that observation and expermentation are capable of producing truth. Of course, this is more of the 'philosophy of science', but it's still the fundamental aspects of science that is critical to it's existance.

I'm quite familiar with scientific study. I'm quite familiar with philosophical study. And I'll tell you, I have not once found a "truth." I have found many simple givens (i.e., if you drop a ball, it will fall), but those are all observable; those can all be perceived by anyone who has the senses to note them. Once you get into history, religion, the universe, literature, or any other, more abstract area, though, you are going to be dealing with different perceptions, and out of perceptions there will only be "most likely"s and majority viewpoints.

You must be running off from a far different definition of truth then other people run off from because truth is defined as, "conformity with fact or reality; verity" so seeing a dropped ball, fall, is indeed a truth. Now, you could debate why the ball falls (such as in the Newton model in which gravity is a force that pulls objects towards it, while the more modern models say that a ball falls towards earth because both objects have mass, and technically, both the earth and the ball more towards one another. It is just that the earth is far larger, and thus, isn't noticeable in it's movements compaired to the dropped ball), but it is still an observed truth that a ball falls towards earth. Now history, religion and literature are a bit more abstract (I will agree with that much), but it is still based upon core truths that are critical to the foundation of each system. Without those core truths, they fall apart.

You probably haven't studied religion from an objective stance, then, because there are really more similarities than differences. There are many differences in DOCTRINE. But doctrine is what is fundamentally flawed in any religion, because it involves historical contexts, anthropological differences from certain cultures and eras, spoken-to-written discrepancies, time-created changes, translations issues, etc. It's almost assured that any doctrine will be part myth and part social/cultural tradition in addition to the religious fundamentals. Of course they will be very different.

Actually, you'd be wrong there, I wasn't a Christian in my teen years and I became a Christian in my adult years. I have also studied and read both pro and con books about religious views. In fact, I have a copy of The God Delusion on my book case right now (along with a pretty long written refution of it too). I will agree with you that time and culture can make it harder to understand Christianity, but that is why I advocate that we must return to our roots, what the church was built upon, not the 'feel good' Christianity of the modern day.

The basic messages are not. God, as the creator of all, has been seen as one entity in some religions, and many in others. However, take Hinduism: the various deities are actually all avatars of the same deity. Many faces to one God. So, then, what is God? Is God one or many? Or, is God actually both? If you think about it, across religions, God could actually be different faces of the same thing (or, at least, that's a possibility to be explored).

Ummm, the basic messages are quite a bit difference, Hinduism teaches that this world is a delusion and that we are trapped within in. We are born, over and over again and this cycle continues until we finally are able to be pious enough to leave this cycle and enter nirvina. Christianity is far cry from that and would, out and out, contradict all of that. Sure, you can re paint religions and ignore the core philosphical truths of different religions and make them all 'stick together', but you'd be ignoring the fundamental aspects of all of these religions. There is no cycle of rebirth, this world is not a 'delusion, nor is there several manfuections of God in Christian thought at all. The two are at total odds with one another.

Also, no matter what religion it is, the highest members all have achieved the same thing: a spiritual truth, or a form of enlightenment. This is the goal of basically all religions; to live as close to spiritual rapture as possible. In fact, I rather believe that many of the rules of doctrine involve creating the discipline necessary to reach this point, much as Buddhist monks go through very rigorous lifestyles to reach that enlightenment.

Ummm no, that is not true at all. The goal of Hinduism or Buddhism is to leave the cycle of rebirth, while the goal of Christianity is to follow Christ and to live our life in accordance with his will. Two totally different fundamental aspects.

The details are different. That can be just as much culture as religion, though. Don't overlook that.

The devil is in the details, they say.

I can respect that. Good luck proving it, though

I've done alot of that.

Funny, yeah. I had it in my head that your argument was actually quite narrow

The truth is narrow, so what?

 

[just me]

I do not currently have the right frame of mind, because of personal issues today that are bothering me, to dive into this deeply; but would like to share at least one thing from the opposite side of this discussion.

Evolution turned me against science in the eighth grade. There are still monkeys and apes and there are no beings in between the two capable of showing me how people change over time. I have seen a lot of new children mixed with different races popping up here and there, but no half-ape/half human species and many different stages of change I can see. It seems science has been placed in our schoolbooks and God has been removed from our schools and....new monuments leaving out words spoken in history....could have had just the opposite outcome should it have been turned around and done the other way.

There have been a lot of thoughtful posts and I disagree with many words I just read. I do admire the way most all of this has been handled and there has not been a big fire kindled.

Later in life, after my questions were mostly put to rest with answers I could believe in(many of which came from other Christians that were learned in the scriptures) I began to look into science with a different mindset. Descriptive values of what I see, touch, taste, and breathe are alright now. Still have a problem with Darwin. Most likely always will have a problem with his writings.

Went to listen to a Jewish man teach a few years back that said the stories in the Old Testament were passed down from generation to generation by storytelling, which was before the written word. He used logic to state how some things get changed a bit here and there when retelling stories. I had never looked at that before. I was open to at least look into it. Most people cannot even tell a joke the same way they heard it. I allowed him his opinion.

Paul used logic better than most people I have ever read in the letters to the Corinthians. He was almost attorney-like concerning the speaking in unknown tongues. He was one through ten without leaving out anything. It was easy to follow. It is often difficult seeing how anyone could misunderstand such writing, but that was when there was writing. That was not subject to memory.

I now look at science and see all God's works in such details I get overwhelmed. I have no problem with my faith. I stand at the other end of the table and most likely am not alone. Best.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

So it's not true so therefore... nobody has to listen to it?

Good advice is not truth, but people would do well to listen to it.

Depends on what scientific field you are talking about and what you mean, some points in the scientific field are rather fundamental to the entire foundation of science. The scientific method, is the foundation of science and without it... all of science falls apart. Another fundamental truth of science is that observation and expermentation are capable of producing truth. Of course, this is more of the 'philosophy of science', but it's still the fundamental aspects of science that is critical to it's existance.

You must be running off from a far different definition of truth then other people run off from because truth is defined as, "conformity with fact or reality; verity" so seeing a dropped ball, fall, is indeed a truth. Now, you could debate why the ball falls (such as in the Newton model in which gravity is a force that pulls objects towards it, while the more modern models say that a ball falls towards earth because both objects have mass, and technically, both the earth and the ball more towards one another. It is just that the earth is far larger, and thus, isn't noticeable in it's movements compaired to the dropped ball), but it is still an observed truth that a ball falls towards earth. Now history, religion and literature are a bit more abstract (I will agree with that much), but it is still based upon core truths that are critical to the foundation of each system. Without those core truths, they fall apart.

I was going off a different definition of truth. Given that this is a religious debate, I was going off the definition that truth is something that is the single correct answer, the only right path, and is something that alone can exist within a realm of possibilities. It's difficult to debate religion in lieu of "conformity with fact or reality" since it is not exactly factual or concrete.
So yes, in the case that we argue truth as the basis of a system, truth is the core to science and other abstract studies. But, in that case, every religion also contains a truth as the foundation of its core; thus, arguing that a single religion is the single, higher truth doesn't become much easier, is it?

Actually, you'd be wrong there, I wasn't a Christian in my teen years and I became a Christian in my adult years. I have also studied and read both pro and con books about religious views. In fact, I have a copy of The God Delusion on my book case right now (along with a pretty long written refution of it too). I will agree with you that time and culture can make it harder to understand Christianity, but that is why I advocate that we must return to our roots, what the church was built upon, not the 'feel good' Christianity of the modern day.

Remember: theory and reality are often quite different. A good scientist knows the limitations of theory and human knowledge.

Ummm, the basic messages are quite a bit difference, Hinduism teaches that this world is a delusion and that we are trapped within in. We are born, over and over again and this cycle continues until we finally are able to be pious enough to leave this cycle and enter nirvina. Christianity is far cry from that and would, out and out, contradict all of that. Sure, you can re paint religions and ignore the core philosphical truths of different religions and make them all 'stick together', but you'd be ignoring the fundamental aspects of all of these religions. There is no cycle of rebirth, this world is not a 'delusion, nor is there several manfuections of God in Christian thought at all. The two are at total odds with one another.

That's doctrine. That's the myth aspect, the cultural aspect. The origins of the world, the path we take after we die; those are dependent on the worldview of peoples involved.
I am ignoring these because I am concentrating on the basis, which is the spiritual aspect of religion. The details, the doctrine and cultural aspects of religion are all well and good, but that's not the truth nor the core of the matter. The spiritual enlightenment, the reaching of the highest state of mind and soul that brings us to true fulfillment and glorification that ends all suffering -- that is at the core of nearly every religion, and that is the closest thing to what I would call "truth" in religion.
However, there is really no uniform path to reaching that. That is the motive behind my claim that truth is somewhat a perception; you will not convince someone that your truth is anymore true than theirs if their truth is working for them.

Ummm no, that is not true at all. The goal of Hinduism or Buddhism is to leave the cycle of rebirth, while the goal of Christianity is to follow Christ and to live our life in accordance with his will. Two totally different fundamental aspects.

Hinduism and Buddhism: reach enlightenment (heaven) to end suffering.
Christianity: live through Christ to reach heaven (enlightenment) to end suffering.

The devil is in the details, they say.

I've always heard that big ideas are often lost in the details

I've done alot of that.

You've done a lot of proving to yourself, but it doesn't really work if others don't buy it some, too.

The truth is narrow, so what?

The truth is narrow, but it also has to be wide; it may be a single thing, but if multitudes disagree with it, it really isn't much of a truth. A strongly held opinion, maybe.

 

[just me]

Good advice is not truth, but people would do well to listen to it.




The truth is narrow, but it also has to be wide; it may be a single thing, but if multitudes disagree with it, it really isn't much of a truth. A strongly held opinion, maybe.

"Straight is the way, and narrow the path, that leadeth to righteousness; and few there be that find it."

Advice? Opinion? Truth? All of the above? None of the above? Good advice?

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." ?

 

[Quinlan]

Evolution turned me against science in the eighth grade. There are still monkeys and apes and there are no beings in between the two capable of showing me how people change over time. I have seen a lot of new children mixed with different races popping up here and there, but no half-ape/half human species and many different stages of change I can see.

Why would mixed race pairings result in half ape/half human offspring and what does that have to do with evolution?

 

[just me]

Why would mixed race pairings result in half ape/half human offspring and what does that have to do with evolution?

Missed my point. One I can "see" and the other I cannot see.

 

[Quinlan]

How concrete of you.

Why would you expect to see each stage of change in the present? Each new stage surpasses the other (unless they can find seperate niches).

 

[just me]

Then why still apes and monkeys but nothing in between?
Guess I should say nothing in between them and ourselves.

 

[just me]

Quinlan, my friend, I must leave you standing on your peak pondering what you see in your avatar for the night. It would serve me well to leave you with such a vision of prominence in my mind tonight.

 

[Quinlan]

Then why still apes and monkeys but nothing in between?
Guess I should say nothing in between them and ourselves.

Well there was something in between us and them, our ancestors. It seems illogical to expect our ancestors to still be around today, part of evolution is survival of the fittest (fit enough), that implies that only the fittest survived, there surely were intermediate forms but they were obviously surpassed by us (or went extinct by other means).

 

[Skathac]

Then why still apes and monkeys but nothing in between?
Guess I should say nothing in between them and ourselves.

Archaeological evidence aside, I'm sure you've noticed the tendency in human beings to fear and or carry out violence(sometimes fatally) towards people that they do not understand or are different. Differences of religious beliefs and racial heritage stand out chiefly, but even sexual orientation has been shown to cause violent reactions in some people. From these observations I would think that it would only be a matter of time before the population of near humans were extinct. I certainly wouldn't expect them to be given the same treatment as honored family members and buried in the ground(which would go a long way to preserving remains for archaeological investigation and interpretation). Some human remains I saw were little more than stains by the time we found them, sometimes there would be bone meal inclusions in the stain, but no way of knowing how the person passed on.

That being said what happened to the neanderthals is a mystery anthropologists have been trying to find enough substantial evidence to explain. Many theories abound including the violent extinction one I offered. Here is a link for a story I read done by TIME on the subject. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912195,00.html