More pieces of the evolution puzzle are falling into place...

[DarkWolf]

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/state-of-the-art-evolution.ars

Too many pages to repost, but it's a good read. Wish I could get the audio of the actual presentation, but don't really want to spend $30 for it, and don't have 3 hours to kick back to the relaxing sounds of science :)

[Casper]

Awesome article.

I didn't realize the word "guts" was a scientific term :D

It rightly points out, without really stating it, that humans are a part of nature, and any attempt at separating the two is arbitrary and anthrocentric. The idea that because a protien is synthesized at the molecular level in a labrotary invalidates that synthesis from happening outside the laboratory is one big wall that needs to fall from people's minds.

And I guess I never thought about the contribution that recent advances in geology and cosmology play in paleantology; continental drift for example, tying together environmental oportunity theories. Methane outgassing too.

I really like what was said about space aliens. It irks me when people attribute stonehenge to extraterrestrials, as if early humans didn't even have the capacity to determine which direction North was.

Evolution is real. Attempting to compartmentalize it into humanistic paradigms is the only way to dispute it, and those paradigms are old and worn, down to the roots.

[Muffrazr]

I found the most inner peace within myself when I realized I am merely another type of animal on this Earth. I am here to live however I see fit. I see fit to adhere to a basic moral code for my own standards, but anything outside of that are purely my own decisions.

[Casper]

I found the most inner peace within myself when I realized I am merely another type of animal on this Earth. I am here to live however I see fit. I see fit to adhere to a basic moral code for my own standards, but anything outside of that are purely my own decisions.

That is the only way.

I once read a post from some unwashed hippy bitch on how bad it is to drink milk. The whole crux of her argument was that humans are the only animals who drink milk beyond infancy and the only ones who drink milk from other animals. That somehow made it bad.

I had to chime in that humans were the only animals who baked bread and smoked pot. The carnage ate her ass from then on.

[Mr Majestyk]

I found the most inner peace within myself when I realized I am merely another type of animal on this Earth. I am here to live however I see fit. I see fit to adhere to a basic moral code for my own standards, but anything outside of that are purely my own decisions.

From whence cometh thy "basic moral code", and how do you reconcile it with the "kill or be killed" tenet of evolution using strictly scientific reasoning, and proof of course?

[exlude]

From whence cometh thy "basic moral code", and how do you reconcile it with the "kill or be killed" tenet of evolution using strictly scientific reasoning, and proof of course?

The basic moral code is very easily described by its naturally selected perks. Human culture comes from fairly close nit communities (i.e. smaller gene pools). The passing on of genetic information is the primary purpose of life, and the determinate of fitness. So, if these communities were small, they would share a decent amount of genetic information. Therefore, not fucking your fellow man over would benefit your reproductive success in the large scale of things. Thus traits/habits that developed and were "moral" would be beneficial and more likely to be reserved. Especially, if your reproduction was not very competitive for resources.

[mightyp]

From whence cometh thy "basic moral code", and how do you reconcile it with the "kill or be killed" tenet of evolution using strictly scientific reasoning, and proof of course?

because all animals have morals :rolleyes: , don't you know anything?

[Mr Majestyk]

The basic moral code is very easily described by its naturally selected perks. Human culture comes from fairly close nit communities (i.e. smaller gene pools). The passing on of genetic information is the primary purpose of life, and the determinate of fitness. So, if these communities were small, they would share a decent amount of genetic information. Therefore, not fucking your fellow man over would benefit your reproductive success in the large scale of things. Thus traits/habits that developed and were "moral" would be beneficial and more likely to be reserved. Especially, if your reproduction was not very competitive for resources.

That's nice, now prove it

[DarkWolf]

From whence cometh thy "basic moral code", and how do you reconcile it with the "kill or be killed" tenet of evolution using strictly scientific reasoning, and proof of course?

Yes, you're still blocked. That only blocks your posts directly, not what others quote.

Society determines the "basic moral code." Morality, and self preservation fall in line with natural selection in the same way that survival of the fittest does.

We don't randomly kill each other, not because some hippy came down from a mountain with scribbling on a stone tablet, but because doing so threatens our survival as a species. We know this instinctively.

It's the same instinct that drives the animal kingdom all over the world. Animals do not randomly go around killing each other for the fun of it. And neither do we.

Are there fringe cases? Of course. But they're called fringe cases, because they're not a wide-spread epidemic. Despite what news media outlets would have you believe. They're driven by ratings. They'd sensationalize video of grass growing if they thought it'd bring in more ratings.

[Mr Majestyk]

Nice theories, now prove them. While doing so, since you have attributed the "basic moral code" of man to society and apparently also to "instinct" LOL, from whence cometh these tools of natural selection?

Layering theories on top of theories isn't working to support your case, except in your own mind which must need some sort of support system for comfort. Assumptions don't do it in the scientific realm, in case you didn't know that, so provide proof in the scientific sense rather than opinions.

Whether you see this reply or not doesn't matter at all to me, because we all understand you don't like to be told that you're failing.

[FSON]

Whether you see this reply or not doesn't matter at all to me, because we all understand you don't like to be told that you're failing.


trans:
I don't give a flying piece of crap who you are or what you think you worthless sundried peice of ex cre ment. Now go to hail merry.

[Mr Majestyk]

Uhh, no, that's your mind-of-a-ten-year-old's grasp of what you read. Your comprehension abilites fall far short of the stuff of legend......have you perhaps ever considered remedial therapy or schooling? DarkWolf at least can pose his statements in the manner of an educated adult; maybe with some further training and/or effort on your part you may be able to do so as well someday, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[FSON]

Uhh, no, that's your mind-of-a-ten-year-old's grasp of what you read. Your comprehension abilites fall far short of the stuff of legend......have you perhaps ever considered remedial therapy or schooling? DarkWolf at least can pose his statements in the manner of an educated adult; maybe with some further training and/or effort on your part you may be able to do so as well someday, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Please tell us again what we know and think, it saves us all the trouble.

[Mr Majestyk]

Uhh no, it's like the old truism regarding pig wrestling: I don't bother doing it, because I'll get dirty and the pig (that would be you if you've lost track of what you just read already) enjoys it.

Another if you failed to understand the first: never argue with an idiot (that again would be you), because you have to stoop so far down to his level so as he can understand, and you run the risk of falling in with him.

Children's class dismissed.....

[FSON]

Uhh no, it's like the old truism regarding pig wrestling: I don't bother doing it, because I'll get dirty and the pig (that would be you if you've lost track of what you just read already) enjoys it.

Another if you failed to understand the first: never argue with an idiot (that again would be you), because you have to stoop so far down to his level so as he can understand, and you run the risk of falling in with him.

Children's class dismissed.....
Indeed.

[flashstang04]

Nice theories, now prove them. While doing so, since you have attributed the "basic moral code" of man to society and apparently also to "instinct" LOL, from whence cometh these tools of natural selection?

Layering theories on top of theories isn't working to support your case, except in your own mind which must need some sort of support system for comfort. Assumptions don't do it in the scientific realm, in case you didn't know that, so provide proof in the scientific sense rather than opinions.

Whether you see this reply or not doesn't matter at all to me, because we all understand you don't like to be told that you're failing.


Quoting the WHOLE statement for the sake of people blocking questions that make them uneasy.

-on a another note-



I think it is a little short sighted to give the attribute of being kind to your fellow man to further the village. Maybe in a sense where people are all equal. In time, man wants to get ahead, and wants to lead, and wants to be on top. These things come along naturally without being told or taught. We can look at history and see that man has done whatever necessary to get on top and stay there. Small villages helping out only lasts when it is on a small scale..such as aborigines. Even then...every tribe has enemies..because they want the best food sources, water sources, etc. In other words..to survive, they need to be #1. That is human nature.

[Muffrazr]

From whence cometh thy "basic moral code", and how do you reconcile it with the "kill or be killed" tenet of evolution using strictly scientific reasoning, and proof of course?


In the earlier days of my childhood I can attribute a lot to my christian upbringing, Boy Scouts, loving family (regardless of how bad they acted at times), and an overwhelming sense of empathy for my fellow human being. Once I got older I began to question everything I have been taught and pretty much summed up my own version of a belief system. I enjoy finding out how earlier civilizations beleived in things, and how their society existed. I base my own system from tidbits of informaiton gathered from as much of mankind as I can get my head around. I strongly feel that each generation of man is given a clue or realizes a peice of the puzzle and it is our duty to remember it all. I could be absolutely off, but it works for me.

As far as kill or be killed, I have no issues for when I have to protect myself or those I love from any harm whatsoever. I don't know how I could explain it scientifically, but in a nutshell, I'm super easy going with just about anyone, up to a point. Then the sleeping bear is awoken.

[White trash wagon]

Nice theories, now prove them.

Prove that God exists, then prove he's a Christian :D

You can't................, and even if you could........ he might turn out to be a Daoist? or a Druid?

[Casper]

That's nice, now prove it

He already provided physical evidence.

Now show us some evidence of supernatural involvement.

[Casper]

I think it is a little short sighted to give the attribute of being kind to your fellow man to further the village. Maybe in a sense where people are all equal. In time, man wants to get ahead, and wants to lead, and wants to be on top. These things come along naturally without being told or taught. We can look at history and see that man has done whatever necessary to get on top and stay there. Small villages helping out only lasts when it is on a small scale..such as aborigines. Even then...every tribe has enemies..because they want the best food sources, water sources, etc. In other words..to survive, they need to be #1. That is human nature.

On the contrary, altruism is not limited to humans.

Evidence exists that it is a natural phenomenon. No evidence exists for any supernatural phenomenon. Unless you wish to include hallucination as evidence. That's just how it works. And the biggest problem a person of faith has reconciling the natural world with their idea of the supernatural; one can be quantified, the other cannot. Sometimes it is best not to even try.

[Casper]

As far as kill or be killed, I have no issues for when I have to protect myself or those I love from any harm whatsoever. I don't know how I could explain it scientifically, but in a nutshell, I'm super easy going with just about anyone, up to a point. Then the sleeping bear is awoken.

You animal, you!

:D

If you have found what works, you are at least on the lead lap.

[FSON]

Is there anything of greater spiritual import than helping each other get back home? (At least that's what the voice in my head is telling me. He also said you people are on the right path but are of a different cadre, and I will always remember this site as...).

[Mr Majestyk]

He already provided physical evidence.

Now show us some evidence of supernatural involvement.

Still waiting for proof (crickets chirping). Behaivoral and sociological observations are not proof, nor are they physical evidence, as they are based on interpretation rather than quanitifyable fact that can be agreed upon by all parties.

God has already been proven to my satisfaction through the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Proof of an evolutionary basis for man's "basic moral code" emanating from "instinct" is lacking, and will apparently remain lacking in this thread. If one is going to hang their hat entirely on science to explain man's existence, come up with the proof that science demands because anything less is merely conjecture.

[Mr Majestyk]

Quoting the WHOLE statement for the sake of people blocking questions that make them uneasy.

Thank you. FBOY was just trying to stir the pot, and as expected failed.

[Mr Majestyk]

Is there anything of greater spiritual import than helping each other get back home? (At least that's what the voice in my head is telling me. He also said you people are on the right path but are of a different cadre, and I will always remember this site as...).

To help another get home, you must first be there yourself or at least know how to find the way.

[FSON]

To help another get home, you must first be there yourself or at least know how to the way.
Right.

[Casper]

Still waiting for proof (crickets chirping). Behaivoral and sociological observations are not proof, nor are they physical evidence, as they are based on interpretation rather than quanitifyable fact that can be agreed upon by all parties.

God has already been proven to my satisfaction through the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Proof of an evolutionary basis for man's "basic moral code" emanating from "instinct" is lacking, and will apparently remain lacking in this thread. If one is going to hang their hat entirely on science to explain man's existence, come up with the proof that science demands because anything less is merely conjecture.

They are indeed evidence, unlike your supernatural proof which consists of incorrect history, which, if prophecy, is failed prophecy.

[Mr Majestyk]

As stated several times previously in this thread, prove it :D

[FSON]

What is proof based on, what is the foundation of that base, and can this have proof.

[Casper]

As stated several times previously in this thread, prove it :D

There is no point in painting a picture for a blind person.

Go ahead and believe what you wish. Your views are irrelavent to science.

[Mr Majestyk]

Science demands proof, otherwise the premise under scrutiny is merely conjecture or (ahem) belief. Evolution has been held up in this thread as the basis for man's behaivor regarding "morality". Evidence has been offered to that effect, but none of that evidence is concrete which can be measured or quantified to the standards required of scientific proof.

In a nutshell...FAIL

[Mr Majestyk]

There is no point in painting a picture for a blind person.

Go ahead and believe what you wish. Your views are irrelavent to science.

Similar in fashion to your views being irrelevant to theology? I'm good with that.

[Muffrazr]

As stated several times previously in this thread, prove it :D


Given you already know the answer to how you beleive, then you understand how much faith is required for even the most accredited scientists to come up with theory. Your smile at the end of your sentence further concretes this. I wish I could tickle your fancy with something more than my own observations, but at this time I don't think I can. I'm not asking you to beleive in what I'm saying, just give it a possiblity, if your up to it.

One of my other favorite pastimes is watching for patterns. Patterns in animals compared to patterns in humans is especially fun. I enjoy watching my cat go thru decisions and understanding of a task. It takes faith on my part to think I understand whatshe is doing. I also feel like we can communicate on an animal level. That last sentence may require a tin foil hat, but I feel it to be true.

[Mr Majestyk]

There are ways that we communicate with our pets. By familiarity we do get to know what the other is thinking it seems.

[DarkWolf]

Quoting the WHOLE statement for the sake of people blocking questions that make them uneasy.

I block him because he's a child parading in an adult's body. His statements do not make me uneasy, I've just learned over years of debating these subjects, that you don't feed the trolls. It's better to just ignore them and move on.

I think it is a little short sighted to give the attribute of being kind to your fellow man to further the village. Maybe in a sense where people are all equal. In time, man wants to get ahead, and wants to lead, and wants to be on top. These things come along naturally without being told or taught. We can look at history and see that man has done whatever necessary to get on top and stay there. Small villages helping out only lasts when it is on a small scale..such as aborigines. Even then...every tribe has enemies..because they want the best food sources, water sources, etc. In other words..to survive, they need to be #1. That is human nature.

Further, it's nature. Not just human nature. That's the whole point of survival of the fittest.

But survival of the fittest also requires societal support. A community. Even those that strive to be #1 cannot get there without help from others.
There is no point in painting a picture for a blind person.

Go ahead and believe what you wish. Your views are irrelavent to science.

See flashstang04? This is why Majestyk is blocked. I know you feel a need to side with him, I dunno, out of christian solidarity or something... but his arguments and rebuttals amount to little more than plugging his ears and shouting "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU SO IT MUST NOT BE TRUE! LA LA LA!"

[Mr Majestyk]

^^^^^

Sounds like the boy is looking at himself in a mirror, except he's holding him wittle hands over his eyes so no one can see him (LOL) and whining like a baby

[FSON]

^^^^^

Sounds like the boy is looking at himself in a mirror, except he's holding him wittle hands over his eyes so no one can see him (LOL) and whining like a baby

OK, Academy Award winning performance.

[Mr Majestyk]

As Elvis would have said...thankyuh.....thankyuhverruhmuch!

[exlude]

That's nice, now prove it

Well, proofs in science are few and far between. But I can say that there is a ton of evidence for it, versus the supernatural.

[exlude]

Nice theories, now prove them. While doing so, since you have attributed the "basic moral code" of man to society and apparently also to "instinct" LOL, from whence cometh these tools of natural selection?


I'm not sure what you mean by "from whence cometh these tools of natural selection?" But, natural selection is one of the processes that cause evolution.

Natural selection is defined by 3 inferences base on 5 facts. It is well accepted in both religious and scientific circles of all beliefs. (I don't think anyone believes that there is no competition in nature and species cannot go extinct anymore).

Fact 1: All species have great potential fertility.
Fact 2: Populations display stability.
Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. In a stable environment, they remain relatively constant.
Inference 1: There is a "struggle for existence" among individuals of a population.
Fact 4: No two individuals are exactly alike; every population displays enormous variability.
Fact 5: Much of this variation is heritable.
Inference 2: Survival and reproduction is not random. It depends on the heritable constitution of surviving individuals.
Inference 3: Over generations, this process will lead to a continuing gradual change of populations and to production of new species.

So, essentially, natural selection is the idea that there is unequal survival and reproduction within species. It is a tool of evolution, but does not have tools necessarily.

[exlude]

Quoting the WHOLE statement for the sake of people blocking questions that make them uneasy.

-on a another note-



I think it is a little short sighted to give the attribute of being kind to your fellow man to further the village. Maybe in a sense where people are all equal. In time, man wants to get ahead, and wants to lead, and wants to be on top. These things come along naturally without being told or taught. We can look at history and see that man has done whatever necessary to get on top and stay there. Small villages helping out only lasts when it is on a small scale..such as aborigines. Even then...every tribe has enemies..because they want the best food sources, water sources, etc. In other words..to survive, they need to be #1. That is human nature.

Yes, but that all plays perfectly into the roles of it being part of natural selection. The tribes work closely together because they are more genetically similar...but when they have to compete for resources with tribes who are less genetically similar, its a willing compromise. (That's not to say, however, that it's a conscious decision. It's a random trait that is selected for/against).

When you don't have to fight for resources, it becomes easier to be greedy and/or be benevolent. Now, I'm not saying we will every be eusocial and it's not "that simple" but you get the idea.

[Mr Majestyk]

I'm not sure what you mean by "from whence cometh these tools of natural selection?" But, natural selection is one of the processes that cause evolution.

Not challenging the existence of natural selection, rather it was the statement made that morality is based on "instinct" and both play a role in that selection process. Given that, my question regarded the origins of said morality and instinct. The answer given was that society determines morality, which is partially true, but no answer the question of why morality is there in the first place or where it came from. Even more so, instinct is presented as the be-all and end all answer as to why all creatures behave the way they do, but no answer is given as to why instinct is ever there in the first place, or what it is exactly. Still waiting for an answer from the OP regarding these questions (crickets still chirping), but he can be excused for dragging his feet because, after all, he can't see the questions LOL.

[Zarathustra]

From whence cometh thy "basic moral code", and how do you reconcile it with the "kill or be killed" tenet of evolution using strictly scientific reasoning, and proof of course?

You're not serious, are you?

hahahahahahahahhahahahaha, funny guy...

[Zarathustra]

Uhh no, it's like the old truism regarding pig wrestling: I don't bother doing it, because I'll get dirty and the pig (that would be you if you've lost track of what you just read already) enjoys it.

Another if you failed to understand the first: never argue with an idiot (that again would be you), because you have to stoop so far down to his level so as he can understand, and you run the risk of falling in with him.

Children's class dismissed.....

See you've got it all wrong, they're trying to get you UP on their level, and you won't have any part of it.

This guy loves himself a circular argument where all parties involved agree to the point of nausea. This is the only he can and will argue about anything and everything.

But he's so experienced and enlightened.

Get over it Majestyk, your life has been a complete waste of time. Now go die slowly and quietly, your 'expertise' is no longer needed.

What a lush...

[Zarathustra]

I block him because he's a child parading in an adult's body. His statements do not make me uneasy, I've just learned over years of debating these subjects, that you don't feed the trolls. It's better to just ignore them and move on.



Further, it's nature. Not just human nature. That's the whole point of survival of the fittest.

But survival of the fittest also requires societal support. A community. Even those that strive to be #1 cannot get there without help from others.


See flashstang04? This is why Majestyk is blocked. I know you feel a need to side with him, I dunno, out of christian solidarity or something... but his arguments and rebuttals amount to little more than plugging his ears and shouting "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU SO IT MUST NOT BE TRUE! LA LA LA!"

Correct on ALL accounts. His arguments turn out to be one large intricately stupid fallacy.

And the ironic thing is, he actually is convicted in his belief that he is of superior talent when it comes to argumentation, which I take to be absolutely hilarious. Especially when you consider the fact that he's older than most of us and contains but half of the normal intelligence of other more logically grounded adults.

Go figure, sign of the times I guess...

[Zarathustra]

On the other hand, to get back on topic, I like the 'nature' of this thread, pardon the pun. I think there was a good teleological discourse taking place in here.

I'd like to add that in the world of morality, there is no objective truth.

What to you guys is a necessary and sufficient means of expanding the moral base class of consideration to include these other teleological centers of life?

Right now I'm in an Environmental Ethics course and I've ran into a wealth of information on the topic. There's some good thought-provoking dialog in store for those who are willing to delve deeper on the topic with myself and others.

[Phillystang]

I'd like to add that in the world of morality, there is no objective truth.

lol

[Mr Majestyk]

See you've got it all wrong, they're trying to get you UP on their level, and you won't have any part of it.

This guy loves himself a circular argument where all parties involved agree to the point of nausea. This is the only he can and will argue about anything and everything.

But he's so experienced and enlightened.

Get over it Majestyk, your life has been a complete waste of time. Now go die slowly and quietly, your 'expertise' is no longer needed.

What a lush...

Welcome to another topic in which you're hopelessly ignorant FudgePecker. Your ass is just as easy to ream here as in any other thread, and the kicker is you like it LOL.

[Zarathustra]

Good job.

You lose.

Again.

[Mr Majestyk]

FudgePecker = FAIL

BTW, everyone gets a good LOL at the way you answer to the name "FudgePecker"; you've obviuosly accepted it being the abomination of a fag that you are.

[flashstang04]

FudgePecker = FAIL

BTW, everyone gets a good LOL at the way you answer to the name "FudgePecker"; you've obviuosly accepted it being the abomination of a fag that you are.


Perhaps he is trying to please Ahuramazda, that particular cult's god,

and lover of men I might add as well...just like Nietzsche.

[Casper]

Similar in fashion to your views being irrelevant to theology? I'm good with that.

I honestly thank you for that.

Don't feel threatened by me. I don't really have an argument against "goddidit". I simply don't feel the need for a supernatural influence.

[Casper]

To help another get home, you must first be there yourself or at least know how to find the way.

Hansel and Gretel still made the mistake of trusting the witch.

[Casper]

Not challenging the existence of natural selection, rather it was the statement made that morality is based on "instinct" and both play a role in that selection process. Given that, my question regarded the origins of said morality and instinct. The answer given was that society determines morality, which is partially true, but no answer the question of why morality is there in the first place or where it came from. Even more so, instinct is presented as the be-all and end all answer as to why all creatures behave the way they do, but no answer is given as to why instinct is ever there in the first place, or what it is exactly. Still waiting for an answer from the OP regarding these questions (crickets still chirping), but he can be excused for dragging his feet because, after all, he can't see the questions LOL.

Please provide natural evidence that humans are somehow "unnatural".

They look and act like animals to me...

[Casper]

There are ways that we communicate with our pets. By familiarity we do get to know what the other is thinking it seems.

Very astute.

[Casper]

[QUOTE=Mr MajestykEven more so, instinct is presented as the be-all and end all answer as to why all creatures behave the way they do, but no answer is given i to why instinct is ever there in the first place, or what it is exactly.
[/QUOTE]

You may get a better answer from personal observation. Turn it 180* and ask "what aspects of morality cannot be explained by insinct and meme?"

[Casper]

FudgePecker = FAIL

BTW, everyone gets a good LOL at the way you answer to the name "FudgePecker"; you've obviuosly accepted it being the abomination of a fag that you are.

I really wish the banter from other forums didn't get second play in this one. I think you probably feel the same way.

[Mr Majestyk]

I honestly thank you for that.

Don't feel threatened by me. I don't really have an argument against "goddidit". I simply don't feel the need for a supernatural influence.

Threatened? Thank you for the best laugh I've had all day on this site, thus far.

[Mr Majestyk]

I really wish the banter from other forums didn't get second play in this one. I think you probably feel the same way.

Many of the other Mustang sites I've visited hold religion or politics in forums to be strictly taboo, and moderate the crap out of them. Kudos to DFWStangs for allowing it to go on pretty much unfettered, and if someone brings their hurt feelings from another forum on this site into this one, or vice versa, it's really no biggie.

[Phillystang]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q6I6dEhKSPA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q6I6dEhKSPA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Blak2000GT]

Still waiting for proof (crickets chirping). Behaivoral and sociological observations are not proof, nor are they physical evidence, as they are based on interpretation rather than quanitifyable fact that can be agreed upon by all parties.

God has already been proven to my satisfaction through the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy by birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Proof of an evolutionary basis for man's "basic moral code" emanating from "instinct" is lacking, and will apparently remain lacking in this thread. If one is going to hang their hat entirely on science to explain man's existence, come up with the proof that science demands because anything less is merely conjecture.

Well my friend, do some research and you'll find that every god in history has the same architecture and story of the almight Jesus Christ. They all date back to the same story and life of the Egyptian god named "horus".... read up, then post :)

[flashstang04]

Well my friend, do some research and you'll find that every god in history has the same architecture and story of the almight Jesus Christ. They all date back to the same story and life of the Egyptian god named "horus".... read up, then post :)


*sigh ..more Archarya S. Bull crap...

-anyway-

Here are ten things (there are MANY more reasons this is all fabricated)

People should really research instead of taking peoples words for everything because it puts them in a "good emotional spot". So many sheep.


........


1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.



Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Also, she was just "Isis", not "Isis-Meri". Acharya's footnotes don't provide evidence for the claim of Isis being a virgin or for "Meri" being part of her name. Only Christ-mythers make the claim that "Meri" was part of her name.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

3) He was of royal descent.

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

8) Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.


Read up..then post......isn't that what you said???

[FSON]

Environmental Ethics
Tree hugger theories that man is bad?

[Blak2000GT]

*sigh ..more Archarya S. Bull crap...

-anyway-

Here are ten things (there are MANY more reasons this is all fabricated)

People should really research instead of taking peoples words for everything because it puts them in a "good emotional spot". So many sheep.


........


1) Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.



Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Also, she was just "Isis", not "Isis-Meri". Acharya's footnotes don't provide evidence for the claim of Isis being a virgin or for "Meri" being part of her name. Only Christ-mythers make the claim that "Meri" was part of her name.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

2) His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").

First of all, there is no parallel between the Egyptian name “Seb” and the Hebrew name “Joseph”, other than the fact that they’re common names. Also, Seb was Osiris’ father, not Horus’.

3) He was of royal descent.

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendent of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

4) At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized. Also, Jesus didn't 'disappear' in the years between His teaching in the temple and baptism. He worked humbly as a carpenter.

5) Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.

Again, Horus was never baptized. There is no “Anup the Baptizer” in the story.

6) He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers or any of them being named “Anup” or “Aan”.

7) He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.

He did perform miracles, but he never exorcised demons or raised his father from the dead. Also, Osiris is never referred to as ‘El-Azarus’ or ‘El-Osiris’ (clearly an attempt to make his name more closely resemble the Bible’s “Lazarus”).

8) Horus walked on water.

No, he did not.

9) His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."

Horus was never referred to as “Iusa” (nor was anyone in Egyptian history - the word does not exist) or “Holy Child”.

10) He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."

Horus never delivered such a sermon, and, as pointed out above, he was never referred to as “Iusa”.


Read up..then post......isn't that what you said???

I don't believe you did ANY of that research since you simply cut and pasted it from another source, which is most likely a Christian source. And, Horus is just one of hundreds, dig up some more and see if you can debunk the rest that are closely related to "dear baby jesus".

Bottom line is this, all religeons are copies of each other in some way or the other, and all rely on making you feel lesser than the "god" in question. This is so you never stand up and contest anything and merely conform to a close-minded belief. Talk about sheep... Christians are the biggest sheep of them all! Now put the money in the tray so I can buy my supercharger!!! :)

edit: HAA!! found it at http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message436242/pg1 enojoy in the "godlike" sense... :)

[flashstang04]

I don't believe you did ANY of that research since you simply cut and pasted it from another source, which is most likely a Christian source. And, Horus is just one of hundreds, dig up some more and see if you can debunk the rest that are closely related to "dear baby jesus".

Bottom line is this, all religeons are copies of each other in some way or the other, and all rely on making you feel lesser than the "god" in question. This is so you never stand up and contest anything and merely conform to a close-minded belief. Talk about sheep... Christians are the biggest sheep of them all! Now put the money in the tray so I can buy my supercharger!!! :)

edit: HAA!! found it at http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message436242/pg1 enojoy in the "godlike" sense... :)


I did cut and paste it (which it why was italicized genius) although I didn't get anything from that site...which looks like a conspiracy nut job site.

The rebuttals for all of the Sumerian and "astro religious" arguments are numerous. When you research the facts you will most likely feel silly looking at the comparisons. These include but are not limited to:
Jesus vs. Adad (aka Hadad) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Adonis - Greek
Jesus vs. Aesculapius - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Apollo - Greek
Jesus vs. Apollonius - Greek
Jesus vs. Artemes - Greek
Jesus vs. Attis (aka Atys) - Asian, Greek
Jesus vs. Baal - Semetic, Syrian, Persian
Jesus vs. Bacab - Mayan
Jesus vs. Balder - Norse
Jesus vs. Bali - Indian
Jesus vs. Beddru (aka Beddin) - Japanese
Jesus vs. Bel Merodach (aka Marduk) - Mesopotamian
Jesus vs. Bremrillah (aka Bremrillahm) - Druid
Jesus vs. Buddha - Indian
Jesus vs. Cadmus - Greek
Jesus vs. Caesar - Roman
Jesus vs. Chu Chulainn (aka Cuchulain) - Irish
Jesus vs. Crite - Chaldean
Jesus vs. Dahzdbog - Russian
Jesus vs. Deva Tat - Siamese
Jesus vs. Dionysus (aka Bacchus) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Elvis - American (humor)
Jesus vs. Fohi (aka Fu-Xi, Fu-Hsi) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Frey (aka Freyr, Fricco) - Norse
Jesus vs. Gentaut - Mexican
Jesus vs. Hercules (aka Alcides, Heracles) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Hermes - Greek
Jesus vs. Hesus - Celtic
Jesus vs. Hil and Feta - Mandaite
Jesus vs. Holy One of Xaca - Chinese, Indian
Jesus vs. Horus - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Hyacinthus - Greek
Jesus vs. Iasion - Greek
Jesus vs. Ieo - Chinese
Jesus vs. Indra - Indian, Tibetian
Jesus vs. Inanna - Sumerian *NEW*
Jesus vs. Ischy - Asian
Jesus vs. Ixion - Greek
Jesus vs. Jao - Nepalese
Jesus vs. Jupiter (aka Jove) - Rome
Jesus vs. Krishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Lao-Kiun - Chinese
Jesus vs. Marsyas - Greek
Jesus vs. Maximus Christos - Israelite
Jesus vs. Melkarth - Greek
Jesus vs. Mikado - Japanese
Jesus vs. Mithra - Persian, Roman
Jesus vs. Mohamud - Islamic
Jesus vs. Odin (aka Wodan) - Norse
Jesus vs. Osiris - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Perseus - Greek
Jesus vs. Prometheus - Greek
Jesus vs. Quetzalcoatl - Aztec
Jesus vs. Quirinus - Roman
Jesus vs. Sakia - Indian
Jesus vs. Salivahana - Indian
Jesus vs. Samheim (aka Samhain) - Druid
Jesus vs. Sammonocadam (Aka Sommona-Codom) - Siamese
Jesus vs. Sandan of Tarsus - Greek
Jesus vs. Serapis (aka Asar-Hapi, Zaparrus) - Egyptian, Greek
Jesus vs. Shang-Ti (aka Chang-Ti, Tien) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Sun/Zodiac
Jesus vs. Sybillene Universal Monarch
Jesus vs. Tammuz (aka Dumuzi) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Thor - Norse
Jesus vs. Virishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Wittoba (aka Vithoba, Withoban) - Bilingonese
Jesus vs. Zalmoxis of Thrace (aka Xamolxis, Xaniolxis)
Jesus vs. Zoar of the Bonzes - Asian
Jesus vs. Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) - Persian
Jesus vs. Zulis (aka Thulis, Zhule) - Egyptian


To clarify, that is a cut and paste list.... if you wish to start a new thread I will be happy to talk on this subject further.........again

Again..research...... try it.
Archyra s was even dismissed by his own contemporaries.....


"Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am He,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Luke 21:8

[Blak2000GT]

I did cut and paste it (which it was italicized genius) although I didn't get anything from that site...which looks like a conspiracy nut job site.

The rebuttals for all of the Sumerian and "astro religious" arguments are numerous. When you research the facts you will most likely feel silly looking at the comparisons. These include but are not limited to:
Jesus vs. Adad (aka Hadad) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Adonis - Greek
Jesus vs. Aesculapius - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Apollo - Greek
Jesus vs. Apollonius - Greek
Jesus vs. Artemes - Greek
Jesus vs. Attis (aka Atys) - Asian, Greek
Jesus vs. Baal - Semetic, Syrian, Persian
Jesus vs. Bacab - Mayan
Jesus vs. Balder - Norse
Jesus vs. Bali - Indian
Jesus vs. Beddru (aka Beddin) - Japanese
Jesus vs. Bel Merodach (aka Marduk) - Mesopotamian
Jesus vs. Bremrillah (aka Bremrillahm) - Druid
Jesus vs. Buddha - Indian
Jesus vs. Cadmus - Greek
Jesus vs. Caesar - Roman
Jesus vs. Chu Chulainn (aka Cuchulain) - Irish
Jesus vs. Crite - Chaldean
Jesus vs. Dahzdbog - Russian
Jesus vs. Deva Tat - Siamese
Jesus vs. Dionysus (aka Bacchus) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Elvis - American (humor)
Jesus vs. Fohi (aka Fu-Xi, Fu-Hsi) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Frey (aka Freyr, Fricco) - Norse
Jesus vs. Gentaut - Mexican
Jesus vs. Hercules (aka Alcides, Heracles) - Greek, Roman
Jesus vs. Hermes - Greek
Jesus vs. Hesus - Celtic
Jesus vs. Hil and Feta - Mandaite
Jesus vs. Holy One of Xaca - Chinese, Indian
Jesus vs. Horus - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Hyacinthus - Greek
Jesus vs. Iasion - Greek
Jesus vs. Ieo - Chinese
Jesus vs. Indra - Indian, Tibetian
Jesus vs. Inanna - Sumerian *NEW*
Jesus vs. Ischy - Asian
Jesus vs. Ixion - Greek
Jesus vs. Jao - Nepalese
Jesus vs. Jupiter (aka Jove) - Rome
Jesus vs. Krishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Lao-Kiun - Chinese
Jesus vs. Marsyas - Greek
Jesus vs. Maximus Christos - Israelite
Jesus vs. Melkarth - Greek
Jesus vs. Mikado - Japanese
Jesus vs. Mithra - Persian, Roman
Jesus vs. Mohamud - Islamic
Jesus vs. Odin (aka Wodan) - Norse
Jesus vs. Osiris - Egyptian
Jesus vs. Perseus - Greek
Jesus vs. Prometheus - Greek
Jesus vs. Quetzalcoatl - Aztec
Jesus vs. Quirinus - Roman
Jesus vs. Sakia - Indian
Jesus vs. Salivahana - Indian
Jesus vs. Samheim (aka Samhain) - Druid
Jesus vs. Sammonocadam (Aka Sommona-Codom) - Siamese
Jesus vs. Sandan of Tarsus - Greek
Jesus vs. Serapis (aka Asar-Hapi, Zaparrus) - Egyptian, Greek
Jesus vs. Shang-Ti (aka Chang-Ti, Tien) - Chinese
Jesus vs. Sun/Zodiac
Jesus vs. Sybillene Universal Monarch
Jesus vs. Tammuz (aka Dumuzi) - Sumerian
Jesus vs. Thor - Norse
Jesus vs. Virishna - Indian
Jesus vs. Wittoba (aka Vithoba, Withoban) - Bilingonese
Jesus vs. Zalmoxis of Thrace (aka Xamolxis, Xaniolxis)
Jesus vs. Zoar of the Bonzes - Asian
Jesus vs. Zoroaster (aka Zarathustra) - Persian
Jesus vs. Zulis (aka Thulis, Zhule) - Egyptian


To clarify, that is a cut and paste list.... if you wish to start a new thread I will be happy to talk on this subject further.........again

Again..research...... try it.
Archyra s was even dismissed by his own contemporaries.....


"Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am He,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.

Luke 21:8

Archyra s is not the subject here, it's merely the fact that all religeons copy each other in some way or another, and then start shit with each other for not believing in their god, that's all I'm saying. Robert Titlon is a cook too, and he's a Christian! Everyone can be a cook now and then, too bad some of them kill or molest their kids and say "god made me do it"

Organized religeon will be the demise or prosperity of any civilization. I'll be happy to know I wasn't involved!

but anywho.... has anyone really found Jesus yet? I know a few looking for him... ;)

[flashstang04]

par......

[FSON]

Jesus vs the Catholic Christ in 9 rounds.

[Phillystang]

but anywho.... has anyone really found Jesus yet? I know a few looking for him... ;)

All that the Father gives to Him will come to Him. :)

[Casper]

I don't believe you did ANY of that research since you simply cut and pasted it from another source, which is most likely a Christian source. And, Horus is just one of hundreds, dig up some more and see if you can debunk the rest that are closely related to "dear baby jesus".

Secular sources are plenty when refuting Acharya S.

Does she still refuse to correct her misattribution of a quote she claims was from Pope Leo X?

A non-crank would do so immediately and acknowledge the mistake.

Syncretism Jesus may be, but not along the lines of her wacko astrotheological nonsense.

[Zarathustra]

Tree hugger theories that man is bad?

Yea, but also man theories that tree huggers are bad...

:D

[Mr Majestyk]

Nothing at all wrong with tree huggers. They temper those who would defile the planet and exploit its resources strictly for their own gain.