Re: Burmese Fossil Indicates Apes Arose in Asia, Not Africa

On Jul 4, 5:00 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:03 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andrew Cunningham wrote:
On Jul 3, 2:29 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Boikat wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:29 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Kermit wrote:
On Jul 2, 9:05 am, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Harvest Dancer wrote:
Interesting article, if the language is a little confused. It
talks about the common ancestor of monkeys and apes at about
47 mya, but the headline talks just about apes. Proconsul,
considered by many to be close to the last common ancestor of
apes, arose about 27 mya.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529770,00.html

Sometimes they should get a scientist to proof-read science
articles, including headlines. But the article is still
interesting.

Like Kermit said: "Which Scientist Do You Believe"?

The context of the post in which I said that contained the
answer: The scientists with the evidence. The scientists who use
scientific methodology. When in doubt (as in a field in which
one is not expert), the scientific mainstream.

Who is to say your methodology is the correct one?

It works better than consulting ancinet texts, that's for sure.

Just because it is scientific mainstream?

No, because the methodology works. If you have a better method,
I'm sure a lot of people would like to hear about it. Do you have
one?

Well hell K. If we always go by what's scientific mainstream we
may never have discovered the world was round.

Using "ancient texts" as a source of knowledge, it would still be
considered flat, except for those weirdos that thinks it a sphere.
Them and their stupid mathy formulas and scientifical stuff.

Your mind is still stuck in the stone age

Boikat

oopsie!

Boikitty wrong again.

The book of isiah clearly has the earth as a circle.

A circle is still flat. You have just admitted that the Bible
describes the earth as flat. Do you deny that you believe this then?
Or do you affirm your belief that this planet we all reside on is,
in fact, a circle and not a sphere?

No I didn't you idiot. The "circle" is described from high enough up
that men look like grasshoppers.

THAT would make the circle a "globe"

I'm sorry, but circles are two-dimensional objects. You can deny it
all you like, but a circle is not a "globe".

Error. Ancient man had no other word to describe sphere or globe. "Circle"
was the only available description. But when read in context, we can ":get
it". We can understand that the word "circle" is describing the sphere of
the earth from so high up that men looked like grasshoppers.

 In fact, here is how your

logic fails: Imagine being in an airplane and being so high up that
all the buildings are as tiny as ants(forget the fact that you can't
even see individual people). Are you able to see all of the nations of
the planet from this airplane? No? Perhaps they were even higher up
then, perhaps they were in space. Could you still see all the nations
of the planet? No? I guess, then, that this planet must be flat, as
per the Bible's descriptions. Please do not blaspheme these holy
scriptures with your ignorance.

That's weird, I thought the Bible was the infallible and literal word
of god. Are you telling me that we can't take it as being 100% correct
as a literal source of information; that it was written by ancient men
who knew little to nothing of the actual workings of the universe
around them?

Also, you still didn't really read any of the last part of my text.
Matthew 4:8 says, “Once again, the devil took him to a very high
mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their
glory.” All of the planet was visible from atop this mountain, which
means that the earth must be flat, lest the holy scripture be wrong
yet again(or at least, you've claimed that it's wrong at least once so
far).

But here, after careful thought, I've decided to help you out so that
everything makes perfect sense, using (some of) your own words:

Error. Ancient man had no other way to describe the origin of the world around them. "Making things up(the Bible)"
was the only available option. But when read in context, we can ":get
it". We can understand that the "Bible" is describing the views of
the ancient peoples of the Middle East, in regards to how they thought the universe was created and how seemingly >unexplainable things around them made sense(for example, a "great flood" to explain why seashells and fossil fish >would be found far away from water).

.

Relevant Pages