Another bash of new comments from no other than the Mr. Eliseo Soriano's site (applause! applause!). Hohum...I guess I have to answer these rants again.
Here's from someone named "thevictimareyou".
To All Atheists:You are no better than any other great and dignified person that contributed much in this world we live in..who are you compared to einstein,bacon,isaac newton,galileo etc.,who believe in the existence of God.The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine. Atheism is just the result of insufficient depth of philosophy.Observe the constitution of your body and see how they works. Atheism is rather in the lives than in the heart of a man.Hope you consider this,we have nothing against you just observe what bro.eli is telling.A little bit of philosophy will inclineth a man’s mind to atheism,but depth in philosophy will bring out a man’s mind to religion..no doubt!!!
Now "thevictimareyou" thinks that these great people (Einstein, Bacon,Isaac Newton and Galileo)believed in the same god he believed...Geeezzz...
Let me skip the issue of the so-called "divine order" that this guy is talking about and let me just go to the issue concerning philosophy. Obviously "thevictimareyou" thinks that opinion counts huh?
The quote "A little bit of philosophy will inclineth a man’s mind to atheism,but depth in philosophy will bring out a man’s mind to religion" was Francis Bacon's opinion. There are almost 6 billion people in this planet and we have atleast 6 billion different opinions.
Second, did "thevictimareyou" know the context of the said quote? Probably not. What does Francis Bacon mean of the word "religion", "philosophy" and "atheism"? Maybe "thevictimareyou" can enlighten us a little more about it.
It is always a mistake to base very much on one sentence taken out of context, no matter who uttered it.
And here's a good laugh from someone named Genesis:
Hi Atheists.. what are those scientific evidences that does not point to the existence of any God? I need facts not theories..
I also have a question that keeps bothering me.. I was in the verge of believing that all humans came from monkeys/apes as Darwin “theorized”… The Theory of Evolution as what we call, when I suddenly thought of something.. if apes/monkeys have evolved to become humans, why is it that there are still apes and monkeys in the present time?
Scientists believe that crocodiles have evolved from some sort of pre-historic amphibians.. which believed to have descended from psuedosuchians who walked on their hind legs, and lived during the late Triassic period.. there may be truth in it and it is evident that there are no such pre-historic creatures anymore as evolution have changed the crocodiles’ features and appearance. The result: “modern day crocs”..
Now, if primates have evolved to become to humans… why are there still so many species of primates in the present time? Can any intelligent scientist reading this blog explain to me this? Why oh Why that of all creatures that are deemed to have evolved from pre-historic creatures (which are now gone, because of evolution of course!).. why is it that primates did not take the same course as the other creatures? Facts pls.. not theories.
Here's from someone named "thevictimareyou".
To All Atheists:You are no better than any other great and dignified person that contributed much in this world we live in..who are you compared to einstein,bacon,isaac newton,galileo etc.,who believe in the existence of God.The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine. Atheism is just the result of insufficient depth of philosophy.Observe the constitution of your body and see how they works. Atheism is rather in the lives than in the heart of a man.Hope you consider this,we have nothing against you just observe what bro.eli is telling.A little bit of philosophy will inclineth a man’s mind to atheism,but depth in philosophy will bring out a man’s mind to religion..no doubt!!!
Now "thevictimareyou" thinks that these great people (Einstein, Bacon,Isaac Newton and Galileo)believed in the same god he believed...Geeezzz...
Let me skip the issue of the so-called "divine order" that this guy is talking about and let me just go to the issue concerning philosophy. Obviously "thevictimareyou" thinks that opinion counts huh?
The quote "A little bit of philosophy will inclineth a man’s mind to atheism,but depth in philosophy will bring out a man’s mind to religion" was Francis Bacon's opinion. There are almost 6 billion people in this planet and we have atleast 6 billion different opinions.
Second, did "thevictimareyou" know the context of the said quote? Probably not. What does Francis Bacon mean of the word "religion", "philosophy" and "atheism"? Maybe "thevictimareyou" can enlighten us a little more about it.
It is always a mistake to base very much on one sentence taken out of context, no matter who uttered it.
And here's a good laugh from someone named Genesis:
Hi Atheists.. what are those scientific evidences that does not point to the existence of any God? I need facts not theories..
I also have a question that keeps bothering me.. I was in the verge of believing that all humans came from monkeys/apes as Darwin “theorized”… The Theory of Evolution as what we call, when I suddenly thought of something.. if apes/monkeys have evolved to become humans, why is it that there are still apes and monkeys in the present time?
Scientists believe that crocodiles have evolved from some sort of pre-historic amphibians.. which believed to have descended from psuedosuchians who walked on their hind legs, and lived during the late Triassic period.. there may be truth in it and it is evident that there are no such pre-historic creatures anymore as evolution have changed the crocodiles’ features and appearance. The result: “modern day crocs”..
Now, if primates have evolved to become to humans… why are there still so many species of primates in the present time? Can any intelligent scientist reading this blog explain to me this? Why oh Why that of all creatures that are deemed to have evolved from pre-historic creatures (which are now gone, because of evolution of course!).. why is it that primates did not take the same course as the other creatures? Facts pls.. not theories.
Obviously Genesis here doesn't know a thing or two in the issue she's (I assume she's a girl) talking about.
One reason is that evolution doesn't necessary mean atheism. There are theologians who seems quite comfortable with evolution and there are scientists that promotes theistic evolution like Kenneth Miller, Francisco Ayala, Ian Barboun, Howard van Till and John Polkinghorne. So why would Genesis used evolution as an argument against atheism?
Fact vs. Theory?
Genesis (like other Christian fundies and...as Ricahrd Dawkins called them - history deniers) always insist that evolution is only a "theory". That's because these people doesn't know the word theory in a scientific sense.
When used by scientists, theory doesn't mean speculation. Theory in a scientific sense means a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principle, or causes of something known or observed.
Uh...that's why we call some scientific facts as theory, like the "cell theory", "theory of relativity", "many-particle theory" and "theory of metallic conduction".
Amphibian to Crocodile?
So did the amphibians changed into an alligator or a crocodile (...which believed to have descended from psuedosuchians who walked on their hind legs, and lived during the late Triassic period?) Well...that will be your idea about it if you are too..eh should I say "ignorant" (or too lazy to even study) evolution.
In Genesis' message, she seems to imply that change from one species to another is impossible.
Really?
Most paleontologists agree that from a group of amphibian-like tetrapods in the late Carboniferous period, the amniotes separated into...wait a minute. So why and how did the amniotes changed?
Easy! By natural selection of course!
As Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace saw it in 1858, all species over produce their kind, causing a struggle for the limited resources that support existence. Adaptation follows and those organism whose variation and improvement cause it to survive will generate more offspring and these new adaptations will be the new features of their descendants in which in time will produce new species.
Back to the amniotes...eh for your information @ Genesis, crocodiles are not related to amphibians. They are more kin with birds and dinosaurs. In the rule of cladism, crocodilians shares a more common lineages with the extinct dinosaurs and birds.
Now...amniotes transition from amphibian-like ancestors to reptiles was not about having cold-feet from water. It was about the amniotic egg. It's all about the shelled egg you now buy in the market! A hard shelled egg made land existence possible!
Human Evolution in the Jiffy!
Really?
Most paleontologists agree that from a group of amphibian-like tetrapods in the late Carboniferous period, the amniotes separated into...wait a minute. So why and how did the amniotes changed?
Easy! By natural selection of course!
As Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace saw it in 1858, all species over produce their kind, causing a struggle for the limited resources that support existence. Adaptation follows and those organism whose variation and improvement cause it to survive will generate more offspring and these new adaptations will be the new features of their descendants in which in time will produce new species.
Back to the amniotes...eh for your information @ Genesis, crocodiles are not related to amphibians. They are more kin with birds and dinosaurs. In the rule of cladism, crocodilians shares a more common lineages with the extinct dinosaurs and birds.
Now...amniotes transition from amphibian-like ancestors to reptiles was not about having cold-feet from water. It was about the amniotic egg. It's all about the shelled egg you now buy in the market! A hard shelled egg made land existence possible!
Human Evolution in the Jiffy!
The same with crocs @ Genesis, monkeys, apes and human came from a common ancestor. That's why we share at least 95 percent genetic material with the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).
Eh...what?
Ah...if apes/monkeys have evolved to become humans, why is it that there are still apes and monkeys in the present time?
Well let see...if the Indonesians and the Malaysians once entered and colonized this land you now called The Philippines, then why are there still Indonesians and Malaysians? Silly isn't it?
Man and monkey evolved from a common ancestor...but monkeys are in a different lineage. That's why there are still monkeys in the Manila Zoo.
Anyway, the problem here @ Genesis is that you assume that evolution implies some inbuilt tendency for advancement or progress. That there is a so-called "Great Chain of Being" in which everything in life sat on a staircase or a ladder.
Biologically speaking, evolution of a new form always develop within the architectural constrain of the phylum's ancestral pattern. But remember, there is also no barrier keeping evolutionary change within specific limits.
Sounds contradicting?
Not exactly, you see @ Genesis, the major body plan becomes a limiting determinant of body form. That's why a dog doesn't turn into a cat, a fish into a bird or a monkey into a human being.
Yet a monkey and a man share a common ancestor. Well...a common ancestor would look more of a monkey than a man...Yet as they say...a gene is a gene is a gene. A dog, a cat, a fish, a bird, a monkey, a man and even a papaya have exactly the same basic chemical composition, the same DNA/RNA components and the same hereditary mechanism - It's purely a matter of chemistry!
Eh...what?
Ah...if apes/monkeys have evolved to become humans, why is it that there are still apes and monkeys in the present time?
Well let see...if the Indonesians and the Malaysians once entered and colonized this land you now called The Philippines, then why are there still Indonesians and Malaysians? Silly isn't it?
Man and monkey evolved from a common ancestor...but monkeys are in a different lineage. That's why there are still monkeys in the Manila Zoo.
Anyway, the problem here @ Genesis is that you assume that evolution implies some inbuilt tendency for advancement or progress. That there is a so-called "Great Chain of Being" in which everything in life sat on a staircase or a ladder.
Biologically speaking, evolution of a new form always develop within the architectural constrain of the phylum's ancestral pattern. But remember, there is also no barrier keeping evolutionary change within specific limits.
Sounds contradicting?
Not exactly, you see @ Genesis, the major body plan becomes a limiting determinant of body form. That's why a dog doesn't turn into a cat, a fish into a bird or a monkey into a human being.
Yet a monkey and a man share a common ancestor. Well...a common ancestor would look more of a monkey than a man...Yet as they say...a gene is a gene is a gene. A dog, a cat, a fish, a bird, a monkey, a man and even a papaya have exactly the same basic chemical composition, the same DNA/RNA components and the same hereditary mechanism - It's purely a matter of chemistry!
