Replying to Ape To Man

I mean, wouldn't you be kind of worried if science threatened some of your Buddhist beliefs? Especially that whole cycle of samsara, with birth and rebirth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, no. Samsara I don't think its really possible to refute: the concept is that this universe is filled with change and impermanence, which is fueled by an ever changing series of causal factors. I don't think any scientist would ever disagree with that.

Birth and rebirth I consider up for review myself, or at least many interpretations of them. Especially as they refer to the different realms.

As the dalai lama has said (even though he is not of my sect), if science finds something to be false then it is gone. Period.

Irrational Faith is considered a barrier to enlightenment, one of the worst in fact (belief in the efficacy of rules and rituals). This includes irrational faith in buddhist ideas(at least in my sect. But then again, their historical designation before the hinayana/mahayana split was the 'rationalists').

Theory is something like a wild guess of how things and may actually appear. We need facts and actual findings as well as observation to prove that this matter is reliable. Theory just complicate the way the people should go, it is by any means a great factor on how people relate at things. We don't need theory we need facts. If you people have evolved from monkeys then why did your relatives remained monkeys or apes? Charles Darwin has his own religion so be careful on what you say, Religion: a set of beliefs concerned with explaining the origins and purposes of the universe. Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. Darwinism believe of mother nature, so he has a belief. For him mother nature created everything, and if you are a believer of darwinism you an be able to do what ever you want and every sinful pleasure without conscience, so we would say you are an ape go ahead kill your group and smile but do it becuase it pleases you. That is your darwin, that is your firm belief darwinism. For anyone that believes in darwin should and always study him first. Because if you do believe in his theories, you are one with his religion and your creator if mother nature. Wake up this is not about christianity or non-belief it is plain fact. Apes are apes and humans humans, but who knows if you really came from apes, you might be a resulting experiment of ape and human gene combination, hehehe. Just study first something before you site and say "I believe this..."

well - there are still people that looks/behaves like apes, so... maybe that is true???

In response to Majestic, I think the scientific community basically accepts it as fact, but for religious reasons, within the United States we have to say it's a theory. ;; Christians would be kind of annoyed if we started saying that Creationism, one of their basic tenets, is false. I mean, wouldn't you be kind of worried if science threatened some of your Buddhist beliefs? Especially that whole cycle of samsara, with birth and rebirth.

It might be annoying at times, but at least within the US, we have to put up with some extremist Christians... ;;

Every theory has it's own holes, but I stay with Darwin's theory. It's way more credible and has less holes.

Ok, once more for the record.

EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY. I know they keep saying that on TV, and I know they keep saying that online, and I know people always seem to refer to it as the 'theory of evolution'. However, those people are speaking incorrectly.

Evolution is a scientific fact. Which means that it is directly observable. It might be harder to see than watching a ball drop when you let go of it, but it is in the same class scientifically.

Natural Selection explains evolution, much like gravity explains why the ball drops.

Most of the time, when people talk of 'the theory of evolution' they really mean 'that human beings evolved from a non-human ancestor via natural selection'.

Then they begin whining about how it 'isnt proven' and so on.

NEWS FLASH: You cannot prove anything happened in the past (in the scientific sense). You can simply provide overwhelming evidence. In the common useage of the word, we call overwhelming evidence 'proof'. In science however, this is not the case.

The problem comes in the confusion between the scientific form of the word 'proof' and the colloquial form of the word 'proof'. In science, one can only 'prove things' via prediction and controlled variables along with a well described and specific thesis. Even then, what you are finding is that something is not disproven. There is no 'absolute proof' in science, only in mathematics.

Also note that you cannot 'predict' something will happen in the past tense. Therefore, asking for 'scientific proof' of something that happened in the past is asking for something that is a contradiction in terms, in many ways.

What you can ask for is evidence.


So please, no whining about things being 'just a theory', or 'lack of proof'. That is all a bunch of BS. What exists is evidence.

this maybe just a thoery of someone because the monkies or apes are very similar to human beings. no one can really prove it unless there is a time machine somewhere, but if there is a time machine wouldnt we known it by now? as someone passes back through time. wouldnt someone in the past know? the time machine might be only from a people with wild imaginations. who knows, we only can live our lives. why worry about the past?

Its true that it is just a theory, but I do believe that we evolved from apes as their DNA strands are very similar to our double-helix. Their bone frame and structure is also very similar to us, and cavemen fossils also provide the missing link in the evolution! Lets also consider this... Everything once came from the sea, as everything on dry land now needs sodium chloride and contain sodium chloride in their blood. This is my form of theory, does anyone share the same ideals?

this maybe just a thoery of someone because the monkies or apes are very similar to human beings. no one can really prove it unless there is a time machine somewhere, but if there is a time machine wouldnt we known it by now? as someone passes back through time. wouldnt someone in the past know? the time machine might be only from a people with wild imaginations. who knows, we only can live our lives. why worry about the past?

You know, you are talking of a topic so old, it might be years. Let's just settle this, if you believe you came from monkeys go ahead and claim it to the people and tell them your ancestors are primates. And if you don't believe go ahead and tell them my ancestors ain't primates, they are humans. And if you believe in evolution, where did this monkey evolved from? Maybe a rat right, hehehe. Darwin has a belief, he believes and mother nature. He claim he doesn't have a religion? But what does religion mean? Religion means something you believe and stand into. And there are many things about darwin you might not wanna know. Research and see...

exactly, that .1 is the difference that was made many years ago from our commen ancestor with apes. it's like this, primitive ape colony prime (happy monkies) then a land divide happened, now we have primitive ape colony A, and B, A is still in the jungle, B is stuck tree-less (A, happy/||\B, unahppy) as time progressed, the environment selected for a more flat landish variety of monkey, thus B became us! and A developed slowly with not really much variation on selection pressures. as such now it's (A, happy, but only cause they don't know what b's doin /everywhere else\ B extremely happy and fat, also us) and thats how it pretty much went down.