Distant Relatives

Kid Joe wrote:

He can seem pretty dumb at times. I didn't feel it was a huge issue on this album, though. No more than usual, at least.

As far as his take on science vs religion, that's his point of view. He's entitled. And a collaboration with a lifestyle Rastafarian is nothing but an appropriate forum.

I, myself, agree with the scientific accounts of history. However, it is too often overlooked that, either way, you reach a point where a leap of faith is required.

Smh @ "leap of faith". I think it's fucking stupid and borderline irresponsible for ANYBODY to go around acting like they know better than scientists. How did these people get so smart? Seriously? Do they do their own research? I think it's a goddamn crime that idiots that disavow evolution and other FACTS (ha) still get to take advantage of things like the internet, television, cell phones, etc. Either it all works or it doesn't. You can't pick and choose which science you believe. It's moronic.

And again, the problem here is that some one who's obviously not informed on the subject is speaking like he knows best. Giving credit to southern slaves for friend chicken is one thing, but completely ignoring history to make up statements like he did on Patience (and previously on songs like "I Can") furthers the misinformation being fed to poor urban youth.

N3R0N0N Of 0nslaught3r wrote:

Cise Starr wrote:

After a few spins the rating went up. I'll give it around a 4.3-4.5. Like KJ said there are a few skip tracks. What I said before was on first impression so you have to bear with me. Nice vibes throughout the album along with some interesting messages.

I like Untitled more that this for the record.

Interesting messages like science is bullshit. Nas still needs to keep some of his ludicris opinions to himself.

You have some pretty damn retarded opinions, but that never stopped you from expressing them even at the expense of riducule.

N3R0 isn't been seen/heard by a big portion of the world.

Shaun wrote:

N3R0 isn't been seen/heard by a big portion of the world.

Thank God for that

I am no Creationist, even by a long shot. But, if you are unwilling to admit the incomplete nature of evolutionary theory then you are no better than any run of the mill, blind Conservative.

There's a HUGE difference between saying that a theory founded in fact is incomplete but not flawed, and disregarding it in total. You want everything in black and white, Parker. Also, why do you call yourself "Kid Joe" if you're not a Necro fan? You quote Kid Joe all the time "Don't let me take a shit in your house", etc, which are found on Necro albums. Seems weird.

But back on topic, that's a fallacy to say that something that isn't completely finished but is pretty universally accepted by those who are seriously in the science community is as hard to believe (therefore requiring as much faith) as "magic".

I don't remember the last time I saw an ape turn into a human. Just saying. :roll:

As for my name, I really didn't give it too much thought. I just needed a name and was listening to that song, literally. And, I do like the rest of Non-Phixion. Or, at least, I have at some points in their careers.

For the headier topic, let me start with a disclaimer. This is just healthy debate. My beliefs do not necessariliy have anything to do with what I'm arguing here.

In evolutionary theory you are provided with a broad range of widely accepted facts. Some of these are indisputable, but some are not. Carbon dating, for example, has never been finitely proven. Chemistry, the basis for all modern biology, is every bit as faith-based as any religion. It is every bit as magical.

Even if we are to concede that the facts presented by biologists are absolute truth, they run out before any origin is established. They just do. The science community has as many theories on the beginning of life and the universe as there are religions.

Now, if you aren't spiritual to the point of crediting the universe to supernatural birth, that is entirely understandable. Very many very inteligent folks would agree with you.

My point is this: Doesn't it frustrate you when a person like Bill O'Reilly disrespects the science community on the merits of his faith? As if his faith is somehow superior? What is to be gained by doing the same thing to people who believe in their religions?

I see your point, that it doesn't do me any good to dispute a religion by using the same tactics they use against me. In this specific instance, I am frustrated with the lack of responsibility taken by artists (and their respective labels) to get facts out there instead of just spewing nonsense. Conspiracy theories, proof of aliens, etc is one thing, but to blatantly disrespect science in a song like this by "reputable" artists is unforgivable IMO. There comes a point where I'm not sure what even keeled people can do but fight back using the same terrible weapons that the nazis parading as right wingers do.

Really, a religious individual isn't going to see their beliefs as nonsense. Just like you don't see your beliefs as nonsense.

I have friends who are religious, but openly acknowledge that their beliefs require faith and would sound ridiculous to those who aren't christians, but I realize that not all christians are as enlightened. I honestly have no problem with some one believing the unbelievable if they can just state that it's illogical to do so. If creatonism were provable by science, it wouldn't require faith, and then there'd be no reward for believing in the easily believed. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me.

Evolution isn't provable by science. You seem to have a problem acknowledging that.

Evolution has been proven by science? Seriously? Men have nipples, plants aren't black, we have tail bones. What more do you seriously need.

Easy, Powell. You do understand the importance of facts in a proof, right? Inferences, assumptions, and beliefs are not facts. No matter how compelling.

Are you guys really trying to over analyze and do research on rappers lyrics? Calling the man dumb and shit when he writes off thoughts that come to his head from many of sources? Way to suck the life outta good music fellas real good fucking job. Why don't y'all stop faking like you really get this artform when you really don't. Muthaphuckas worried about if a cat spelled a few words correct or not? Or if they got their info from the source you got your info so it doesn't make sense if they didn't?

All of us are feed information from outside sources and we choose to take their word for it or not. We all learn from the words and pictures of others who claim to have been there, heard that or touched that. This is how we learn from others who are "experts" if you will at that certain subject. But unless we were there or studied deeply into that said subject we still are going by what he hear from others. And there is always someone there to question you on your knowledge. Thats how it works because guess what they heard something else from someone else.

Chemistry is not faith-based or magical, and the major mechanisms of evolution have been well established, based on evidence and testable hypotheses. It doesn't have to be taken on faith. Creationism can only be taken on faith, because it is not testable, and therefore it's completely reasonable to dismiss it as laughable in any sort of scientific discussion. So, if Nas is gonna delve into science, then people can, and should, say that the things he's saying are ridiculous, because on any logical basis, they are. He has the right to his beliefs, but he has no right to be taken seriously when he professes them to the public.

E. Taylor wrote:

I don't remember the last time I saw an ape turn into a human. Just saying. :roll:

Human beings are apes.

Jason wrote:

Chemistry is not faith-based or magical, and the major mechanisms of evolution have been well established, based on evidence and testable hypotheses. It doesn't have to be taken on faith. Creationism can only be taken on faith, because it is not testable, and therefore it's completely reasonable to dismiss it as laughable in any sort of scientific discussion. So, if Nas is gonna delve into science, then people can, and should, say that the things he's saying are ridiculous, because on any logical basis, they are. He has the right to his beliefs, but he has no right to be taken seriously when he professes them to the public.

Thanks Jason.


And Kev, if he didn't want his music to be criticized, he shouldn't make it.

No. Chemistry does require faith in the unseen. Any respectable chemist will acknowledge that. As well as the magical nature of it all.

And, evolution is a theory because it can't be proven. That's what the word theory means. Do things evolve? Yes, we have seen that they do. Does this absolutely negate any possibility of a divine hand? It most certainly does not.

Last I knew, more intelligent folks than us were still trying to prove these things. Maybe you should contact them and let them know they can hang up their lab coats.

Don't battle stubborn ignorance with more stubborn ignorance.

Parker, again, there's a difference between a viable and provable theory and "magic".

And you seem to be confusing chemistry with alchemy.

The theory of relativity is still a "theory" but the truth of the matter is, that it's taken as fact because we observe it's consequences every day.

And I'm not arguing evolution vs god, I'm saying that christians shouldn't disavow what's right in front of their faces.

And Kevin, when you pose as a wiseman, you ought to take the time to check your accuracy. I'm clearly defending the man's prerogative to express his beliefs in absence of fact. But, time and again, the man is flat out wrong on common knowledge.

Furthermore, try to fathom that some people do enjoy intelligent debate. Maybe pointing to the album you like best is all the discussion you want around here. But, now and then, I like a bit more.

Should we start running our conversations by you for approval? Last I knew, Nas' lyrics fit nicely within the umbrella of hip-hop discussion.

Ask a chemist how they KNOW that atoms and molecules exist and interact the they are believed to. Do you want to know what they will ultimately say? There is a leap of faith.

Whether you believe in science or religion, if you cannot see life as an ever present example of real magic...

You would benefit from being more thoughtful of yourself and your surroundings.

Kid Joe wrote:

No. Chemistry does require faith in the unseen. Any respectable chemist will acknowledge that. As well as the magical nature of it all.

The principles of chemistry are testable. We understand the mechanisms enough to produce reliable, repeatable results. That's not magical in nature. If you come across chemists who say that it is, they're just getting too poetic, or being plain condescending because they think you couldn't understand anyway. Certainly, our knowledge has limits, but that's not the same as faith or magic, because science has mechanisms in place to expand those limits, and can fully be expected to in the future.

Quote :

And, evolution is a theory because it can't be proven. That's what the word theory means.

A theory in science does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday speech. It's not a sliding scale from theory to fact, a theory in science is simply an overarching explanation of observable facts.

Quote :

Do things evolve? Yes, we have seen that they do. Does this absolutely negate any possibility of a divine hand? It most certainly does not.

Science isn't trying to negate the possibility of a divine hand, because that's not testable and has nothing to do with the theory. Now, if a creationist could develop a testable theory of a divine hand, science could address it, but it's never happened, so science has no more business addressing it than trying to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Quote :

Last I knew, more intelligent folks than us were still trying to prove these things. Maybe you should contact them and let them know they can hang up their lab coats.

Like I said, the major components of evolution are already proven, they're already accepted by the scientific community. The only thing people are working on is the intricacies.

Kid Joe wrote:

Ask a chemist how they KNOW that atoms and molecules exist and interact the they are believed to. Do you want to know what they will ultimately say? There is a leap of faith.

Again, the existence of atoms and the interaction of different molecules is TESTABLE. That's how they know, because they can perform tests, and come up with repeatable results.

The major components of ape to man are absolutely not proven. If you know anything about this then you are aware of the critical gaps between species.

DNA proves that humans are apes, and that we have common ancestors with other living great apes. The only thing that we don't have is the exact evolutionary path, but that's unnecessary given the other evidence.

The testability proves that man has devised an applicable, mathematical formula that effectively applies. It does not prove any actual existence of the atom.

It is conveniently unnecessary in a theory that depends upon it.

Mathematical formulas work because they match corresponding physical phenomena, and there have also been experiments with electrons, colliding them with atoms.

Kid Joe wrote:

It is conveniently unnecessary in a theory that depends upon it.

The theory of evolution does not depend on a perfect, complete fossil record for the human line, because fossils are not the only evidence for evolution.

DNA does not prove we have common ancestors. It proves that we are remarkably similar. Any notion of relation is an inference. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You see, to decide that these details are not necessary is only possible because you have faith, belief, in the hypothesis. Much like those on the other side of the fence. Their lapses seem obvious to you. Just like yours to them.

Kid Joe wrote:

DNA does not prove we have common ancestors. It proves that we are remarkably similar. Any notion of relation is an inference. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

In a vacuum, sure, but we understand the mechanisms of genetic change over time, and we also have enough of a fossil record to show steps in these changes, so that common ancestry is the only thing that accounts for all of this.

Math is not proven or fact... it's another human creation and even Einstein believed that... it's all theoretical, just because it works within all these man made systems and guesses doesn't make them ultimate truth. Sure, the leap of faith needed to believe religion is far greater, but if you want to delve into the philosophical, then neither science or religion have much value.

How do we understand the effects of time on genetics and DNA? Please explain that.

Common ancestry or coincidence. There is just as much evidence to support either. Depending on your beliefs.

Southern Rap Pro wrote:

Math is not proven or fact... it's another human creation and even Einstein believed that... it's all theoretical, just because it works within all these man made systems and guesses doesn't make them ultimate truth. Sure, the leap of faith needed to believe religion is far greater, but if you want to delve into the philosophical, then neither science or religion have much value.

A new message has been posted while you were writing your response. Please review the new message posted below and decide if you want to modify your response or continue posting as written.

Kid Joe wrote:

How do we understand the effects of time on genetics and DNA? Please explain that.

Common ancestry or coincidence. There is just as much evidence to support either. Depending on your beliefs.

Because we know the mechanism for things like genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection, etc., and it does not equally point to coincidence and common ancestry, because these processes observable in other organisms, and there's no evidence that human genetics functions differently. Coincidence just can't explain the level of similiarity, especially given the time scale.

Southern Rap Pro wrote:

Math is not proven or fact... it's another human creation and even Einstein believed that... it's all theoretical, just because it works within all these man made systems and guesses doesn't make them ultimate truth. Sure, the leap of faith needed to believe religion is far greater, but if you want to delve into the philosophical, then neither science or religion have much value.

Even philosophers who profess to being unsure whether anything even exists outside there mind decide to write about it as if there are real people to read it, and eat rather than starve wholly imaginary bodies, and not just sit in their rooms, waiting it out while their false forms decay.

You lack definitive evidence. You can make inferences from parallels, but there is no proof of ape to man evolution. Responsible scientists do not deny this.

Find me these scientists.

If this works here and here, it is not an absolute fact that it works across the board. You can assume. You can form a hypothesis. That's it.

You can't just bend the rules of science to justify your beliefs, no matter how logical they may be. Suggestions do not qualify as empirical.

Kid Joe wrote:

If this works here and here, it is not an absolute fact that it works across the board. You can assume. You can form a hypothesis. That's it.

You might have a point if this wasn't all DNA, so that there is no across the board, DNA is DNA, it's all various configurations of the same thing, and we know how it functions in evolution.

It's obvious that we disagree, so I'm done with that discussion for now, I'm just interested in your scientific sources at the moment.

"It's obvious that we disagree, so I'm done with that discussion for now, I'm just interested in your scientific sources at the moment."

smh. About time... lol

Kid Joe wrote:

And Kevin, when you pose as a wiseman, you ought to take the time to check your accuracy. I'm clearly defending the man's prerogative to express his beliefs in absence of fact. But, time and again, the man is flat out wrong on common knowledge.

Furthermore, try to fathom that some people do enjoy intelligent debate. Maybe pointing to the album you like best is all the discussion you want around here. But, now and then, I like a bit more.

Should we start running our conversations by you for approval? Last I knew, Nas' lyrics fit nicely within the umbrella of hip-hop discussion.

What i'm saying is it is your opininon what Nas says is incorrect or the facts you feel you have you learned from the thoughts or research from somewhere else.

Let me ask you this what did Nas say that started all of this? Maybe I missed something.

Oh and for the record I luv intelligent debates matter of fact I thrive for that shit. But more so on a face to face or verbal basis. I have never been a strong writer so that is why I may come of shallow on these threads but do not think thats all I am about. So do not ever go there with me like I have a problem with intelligent convo. Its just not my strong point writing wise nor do I have the motivation all the time to type all the thoughts I really want to say about certain non hip hop topics.

We were talking about the song "Patience", Kev. Look back.

Nas has as much right to express his opinion as anyone else, Jason and Jeff, if y'all don't like it then simply don't listen. But me personally, I think it's dope.

No one questioned his right to express his opinion.