Evolution or Creation?

[50%more]

I understand I'm new here and you see me as the outsider, but you're clearly the idot. The only time I used the slightly bigger typo was when there were a lot of things I had to reply to. If I wanted to make my arguments look better, or more important or whatever idiotic things you might have been thinking, don't you think I would have done it more consistantly.
Besides, there are ppl here that consistently use a bigger typo, I don't hear anyone giving them any grief about it...

So again, idiot, this isn't about the typo or my arguments

The size of the font you use has nothing to do with the substance of your responses. This truth is quite evident. Very few if any intelliogent people use large fonts to get their point across. They tend to focus on substance and reasonable dialogue.

You are an idiot, because you are pretending to be curious about this issue. When in reality you have already made up your mind. You may be quite capable of fooling yourself, but be assured I am not fooled by your feigned curiosity.

My opinion of your comments has nothing to do with the fact that you are new here. We were all new here once. It is your approach that I find distasteful.

"A wise man learns more from a fool
Than a fool learns from a wise man"

 

[SassySpy]

Behavioral biologist have isolated certain sexual behaviors that are based on sexual cues. In birds the brighter more healthy looking plumage of males is a sexual cue to females. In the human male the view of a woman from behind when she bends forward exposing her mons pubis is a sexual cue that most guys recognize. This position taken by a woman often indicated her submission to the sexual advances of the male. The similarity between this and large breasts is the perception of cleavage.

Anthropologist have been researching when and why missionary position became the predominant position for human intercourse. It is assumed that since all mammals have intercourse in the "doggy" position, that humans also emerged from exhibiting only this type of intercourse into utilizing different positions. In his book "The Ascent of Man" Jacob Bronowski touches on this subject. In the movie "Quest For Fire" there is a more anecdotal treatment of this succession.

Thank you- it explains why I found it fascinating-:tongue: Schooled in behavioural psychology, I recognized what I thought to be primarily learned response behaviours, without ever considering the biological aspect. More information is never a bad thing.

 

[50%more]

Thank you- it explains why I found it fascinating-:tongue: Schooled in behavioural psychology, I recognized what I thought to be primarily learned response behaviours, without ever considering the biological aspect. More information is never a bad thing.

You are welcome. I love to share my knowledge as well as learn from others.

Behavioral biology is one of my passions. Another is philosophy. Put the two together and there is a great overlap with behavioral psychology.

 

[50%more]

If you're serious you're a religious fanatic that gives religion a bad name. Seems to me to be pretentious to even think you can grasp what God wants, or speaking for God.
Just because religion was exploited in the past(and present joejack for political purposes and mindcontrol doesn't make it bad in itself. And eventhough science has been abused by materialists and eventhough evolutiontheory isn't backed up with evidence or clearly demonstrated(apart from in the mind of the artist who can create drawings based on incomplete eroded fossils)that doesn't mean that science is bad.
I think there should be room for both.

We're more than our physical bodies, of course you can't demonstrate that materialisticly but you can experience it. Do we have a soul or are we just matters in motion without a purpose?

Choose whatever you want to believe but don't let the materialists make you believe that what they say is more than a belief, be it in nothing at all.
Don't mistake this for science

This post demonstrates a gross misrepresentation of science and the philosophy of science. That is if you are speaking of the material sciences. In philosophy there is an area of study called metaphysics. Metaphysics is simply anything other than the physical. But the discipline in philposophy has been used to establish a priori assumptions regarding epistomolgy. In the material sciences which originated from a branch of philosophy called natural philosophy the a priori assumption of the material world is essential. Because without that assumption nothing can be known. This is why those schooled in the material sciences appear to be philosophical materialists to the casual observer. When in reality they are only employing methodological naturalism.

 

[Andro Man]

The size of the font you use has nothing to do with the substance of your responses. This truth is quite evident. Very few if any intelliogent people use large fonts to get their point across. They tend to focus on substance and reasonable dialogue.

You are an idiot, because you are pretending to be curious about this issue. When in reality you have already made up your mind. You may be quite capable of fooling yourself, but be assured I am not fooled by your feigned curiosity.

My opinion of your comments has nothing to do with the fact that you are new here. We were all new here once. It is your approach that I find distasteful.

"A wise man learns more from a fool
Than a fool learns from a wise man"

You that claim to be oh so wise, can't even read what I've been saying about the typo, I wonder if you even read anything I wrote. So don't talk about prejudice. I find your approach hippocritically distastefull and very cowardly. While you immerse yourself in groupthink I'm willing to take a different pov. If that's distasteful that just prooves the type of person you are


Think all you want, coz you obviously can't think for yourself, nevermind trying to think you know what someone else is thinking or curious about.

 

[50%more]

You that claim to be oh so wise, can't even read what I've been saying about the typo, I wonder if you even read anything I wrote. So don't talk about prejudice. I find your approach hippocritically distastefull and very cowardly. While you immerse yourself in groupthink I'm willing to take a different pov. If that's distasteful that just prooves the type of person you are


Think all you want, coz you obviously can't think for yourself, nevermind trying to think you know what someone else is thinking or curious about.

First off I never made any claim about my own wisdom. I realize that true wisdom speaks for itself.

Can you define "group think" for me? I am not sure what context you are using here. Are you saying that my thoughts are part of some human collective and I therefore cannot control them myself? Kind of like the Borg on Star Trek?

Please tell me how your approach is superior to mine?

And I never said there is anything wrong with taking a different point of view. It just that so far you have not demonstrated that you have any idea of what you are talking about. Perhaps that is because of your communication skills, or maybe it is because you really aren't saying anything.

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance
baffle them with bullshit."

The method I used for insight into what you are and are not curious about is from reading and comprehending the substance of your posts. If I am mistaken, the best course of action would be for you to correct me. I have been very clear about my criticisms. I hope that you can do the same.

PS. From what I can gather from your comments, what you are saying is not new at all. Your line of reason is very familiar to me, it is as old as the hills. And it is always (in my experience) characterized by a poor(vague) understanding of the issues being discussed.

 

[Fire Agate]

fact probably. but im only 90% shure:smile:

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I had my suspicions but the large font was the final give-away.

 

[D_Vita_Mee_Tavegamin]

NineInch -- very well put on Scientific Theory man!

People who object the loudest to the theory of evolution being called that are usually athiests operating from the assumption that anyone denying the factual basis of evolution must be working an angle on a creationist agenda. I've never really thought that was fair. It's possible to prove things false in science, it's not really possible to prove something is true. The best we can hope to do is adopt whatever theory is or seems to be the best and then revise that or adopt something else in the eventuality that this theory in part or in whole is ever proven false. Everything in science is a theory. Evolution, the way most people think of it, namely the theory that all life on the planet evolved from simple organisms and that humans and other modern primates share a common ancestor, is a flimsier theory than most because it is not testable and until we invent time travel, not observable. One of the most important cornerstones of the scientific method is being able to reproduce results in a controlled environment. When you are talking about things that happened before man even walked the face of this planet, the only evidence of which is fossil records, then you are delving into historical conjecture. Not hard science. Even if you could observe some forms of microevolution taking place today, there's no way to prove what happened yesterday. We can only make guesses.

Again, the people who get most uppity when you make these arguments are usually those that are afraid that you're going to follow it up with "and therefore God must exist." Which is just silly, on both sides of the argument.

 

[playainda336]

So what's the problem with believing in both now?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

So what's the problem with believing in both now?

I think it was Stephen Hawking who said there's no reason to believe science (including natural selection and evolution) precludes the existence of God. Science only attempts to explain how things were put together.

 

[Mem]

Do you think we evolved from Apes?

Or were we a product of Adam and Eve...via God?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Not again!

 

[Gillette]

Poll merged with existing thread.

 

[Mem]

I believe in God and Evolution, but not in the Story of Adam and Eve.

 

[ripsrips]

I believe evoultion stems from creationism from god! Over billions of years.

I don't believe the earth is 6,500 years old like the religious right believes, and throw what science has proven as "it was already set in motion by a higher power" and dismiss science as guessing.

 

[joejack]

Do you think we evolved from Apes?

We are the NAKED APE!:banana::banana::banana::banana:

 

[JustAsking]

I believe in God and Evolution, but not in the Story of Adam and Eve.

Your belief is consistent with most of the world's Christians belonging to mainstream denominations. The mainstream denominations publicly and clearly embrace the study of the universe through scientific inquiry.

They also recognize the modern theory of evolution as a foundational theory for the explanation of the diversity of life on the planet.

This includes Roman Catholicism, from which the last three Popes articulated extremely nuanced and rational positions on the nature of knowledge gained through scientific inquiry.

 

[dalibor]

For those who are dubious about evolution because all parts of it cannot be proven -- what can be proven about creationism? Ancient scriptures that transmit mythology are not "proof" of anything. Evolution is a theory with plenty of good science to support it. Creationism is an invention of religious people who just WANT it to be true. There's nothing scientific about it.

 

[2322]

Oh why not?

Adam and Eve are right out.

Two central points in this debate keep me wondering.

The first is what created anything to be created in the first place. Before there was a universe, just what was there and why was it there? If the entire matter of the universe as we know it was packed into a ball the size of Earth, then where did it come from and, more importantly, can physics answer why it needed to be there. Mass just doesn't pop into existance in our universe.

The second is the fact that at least some of this mass became self-aware. Think about that for a second. Imagine your table or rear window wiper suddenly considering whether a dress makes it look fat. That's essentially what's happening with us. Some bundles of atoms formed molecules that formed amino acids that became a soupy sort of life which eventually resulted in bundles of molecules that sing, dance, cry, and study other molecules.

Now, if I consider that the universe consists of mass and energy, then what the hell is life? It is unique that mass requires energy to be life and, further, that life replicates itself. Why does life need to replicate itself? Mass doesn't and neither does energy until they take on the life force. Nowhere in the universe that we know of is there any other natural process that replicates itself ad infinitum.

Given these circumstances, despite what we do know, there is vastly more we do not know if we simply change life from being a province of biology to one of physics. And that's excluding the question which haunts all of biology, Where does life come from? Einstein said that, "God does not play dice with the universe," and even accepting the use of the word, God, as a euphemism for physical laws, we're still left with the question of what purpose life serves in a universe where everything else has cause and effect.

My time-locked mind cannot truly imagine a god without beginning or end. A googolplex of a googolplex of a googolplex of some unimagined length of time would have to have passed before nothing became something, yet in this blink of an eye of ten or so billion years, here everything is. A god would have to decide nothing is good and then decide something is better and such irrationality in a perfect being makes no sense to me particularly since a god would know that later in time it would be dissatisfied with having nothing. And to that end, I have to believe then that there has never been nothing but instead perhaps an infinite number of universes ever created over the entirety of all time. The god cannot help but endlessly create since we know creation to be good to the god. If creation is good then it must always be good and, therefore, perpetuated.

The similarities between godhead and life are uncanny in that respect. Both are extraphysical manifestations which do not fit the rules of the universe yet at least one of them exists. Ultimately, life replicates itself as the god may replicate itself by endlessly creating universes in which it can exist. So if the god exists, then I tend to think life is part of the god itself. Otherwise, I can see no science-answerable reason as to the purpose of life in relation to the universe.

Is the god (or gods) sentient? Is the god self-aware? Can we influence the gods via prayer or wish? Are there souls? I do not know but I suspect that these things are true though for reason not applicable to this argument.

Sorry mem, you should have given us the choice of both.