westmanguy's religion threads
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Next
Blue_Nose @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:21 pm
Simply parroting others, I see. For the information of others, westmanguy's post is stolen from here, which consists of a portion of a textbook "Science of Today & The Problems of Genesis. The error of Evolution, the truth of the Flood, the real age of the earth, the accuracy of the Bible account of creation, how science supports the Bible, etc., etc."
No bias there, I'm sure.
$1:
As there was no real proof, recourse was had to fraud.
Dr. W. R. Thompson referes to this fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species, in which he says that "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an ape's jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwin's theory that man was descended from an ape.
Dr. Thompson might have added many more examples of fraud. For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter in Evolutions as a Process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. (1954).
Thompson had a problem with key points in Darwin's Origins for due reasons - Darwin's theories were incomplete, or in some cases, incorrect. The theory has been modified and expanded since then - Christ, it was written over 100 years ago.Dr. W. R. Thompson referes to this fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species, in which he says that "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an ape's jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwin's theory that man was descended from an ape.
Dr. Thompson might have added many more examples of fraud. For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter in Evolutions as a Process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. (1954).
Similarly, the fact that Einstein improved on Newton's theories doesn't disprove the existance of gravity.
With regard to the instances of fraud - they all have been exposed as frauds by science, not religion. Hoaxes do not, however, deny the mounds of evidence supporting evolution that are not hoaxes.
$1:
It is true to say, therefore, that this formulative period of the theory of evolution was barren of any practical results except to afford a basis for rationalism, a framework for communism, and to provide an incentive for the introduction of fraud and superstition into scientific investigation, when no genuine proof could be found for the theory.
Evolution is a communist conspiracy, eh? Brilliant.$1:
The fourth period might be summed up as a practical acknowledgment of the bankruptcy of Darwin's theory by fitting the real scientific results achieved by Fr. Mendel into it and claiming that they belonged to it, in order to save the theory from devastating, modern criticism. It is like the attempt to save the corpse of Lenin from disintegration by fitting into it parts of other men's bodies.
In his introduction to The Origin of Species already referred to, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.
In his article in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X), Sir Bertram Windle produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:
Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).
Mendel corrected a major flaw in Darwin's theory, but that only addressed the mechanisms by which evolution occured (ie, heredity), not the fact that evolution itself is incorrect - his work is fully compatible with the theory of evolution.In his introduction to The Origin of Species already referred to, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.
In his article in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X), Sir Bertram Windle produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:
Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).
$1:
With regard to the claim made by evolutionists that the origin of the various species now existing in the world can be explained by the science of genetics (which as is admitted by all biologists, is but a development of Mendelism), Douglas Dewar writes in Man a Special Creation as follows:
Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...
Creationists always talk about this "type" of organism, perhaps because the Ark had two of each "type"? Talking about "types" of organisms is nonsense.Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...
$1:
...If a species be defined as a freely interbreeding community, no new animal species has yet been bred by any experimenter. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that breeding experiements lasting over some 30 years have been made with the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster. This produces about 25 generations in a year, hence some 900 successive generations of this species have been bred in the laboratory in the unsuccessful attempt to convert it into another type. This corresponds to about 30,000 years of human existence. There appears to exist no mechanism whereby a new type of organism can arise from an existing one. This explains why all breeds of dogs, pigeons, etc., despite their great diversity are still dogs, pigeons, etc.
That is a bold-faced lie. Experimental evolution has been performed and verified, especially in the case of the vinegar fly. Creationists will simply make things up, while the only supporting evidence given to their argument is rambling on about how "types" can't mix.$1:
That it is impossible to change a dog or a pigeon into anything else but a dog or a pigeon is evident from such facts as the following which are taken from the work of Dr. Hurst, already quoted: "1) The gene is the sole basis of hereditary transmissions. 2) In every case that has been investigated more than one pair of genes are concerned in the development of each character...Genetical experiments show that in the simplest case, at least four pairs of genes are concerned in the organisation and development of the wild agouti coat colour of rabbits, and many other genes are also concerned."
The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.
Where is "Dr. Hurst" already quoted? Who is this "Dr. Hurst"? Who is he to define such "narrow limits"? You're supposed to be providing me with credible opponents of evolution here, remember?The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.
$1:
Take a simple one-called organism, such as the amoeba - shuffle ad infinitum the constituent molecules of all the genes that control organisation of the amoeba, and what can the result be other than a modified ameoeba?
The processes involved in the increase of genomic complexity consist of more than "shuffling" molecules - more oversimplification of complicated genetics (that I admittedly don't fully understand).
Nice try
You're still an ignorant, lying coward.
Mustang1 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Simply parroting others, I see. For the information of others, westmanguy's post is stolen from here, which consists of a portion of a textbook "Science of Today & The Problems of Genesis. The error of Evolution, the truth of the Flood, the real age of the earth, the accuracy of the Bible account of creation, how science supports the Bible, etc., etc."
No bias there, I'm sure.
Similarly, the fact that Einstein improved on Newton's theories doesn't disprove the existance of gravity.
With regard to the instances of fraud - they all have been exposed as frauds by science, not religion. Hoaxes do not, however, deny the mounds of evidence supporting evolution that are not hoaxes.
Nice try You're still an ignorant, lying coward.
No bias there, I'm sure.
$1:
As there was no real proof, recourse was had to fraud.
Dr. W. R. Thompson referes to this fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species, in which he says that "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an ape's jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwin's theory that man was descended from an ape.
Dr. Thompson might have added many more examples of fraud. For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter in Evolutions as a Process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. (1954).
Thompson had a problem with key points in Darwin's Origins for due reasons - Darwin's theories were incomplete, or in some cases, incorrect. The theory has been modified and expanded since then - Christ, it was written over 100 years ago.Dr. W. R. Thompson referes to this fact in his introduction to The Origin of Species, in which he says that "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity." He gives as examples the case of the Piltdown skull, in which an ape's jawbone was substituted for the original human one, and the case of the Java Man, in which a battered skullcap of a gibbon was represented as belonging to a creature half-man, half-ape, in order to provide an argument for Darwin's theory that man was descended from an ape.
Dr. Thompson might have added many more examples of fraud. For example, he might have referred to the Australopithecinae fossils, put forward by Drs. Dart and Broom as evidence of evolution, which were proved to be just fossils of ordinary apes by Professor Zuckerman in his chapter in Evolutions as a Process, edited by Dr. Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy and E. B. Ford. (1954).
Similarly, the fact that Einstein improved on Newton's theories doesn't disprove the existance of gravity.
With regard to the instances of fraud - they all have been exposed as frauds by science, not religion. Hoaxes do not, however, deny the mounds of evidence supporting evolution that are not hoaxes.
$1:
It is true to say, therefore, that this formulative period of the theory of evolution was barren of any practical results except to afford a basis for rationalism, a framework for communism, and to provide an incentive for the introduction of fraud and superstition into scientific investigation, when no genuine proof could be found for the theory.
Evolution is a communist conspiracy, eh? Brilliant.$1:
The fourth period might be summed up as a practical acknowledgment of the bankruptcy of Darwin's theory by fitting the real scientific results achieved by Fr. Mendel into it and claiming that they belonged to it, in order to save the theory from devastating, modern criticism. It is like the attempt to save the corpse of Lenin from disintegration by fitting into it parts of other men's bodies.
In his introduction to The Origin of Species already referred to, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.
In his article in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X), Sir Bertram Windle produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:
Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).
Mendel corrected a major flaw in Darwin's theory, but that only addressed the mechanisms by which evolution occured (ie, heredity), not the fact that evolution itself is incorrect - his work is fully compatible with the theory of evolution.In his introduction to The Origin of Species already referred to, Dr. W. R. Thompson recognizes the barrenness of Darwin's system, the injury it did to the progress of science and the fact that Mendelism owes nothing to it, and therefore does not belong to it.
In his article in The Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. X), Sir Bertram Windle produces evidence to show that Fr. Mendel's experiments have in fact exploded the main points of Darwin's theory. In it he writes:
Bateson (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity) claims that "his experiments are worthy to rank among those which laid the foundations of the atomic laws of chemistry"; and Lock, that his discovery "was of an importance little inferior to those of a Newton or a Dalton." Punnett also states that, owing to Mendel's labours, "the position of the biologist of today is much the same as that of a chemist of a century ago, when Dalton enunciated the law of constant proportions." ...T.H. Morgan does not hesitate to say that Mendel's laws give the final coup de grace to the doctrine of Natural Selection. (op. cit. p. 182).
$1:
With regard to the claim made by evolutionists that the origin of the various species now existing in the world can be explained by the science of genetics (which as is admitted by all biologists, is but a development of Mendelism), Douglas Dewar writes in Man a Special Creation as follows:
Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...
Creationists always talk about this "type" of organism, perhaps because the Ark had two of each "type"? Talking about "types" of organisms is nonsense.Modern experimental work indicates that variations in organisms appear in consequence of 1) the duplication or multiplication of the chromosomes that occur in the cell nucleus, 2) in the translocation or displacement of parts of chromosomes, 3) the loss of chromosomes or parts of chromosomes, 4) gene mutations, which appear ot be the result of the rearrangement of the molecules that make up the gene, or the action of inhibitors or stimulators of the genes, 5) loss of genes, 6) cross-breeding varieties.
All the above causes are simply a shuffling or rearrangement of parts of the chromosomes or of genes. Such rearrangements may be expected to yield a considerable amount of variation, but clearly must be within the type...
$1:
...If a species be defined as a freely interbreeding community, no new animal species has yet been bred by any experimenter. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that breeding experiements lasting over some 30 years have been made with the vinegar fly, Drosophila melanogaster. This produces about 25 generations in a year, hence some 900 successive generations of this species have been bred in the laboratory in the unsuccessful attempt to convert it into another type. This corresponds to about 30,000 years of human existence. There appears to exist no mechanism whereby a new type of organism can arise from an existing one. This explains why all breeds of dogs, pigeons, etc., despite their great diversity are still dogs, pigeons, etc.
That is a bold-faced lie. Experimental evolution has been performed and verified, especially in the case of the vinegar fly. Creationists will simply make things up, while the only supporting evidence given to their argument is rambling on about how "types" can't mix.$1:
That it is impossible to change a dog or a pigeon into anything else but a dog or a pigeon is evident from such facts as the following which are taken from the work of Dr. Hurst, already quoted: "1) The gene is the sole basis of hereditary transmissions. 2) In every case that has been investigated more than one pair of genes are concerned in the development of each character...Genetical experiments show that in the simplest case, at least four pairs of genes are concerned in the organisation and development of the wild agouti coat colour of rabbits, and many other genes are also concerned."
The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.
Where is "Dr. Hurst" already quoted? Who is this "Dr. Hurst"? Who is he to define such "narrow limits"? You're supposed to be providing me with credible opponents of evolution here, remember?The rearrangement of the molecules that make up one or more of the genes that regulate the colour of the rabbits' fur is likely to effect some change in that colour, but even if there be a simultaneous arrangement of the molecules of all such genes, the effect on the animal's coat is confined to the colour; all such changes are necessarily within narrow limits, and this applies euqally to the genes that regulate other parts of the rabbit, and those of all other animals.
$1:
Take a simple one-called organism, such as the amoeba - shuffle ad infinitum the constituent molecules of all the genes that control organisation of the amoeba, and what can the result be other than a modified ameoeba?
The processes involved in the increase of genomic complexity consist of more than "shuffling" molecules - more oversimplification of complicated genetics (that I admittedly don't fully understand).Nice try
You're still an ignorant, lying coward.Nice work - yep, little westmanguy is a model Christian and testament to his faith. He espouses ignorance, he's a blatant coward, he's intolerant and he lies. I routinely challenge the little bug on numerous issues and he runs like a little chicken turd. I'm really looking forward to his "rebuttal" because now that he's been caught reseachin' via web surfin' again, let's see how he does on the application part. If his history is any indication, it'll be cut n' paste or cut n' run.
Dayseed @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:32 pm
Blue_Nose,
Good counter to Commander MonkeyDad Westmanguy. The last point doesn't even seem to make sense. If you take all of the molecules of all the genes? Um, chromosomes are one molecule. Is this person implying the random reshuffling of all the base pairs which constitute the chromosome would still result in an amoeba?
Fuck no. A random reshuffling (if that be to what he refers) wouldn't result in anything necessarily. The resultant protein most likely wouldn't fold into any recognizably useful protein; the reshuffling would instead be an extinction calibre mutation.
Creationists need to work on their own theory, not attack others.
Blue_Nose @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:35 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
Blue_Nose,
Good counter to Commander MonkeyDad Westmanguy. The last point doesn't even seem to make sense. If you take all of the molecules of all the genes? Um, chromosomes are one molecule. Is this person implying the random reshuffling of all the base pairs which constitute the chromosome would still result in an amoeba?
Fuck no. A random reshuffling (if that be to what he refers) wouldn't result in anything necessarily. The resultant protein most likely wouldn't fold into any recognizably useful protein; the reshuffling would instead be an extinction calibre mutation.
Creationists need to work on their own theory, not attack others.
That explains why my research experiment of popping tadpoles and seaweed into my blender and holding down the "Puree" button until a rabbit jumps out isn't going so well Good counter to Commander MonkeyDad Westmanguy. The last point doesn't even seem to make sense. If you take all of the molecules of all the genes? Um, chromosomes are one molecule. Is this person implying the random reshuffling of all the base pairs which constitute the chromosome would still result in an amoeba?
Fuck no. A random reshuffling (if that be to what he refers) wouldn't result in anything necessarily. The resultant protein most likely wouldn't fold into any recognizably useful protein; the reshuffling would instead be an extinction calibre mutation.
Creationists need to work on their own theory, not attack others.
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:28 pm
kal kal:
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
westmanguy westmanguy:
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
i believe we've decended from ape-like creatures but it took a divine intervention for that to happen
We didn't fucking decend from apes. The theory of evolution states that humans and chimps (NOT apes) decended from a common ancestor
.if you read my post carefully which you didnt i said "ape-like creatures"..and to me every primate from lemurs right up us are "ape-like"creatures..now that youve gained my attention and you being an expert in evolution please enlighten me as to what this common ancestor is
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:47 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
westmanguy westmanguy:
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
i believe we've decended from ape-like creatures but it took a divine intervention for that to happen
So what? Your whole idea of fate doesn't apply to science. I can believe that Jesus rode a unicorn to the Sermon on the Mount, doesn't mean it's correct.
science cant answer all questions....such as:whats our purpose in the universe,is life precious or worthless,what determines good and evil,what exactly is love...and youre free to believe whatever you want
Blue_Nose @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:17 pm
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
Dayseed Dayseed:
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
westmanguy westmanguy:
I don't believe man came from apes.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
I believe man didn't evolve but was created by God.
i believe we've decended from ape-like creatures but it took a divine intervention for that to happen
So what? Your whole idea of fate doesn't apply to science. I can believe that Jesus rode a unicorn to the Sermon on the Mount, doesn't mean it's correct.
science cant answer all questions....such as:whats our purpose in the universe,is life precious or worthless,what determines good and evil,what exactly is love...and youre free to believe whatever you want
What does an isosceles triangle smell like?
How tall is a birthday party?
How old is patience?
etc etc etc.
So what's the point? Just because a question can be asked, doesn't mean it has any basis in reality or necessarily have an answer.
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:28 pm
best answer would be that the questions faith deals with are of a philosophical nature..i can tell my wife i love her but how can i prove it..sure theres a polygraph but all that measure is heart beat and what have you..in actuality she has no other choice but to take my word on faith..but the questions that i brought may be answered by science someday and when that happens i'd imagine your great-great-great grandchildren will be in an old folks home..and thats when religion and science merge...oh another good question you couldve come up with is how high is up? lol
Blue_Nose @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:32 pm
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
best answer would be that the questions faith deals with are of a philosophical nature..i can tell my wife i love her but how can i prove it..sure theres a polygraph but all that measure is heart beat and what have you..in actuality she has no other choice but to take my word on faith..but the questions that i brought may be answered by science someday..and thats when religion and science merge
Yes, but that faith in your love is conditional - I brought this up earlier in the thread. For example, if she came home to your having sex with the mail carrier, her faith in your claimed love is probably lost, as it was based on the condition that you would remain true to her.
That's an everyday part of life that has nothing to do with religious, unconditional faith.
icekarma2752 @ Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:35 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
icekarma2752 icekarma2752:
best answer would be that the questions faith deals with are of a philosophical nature..i can tell my wife i love her but how can i prove it..sure theres a polygraph but all that measure is heart beat and what have you..in actuality she has no other choice but to take my word on faith..but the questions that i brought may be answered by science someday..and thats when religion and science merge
Yes, but that faith in your love is conditional - I brought this up earlier in the thread. For example, if she came home to your having sex with the mail carrier, her faith in your claimed love is probably lost, as it was based on the condition that you would remain true to her.That's an everyday part of life that has nothing to do with religious, unconditional faith.
guess i missed your post there...i'll look for it
Rev_Blair @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 10:19 am
$1:
Yes, but that faith in your love is conditional - I brought this up earlier in the thread. For example, if she came home to your having sex with the mail carrier, her faith in your claimed love is probably lost, as it was based on the condition that you would remain true to her.
The interesting thing is that science, not religion, has come up with reasons for long-term pair-bonding (love, if you will) and taking the risk of cheating (boffing the mail carrier for instance).
Human offspring take a long time to mature and the female is generally vulnerable while raising offspring, especially when pregnant again...dragging a toddler around and being slow on her feet. The result is that it makes evolutionary sense for the male to hang around to give his offspring every possible chance to mature and pass his genes on.
At the same time, it can be advantageous to spread your genes widely (for males) or to have offspring from a variety of mates (for females) because you get a greater genetic mix (your genes combined with a variety of mates) and have less chance of all of your offspring being gobbled up by sabre-toothed tigers.
Cheating kind of offers the best of both worlds, especially if the one you cheat with has a permanent mate. The search for superior genes for your off-spring may, if the opportunity arises, ensure that your own genetic pattern survives.
What in religion explains human behaviours like that? Goddidit?
fifeboy @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:50 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
FireWire FireWire:
God vs Chuck Norris......who wins?
Chuck Norris is God.
And to think I thought God was Walker, Texas Ranger.
hurley_108 @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:55 pm
fifeboy fifeboy:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
FireWire FireWire:
God vs Chuck Norris......who wins?
Chuck Norris is God.
And to think I thought God was Walker, Texas Ranger.
They're all part of the Trinity. God, Walker, and Norris.
hurley_108 @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 1:58 pm
westmanguy westmanguy:
I refused to attend the classes on it in High School, and I flushed the Dawrin's book I had down the toilet.
That's what you don't see humans getting smarter. You haven't the intellectual capacity.
westmanguy @ Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:00 pm
Darwin was a contemptible evil man. I hate him almost as much as I hate Henry Morgentaler.
Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ... 13 Next