- This topic has 1,340 replies, 50 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
.
- Posts
When I debated an atheist some time back I asked that person about emotions. She (I think) didn't have an answer. Sure they can say they are chemical reactions in the brain but why do humans — as the supposed most highly evolved creatures — have emotions if our lives are driven by “survival of the fittest”?
Also, why have we not seen a creature more evolved than humans?
Quote Yes, the very basis of all I hold dear will prove to be undone and I shall despair inconsolably if radiotelescopists cannot pretty soon find evidence of the life that I know is out there somewhere? –stu
Yes, i know.
The thing is, it's not a matter of soon. Given that scientists believe it would take 3 billion years to come to the situation we're at now, some a little quicker, some not, the matter of “soon” doesn't really matter.It should have already happened countless times. I can't remember the number of planets that scientists estimate could support life, but I remember it being a pretty big number.
If, there is a possibility, that in this vast universe, life arose by chance, and we are all there is…this is a “miracle.”
Those desperate people who sit around listening for intelligent life from other planets make me wonder.
I wonder if they feel as you stated (jokingly) above.Quote (acertainchap @ Nov. 20 2007,14:06) I see that we get no answer, from Stu, Ken. I'm sure if that's a good sign or not. 
You seem keen, all of a sudden! Why are you even mentioning my name?? I thought MrsIM4Truth had you in her power!Stuart
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 19 2007,10:09) The inside of a cell blows my mind. And to think that some believe
this is an accident.That's why I say “Amazing Faith”.
Hi KenrchThe creationist “it blows my mind” argument. I haven't heard that one before!
Stuart
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 20 2007,01:03) I'm wondering Stu how do atheist explain love? Is that an accident also? Or do atheist believe that there is love?
I probably explain it the way you do. I just stop at admitting love beyond all measure for an Imaginary Friend!Stuart
Hi kejonn
Quote When I debated an atheist some time back I asked that person about emotions. She (I think) didn't have an answer. Sure they can say they are chemical reactions in the brain but why do humans — as the supposed most highly evolved creatures — have emotions if our lives are driven by “survival of the fittest”? Our evolution is driven by survival for reproduction. We are obviously the descendants, in an unbroken line, of those who have survived and reproduced. Does showing emotions have an evolutionary advantage for us? You bet it does!
Quote Also, why have we not seen a creature more evolved than humans? Why do you say humans are “more evolved”? Really there is no such thing as “most evolved”. We have adapted by natural selection to survive and reproduce in our environment. Any animal that is thriving in its environment is just as “evolved” as us. Bats are superbly adapted to their environments. Their incredibly sophisicated navigational systems, guiding them in the pitch black of a cave, spotting prey and moving without collisions using sound alone makes us look like blind uncoordinates by comparison. Which species is more evolved?
Stuart
Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2007,14:29) Quote Yes, the very basis of all I hold dear will prove to be undone and I shall despair inconsolably if radiotelescopists cannot pretty soon find evidence of the life that I know is out there somewhere? –stu
Yes, i know.
The thing is, it's not a matter of soon. Given that scientists believe it would take 3 billion years to come to the situation we're at now, some a little quicker, some not, the matter of “soon” doesn't really matter.It should have already happened countless times. I can't remember the number of planets that scientists estimate could support life, but I remember it being a pretty big number.
If, there is a possibility, that in this vast universe, life arose by chance, and we are all there is…this is a “miracle.”
Those desperate people who sit around listening for intelligent life from other planets make me wonder.
I wonder if they feel as you stated (jokingly) above.
I can see you're right and I am ashamed at my haste. If a single signal from an alien on a distant planet is detected by those foolish enough to be listening for them, then my life will have come to naught. I will be inconsolable.Stuart
Just an observation (and because I haven't posted enough on this page yet), when I first posted in this thread, the poll score was 3 not sure, 3 for evolution and 27 against. The only change in that time has been two added to the “for” option, making a whopping 66% increase! I am always curious about those who line up to answer a poll “not sure”, but we know there are three true scientists out there who have suspended their judgement. 8 scientists vs 27 heretics. For a forum generally composed of fundamentalist christians, that's more even than I would have expected!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,19:27) Quote (acertainchap @ Nov. 20 2007,14:06) I see that we get no answer, from Stu, Ken. I'm sure if that's a good sign or not.
You seem keen, all of a sudden! Why are you even mentioning my name?? I thought MrsIM4Truth had you in her power!Stuart
You have to be kidding me. He is His own man, and a nice one at that. He has respect for His elder and I for one appreciate that, Mister.
Mrs.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,20:00) Just an observation (and because I haven't posted enough on this page yet), when I first posted in this thread, the poll score was 3 not sure, 3 for evolution and 27 against. The only change in that time has been two added to the “for” option, making a whopping 66% increase! I am always curious about those who line up to answer a poll “not sure”, but we know there are three true scientists out there who have suspended their judgement. 8 scientists vs 27 heretics. For a forum generally composed of fundamentalist christians, that's more even than I would have expected! Stuart
Stu the increase has not been that great for evolution, since this Post has been here since 2004. 3 people voted for it. Let me guess who that could be. Tow and you, no big surprise. I know who my Brethren in Christ are and I know they do not believe in evolution. Sorry Mister.
Mrs.That's 5 for, not 3!
I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
Quote (IM4Truth @ Nov. 20 2007,03:20) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,20:00) Just an observation (and because I haven't posted enough on this page yet), when I first posted in this thread, the poll score was 3 not sure, 3 for evolution and 27 against. The only change in that time has been two added to the “for” option, making a whopping 66% increase! I am always curious about those who line up to answer a poll “not sure”, but we know there are three true scientists out there who have suspended their judgement. 8 scientists vs 27 heretics. For a forum generally composed of fundamentalist christians, that's more even than I would have expected! Stuart
Stu the increase has not been that great for evolution, since this Post has been here since 2004. 3 people voted for it. Let me guess who that could be. Tow and you, no big surprise. I know who my Brethren in Christ are and I know they do not believe in evolution. Sorry Mister.
Mrs.
Hey I haven't even voted.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,02:48) Hi kejonn Quote When I debated an atheist some time back I asked that person about emotions. She (I think) didn't have an answer. Sure they can say they are chemical reactions in the brain but why do humans — as the supposed most highly evolved creatures — have emotions if our lives are driven by “survival of the fittest”? Our evolution is driven by survival for reproduction. We are obviously the descendants, in an unbroken line, of those who have survived and reproduced. Does showing emotions have an evolutionary advantage for us? You bet it does!
Would this include hatred so that many will be killed? Its not like we eat our enemies to survive. Mankind is a predator of a different level.
Quote Quote Also, why have we not seen a creature more evolved than humans? Why do you say humans are “more evolved”? Really there is no such thing as “most evolved”. We have adapted by natural selection to survive and reproduce in our environment. Any animal that is thriving in its environment is just as “evolved” as us. Bats are superbly adapted to their environments. Their incredibly sophisicated navigational systems, guiding them in the pitch black of a cave, spotting prey and moving without collisions using sound alone makes us look like blind uncoordinates by comparison. Which species is more evolved?
Stuart
What I mean is that many evolutionists believe that all things started from a primordial “stew”. From there the single celled creatures evolved via mutations and eventually we have the many various organisms in the world. Short but that is the basic premise.Therefore, why have we not seen anything evolve to a being higher than humans? I suppose evolution finally peaked with mankind.
I would also wonder why most higher organisms have male and female. What advantage is that? After all, staying asexual would have an advantage I would think. The first one celled organisms would have replicated by fission so it does not seem advantageous to develop the sexes. Yet we have male in female in higher life forms. Surely an evolutionist can explain why this mutation was necessary for survival.
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,04:00) That's 5 for, not 3! I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
Actually I voted “yes” some time back. The reason I did so was that I believe in microevolution therefore not throwing out the whole concept. I believe that God created the universe and also created organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive. There is too much evidence to deny microevolution IMHO. Why would God want to create something He constantly had to redefine over time? I believe He did it right the first time.Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,04:34) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,04:00) That's 5 for, not 3! I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
Actually I voted “yes” some time back. The reason I did so was that I believe in microevolution therefore not throwing out the whole concept. I believe that God created the universe and also created organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive. There is too much evidence to deny microevolution IMHO. Why would God want to create something He constantly had to redefine over time? I believe He did it right the first time.
So what do you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ?
??
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 20 2007,20:48) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,04:34) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,04:00) That's 5 for, not 3! I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
Actually I voted “yes” some time back. The reason I did so was that I believe in microevolution therefore not throwing out the whole concept. I believe that God created the universe and also created organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive. There is too much evidence to deny microevolution IMHO. Why would God want to create something He constantly had to redefine over time? I believe He did it right the first time.
So what do you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ?
??
What does this have to do with evolution?Anyway, I am still looking into scripture to define for my life who Yeshua is. Christ — like Messiah — means “anointed”. So is he “the Christ”? The bible says so. Now I must determine what the Tanach says about him.
Hi kejonn
Stu: Does showing emotions have an evolutionary advantage for us? You bet it does!
Quote Would this include hatred so that many will be killed? Its not like we eat our enemies to survive. Mankind is a predator of a different level. Humans have come to dominate some aspects of the planet because we are competitive and the conditions were right for our brains to develop in size and abilities at a rapid pace a few million years ago. Other species are becoming extinct partly because humans are encroaching on their environments, and competing with them for their space and food supply. We don’t eat them, but we beat them in an eating contest, so to speak.
Quote What I mean is that many evolutionists believe that all things started from a primordial “stew”. From there the single celled creatures evolved via mutations and eventually we have the many various organisms in the world. Short but that is the basic premise. Therefore, why have we not seen anything evolve to a being higher than humans? I suppose evolution finally peaked with mankind. I think it is speciesist to assume that we are the best ever. We are not the fastest runners, not the best swimmers; we can’t fly, we depend on oxygen and can’t make our own food; we are endangering other species through our competitive greed for the Earth’s resources. We are probably the apex when it comes to what we call intelligence, but other animals are not that far behind us. Cats supposedly have the equivalent intelligence of about a 3 year-old human. If we are the ones best evolved to our environment then we win, but I don’t think we are. Our self-made environment is causing us all sorts of problems. Lifestyle obesity is one occurrence for which we seem to be under-evolved.
Quote I would also wonder why most higher organisms have male and female. What advantage is that? After all, staying asexual would have an advantage I would think. The first one celled organisms would have replicated by fission so it does not seem advantageous to develop the sexes. Yet we have male in female in higher life forms. Surely an evolutionist can explain why this mutation was necessary for survival. The hard question to answer is exactly how evolution produced the divergence into two sexes. The advantages are pretty straightforward. There are disadvantages to sexual reproduction that do no affect asexual methods, but the driving force for it’s selection was its ability to produce variation by making new combinations of existing genes. I wonder too whether having two copies of (nearly) every gene, one copy from each parent, gives a big advantage in reducing the likelihood of genetic diseases. More variation in the population means if the environment changes, there is a better chance that at least some individuals will have the shape or skills to survive in it.
Good questions!
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,14:22) Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 20 2007,20:48) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,04:34) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,04:00) That's 5 for, not 3! I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
.
So what do you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ?
??
What does this have to do with evolution?Anyway, I am still looking into scripture to define for my life who Yeshua is. Christ — like Messiah — means “anointed”. So is he “the Christ”? The bible says so. Now I must determine what the Tanach says about him.
Quote Actually I voted “yes” some time back. The reason I did so was that I believe in microevolution therefore not throwing out the whole concept. I believe that God created the universe and also created organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive. There is too much evidence to deny microevolution IMHO. Why would God want to create something He constantly had to redefine over time? I believe He did it right the first time So the seed was planted a while back. And now has sprouted
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 21 2007,08:58) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,14:22) Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 20 2007,20:48) Quote (kejonn @ Nov. 21 2007,04:34) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 20 2007,04:00) That's 5 for, not 3! I know, I'm spinning the results as much as I can. I think A4J and I voted for, but I don't think Towshab has – no “yes” votes have appeared since he has. That leaves three dark horses here who know the truth!
Stuart
.
So what do you believe? Do you believe that Jesus was the Christ?
??
What does this have to do with evolution?Anyway, I am still looking into scripture to define for my life who Yeshua is. Christ — like Messiah — means “anointed”. So is he “the Christ”? The bible says so. Now I must determine what the Tanach says about him.
Quote Actually I voted “yes” some time back. The reason I did so was that I believe in microevolution therefore not throwing out the whole concept. I believe that God created the universe and also created organisms with the ability to adapt to their environment in order to survive. There is too much evidence to deny microevolution IMHO. Why would God want to create something He constantly had to redefine over time? I believe He did it right the first time So the seed was planted a while back. And now has sprouted
I've always believed in microevolution. I am 40 years old and have never doubted that God made life with the ability to adapt and survive. Its part of the beauty and awesomeness of life itself.Quote (Stu @ Nov. 21 2007,04:42) Hi kejonn Stu: Does showing emotions have an evolutionary advantage for us? You bet it does!
Quote Would this include hatred so that many will be killed? Its not like we eat our enemies to survive. Mankind is a predator of a different level. Humans have come to dominate some aspects of the planet because we are competitive and the conditions were right for our brains to develop in size and abilities at a rapid pace a few million years ago. Other species are becoming extinct partly because humans are encroaching on their environments, and competing with them for their space and food supply. We don’t eat them, but we beat them in an eating contest, so to speak.
Yes. But I meant people killing other people. Obviously that is typically not done as a matter of survival but because of many other reasons: hatred, fear, lack of respect for life, hunger for power, etc. Surely the emotions involved with these are not advantageous to the survival of humans.
Quote Quote What I mean is that many evolutionists believe that all things started from a primordial “stew”. From there the single celled creatures evolved via mutations and eventually we have the many various organisms in the world. Short but that is the basic premise. Therefore, why have we not seen anything evolve to a being higher than humans? I suppose evolution finally peaked with mankind. I think it is speciesist to assume that we are the best ever. We are not the fastest runners, not the best swimmers; we can’t fly, we depend on oxygen and can’t make our own food; we are endangering other species through our competitive greed for the Earth’s resources. We are probably the apex when it comes to what we call intelligence, but other animals are not that far behind us. Cats supposedly have the equivalent intelligence of about a 3 year-old human. If we are the ones best evolved to our environment then we win, but I don’t think we are. Our self-made environment is causing us all sorts of problems. Lifestyle obesity is one occurrence for which we seem to be under-evolved.
Much of this is true but the combination of what we are makes us the top. Its somewhat like a sports team: who will likely win, a team made up of average players or a team of poor players with one star? So while we are not the fastest we have high endurance. We cannot fly but we walk upright. We cannot make our own food but we know how to get food (the store
). As you said it is our intelligence that allows us to do this while the other organisms need certain other aspects to aid in their survival. You are also right that certain lifestyles lead to lowered lives and poor health. Yet we have an average lifespan that exceeds any other time in history. Unless you count the time before the flood
. Archaeological records indicate that at the time of Yeshua in the first century 30 years old was getting very close to old age. People then did not live much past 40 unless they were well-to-do and could afford the best of things. So even though some reduce their potential lifespan through various lifestyle choices overall we are living longer.
Quote Quote I would also wonder why most higher organisms have male and female. What advantage is that? After all, staying asexual would have an advantage I would think. The first one celled organisms would have replicated by fission so it does not seem advantageous to develop the sexes. Yet we have male in female in higher life forms. Surely an evolutionist can explain why this mutation was necessary for survival. The hard question to answer is exactly how evolution produced the divergence into two sexes. The advantages are pretty straightforward. There are disadvantages to sexual reproduction that do no affect asexual methods, but the driving force for it’s selection was its ability to produce variation by making new combinations of existing genes. I wonder too whether having two copies of (nearly) every gene, one copy from each parent, gives a big advantage in reducing the likelihood of genetic diseases. More variation in the population means if the environment changes, there is a better chance that at least some individuals will have the shape or skills to survive in it.
Good questions!
Stuart
This is true to. I do not wish to get into the details of sexuality too deeply because of the nature of this board, but the human body — well, any animal body — is an amazing thing if you take the whole reproductive system into consideration. Just think about this without me going much further and you see what I mean.So yes, without two parents there would be no passing of beneficial genes. Furthermore, genetic defects have a way of eventually eliminating themselves via shortened lives and other means. That is, those who are born with certain serious defects reproduce less often so with each generation such defects may be eliminated. This is obviously not always the case because we still see people being born blind, deaf, etc. but the more serious life threatening defects become rarer with each generation.
Of course to get back to oncogenes, this may be a different aspect. The onset of cancer may not take place until late in a persons life and by that time they have had the chance to pass that particular defective genetic material on to offspring. Diabetes can be viewed the same way along with other various conditions.
I had a theory one time that if people would have never made homosexuality a taboo, it would eventually eliminate itself. After all, people try to say it is a genetic thing (perhaps?) so it seems quite obvious that gay people cannot reproduce. Thus there would have been less “cover up” marriages where a homosexual married and had children to hide their sexuality. Since a gay couple would not be passing on the gene that led to such sexual tendencies — unless they used an artificial insemination method — it would eventually become much rarer and may perhaps be eliminated altogether. But people called me weird for thing such things. Oh well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
