- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Prince Stuarts post of June 12 2011,10:43
Alright, then male and female are eternal. for one not to know the origin, then the modern definition would be eternal, which in turn would agree oppositely with the universe theory of a infinite regress, we were before we are, then at some time we must continue on. for one to be eternal, death would not be possible. perhaps this line of thought is what brought about reincarnation.
Then would not the big bang theory alter this state of being before we are, perhaps in this gray area woman was created or male if you prefer.
Truly Prince, I applaud your confidence in my memory of our conversations however, i can not recall such regarding male/female, perhaps in status, economics, growth, cultures, ethics, procreation, however not which was first male or female. my apologies old champ could you refresh the information.
Still the question arrises, in a species that does not produce a sexually, how did male/female evolve equally.
Even to refer to mythology, some cultures believe a woman deity created humans, others believe a male deity created humans.
Quote (princess @ June 15 2011,13:10) Prince Stuarts post of June 12 2011,10:43 Alright, then male and female are eternal. for one not to know the origin, then the modern definition would be eternal, which in turn would agree oppositely with the universe theory of a infinite regress, we were before we are, then at some time we must continue on. for one to be eternal, death would not be possible. perhaps this line of thought is what brought about reincarnation.
Then would not the big bang theory alter this state of being before we are, perhaps in this gray area woman was created or male if you prefer.
Truly Prince, I applaud your confidence in my memory of our conversations however, i can not recall such regarding male/female, perhaps in status, economics, growth, cultures, ethics, procreation, however not which was first male or female. my apologies old champ could you refresh the information.
Still the question arrises, in a species that does not produce a sexually, how did male/female evolve equally.
Even to refer to mythology, some cultures believe a woman deity created humans, others believe a male deity created humans.
I thought I had pointed out that conspiracy theories of Imaginary Friends would not get you any closer to an answer, but now you are using the religious platitude “eternal”. I have no idea what that word means, and I don't think you do either, and I can't see what it would mean in relation to biology, if that is what you are curious about.I realise the question of the origin of sexual reproduction arises, and that is what I called a tricky problem for biology.
But we have established an answer to the original point, that the myth of Adam and Eve, apart from being a pretty shallow and nasty story, is also literally wrong.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 15 2011,18:19) I think you will find it is spelled Dawkins. Stuart
How sweet for you to stand up for the man.So this evolving from apes theory you have, your conclusion brings male and female evolving at the same time and at the same rate, how is this possible? or is this the area with biology that gets tricky?
your paranoid nature of someone converting is within yourself. let it go Prince Stuart, not interested in such things or are you trying to convert me Prince Stuart? shame on you, to have such thoughts.
to use the term 'infinite' to describe the universe, how is eternal all of a sudden attached to religious platitude.
Quote (princess @ June 16 2011,06:24) Quote (Stu @ June 15 2011,18:19) I think you will find it is spelled Dawkins. Stuart
How sweet for you to stand up for the man.
It is a mark of basic respect to personal dignity that a name is spelled correctly. I would stand up for the correct spelling of anyone's name as a principle, and I see it as even more important in the light of the whole “god is no respecter of persons” concept. The feeling is mutual, I'm sure. Atheists have more respect for the personal dignity of a christian than the christian's belief system or god does.Stuart
Quote (princess @ June 16 2011,06:55) So this evolving from apes theory you have, your conclusion brings male and female evolving at the same time and at the same rate, how is this possible? or is this the area with biology that gets tricky? your paranoid nature of someone converting is within yourself. let it go Prince Stuart, not interested in such things or are you trying to convert me Prince Stuart? shame on you, to have such thoughts.
to use the term 'infinite' to describe the universe, how is eternal all of a sudden attached to religious platitude.
How would it be possible for males and females to “evolve separately”? Evolution by natural selection is the explanation for speciation, and they are of the same species. Nothing tricky here, just literally the definition of evolution I would have thought.What would I convert you to, princess? Atheism? That's only one belief, that there is no such thing as gods. There is no definition of a worldview there really, it is just the obvious statement that no religious person has ever been convincing in demonstrating the existence of his or her apparently Imaginary Friend. There has to be more the a view of life than just thinking others to be deluded.
I don't think it helps to substitute the word “infinite” for “eternal”. Can you explain how either word applies to any real aspect of the universe?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ June 16 2011,22:50) Quote (princess @ June 16 2011,06:24) Quote (Stu @ June 15 2011,18:19) I think you will find it is spelled Dawkins. Stuart
How sweet for you to stand up for the man.
It is a mark of basic respect to personal dignity that a name is spelled correctly. I would stand up for the correct spelling of anyone's name as a principle, and I see it as even more important in the light of the whole “god is no respecter of persons” concept. The feeling is mutual, I'm sure. Atheists have more respect for the personal dignity of a christian than the christian's belief system or god does.Stuart
you can stammer as much as you would like dear friend, you can call any god what you would like how you would like, we do not have the same comprehension on this subject.perhaps, this is why dawkins writings are so dreadfully exhausting to read.
your comparison is wrong, for dawkins to misspell my name there would be no fuss.
Quote (princess @ June 16 2011,23:44) Quote (Stu @ June 16 2011,22:50) Quote (princess @ June 16 2011,06:24) Quote (Stu @ June 15 2011,18:19) I think you will find it is spelled Dawkins. Stuart
How sweet for you to stand up for the man.
It is a mark of basic respect to personal dignity that a name is spelled correctly. I would stand up for the correct spelling of anyone's name as a principle, and I see it as even more important in the light of the whole “god is no respecter of persons” concept. The feeling is mutual, I'm sure. Atheists have more respect for the personal dignity of a christian than the christian's belief system or god does.Stuart
you can stammer as much as you would like dear friend, you can call any god what you would like how you would like, we do not have the same comprehension on this subject.perhaps, this is why dawkins writings are so dreadfully exhausting to read.
your comparison is wrong, for dawkins to misspell my name there would be no fuss.
What comprehension do you have on the subject of gods that extends any further than your own imagination?Tell me which of Dawkins's books you have read that you found exhausting.
Perhaps the battering your personal dignity has taken from your religion has desensitised you to that base level of affrontery.
Stuart
your ignorance in accepting reality is of your own. humans have and will always believe in a god. it is what has given your daw king his reign on the matter. so how he feeds himself, he takes from the christians. like i said daw king has no origin.
i am quite comfortable that you dear Prince teach what he teaches, there would be no need for me to read anything the man writes, i have always taken your word for it.
alas dear Prince, my given name is rene, my named has been mis spelled, mis pronounced many times over. never have taken much offense to the matter. actually it has brought about some wonderful conversations.
Similarly I have a name that can be spelled in two different ways but it is no cause for offense on my part that a presumption would be made on hearing it and making a genuine attempt at it even if it turns out to be the wrong version. But intentionally misspelling a name as you have done here again is schoolyard bullying.
I don't teach what Dawkins teaches; on the finer points of evolutionary biology I would not be so stupid as to pretend I knew even 1% of what he knows, or had more than the first clue about how to communicate that detail for others as he can brilliantly; his points of the absurdity of religion are ones on which I agree, although I disagree with the approach he takes when he defines christianity as anglicanism then attacks that, I think it might be more appropriate to point out the absurdity of the beliefs that christians must by definition share in common, and then show that actually christians agree on very little else and therefore that christianity is dishonestly made out to be more than it really is. Of course I am sure he would have comebacks for me on those points too. Interestingly the one thing creationists really crave is to be allowed to “debate Dawkins” in public. They want to share the stage with real science and bask in its reflected glory, and also have a go at catching him off-guard and pouncing upon turns of phrase as literal admissions they have something valid to say. They are the parasites of science.
As for your claim that I am ignorant or unaccepting of reality, it has not been me who has been asking obviously inane questions about the evolution of gender. It is quite ironic that you have criticised Dawkins for having no origin, when he is the single most important communicator in modern times of the scientific explanations for our origins.
By contrast, no creationist, or christian, has a religious explanation for anything. Please post one if you wish to disprove that claim.
Stuart
“vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent, barking mad”
…………and my little etymology play has you calling me a bully.
and Prince Stuart, the daw king uses the trinity belief for his thesis, perhaps that is why i find his writings not only exhausting, also quite amusing. he bases his theory on that which is not true in the first place.
Prince Stuart, when you teach with a pure heart, you give more then dawkins can ever give to the human race.
at one time i did some searching on dawkins theories, just a brief though, perhaps for your entertainment, i should dig a little deeper for you, perhaps you will drop dawkins down a peg and bring yourself up one.
and dear, no evolutionist can tell me what happen just before the big bang, or fully explain lightening to me, so does that consider it an even playing field.
just curious.
do hope all is well in your kingdom Prince Stuart.
the artile doesn't start out in his favor, however, tis the first time i knew he had written a book, called 'the frog to a prince', odd to discover this, don't you think Prince Stuart.
going back to read the article…………..
correction………dawkins did not write the book 'the frog to a prince', blessed be, i did not like to giving the man credit for an anomaly.
Prince Stuart, i must interject here, by my understanding this whole evolutional theory originated from a monk. 'Gregor Mendel, who is known as the “father of modern genetics”'
this is too much, so a man of god, with an added vow to god, started the whole evolution theory. oh my dear friend, this is not good.
for the next time i talk to an atheist, all i have to do is ask, where did the origin of evolution begin, and they have to answer a monk. too much. must be one of those anomalies again.
i agree, you avator should read good grief.
In turn I think it beneath you to link to a site written by morons and in any case I don't know what point you wish to make by it. Why did you post that link? To attack the person? Dawkins has never done that to you.
Calling atonement the things he called is are not bullying. Who does it bully? Which person does it attack?
Evolution did not originate with Gregor Mendel. It originated with several other people, and actually was thought of many years before Darwin published. It is an interesting point of history that Darwin did not know about genetics and had some wrong ideas about the basis for the changes in gene frequency but Mendel's work on plant hybridisation had been published in Darwin's lifetime and would have completed the puzzle for Darwin had he been aware of Mendel's work.
It does not matter what religious beliefs are held by the discoverers, the result of empirical science is no different. All the discoveries made in biology fall directly into the pattern of explanation provided by Darwin. He made predictions based on his theory of things he did not know, and could not have known, and they have all turned out to be right. Even the IDiots who tried to force creationism into schools under the pretext of “intelligent design” really just ended up prompting others to investigate their claims with the result that it showed Darwin was right no matter where you were challenged to look. Although I had no particular reason to be surprised that Darwin was right at the level of the bacterial flagellum, there it was: all the parts of that microscopic system turned out to be adapted from parts that used to have other functions in ancestor species. Yet again the creationists shot themselves in the feet.
So, where does that leave royal belief? The monks, the atheists, and even the creationists all played their part to show that Darwin was right, and still is.
When discussing the Big Bang, the event that brought time into existence, what meaning does the word “before” have in that state in which time did not exist?
Stuart
Prince, when gathering data not all will support ones beliefs. the reader must be able to sift through the nonsense and pull the information out that is of importance.
What i am on a layman level understanding is that darwin theory is that species can change into another species, ex: apes to humans, others state that a species can change however not into another ex: a horse is a horse.
most assurdely this debate will continue as does the trinity debate. from past experiences, i have long let go discussing the triad worship. perhaps this is the time to let go of evolution, and place it in the same catorgory as triad worship.
i understand why some believe as they do, however tis not my belief. i do not feel it to be of great importance when other matters of the world need more attention.
in the begining there was a time when__. many have filled in the blank, have they not.
do take care of yourself.
much love
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
