Evolution: Gender Cannot Be Explained

[antix]

Missionary wrote

I agree the "how" is likely unanswerable since we're talking about specific mechanisms we can't observe or recreate.

The real question is "who and why" OR if a who and why exists. You claim that all this is caused by some explainable phenomena even though it can't be explained as to the origin of the original energy, matter, forces, principles, etc. that somehow set an unguided chain reaction of events in motion culminating in the universe, life, and intelligence.

I say that the very idea is preposterous and fantastically ignorant without even considering the insurmountable statistical odds of such an occurrence.

You assume a "who or a why" I assume nothing. And I claim nothing-- explainable or otherwise-- reguarding the universe as we see it. What I do is look to cosmologists, biologists, astronomers etc... to see what theories and hypothoses are being proposed, listen to what they say about those various theories and the degree of accuracy with which they can explain observable data.

I do this because I find it fascinating. You fail to do this because you can't shake the "God-did-it" blinders. And I know this with 100% certainty.

[JU Mike]

Missionary wrote

You really believe intelligence "evolved"? You tell me that principles of physics just simply exist? How is selection natural and unguided across life forms with no sets of instructions? They evolved for survival but we see extinction and degeneration of species? Where are the "super-unkillables" that should have evolved to such strength and numbers that they are unstoppable as the fittest of the fit?

You obviously have no idea what "survival of the fittest" means, do you?

[VladTheImpaler]

Irreligious wrote

By the way, Vlad, thanks for the link. I thoroughly enjoyed it, learned a few things and, most improbably of all, am a bit inspired to investigate further. I don't think I'll be inspired to become a Christian any time soon, but it was quite novel to see Robert Beckford's sober approach towards examining the origins of his faith/religion and the motivations behind the many authors of the Bible.

That, and he has cool dreads.

Edited: Gotta add that it was disappointing to some Islamic group, which uploaded the documentary to GoogleVideo, trying to co-opt the video and use it dishonestly. See the synopsis on the sidebar, which is just propaganda aimed at trashing Christianity and Judaism while exalting Islam. After viewing the contents of the documentary, it is apparent that these Muslims have no association with Mr. Beckford and he, none with them.

I totally agree Irr. You're welcome

Irreligious wrote

What about the odds that neither you nor anybody else really knows? I say it is preposterous and fantastically ignorant to assume that you do.

While the exact how is unknown, the who and why have been made known. Why would it be arrogant to agree with the Creator?

Irreligious wrote

Well, you're not engaging anything that even looks like science. You're just making an assumption and running with it like gangbusters.

Not only do you assume such a thing as a creator, but you assume to know it's a singluar entity, as well as its intentions and its edicts. That's a ridiculous leap of faith.

Not at all. Born again believers know God and have a relationship with Him. His word answers all the questions of His singular existence, His intentions, and His edicts. There's no faith involved in knowing truth or what's been revealed.

Faith is a trust placed for the future based upon the knowledge of His character, personal relationship, and His interaction with mankind throughout history.

antix wrote

Yes, yes we know already. You have no understanding of the scientific method. No need to advertise it in every post. You are clueless about what claims are being made, clueless as to the degree of accuracy they are believed to be, and even more clueless as to how the conclussions came about in the first place.

I know this fact about you with 100% certainty.

What's to know? The entire story line by line of how rocks, minerals, gasses, and chemicals sprang to life and became intelligent and aware?

Who now build cities and love? From a big bang? You're deceiving only yourself.

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

What's to know? The entire story line by line of how rocks, minerals, gasses, and chemicals sprang to life and became intelligent and aware?

Who now build cities and love? From a big bang? You're deceiving only yourself.

Spoken like a true master of self-deception.

antix wrote

You assume a "who or a why" I assume nothing. And I claim nothing-- explainable or otherwise-- reguarding the universe as we see it. What I do is look to cosmologists, biologists, astronomers etc... to see what theories and hypothoses are being proposed, listen to what they say about those various theories and the degree of accuracy with which they can explain observable data.

I do this because I find it fascinating. You fail to do this because you can't shake the "God-did-it" blinders. And I know this with 100% certainty.

Then you don't know me, how I think, or what I find fascinating as well. You just don't get it...I understand.

[Mog]

Missionary wrote

Then you don't know me, how I think, or what I find fascinating as well. You just don't get it...I understand.

Nope, you only think you do, because... you are a master of self-deception!

JU Mike wrote

You obviously have no idea what "survival of the fittest" means, do you?

Does it mean that the fittest survive? That sounds reasonable, but then again, I'm no evolutionary biologist. It could mean, in scientific terms, that the most intelligent organisms try to kill each other for Nike's or a bag of coke.

It could also imply that some apes could be liars or unfaithful. But I'm not sure.

Mog wrote

Nope, you only think you do, because... you are a master of self-deception!

I just draw a line between fact and fiction is all, Mog.

Science offers up a great deal of accurate information for which they have proven supporting facts and evidence. That doesn't mean that everything they spit out is truth. I only have problems with the sci-fi stories they make up and can't support but that some people take off running with them like banners of truth. They aren't accurate or factual explanations...They're just opinions and speculations, Mog

You do see that, don't you?

[DrunkMonkey]

Missionary wrote

I just draw a line between fact and fiction is all, Mog.

Science offers up a great deal of accurate information for which they have proven supporting facts and evidence. That doesn't mean that everything they spit out is truth. I only have problems with the sci-fi stories they make up and can't support but that some people take off running with them like banners of truth. They aren't accurate or factual explanations...They're just opinions and speculations, Mog

You do see that, don't you?

I completely agree. Those crazy scientists and their sci-fi stories about the earth not being the center of the universe.

Having wasted a lot of time going through this long and pointless discussion, so here are my thoughts:

• If you are truly convinced of something, it's very hard to prove to you that you are wrong, you may go arguing forever.
• If that helps you in your life to succeed in whatever you are doing, it's valid without being necessarily true, i.e. getting rich after becoming a scientologist is better than being a shit-poor atheist (that's me).
• I like religion cos where I live it's sometimes the only entertainment you get at certain hours on TV.
• It's not bad if you love and help your neigbour, don't swear, screw around, steal or cheat: I'd rather buy something from a devout Christian than from an atheist who might screw me over. But you can do all those good things while being an atheist also, i.e. actions matter not convictions
• The problem may arise when you believe that Earth is 6,000 years old, Noah took dinosaurs on his Ark, Jonah was swallowed by a whale, the Earth was flooded throughout etc. You can't accept that mathematics & physics are true (cos that's what your Christian TV channel depends on), but deny that biology, antropology, cosmology etc are not. They are all sciencies based on the same principles. None of creationists have degrees in relevant disciplines to make their arguments worthy of the subject. Valid arguments are presented by properly qualified people in peer-reviewed literature who know what they are talking about
• You can't deny that life on Earth is 3,5 billion years old, and life arose from simple to complex, and humans developed from apes 3,5 million years ago - there's plenty of evidence in fossil record. BTW fossil fuels are called such because they are remains of dead life of millions years ago. If you argue against that, show me your college degree in the relevant field and your articles in that field's scientific journals. Otherwise, it's just B/S, you are not qualified to deny it.
• Once you get to know scientific facts, it's hard to make sense of religion, unless it's a cultural thing, gives you sense of community, makes you a better person, hepls you to succeed etc.
• The reason for the gods was to explain unexplainable. People who wrote the Bible didn't know why it was raining and thought that Earth was flat under a crystal dome of embedded stars. Now the only role for God is before the Big Bang, but that just complicates the explanation. In regard to the origins of life, I don't have a problem with experiments that prove aminoacids could have been created in early Earth's atmoshere and you have a billion years with billions of billions of pieces to try different combinations of: eventually you will win the lottery. Even if it's still unlikely, multiply your chances by billions of similar stars in billions of galaxies, maybe in billions of Big-Bang-Big-Crunch cycles: eventually you will get a precursor to DNA.
• If something is established as real, you don't have a choice to believe or not believe, i.e. you don't have an option not to believe in the electro-magnetic field. It's omnipresent and invisible: if you doubt it check out your fridge magnet. It's magical isn't it, there is nothing in between, but it still attracts! On the other hand, personal perceptions are in your head, and in mental hospitals there are plenty of people who believe in all sort of things. You might believe that the Beatles is the best music of all time, and Jesus is the saviour, but it's not a fact.
• In the Bible there are examples, when apostles doubt Jesus, but then he does a miracle and they are convinced. Asking to believe without any hard evidence is asking us to be holier that the desciples of Christ. Turn water into wine in front of me or levitate and I'll believe, cos there won't be any rational explanation apart from that.
• The life on Earth is very old and for 100s of millions years it was very diverse: giant insects, giant dinosaurs, wondeful life and plant forms that we are now picking bits of from the fossil record. There was no notion of God, until by pure chance a species of upright walking apes picked up sticks and slowly evolved into us (with many detours and evolutionary dead ends). They had to explain the world, and in geographically separated regions, that's why you have a multitude of religions.
• Still you shoud respect other person's view, as long as he doesn't wonna kill you to get you to a "better place" or fly a plane into a building or force all women to wear burkas or force you to worship or not to worship something. Insults will not get you anywhere and will not prove anything.
• Religion is part of human history, it inspired great works of art, beautiful architecture. I read the back of Dawkins' book where he was saying that religion was all bad, and I don't agree - it's part of human history and progress, the science itself was started by religious scholars. BTW one of leading scientists in the field of cosmology G.Lemaitre was also a catholic priest.
• Our purpose in life is to enjoy it, do well for ourselves, do good things and have as many children as possible, cos that is true immortality - passing your genes to the next generation
• Sometimes we just need to agree to disagree and maybe find an unrelated common ground, e.g. saving the environment etc etc etc.

Cheers.

[Choobus]

Wanker

[JU Mike]

Missionary wrote

Does it mean that the fittest survive? That sounds reasonable, but then again, I'm no evolutionary biologist. It could mean, in scientific terms, that the most intelligent organisms try to kill each other for Nike's or a bag of coke.

It could also imply that some apes could be liars or unfaithful. But I'm not sure.

Survival of the fittest is not about the strongest, or the most brutal and unstoppable (which is what you were seemingly implying in your previous post). It simply refers to the idea of better adaptation to the environment. A species may be the fittest in one particular environment, but not necessarily the fittest in another environment.