by frenchbabyface 38 Replies latest jw friends
Rem,
I thought about that when I read the first post in this thread. It seems many people, although they aren't familiar with Lamark, still imagine evolution the way that Lamark did. Unfortunately, it is impossible to appreciate evolution for what it is without getting the cause and effect of it in the right order.
Herk
: GOOD, GOOD, GOOD
SaintSatan : GOOD, GOOD, GOOD
Drwtsn 32 : GOOD, GOOD, GOOD
Rem : GOOD, GOOD, GOOD
Now Herk, SaintSatan, Drwtsn 32, Rem : See this his the point ! (OK What ABOUT ALIENS ???)
Shotgun
:
My son is 21
Yes (and
anyone
)
don't bother with the fact that I was very young mother
YES I've got him at 14 to be precise... I knew first !) My mother escaped with a 21 young boy when I was 12 and just forgot about me and my sisters too JWs stuff (cause I didn't care myself about the fact that she needed some love like every single human !!!) ... We were constantly arguing about that and they threw me out of the house at 13 because I was never in the house LOL !!!
Got almost all my family back when I was 22 most of them because they needed me , and because I succeed in my job and as a mother * – they couldn’t believe it! … And I have been there for them … Some of them still found ways to put me in troubles … money and stuff … NOW I’m able to SAY NO … * I have been a real bad mother because I’ve more worried about my job (less time for my baby boy), at that time basically I can say that I had no choice, Anthony almost raised himself with me just on his side..
I've wanted my baby boy, his father's too
(but I guess he just needed a stupid housewife at that time, that he could be able to handle psychologically and physically, the baby was I guess a good way to catch me … but he didn't. He was a kind of mean to me actually I’ve left him when I was almost 16 ... But
I have no regrets at all
and Anthony either, which is the best part of it ! HE HIS LITERALY MY FORCE and have always been !
My son and I are talking a lot about lots of stuff – we really enjoy trying to get some
hypotheses
about lots of stuff
**
(we don’t agree each other every time that’s exactly what I like and need) communication is the only thing but the house that we share together, maybe business later ... and we don't go out together anymore ... cause I can't flirt when he is around !!! And by the way I don't go out that much: 1 time since de beginning of 2003 (when I’m saying I'm a kind of hermit ... IT'S TRUE !
** In some ways, now that I’ve found this forum … I feel the same with you all – Anthony says he is happy for me and for him cause you set him free LOLLLLLLLLL … Oh he JOCKER !!! it might be the truth … OOOOOOOOH (what am I gonna do ?) NO WINE IN MY HOUSE … I don’t like it … I don't like alcohol … Weed sometimes to get a buzz, but Anthony like SAKE
Logansrun :
do you know what you are talking about? LOL
No …
that’s what I’m talking about in this post !
DON’T MISS THE POINT *** PLEASSSSSSSSSSE !
*** Well I just did myself - but some people are running their mounthes without knowing peoples life ... BY THE WAY EVERYTHING IS OK
frenchbabyface: What about aliens? Do I believe they exist? Yes. I believe life can't help but develop in many environments.
drwtsn32 : I don't know ... but it could be very interesting to get a clue on this ...
Once I accepted that all religion was in fact "man made" and despite any noble intentions, religious leaders have always promoted fear, superstition and guilt and created three very powerful tools for manipulating the thinking and behavior of individuals and governments.
Now, the question remains, what "tools" are being created/promoted byt he scientific
community?
Is the scientific community any different than the religious community? "HERK" touched on a very interesting point. Dogma can be found in both communities.
Just as any main branch of religion (Islam, Judeo-Christianity) has a "final" outcome for
humanity, and the outcome is directly related to a worlwide mass conversion/rejection
of faith, the scientific community also has long term goals, part of a future outcome which is directly related to their leadership or guidance in human affairs.
For me, the main difference lies in the fact that as far as I know, with the exception of
weapons technology, the scientific community has not to date, convinced governments to
launch crusades against those with opposing beliefs.
If science behaved like religion, NASA, the NSF, MIT, Stanford, and a host of other
"mecca's" of scientific research would already have manuevered the government into
outlawing and imprisoning the religious community.
We already know that the "church" has in fact imprisoned and executed many scientists
during it's history. I have not seen the opposite, yet.
When I do, I will draw new conclusions. Until then, despite it's flaws, despite the
egomaniacs, despite the arrogance, and most of all, despite the errors, I will continue
to view the scientific community with much higher moral regard and respect than any
religion. Simply put, the human record speaks for itself. And, religion still "sounds"
like a broken record after thousands of years.
Where is the religious progress? Where are the major discoveries? What has religion doen for medicine? What has religion done for travel, communication, technology? Need I say more,
or I too become a "broken record".
As a famous roman soldier once said...
"de hominus, ex mundo, nihil meno et nihil debeo"
I forgot to add a small piece of advice for "FrenchBabyface". Sans offense, my advice is to encourage children to keep an open mind, be ready to learn ewn ideas, and not to firmly settle on any idea. For example, there is no point in denying the forces of gravity, however it's origin is not yet
fully explained in a child's terms.
Just be reasonable and set the example of being flexible, willing to learn and willing to change, especially when mankind makes progress.
Oh my ... I've just said in an other post that it could be my last word !
but I have to answer this
My baby's mind always have been free and still (with my respect whatever He thinks about stuff) the only time that I've didn't respected it : was When I said to the DOC ... DO IT ! - but this time it was a question of LIFE or DEATH
Herk,
you said: I sincerely would accept evolution if I could see evidence of it, but I don't.
I for one don’t doubt your sincerity, however being sincere and being correct are not necessarily one and the same. Did you know that a good number of people believe that you can catch a common cold by getting chilled, going out in the cold damp weather, or by a sudden change in temperature etc? Maybe you believe this yourself. On the surface all this seems perfectly reasonable, people do seem to get more colds during the winter months then during the warmer weather, yes that is indeed a fact. The very name “cold” even implies a relationship with weather, temperature, and this common illness. In reality there are several specific reasons why people get more colds during the winter months, but very last on the list of causes is the weather.
No I’m not going to go into a detailed explanation of common cold propagation with respect to weather conditions, however if you are among the millions upon millions of normal reasonably intelligent people that believe this (as I was raised to believe), or know others that have this belief, please do yourself a favor and avail yourself of the scientific data that support other causes of people getting more colds in the winter time other then the cold weather itself.
If after examining this for yourself you are able to see how this evidence puts to rest this popular myth or even rid your own thinking of this myth, then you are ready to start examining the mountains of evidence supporting evolution.
I don’t suggest you start with the really deep stuff, or some very ancient fossilized remains, as this often takes a large amount of prerequisite knowledge before understanding can take place. My suggestion is simply this:
Find out why doctors today insist that when you are taking a regimen of antibiotics that you completely finish the full prescription even if you no longer suffer from the malady that the antibiotics were treating.
There is an important reason for this. The reason is to prevent the bacteria from evolving into a new antibiotic resistant strain. When the light goes on, and it will if you are truly as sincere as you seem to be, then suddenly it will hit you.
At this point you will realize that evolution is not some abstract idea about a bunch of fossilized old bones, it is in fact a life and death reality to the medical community. Treatment regimens are being based on the predictable outcomes stemming from the scientific fact of evolution and what doctors know about it.
And after you take this step, then perhaps you will be able to take the next step. It is never easy to leave our comfort zone is it? That is why people stay in jobs that don’t match their true abilities, they get lazy, and they get too darn comfortable. Don’t be lazy, don’t be comfortable, explore! Become informed, and conform your views to fit the facts, not the other way around.
With all sincerity,
Freeman
herk;
I didn't come here to argue. I wrote how I feel honestly and sincerely about the subject.
Despite your assertion you have read up on the subject, it seems you have failed to assimlate what you have read;
It seems to me that if feet and hands started to develop in an ancient animal because it felt a need for them,
This is a misunderstanding by you of the basic mechanism of evolution. No theory of evolution says 'feet and hands started to develop in an ancient animal because it felt a need for them'.
we should see such development of other "add-ons" going on right now.
We do. Do some studying of scikle cell anemia; this is a classic 'add-on'. There are other examples, obviously.
No matter how much we may want them, none of us can focus our concentration so much as to start developing wings, or the long-distance vision of an eagle, or the ability to see at night like an owl, or to make our way through the dark using sonar like a bat, etc.
Again, you show you have misunderstood basic evolutionary theory. You are presenting an argument that no evolutionist has made for decades, what's called 'Lamarkian Evolution', i.e. that giraffes have long necks because they streached them to eat. This is recognised now as utter rubbish, yet you are using it as a criticism of modern evolutionary theory. Did you do your reading at an Creationist wenbsite by any chance?
Additionally, everywhere people, plants and animals are constantly dying. They grow through a stage of advancement from youth to maturity, but then their lives ebb and decline. If evolution were true, it seems to me, there would not be this receding into extinction.
Dying and extinction are two seperate things; in additon, evolution can only move so fast; if the environment changes too much an organism will become extinct before evolutionary mechanisms can adjust.
If life was originally sparked into existence eons ago, it would have died before very long, just as living things do now. No living things live long enough to advance into something better. Instead of advancing to a newer and better stage of development, they devolve into something inferior to what they were when they began until they finally die.
Once again you show you have not comprehended anything of evolutionary theory. An individual living thing DOES NOT EVOLVE. It is what is is as determined by its DNA. If it is 5% more successful in passing on its genes due to some small difference in DNA, then within a few dozen generations 95% of the population of that organism will have that DNA.
One thing is for sure: You won't ever convince me by jumping all over me just because you don't agree. I didn't come to spout off how brilliant I might think I am, nor did I attempt to make some profound statement as if I have all the answers on the subjects of creation and evolution. I simply stated how I see things from the vantage point I have now.
And it has been pointed out you need to learn about the subject before you make statements criticising it that simultaneously show you haven't understood what you have read
Unless I misunderstood frenchbabyface, I think he or she is right: None of us have all the answers, regardless of which side we're on in the debate.Nope, she missed the point to, I think; she combined a fact (brain capacities) with a piece of modern folk law (that we use 5% of our brians). The first is verifiable via the fossil record. The second has never been proved, ever; it was made up by someone in an argument to prove a point, and has spread, just like the idea that carrots help you see in the dark spread in WWII.
so much light in the dark or so much dark in the light (whatever) ... Everyone of us could even chose our own scientist to testified what they feel confortable to believe in. Same old stuff
Abbandon : GOOD
Ooooooooooooh I have to shut up !
