by Blueblades 40 Replies latest jw friends
Little Toe,
Thanks for your overview of your opinions....I appreciate it.
Abbadon,
The idea of god using such an innacurate flawed book to communicate with man suggests god is having a very bad joke at our expense, or else that he doesn't exist at all, or not in the way the Bible talks of him. If the first possibility is true, god already knows what he can do with it.
Thats pretty much is my take on it also. BTW .....excellents points you made.
Gumby
Abaddon:
I see no evidence in the bible to indicate that we were ever meant not to age and die, physically.
It seems more like wishful thinking.
Are you stating that the peak of the human evolution has already occured, due to an increase in cranial matter, that offsets the requirement for further adaptation to our environment?
Do you think we are streamlining our genetic code, since we seem to have jettisoned some of it, if we came from primate predecessors?
Out of further curiosity - are you aware of any ofther species where the female ejaculates?
I admit it! I forged the whole Adam and Eve myth as a junior high prank.
CZAR
admit it! I forged the whole Adam and Eve myth as a junior high prank.
You decietfull bastard you! I just knew someone like you was behind this! Now pass the green fatty to me.
Gumby
Science has proven that humans have been on earth tens of thousands of years prior to the arrival of Adam and Eve ... the fable of the first human pair is just a Jewish lore writen under Moses name to teach simple sand dune lessons to dessert nomads in allegory form. To bad they never listened. - Jim W.
the fable of the first human pair is just a Jewish lore writen under Moses name to teach simple sand dune lessons to dessert nomads in allegory form. To bad they never listened. - Jim W.
Now listen Jim.....don't beat around the bush on this! Why don't you just come out and say it like you mean it!
Gumby
Little Toe;
I see no evidence in the bible to indicate that we were ever meant not to age and die, physically.
It seems more like wishful thinking.
I agree.
Are you stating that the peak of the human evolution has already occured, due to an increase in cranial matter, that offsets the requirement for further adaptation to our environment?
I'm saying that if our brains get any bigger at birth then women would walk like ducks. If you look at how helpless the human infant is at birth compared with your closest relatives, you can see another adaptation that allowed our big brains; a lot of development that takes place in utero in most animals takes place after birth with humans. If this process went much further, then the survivability of babies would go down.
All that's different from saying we are at the peak of human evolution. Our brains might develop internally, we might evolve physically, but the big engine of natural selection that drives such things has been turned off.
Nowadays many people that would have succumed to disease or predation or accident in a more primative environment before they passed their genes on get to pass their genes on. Hell, I'm reasonably smart, healthy and fit, but Abaddon as a caveman would have probably died young as my eyesight is so bloody poor - unless I invented an imaginary friend that I could convince others existed and thereby avoid sitautions where my eyesight counted against me by claiming I had to 'commune with the spirits' back at the cave to assure the success of the hunt!
This lack of selection pressure means that is will be harder for a population with a good genes to dominate the population over time as their breeding rate will be the same as those without that gene. Perhaps
Maybe genetic engineering is 'nature's way' of overcoming this log-jam?
Do you think we are streamlining our genetic code, since we seem to have jettisoned some of it, if we came from primate predecessors?
Nah, DNA is very conservative; it rarely throws things away, it just stops using them. I will be able to answer this question better in about ten years time though, as our knowledge of DNA is still in its infancy.
Out of further curiosity - are you aware of any ofther species where the female ejaculates?
Nope, never read of it in any other species, and I certainly haven't experiemented!!! I know that certain species seem to display a female orgasm, but it's hard to be sure as you can't ask a female chimp 'how was it for you?'. Maybe if they left packets of cigarettes around we could find out afterwards...
Of course, it may have never been observed in other species; how many scientists have stuck their head near the business end of coition? It's not really something they think of doing - specially not with things like elephants. I can recommend Ben Dovers 'Back to the Crack' as proof for the amusing people who don't believe it happen in humans, the first scene is a cracker...
What an interesting thread! Cool comments, Abaddon and LittleToe! Right on the button!
One interesting fact that strikes me re the differences between Creationists and people who prefer evolution is this: evolution is continously evolving, and new ideas and theories are generated almost every day by the scientific community. Essentially, if a scientist's theory can be proved wrong, that scientist will probably discard the theory and say, oh sh*t, I stuffed up, let's create a better theory.
The same can't be said for the Creationist school of thought - there's one explanation for how everything happened, it was written 2000+ years ago (depending on your point of view), and it's not changing anytime soon. Every conjecture made by Creationists is an attempt to work around this huge logical problem.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is, Creationism sometimes just seems like a very, not arrogant as such, more just a blinkered view of the Universe. Some Creationists I know are the finest, humblest, most down-to-Earth people I've ever met, but damn, you just can't get them to admit that Creationism is bogus!
SYN:
Some Creationists I know are the finest, humblest, most down-to-Earth people I've ever met, but damn, you just can't get them to admit that Creationism is bogus!
In addition, replace the word "Creation..." with "Darwin..." and repeat the above statement, and you have my experience in a nutshell, too.
There are entrenched views at every stage of the spectrum, not just the poles.
It makes for fun discourse, though
IMHO an investigative and inquisitive mind is a real gift (whether you attribute it to creation, evolution or both).
Some Creationists I know are the finest, humblest, most down-to-Earth people I've ever met, but damn, you just can't get them to admit that Creationism is bogus!
In addition, replace the word "Creation..." with "Darwin..." and repeat the above statement, and you have my experience in a nutshell, too.
You'd have a tough time getting me to admit the earth is flat too. Some things we really do know. Evolution is only controversial because of certain little fundamentalist religious rascals. (I'm not talking about the technical details - just the concept in general)
rem
