Evolution and the Sex Drive
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's all I've ever said on here.
I think you argue against religion as science, but you seem to embrace science as religion. I argue that neither should be the case since they're distinct types of philosophies.
Red Stateler wrote:
I think you argue against religion as science
Indeed true.
Red Stateler wrote:
but you seem to embrace science as religion
Not at all. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with an opinion of how the world works. I don't know why there is such a thing as photons, but the evidence suggests they are there. I have no need to appeal to the divine. I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe. I believe asking "why" is quite irrelevant because with the current state of knowledge it is a futile exercise. In my opinion, "God" is simply a jeuvenile attempt at asking "why". It's not even original - there's lots of "prior art".
-
Could one of the evolutionists here explain, or direct me to a good, thorough explanation of the evolution of the sex drive so necessary for survival. Of all potential ID arguments, this one seems to present at least a valid threat to conventional natural selection.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.", by Alexander Pope My Blog
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I think you argue against religion as science
Indeed true.
Red Stateler wrote:
but you seem to embrace science as religion
Not at all. It has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with an opinion of how the world works. I don't know why there is such a thing as photons, but the evidence suggests they are there. I have no need to appeal to the divine. I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe. I believe asking "why" is quite irrelevant because with the current state of knowledge it is a futile exercise. In my opinion, "God" is simply a jeuvenile attempt at asking "why". It's not even original - there's lots of "prior art".
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe.
I agree. Christianity simply does not concern itself much with the natural world. Beyond Genesis (which Judaism focuses on far more than Christianity does, since its concepts are not at the philosophical core of Christianity), there is very little attempt to explain anything in the natural world. The two simply don't overlap, which is why I say they are two distinct types of philosophies (physical and metaphysical). I find it odd (or rather improper) that atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
-
My curiosity is actually regarding how any sex drive developed to start with. What heralded the change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Do you think that anonymous accounts of a person written 100 years after their hypothesized death is evidence for the divine? And not just anonymous accounts, but accounts and writings selectively chosen by consensus several hundred years later? If I form a council and choose my selection of anonymous writing regarding the Spaghetti Monster, does that guarantee it divinity just like it did the Christian idea of God?
We went over this a while back and you conceded that the four gospels were all written in the lifetimes of their respective claimed authors. Your anti-Christianity is based on the idea that these documents were somehow falsified. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary and none to support your claim. So much for "logic", huh?
First of all, the best historical evidence suggests the earliest gospel account of the life of Jesus was written 70 years after his existence. The rest of them were written more than 100 years after. That makes them second-hand or hearsay accounts unless one can establish evidence for an earlier document. So far this has been hypothesized as the "Q-document", but there is no physical evidence for it and historians differ in their opinions on the existence of Q. Furthermore, I don't believe they were falsified. I believe they were written with a specific bias to glorify the subject of the writings and to get across a moral message. Combine that glorification with subjective and non-first-hand accounts and we hardly have a reliable source. Additionally, the claims of acts that establish divinity are found in religions much older than Christianity. Virgin births, saviours, etc... had been around the block in religious ideologies before. That's why the development of Islam isn't a surprise. It just uses Christianity as a template, just like Christianity borrowed aspects of the creation myth and acts of divinity (like floods, etc...) from previous religions. There is no concrete pretext on which to establish the basis for divine acts or the holiness of Jesus. Thus how Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, what-have-you can each claim to be correct is beyond me. It all boils down to which ideology you prefer on a whim. That's hardly a basis for the cultural backdrop of a society. Why reject Islam? Just because you don't like it? It doesn't appeal to you? What evidence do you have that the Christian god is "right" and "Allah" is wrong?
-
Could one of the evolutionists here explain, or direct me to a good, thorough explanation of the evolution of the sex drive so necessary for survival. Of all potential ID arguments, this one seems to present at least a valid threat to conventional natural selection.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.", by Alexander Pope My Blog
Having 2 distinct parents gives a species both a progenitor and separate protector of its young rather than having to both create, birth, feed and then protect to maturation any young: a huge drain on individual resources. Also allows for diversity from variant gene pools. Just a thought.
-
It certainly can be. Look at Islam and atheism.
Red Stateler wrote:
Look at Islam and atheism
Atheism is not a religion.
Matt
if ( ! pMatt->isEnjoying("Sales") )
{
pMatt->retrain("Computer Science");
pMatt->getNewJob("Developer");
} -
73Zeppelin wrote:
Are you suggesting that you can give specific and certain reasons that evolution isn't true?
I never said evolution isn't true. I said it shouldn't be treated like religion (as you're doing here by claiming stories, which are based in fantasy, can be derived from it) or as a social philosophy. I have no problem with evolution as science. I have a big problem with science as religion.
Red Stateler wrote:
I have a big problem with science as religion.
The main reason I am attracted to scientific views of our world and its history rather than religious ones is that science is itself continually evolving. Every generation challenges the assumptions of the past and comes up with techniques and theories to deepen our understanding. The religious view of things is immutable and unchallengable, mainly because it is solidly based on a set or sets of ancient writings (applicable to most major religions, not just Christianity). It is this inability to accept that some things may be found out to be inaccurate that I just can't stomach.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe.
I agree. Christianity simply does not concern itself much with the natural world. Beyond Genesis (which Judaism focuses on far more than Christianity does, since its concepts are not at the philosophical core of Christianity), there is very little attempt to explain anything in the natural world. The two simply don't overlap, which is why I say they are two distinct types of philosophies (physical and metaphysical). I find it odd (or rather improper) that atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Red Stateler wrote:
atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it
What complete and utter rubbish: do you really believe that there was no science before the advent of Chritianity? Or none outside of it? No wonder you get the urine extracted when you make such silly statements. Would you care to rephrase?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
What heralded the change from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?
Sharing genetic code with the inherent chance of random mutation and increased adaptation.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Yes, but since there was never a decision, such as "Hey, sharing genetic code rocks! Let's share some more!" I'm curious as to where this sharing thing took off.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
I am comfortable knowing that physics is the best methodology we have for understanding the behaviour of the universe.
I agree. Christianity simply does not concern itself much with the natural world. Beyond Genesis (which Judaism focuses on far more than Christianity does, since its concepts are not at the philosophical core of Christianity), there is very little attempt to explain anything in the natural world. The two simply don't overlap, which is why I say they are two distinct types of philosophies (physical and metaphysical). I find it odd (or rather improper) that atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Red Stateler wrote:
wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Uh, no. The foundations of modern science came from the Greek tradition of philosophy, mathematics and rhetorical argument. If anything the Christian church suppressed scientific evidence until the evidence was so strong the church could no longer refute it. When that happened, the church renounced the literal truth of the gospels and began interpreting them in a more allegorical sense. What they did, in effect, was to pick and choose which portions of the bible were literal and which were not.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Look at Islam and atheism
Atheism is not a religion.
Matt
if ( ! pMatt->isEnjoying("Sales") )
{
pMatt->retrain("Computer Science");
pMatt->getNewJob("Developer");
}See my sig.;)
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
-
Sex drive was created when the first man saw the first woman bending over a creek washing clothes. Not only was she doing what women are supposed to do (domestic chore), but she was leaving herself in a pretty much indefensible position (kneeling down and bending forward, and her hands were full - it's difficult to get up and run in such an instance). Added to all that, she was probably naked. Now, our hero strolls by, and is pretty full of himself because he just single-handedly killed a wolly mammoth, and he's thinking that a perfect way to end the day would be to "get some". As he emerges from around a rock, he sees this chick with her ass in the air and doing something in the water (he doesn't notice what she's doing because all he sees is ass). This is, curiously enough, also where religion gets its start because he claps his hands together as if in prayer, looks up at the sky, and says to himself, "There IS a god!". Without so much as a how-do-you-do, he runs up behind the woman and begins fornicating. Thus, "sex drive" is realized, and as a side-note, so is religion.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001The most likely explanation so far. :-)
-
First of all, the best historical evidence suggests the earliest gospel account of the life of Jesus was written 70 years after his existence. The rest of them were written more than 100 years after. That makes them second-hand or hearsay accounts unless one can establish evidence for an earlier document. So far this has been hypothesized as the "Q-document", but there is no physical evidence for it and historians differ in their opinions on the existence of Q. Furthermore, I don't believe they were falsified. I believe they were written with a specific bias to glorify the subject of the writings and to get across a moral message. Combine that glorification with subjective and non-first-hand accounts and we hardly have a reliable source. Additionally, the claims of acts that establish divinity are found in religions much older than Christianity. Virgin births, saviours, etc... had been around the block in religious ideologies before. That's why the development of Islam isn't a surprise. It just uses Christianity as a template, just like Christianity borrowed aspects of the creation myth and acts of divinity (like floods, etc...) from previous religions. There is no concrete pretext on which to establish the basis for divine acts or the holiness of Jesus. Thus how Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, what-have-you can each claim to be correct is beyond me. It all boils down to which ideology you prefer on a whim. That's hardly a basis for the cultural backdrop of a society. Why reject Islam? Just because you don't like it? It doesn't appeal to you? What evidence do you have that the Christian god is "right" and "Allah" is wrong?
73Zeppelin wrote:
First of all, the best historical evidence suggests the earliest gospel account of the life of Jesus was written 70 years after his existence.
Matthew:[^] Dated between 70 and 100 AD (40-70 years after Christ's death) Mark: [^] Late 60's to early 70's (30-40 years after Christ's death). Luke: [^] 50-100 (20-70 years after Christ's death) John[^]: 90-100 (60-70 years after Christ's death). All of these dates fall within the realistic lifetimes of their authors. Keep in mind also that the entire purpose of the First Council of Nicaea was to establish official documents, since numerous later documents were being recognized as first-hand gospel (like the Gospel of Judas).
-
Red Stateler wrote:
wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it.
Uh, no. The foundations of modern science came from the Greek tradition of philosophy, mathematics and rhetorical argument. If anything the Christian church suppressed scientific evidence until the evidence was so strong the church could no longer refute it. When that happened, the church renounced the literal truth of the gospels and began interpreting them in a more allegorical sense. What they did, in effect, was to pick and choose which portions of the bible were literal and which were not.
73Zeppelin wrote:
The foundations of modern science came from the Greek tradition of philosophy, mathematics and rhetorical argument.
I suppose you're right. But those foundations essentially died with the Greeks. A resurgence of Greek philosophy was led by Thomas Aquinas in the Church centuries before it found itself back into the study of the natural world.
73Zeppelin wrote:
If anything the Christian church suppressed scientific evidence until the evidence was so strong the church could no longer refute it. When that happened, the church renounced the literal truth of the gospels and began interpreting them in a more allegorical sense. What they did, in effect, was to pick and choose which portions of the bible were literal and which were not.
The Church did suppress Galileo, but that was rather short-lived. Once the initial reaction to it had subsided, the Renaissance was born.
-
See my sig.;)
----- Formerly MP(2) If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. -- Unknown
Nice analogy!
-
Red Stateler wrote:
atheists attempt to wield science as a weapon against Christianity when science was actually born from it
What complete and utter rubbish: do you really believe that there was no science before the advent of Chritianity? Or none outside of it? No wonder you get the urine extracted when you make such silly statements. Would you care to rephrase?
digital man wrote:
What complete and utter rubbish: do you really believe that there was no science before the advent of Chritianity?
As far as modern science goes, yes.[^]
The fundamental tenets of the modern scientific method crystallized no later
than the rise of the modern physical sciences, in the 17th and 18th centuries. In
his work Novum Organum (1620) — a reference to Aristotle's Organon — Francis Bacon
outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of
syllogism. Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for a scientific
method's guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method. These writings
are considered critical in the historical development of the scientific
method. -
73Zeppelin wrote:
First of all, the best historical evidence suggests the earliest gospel account of the life of Jesus was written 70 years after his existence.
Matthew:[^] Dated between 70 and 100 AD (40-70 years after Christ's death) Mark: [^] Late 60's to early 70's (30-40 years after Christ's death). Luke: [^] 50-100 (20-70 years after Christ's death) John[^]: 90-100 (60-70 years after Christ's death). All of these dates fall within the realistic lifetimes of their authors. Keep in mind also that the entire purpose of the First Council of Nicaea was to establish official documents, since numerous later documents were being recognized as first-hand gospel (like the Gospel of Judas).
-
Yes, but since there was never a decision, such as "Hey, sharing genetic code rocks! Let's share some more!" I'm curious as to where this sharing thing took off.
-
What does that prove?
The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. - John Adams
The fact that all four Gospels were written in geographically disparate regions, tell a consistent story and were written a short period after Jesus' crucifixion demonstrate that they are first-hand witnessed accounts. If one equates Christianity to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, one must also discount an entire slew of history.