Evolution and the Sex Drive
-
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.
-
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).
Dates on John go as late as 140. To further complicate matters, there is also the Synoptic Problem in that Matthew and Luke seem to have their origins in Mark and, perhaps, Q. Thus two of the gospels appear based on a common source. Besides this, nobody knows if they were written by one author, two authors or what. Anonymous authorship means they could have been written by anybody, anywhere. There is no certainty as to who the author was. So the problem is who wrote what first and can we even trust that the sources are accurate accounts? As for the council of Nicaea, if the consensus had gone the other way you'd be believing in the Arian Heresy right now. It is also interesting that the trinity was not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Eastern Orthodox church considers the Filioque clause to be a heresy. This is one of the reasons behind the East-West schism. Basically, the trinity doctrine was established three centuries after Christ. So we can establish that there was no consensus on the trinity for more than 300 years after Jesus. So I ask you, who is right? Why was the Arian Heresy wrong? Most of your Christian doctrine wasn't established until more than 3 centuries after the fact and it was only adapted as a consensus view to pacify the various ideological factions.
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
The fact that all four Gospels were written in geographically disparate regions,
Which regions would those be? Apparently you know since it is a "fact", according to you.
-
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.That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
-
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.
Sexual reproduction occurred long before parenting. In later organisms, yes, I would agree that this played a role.
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
The re-emergence of science came at the end of the Medieval High period (marked by the rule of the Church) and the beginning of the Renaissance(marked by a decline in the power and influence of the Catholic church (in the wake of the Western schism) and an emergence of humanism, yes, secular). The one and only thing the Church did in the name of science was to preserve copies of the ancient sources. However, they didn't even make a whole-hearted attempt at that as many of the old copies of the works of the classical Greek philosophers were scraped down and re-used as prayer and psalm books.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Church did suppress Galileo, but that was rather short-lived.
Short-lived? He was pardoned in the 1990's.... :rolleyes: Cardinal #1: "Duh, gee Mr. Pope, looks like he was right." Pope: "Ah nuts. Issue the apology then." -- modified at 10:50 Tuesday 12th June, 2007
-
I guess two amoebas accidentally merged during the (a)sexual act. This accident imparted an advantage that propagated.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Theory has it that the bacterial forerunners of mitochondria[^] moved between complex cells, causing the early transfer of genetic material from the proto-male to the proto-female.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
The fact that all four Gospels were written in geographically disparate regions,
Which regions would those be? Apparently you know since it is a "fact", according to you.
-
Dates on John go as late as 140. To further complicate matters, there is also the Synoptic Problem in that Matthew and Luke seem to have their origins in Mark and, perhaps, Q. Thus two of the gospels appear based on a common source. Besides this, nobody knows if they were written by one author, two authors or what. Anonymous authorship means they could have been written by anybody, anywhere. There is no certainty as to who the author was. So the problem is who wrote what first and can we even trust that the sources are accurate accounts? As for the council of Nicaea, if the consensus had gone the other way you'd be believing in the Arian Heresy right now. It is also interesting that the trinity was not accepted by the Eastern Orthodox tradition. The Eastern Orthodox church considers the Filioque clause to be a heresy. This is one of the reasons behind the East-West schism. Basically, the trinity doctrine was established three centuries after Christ. So we can establish that there was no consensus on the trinity for more than 300 years after Jesus. So I ask you, who is right? Why was the Arian Heresy wrong? Most of your Christian doctrine wasn't established until more than 3 centuries after the fact and it was only adapted as a consensus view to pacify the various ideological factions.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Dates on John go as late as 1
And as early as 60, but I ignore the fringe and went with the mainstream consensus as, unlike your argument, mine does not depend on unlikely scenarios in order to be reasonable.
73Zeppelin wrote:
As for the council of Nicaea, if the consensus had gone the other way you'd be believing in the Arian Heresy right now.
The historical consensus of the Gospels is not dependent on the Council of Nicaea. That council selected the gospels that were written by the Apostles (since Christianity depends on those first-hand accounts) and expelled documents that were not (mostly those gnostic documents like Judas). It also formulated the official belief system as based directly on those gospels. As for later dogmas, some were established by the Catholic Church as late as the 1950's. They are tweaked throughout the centuries and will be in the future as well, but all of them are based on the Gospels. The fundamental philosophies of the church were formulated a couple centuries later by St. Augustine of Hippo, but again these were based on the Gospels (and the influence of the methods of Greek philosophers). Yes, the methods and practices of Christianity did indeed develop over time (though some, like Eucharist, were always practiced), but they are based on the Gospels which were written in the Apostles' lifetimes.
-
That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
Pretty much our entire western civiliation is based on the Greeks. But even in all their brilliance, they did not come up with the scientific method, which is the foundation of modern science. If you read Plato, Aristotle, etc., you'll see that they approach the study of the natural world in a philosophical and not methodical way. That's what differentiates modern science from ancient philosophy. Pythagorus was the closest the Greeks got to science (as, if memory serves, he was the first person to describe the physical world with mathematics). The world probably would be a very different place if he wasn't slaughtered by a mindless foot soldier. But "science" did not spring forth from the Greeks. Philosophy did. Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
That's interesting, if you click on your link and then go to the MAIN ARTICLE on the HISTORY OF SCIENCE you find this: However, in Ancient Greece, towards the middle of the 5th century BC, some of the components of a scientific tradition were already heavily established. So uh, nice try, but not quite.
Pretty much our entire western civiliation is based on the Greeks. But even in all their brilliance, they did not come up with the scientific method, which is the foundation of modern science. If you read Plato, Aristotle, etc., you'll see that they approach the study of the natural world in a philosophical and not methodical way. That's what differentiates modern science from ancient philosophy. Pythagorus was the closest the Greeks got to science (as, if memory serves, he was the first person to describe the physical world with mathematics). The world probably would be a very different place if he wasn't slaughtered by a mindless foot soldier. But "science" did not spring forth from the Greeks. Philosophy did. Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
Red Stateler wrote:
Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
From the END of Christian Europe. Specifically around the time of the Western Schism and the decline in the power of the church and the rise of humanism.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
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.
The re-emergence of science came at the end of the Medieval High period (marked by the rule of the Church) and the beginning of the Renaissance(marked by a decline in the power and influence of the Catholic church (in the wake of the Western schism) and an emergence of humanism, yes, secular). The one and only thing the Church did in the name of science was to preserve copies of the ancient sources. However, they didn't even make a whole-hearted attempt at that as many of the old copies of the works of the classical Greek philosophers were scraped down and re-used as prayer and psalm books.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Church did suppress Galileo, but that was rather short-lived.
Short-lived? He was pardoned in the 1990's.... :rolleyes: Cardinal #1: "Duh, gee Mr. Pope, looks like he was right." Pope: "Ah nuts. Issue the apology then." -- modified at 10:50 Tuesday 12th June, 2007
The Church published[^] Galileo's works less than 100 years after the fact and he was recognized as being right at that point (actually well before then, but officially at that point). Science blossomed towards the end of the Renaissance (which was largely endorsed and funded by the Church). And classical humanism was not secular.
-
That's right. The entire premise of Creationism is that God created the universe in 6 literal days. Going by that belief, it's consistent to say simply that "God made it". It doesn't attempt to physically study the universe. Evolutionists, however, claim that their belief system is based on "logic" (intentionally in quotes) and science. Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences. By making such claims, you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system. Doing so is every bit as absurd as proclaiming that banana peels were made for culinary convenience.
Red Stateler wrote:
Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences.
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
Red Stateler wrote:
you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system.
No - but that's a pretty good description of ID.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Science sprang forth from Christian Europe.
From the END of Christian Europe. Specifically around the time of the Western Schism and the decline in the power of the church and the rise of humanism.
Per my reference below (link[^]):
It should be emphasised that the new ideals of humanism, although more secular
in some aspects, developed against an unquestioned Christian backdrop, especially
in the Northern Renaissance. Indeed, much (if not most) of the new art was
commissioned by or in dedication to the Church.[8] However, the Renaissance had a
profound effect on contemporary theology, particularly in the way people perceived
the relationship between man and God.[8] Many of the period's foremost theologians
were followers of the humanist method, including Erasmus, Zwingli, Thomas More,
Martin Luther, and John Calvin.The Church was behind the Renaissance and humanism was anything but secular. Secular humanism is about a century old. Visit an art museum sometime (I personally believe that art reflects historical culture quite well...And stop to take a look at modern art, which is the product of secular humanism) and see what was painted during the Renaissance. This was not a secular movement by any means and it certainly wasn't at the objection of the Church.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Yet they frequently defy logic by making claims based in fantasy about evolutionary influences.
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
Red Stateler wrote:
you're immediately diluting the science with your religious attitudes in a fervent attempt to draw a storyline for your belief system.
No - but that's a pretty good description of ID.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
No, I call the frequent and arbitrary guesses about evolutionary specifics employed by evolutionists as "fantasy".
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
No, they make secondary theories based on the primary theory of evolution. Since you doubt the latter you automatically call the former "fantasy". It's your problem - not theirs.
No, I call the frequent and arbitrary guesses about evolutionary specifics employed by evolutionists as "fantasy".
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
OK... what do you call intelligent design and creationism?
If adherents to either attempt to offer any specific explanations of traits (such as why a banana has a peel), they are just BS-ing, just as somebody endorsing evolution is by doing the same. Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution despite the fact that it's a complete fallacy.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
OK... what do you call intelligent design and creationism?
If adherents to either attempt to offer any specific explanations of traits (such as why a banana has a peel), they are just BS-ing, just as somebody endorsing evolution is by doing the same. Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution despite the fact that it's a complete fallacy.
Red Stateler wrote:
Ironically, you're willing to ignore the fact that evolutionists do this in order to explain evolution...
No! I'm willing to accept that based on the theory of evolution it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist.