Evolution and the Sex Drive
-
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.
-
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.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
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.
That is the absolute height of absurdity. In your zeal encourage acceptance of evolution as ideology, you're diluting it.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
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.
That is the absolute height of absurdity. In your zeal encourage acceptance of evolution as ideology, you're diluting it.
-
If I keep it up, I might be almost half as ridiculous as your idea that BSing is at the heart of science.
-
Sexual reproduction occurred long before parenting. In later organisms, yes, I would agree that this played a role.
There's an alternate theory that proposes NOTHING drove the rise of sexual reproduction - that it, merely being another way of doing things, and given enough time and the fact that sexual reproduction is not physically impossible, HAD to arise eventually merely through the laws of probability. A more interesting question is why it has been so successful, equally as successful as asexual reproduction, when sexual reproduction is so much more resource intensive. There's no a priori answer to this question, of course, because we weren't there, but the results seem self evident: sexual reproduction allows a far greater diversity over a shorter span of time. Instead of relying on chance genetic mutation, you ENCOURAGE mutation by mixing genes from disparate organisms. You effectively double the chance of increasing diversity with each generation. WHY it happened is irrelevant (although perhaps interesting, from an academic point of view, and may actually have some application for other things); THAT it happened is unquestionable. -- modified at 12:43 Tuesday 12th June, 2007 (fixed the stupid italics)
-
If I keep it up, I might be almost half as ridiculous as your idea that BSing is at the heart of science.
-
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, 10/26/2001 -
Red Stateler wrote:
your idea that BSing is at the heart of science.
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist
Any "intelligent guess" about why a particular trait evolved is anything but intelligent. It's 100% fabrication in order to put a story to the theory. It's the height of absurdity but nonetheless frequently employed by the so-called "logical". It's a joke. To so it's OK is also a joke.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist
Any "intelligent guess" about why a particular trait evolved is anything but intelligent. It's 100% fabrication in order to put a story to the theory. It's the height of absurdity but nonetheless frequently employed by the so-called "logical". It's a joke. To so it's OK is also a joke.
-
There's an alternate theory that proposes NOTHING drove the rise of sexual reproduction - that it, merely being another way of doing things, and given enough time and the fact that sexual reproduction is not physically impossible, HAD to arise eventually merely through the laws of probability. A more interesting question is why it has been so successful, equally as successful as asexual reproduction, when sexual reproduction is so much more resource intensive. There's no a priori answer to this question, of course, because we weren't there, but the results seem self evident: sexual reproduction allows a far greater diversity over a shorter span of time. Instead of relying on chance genetic mutation, you ENCOURAGE mutation by mixing genes from disparate organisms. You effectively double the chance of increasing diversity with each generation. WHY it happened is irrelevant (although perhaps interesting, from an academic point of view, and may actually have some application for other things); THAT it happened is unquestionable. -- modified at 12:43 Tuesday 12th June, 2007 (fixed the stupid italics)
OK, well said, and to go back to my original question then, it would be interesting to explore how the mating instinct evolved along with sexually reproducing organisms, given that the evolution of sexual reproduction per se is unquestionable.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You're being obtuse
No. I'm pointing out the fact that BSing specific evolutionary stories is the norm among your ilk. You apparently don't deny it and even agree with the practice. That...is absolutely absurd.
-
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).
Why were Thomas' and Phillip's books left out? The mere fact that the Council of Nicaea chose which APOSTLES' books to include leaves me suspect. To get a clear message from Jesus you'd need the interpretation of all the apostles. Thank goodness that some of them survived their purge of conflicting sects. Too bad that they had to KILL everyone who didn't share their view of the canon. The new testament is covered in blood.
This statement was never false.
-
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.
Red Stateler wrote:
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).
Thomas and Phillip are first hand accounts that were to be purged from the Canon. And they didn't just leave out books. They sought out the believers and killed them.
This statement was never false.
-
Why were Thomas' and Phillip's books left out? The mere fact that the Council of Nicaea chose which APOSTLES' books to include leaves me suspect. To get a clear message from Jesus you'd need the interpretation of all the apostles. Thank goodness that some of them survived their purge of conflicting sects. Too bad that they had to KILL everyone who didn't share their view of the canon. The new testament is covered in blood.
This statement was never false.
So I take it you lied when you claimed to be a "Christian"? It's odd that a "Christian" would claim the basis of his religion is "covered in blood" (a false claim, since the Council of Nicaea was a meeting...not a war). But to answer your question, neither are first-hand accounts. In fact, Philip[^] was written a couple hundred years late. The gnostic movement attempted to rewrite Christianity by adding new texts (kind of like what you're trying to do). Constantine put a stop to that.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
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).
Thomas and Phillip are first hand accounts that were to be purged from the Canon. And they didn't just leave out books. They sought out the believers and killed them.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thomas and Phillip are first hand accounts that were to be purged from the Canon. And they didn't just leave out books. They sought out the believers and killed them.
False. Philip is a later work and Thomas isn't even purported in the text to be first hand. I thought you were a "Christian". What ever happened to that?
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I never wrote nor implied that, stop twisting things to feed your ego.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
it's OK to make intelligent guesses as to why certain traits exist
Any "intelligent guess" about why a particular trait evolved is anything but intelligent. It's 100% fabrication in order to put a story to the theory. It's the height of absurdity but nonetheless frequently employed by the so-called "logical". It's a joke. To so it's OK is also a joke.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's 100% fabrication in order to put a story to the theory
hrrmmmmm... intelligent design takes a story and puts it into a theroy... though neither one is provable(is that a word?), i like the one that doesnt rely on an imaginary friend.
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
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.so the egyptians didnt use geometry to make the pyramids? there had to be some science there to test the stability of certain shapes, how else would they know that the triangle is one of the sturdiest of geometric shapes? i suppose they just got lucky...
------------------------------ I win because I have the most fun in life...
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Thomas and Phillip are first hand accounts that were to be purged from the Canon. And they didn't just leave out books. They sought out the believers and killed them.
False. Philip is a later work and Thomas isn't even purported in the text to be first hand. I thought you were a "Christian". What ever happened to that?
The dead sea scrolls are dated the oldest surviving texts. The book of Thomas is in there along with Phillip. And I don't have to agree with the Canon to be Christian. Maybe its better termed Jesonian. I'm into the religion OF Jesus, not the religion ABOUT Jesus.
This statement was never false.
-
So I take it you lied when you claimed to be a "Christian"? It's odd that a "Christian" would claim the basis of his religion is "covered in blood" (a false claim, since the Council of Nicaea was a meeting...not a war). But to answer your question, neither are first-hand accounts. In fact, Philip[^] was written a couple hundred years late. The gnostic movement attempted to rewrite Christianity by adding new texts (kind of like what you're trying to do). Constantine put a stop to that.
No, I didn't lie. I follow Jesus, not the people that come after him. I don't approve of Constantine, or the council of Nicaea. And I contend that Jesus was a Nazarite in the same way that Solomon was. That Nazareth didn't even exist until Constantine's wife went looking for it. That most of the Canon is a result of Paul's letters, whom is really Saul the tent maker who only talked with Jesus a couple of times, not a disciple, and definately not an apostle. And that most of the Canon only touches on what Jesus was teaching. So, I don't feel the need to defend my Christianity, I descend from ministers. I read the bible and other books and think for myself. I'm with Luther in that we are meant to find our own interpretations and that having a controlling hierarchy that disseminates understanding is in itself dangerous. So, whatever. You can have your cognizant dissonance regarding my religous beliefs. I'm fine with that.
Red Stateler wrote:
It's odd that a "Christian" would claim the basis of his religion is "covered in blood" (a false claim, since the Council of Nicaea was a meeting...not a war).
I say that the CANON is covered in blood. Because it is. They killed everyone they could find with a dissenting opinion. My religion of one of Christ, a spirit led faith to seeking the kingdom which lies within us. As stated by Jesus. My religion is not one of books. I worship no book. I worship the father only. I don't worship Jesus. I count him as my brother/mother/son. Its to do the will of the father that Jesus preached. Yes, he also admonished to be mindful of the scriptures, but you'll also find that when he quoted the old testament he left out the negative portion if there was one. So, it would seem that we always need to think for ourselves, and follow the spirit leadings as well as we can. Ok, so now that you've called my faith and religion into question because I don't follow your brand of it, how do you reconcile the death penalty and advocacy of it with the commandment Thou Shall Not Kill. Even state sanctioned Murder is murder nonetheless.
This statement was never false.
