The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' - Religion (5) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' (11405 Views)
Akudaya:myth Or Reality? / Is The God Of Israel God Of ALL? / Mammy Water: Myth Or Reality? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 10:27am On Jun 13, 2010 |
Lol. Yes, Mr Last-Word-Freak whose arguments I don't get. You're not listening to a thing, and confuse a dry recital of facts with presenting scientific ideas. I have questions on evolution. The human human brain is too big a response to adaptation and the challenges of our environment. Much simpler equipment would suffice. You see other land animals who shared and evolved in the same environment we did. Why didn't they evolve something even close to the human brain and human intelligence, whose workings still hasn't been fully understood? Our brains as evolved response to adaptation and the challenges of survival is like killing a mosquito with a mac truck. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 12:22pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Mad_Max: Of course I must have the last word, because I'm always right.   All I'm saying is that one cannot simply present the facts to the public and expect them to accept it. Presenting scientific ideas requires presenting more than just the facts. Mad_Max: I'm not some sort of expert on evolution but I'll try to answer those that I can. Now the human brain of course developed gradually over a long period of time plus, the unique features of being one of the primates e.g opposable thumbs, ability to move upright etc aided in its development and increased chances of a better survival. So when humans arrived at their current level, the brains plus these other features were a tremendous advantage over other animals. Other animals not in the ape family simply did not acquire the features present in the human brain because their bodies did not need them for better survival. Plus keep in mind that the environment in which we survived and evolved is also very different from what we have today. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 1:02pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Maybe, but what would they need any kind of advantage for? We're weren't evolving in competition with other animals, merely to survive and adapt to our environment. Let me head where I'm really going. You know when people take LSD, they 'see' gods and demons and galaxies and all sorts of weird things. LSD stimulates a part of the brain and these images are produced. That something can stimulate the brain artificially means the same part can be stimulated naturaIly. Without LSD or applying electricity to parts of the brain, people see 'visions'. hallucinations, mirages and 'aliens'. Its presence in our brains means our ancestors developed and used this part of their brains for something, or it would not be in ours. Look at this alien abduction stories.There are a lot of lies, honest mistakes, celebrity-status seeking, hoax, auto-sugestion, planted suggestion by psychologists and 'hypnotists', but there are some very, very few compelling stories that the, er, abductees seem to believe had really happened to them. Is it this part of their brains that abductees use to 'see' their abductors, which is why there has never been any physical evidence? These sort of stories have been with men as long as they've existed, stories of sighting strange beings or seeing strange things. Are all these people, from time immemorial, hallucinating? Why are there prodigies and autistic savants who use connections in their brains we don't? Not can't, since our brains are the same, but don't know how? Why would we have such a faculty at all? Our normal eyes developed as a response to the needs of this environment, and it's all the vision we need to survive here as a species . What if some of these people aren't 'hallucinating' but seeing things that are actually there, only not in this environment? I mean, look at all the NDEs and Clinical Death Experiences, some of them in involving groups of people sharing the same 'after-life' experience together, maybe all were in a bus that crashed and they 'died', or some other scenario. It isn't just individuals, groups have the same experience, all of them seeing their bodies below, seeing and talking to each other outside those bodies, then seeing the same strange 'beings' and sharing all the experiences that follow, like a class being taken on a tour. The human brain is extraordinary, and I don't think natural selection was left to its own devices concerning us. It's far too complex, way above what we need to survive as a species. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by KunleOshob(m): 1:27pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
^^^ Nice submission in your last paragraph above, another overwhelming evidence that we did not evolve, as the theory of evolution which is based on simple need to survive cannot explan why the human brain is so advanced, complex with numerous abilities not necessary for our survival. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 2:22pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Mad_Max: We were competing with other animals for food, shelter etc. Only recently has it become more like an extermination. Mad_Max: You're quite right about that. In fact, that was how some drugs were discovered to function. The natural stimulation of these parts of the brain is usually supposed to go through the normal sensory channels i.e special senses. Natural detection of e.g demons by the eyes would require some physical difference in the eyes of those individuals otherwise, it cold be misfiring of some neurons as seen in some seizure disorders that are localized, abnormal associations in the brain or even chemical imbalance in the brain. Mad_Max: This is not necessarily true because it could also be a left over inadequate functioning of a previously important feature. e.g in constructing say a building, scaffolding is used which may have to run through a building. After construction and the scaffolding is removed, the holes created by this scaffolding may be weaker than the rest of the material used to cover the building so are likely to become exposed over time. These holes in this case would be unwanted side effects of erecting that building using that scaffolding. Or it may be something that has been dormant in humans that just happens to manifest itself when the appropriate tools e.g complex speech and expression became available. We really can't say or list the possible reasons for now. Mad_Max: I doubt it. I think it's more of a testament of what the human brain is capable of. Our fiction, ghost stories, fantasy stories etc seems to me to demonstrate that humans if left on their own can come up with some of these associations. Plus, while there are many stories, all these stories cannot be true but they can all be false. The fact that there are a lot of them does not make it more likely. But now with all the satellites in space, I would expect that such large interstellar travelers to be detectable at some scale but who knows? Mad_Max: No I don't think they were all hallucinations. I think these stories are also used for social cohesion similar to the roles myths and folklore play in human traditions. And other uses to which we have put such untested/untestable stories to. Mad_Max: Actually our brains are quite different structurally and functionally due to the different neuronal associations we've made from birth. Prodigies too have quite different brains from other people this is demonstrated through the use of fMRIs in research. Mad_Max: It has been proposed that one advantage was probably that the fear of the unknown aiding survival in that it is generally a better survival tactic to be cautious of sudden noises, strange occurrences etc With respect to groups, shared hallucinations do occur. Coupled with the fact that the data for these cases is simply not compelling enough, I wouldn't make any conclusions from mostly personal accounts. Humans are quite suggestible when in an appropriate state. Mad_Max: While it is complex, but we do not know what would be enough for us to survive as a species since we are now self-conscious entities. The traits themselves while boosted by natural selection arise through some other mechanisms e.g mutation, genetic drift, recombination etc Plus with the realm of space opening up, who knows? Further evolution of currently the only species able to leave the surface of this planet may just occur given enough time. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by PastorAIO: 4:50pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Hi peeps. I believe that Darwin himself saw the inadequacies of the Natural Selection explanation by survival. He himself changed and said not only survival of the fittest but also the ability to win sexual partners is important to evolution. That is why the peacock with the brightest tale wins the peahens and therefore passes it's genes on. So just as the peacocks tail is useless for survival, in fact it can be a hindrance in some situations, so we have many other traits that do not help survival or give us an advantage in dealing with out environment. Now, I look at it this way. Maybe Survival and Sex were the only things that Darwin could think up, but what if there were many other factors that influence what genes get passed on. How many? Who could possibly know? But the facts that we have many abilities that darwin's theories cannot explain, and the just the obvious lack of imagination of many die hard darwinist suggests to me that it would be quite safe to toss darwin's theories in the trash with other redundant theories. For me the really interesting thing is not theories trying to explain evolution but the patterns that can be observed of evolution itself. That for me is a more viable area of study. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 8:22pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Pastor AIO: Hi there Pastor AIO Pastor AIO: I think he implied that all along. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was not simply the most fit physically (may not even be the most physically fit) but the one that was able to propagate its genes to the next generation. Also, the theory has progressed beyond Darwin. Pastor AIO: Though you feel that it has no survival aim, it clearly fulfills its purpose by attracting the female. Pastor AIO: Other factors such as? I ask this because survival and sex do explain quite a lot about the animals we see around us. Pastor AIO: Abilities like what? Discarding the theory with so much evidence behind it and that has made so much information clearer about living organisms in general for some unknown perfection seems to me a pretty bad idea. In the absence of a better reason than the unknown is too great, not a failure of the theory itself, I think we'll make better progress into the unknown with the theory than without it. Pastor AIO: Please could you expatiate on these patterns of evolution itself as a more viable area of study. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by dexmond: 8:54pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
@ All Kindly excuse my ignorance of high science as demonstrated by members of the forum most especially those coming from athiestic background. The current scientific endeavour is Totalitarian in nature. Traditional science did not limit itself to radical empiricism i.e all knowledge been derived by the senses. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz establishes the centrality of God to science. According to Leibniz, the proximate origins of "magnitude, figure, and motion," which constitute the "primary qualities" of corporeal bodies, "cannot be found in the essence of the body". I will like to point out the limitation of science by quoting Linda de Hoyos. "The problem arises when the scientist asks why the body fills this space and not another; for example, why it should be three feet long rather than two, or square rather than round. This cannot be explained by the nature of the bodies themselves, since the matter is indeterminate as to any definite figure, whether square or round. For the scientist who refuses to resort to an incorporeal cause, there can be only two answers. Either the body has been this way since eternity, or it has been made square by the impact of another body. "Eternity" is no answer, since the body could have been round for eternity also. If the answer is "the impact of another body," there remains the question of why it should have had any determinate figure before such motion acted upon it. This question can then be asked again and again, backwards to infinity. Therefore, it appears that the reason for a certain figure and magnitude in bodies can never be found in the nature of these bodies themselves. " Leibniz said “corporeal phenomena cannot be explained without an incorporeal principle, that is God" SCIENCE SHOULD EXPLAIN HOW THE DOGONS OF MALI WERE ABLE TO STUDY THE STAR SIRIUS WITHOUT MODERN SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS? SURELY SCIENCE HAS AN OCCULTIC ROOT. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by TV01(m): 9:48pm On Jun 13, 2010 |
Hi KAG & thehomer, hope y'all are good. I read through the links you so kindly provided. Good - if excrutiatingly dull - reads, but in truth not much advance on adaptation from what I could see. Hi justcool, I trust you are well. Thanks for your responses. I had to take time to read and re-read in the little time I could muster and at the same time try to keep abreast of the thread. Loads of questions, so will try and synthesize and revert later. God bless TV |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 1:08am On Jun 14, 2010 |
@kunleoshob Why does evolution bother you all so much, when you can see everything evolves? Everything starts small, and gets more complex over time. It seems to be the guiding principle of everything alive in nature. You weren't born full grown. Your origins were humble. You can't say you noticed any changes in your day-to-day progress from the womb, and yet, over time, here you are, posting on NL, very different from how you looked in the womb. Why on earth would you expect full-grown human being to come from nowhere and start begetting children? Even when Christ was coming, he didn't appear suddenly from nowhere, he was born and grew over time. You don't know what happened at the beginning, so I don't understand why you feel Genesis must be right at all costs, even when evidence shows otherwise, as if there is only ONE way for God to create, and we are the ones that must teach Him his business. Genesis is a Jewish cultural myth. You're Yoruba. If Christ had been born Yoruba, Genesis wouldn't contain Adam/Eve. It would contain Oduduwa, Oranmiyan, Ile-Ife, Osun, Sango, and there would be drama and action and dialogue, just like Genesis, and maybe Sango's dealings with his wives or some tribes, and wars between kings in Oyo and Ife, before the story of Christ's birth in Ibadan. The Jews would have a story about an Adam and an Eve, but no one would have heard of it. All cultures have their own creation myths. If the Jews hadn't written the OT and included theirs there, what would you have believed? How long and deeply you've believed something has no bearing on reality if that thing isn't true. And it's a little unreasonable to expect a complete fossil record from science, and point to its absence as 'proof' evolution is wrong. They don't manufacture fossils, don't know where they'll find one till it's found, and are lucky to find any fossils at all. A dog that's been dead for a year won't keep well. How much less things have been dead for millions of years and have generally long dissolved or liquefied. They're extremely lucky to have found any at all. But Darwin didn't propose his theory by studying fossils. He was studying LIVING THINGS. Later evidence massively bore him out. People who say he recanted evolution are simply unbelievable. It's like saying Newton rejected the laws of gravity and everything he wrote in The Principia on his deathbed. Evolution is correct. The theory of evolution is not resting on the fossil record now. Evidence has piled up from unrelated disciplines, from biology to paleontology to psychology, it's just too much. The evidence from geological distribution, zoology, molecular genetics and evolutionary psychology alone is overwhelming. The fossils are just icing on top of a very rich cake. Sometimes it takes science decades to find evidence for phenomena long predicted. They're getting there, and they're human and didn't create the species. It takes time. Whatever it is they haven't answers for yet doesn't subtract a thing from the theory itself, or from all they've discovered so far. Evolution has long gone from being a possibility to the only possibility so far there is. I mention our complex brains and our LSD-stimulated faculty, not to say evolution is wrong but that God wasn't absent from our evolution, and a sense to perceive things beyong the physical seemed to have been worked in our evolution for some reason. No one is forcing evolution on anyone here. We may believe what we choose |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 1:37am On Jun 14, 2010 |
@AIO Darwin's theory says the goal of a species is to adapt to its environment, and survive by replicating itself. Science now knows that sexual roles and attitudes depend on parental investment. If it's the male that nurtures the young in a species, it's the females that woo, and the males are very picky of their partner. If it's the females that nurture the young, the males woo, and the females are picky. The genes push for replication in all species. Males that woo will want to spread their seeds around with as many females as possible to ensure they leave offspring behind. The females being wooed will want the healthiest, fittest, most industrious males, so those genes can be passed down to the offspring. They do not consciously seek these goals. That's what natural selection does on their behalf, in their genes. Wooing males of a species have evolved a few things to advertize their virility and attractiveness and health to females, so they can be chosen and mated with. Some male birds build elaborate nests, a females inspects the nest, and picks the male whose artistry promises well for the offspring. A peacock (only the males have those lush tail feathers) have colourful tail feathers for the same reason: to advertize their health and fitnes to females. Where females do the wooing and males nurture, it's the females that try to attract males with all sorts of tactics. If all else fails, they try despoil. There is a species of insect where the male evolved an appendage that serves no other function except restrain female rapists. In the human species, it is the females that nurture and the males that woo. The long term goal of a species is survival: producing offspring. A human female has a limit to her reproductive years, so human males have evolved a sense that finds youthful women attractive to mate with, because she has long reproductive years ahead of her so they have plenty of chances to have offspring with her. In animals where there is no limit to the female's reproductive years, it is the oldest females that the males prefer. It goes on and on, all over the biological kingdom, and have been doing so for millions of years. Even though we're a modern civilization now, everything our ancestors evolved is in our genes, and the same sexual attitudes continues among human beings, though our ancestors are long gone. Your genes want you to leave offspring and 'push' you to find opportunities. We've now consciously circumvented all that with birth control and voluntary childlessness and severe punishment for rapists, and many other things, so the genes we inherited don't determine individual choices. But they influence our behavior all the same. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by Osama10(m): 4:28am On Jun 14, 2010 |
There is nothing like evolution, what we have is creation. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 6:48pm On Jun 14, 2010 |
TV01: @TV, I will be more than happy to share my perceptions on any question that you might have. I know I wrote a lot, but please bear with me; take time and read it all. I will be waiting for your questions. Thanks and remain blessed. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 8:27pm On Jun 14, 2010 |
TV01: Ok. But like I said, I'm no expert but I'd like to see your questions all the same. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 9:41am On Jun 16, 2010 |
We find oxygen, nitrogen and the other elements that make up the air suitable because we adapted to it over a vast expanse of time. Oxygen wasn't created when the universe and the planets were made: it came about much later, on earth. The smallest stirring of life on earth in the beginning used carbon and emitted oxygen as waste.It began to constitute a large part of the air. Other few tiny life forms found it poisonous and died. Others adapted and evolved to use oxygen. Others continued metabolizing carbon and emitting oxygen. So oxygen and nitrogen-breathing living things evolved. People, predominantly in North America, report alien abductions. The thing is, the elements on this planet are suitable for life on this planet only, because it's had billions of years to adapt. Alien life forms will find our air extremely poisonous. If we visited another planet, any planet, we would not be able to breathe the air, or expose our flesh to it. But people are reporting aliens, mostly in America. Sure, there are hoaxers and those who mistake everything they see for a UFO, from weather balloons to military aircraft to silos. A group of university pranksters once flew a balloon high over a park where there were hundreds of people. They were delighted when those people flooded the media with reports of UFO sightings. There's the crop circle hoax, where two artists made crop circles and diagrams in farms in England for decades. Copycats started immitating them all over Europe, and a whole alien culture developed from that, with people saying no human being could make diagrams like that. Interestingly enough, the 'aliens' failed to make a single crop circle on farms in Africa and other places with little access to European television. The two guys finally confessed but people had believed those crop circles were alien for so long, they refused to accept they'd been fooled at first. Movies had been made about alien crop circles, for crying out loud. Like 'Signs', featuring Mel Gibson. Aliens cannot live here. This planet is for life unique to this planet. But it's hard to dismiss these stories, since it's been going on, in various formats, since time immemorial, as 'gods' and other strange things. What do you make of the alien abduction stories? |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by thehomer: 11:35am On Jun 16, 2010 |
Mad_Max: To me alien abduction stories are just stories. Until there is better supporting evidence. As you've demonstrated, even in the presence of good logical evidence against some of these stories, some who believe in them will still continue doing so. This is why I think that maybe some cannot be helped but we must continue presenting the evidence for them to see. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 1:26pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
Mad_Max: Mad_Max, i am highly impressed with your posts. Your understanding of basic science is astounding, i am surprised at your being a female. I hope that is not just an online identity. I had been telling people for a long time, that UFO's (aliens)defies logic, even on earth moving an animal to another location (environment) often results in death. If you move fish to land, it will die and vice versa. Also if you move anaerobic animals to oxygenated environment, they would would die. Even if you move a polar bear to the equator, it will not survive, so how do you think a creature coming from another planet, solar system or galaxy can survive a few mins in our atmosphere. Also you can never break the light barrier, so how do you think a creature can survive tens of years in outer space ( with all the powerful radiations in outer space that is detrimental to life), even if they have advanced mode of propulsion. All Aliens stories are just that - Stories, how come the stories only emanate from few countries like the US, UK, Canada, Brazil. How come UFOs do not visit Ekiti, Gusau or mogadishu or even Bangladesh. I would rather believe the Hebrew God, residing in a mountain and talking to his people in hebrew language, than believe in aliens visiting the planet. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 2:52pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
@ Mad Max/ Wirinet - I am surprised by your assumptions. You both assume aliens cannot survive on earth. That's quite a presumption because it would be very strange to me that any sentient beings would have the capacity to traverse millions of light years of interstellar space and would not have the technology for appropriate body-suits to survive in alternate atmospheric conditions. For crying out loud even mere men have developed technologies to enable them enter and remain on the moon for substantial periods of time! How you suppose that other intelligent beings could not acheive better beats me. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 2:58pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
Wirinet, you were miffed at something that wasn't meant for you at all. Are you a scientist? It would be great to have one here. What's your field? Atheist scientists come in two groups: the rational ones who dislike religion and all its man-made trappings but respect others' right to belief, as long as no one is being harmed. Then there are the smug, superior ones who think they know everything, and are out to destroy religion under the assumption that science and religion are incompatible, and religion must be destroyed for science to flourish. They've fallen for the religious trap we all fall for: that what we believe must be what is true, and the other fellow is chasing shadows. You find people who believe feeling sorry for atheists, and atheists feeling sorry for those who believe. But belief is personal, whatever its basis, and science itself is religiously neutral. So for these scientists to propagate their beliefs in the name of science is very, very wrong. We can't do without science. Scientists investigate the universe and tell us what they see. They build on the work of scientists before them, and scientific knowledge is increasing. But how very little science actually knows is shocking. And it's from this know-nothing standpoint that a few scientists go beyond their facts and take it upon themselves to decide for the entire universe that God does not exist. Belief, and its reasons, should be personal. So you see, the cap does not fit. If I say 'atheist' it doesn't mean I'm referring to a particular atheist here, just like an atheist saying 'Christian' doesn't mean, of all the Christians in the world, I'm the one being referred to. Lol. So females are science-challenged? If you have daughters you won't encourage their interest in science because they may not have the 'masculine brain' required for it? I don't have the patience for minute details and years dedicated to studying one worm or the other. Scientists are publication-mad. They write books and share scientific ideas. Everything they know are in books for anyone to pick up and read. The world wide web developed as an unintended bonus of a physics project. From cosmology to quantum mechanics to geology to evolutionary psychology to biology, it's incredibly exciting and makes you see the world and the universe in a whole new way. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 3:37pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
Wirinet, so females make bad scientists? Nat-geo wouldn't agree with you there. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 4:44pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
Deep Sight: Deepsight, science is based on series of facts. You put many bits and pieces of known scientific facts together to reach a conclusion. So it is not based on wishful thinking or assumptions. Even your above premise is very wrong. A sentient being that inhabit a planet millions of light years away would never be able to get here, even if it can travel at the speed of light (which in itself is an impossibility). Since light has a finite speed, it means the sentient being left its home planets millions of years ago (before homosapiens came unto the scene). Let me further explain some scientific facts to you. 1. NOTHING and i mean NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light. As an object tend towards the speed of light, you would require progressively more energy to propel it further, and you would require an infinite amount of energy to propel it to the speed of light. 2. Even if somehow you could travel close to the speed of light, any material object would burn up because of friction, because at such speed, the vacuum of space consisting of few molecules of hydrogen would become quite dense and pose considerable resistance. 3. Sustaining life in outer space for any length of time is quite a challenging, because of the constant need for water, oxygen and food. The people that went to the moon spent only 3 days in space and only stayed a relatively short period beyond the van allen radiation belt. I know we reason along parallel lines, you assume that anything and everything is possible. I assume that the only possibilities are the once supported by observation and laid down scientific laws. To carry enough supplies to sustain some living things from another solar system (from the journey to living on earth and return journey would require a storage space continent wide. So if you say your aliens from outer space are spiritual beings, that defy all laws of science, i would not argue with you. Deep Sight: I do not mean women generally do not make good scientist, what i mean is that Nigerian Ladies generally are adverse to science courses. In my university days, you would not find more than a couple of ladies, in core science courses, most of them are more interested in humanities, law ans maybe social sciences. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 5:59pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
wirinet: I am amazed that you imagine travelling at the speed of light is the only possible means of transportation between distant parts of the universe. Science is already exploring the possibility of such things as worm holes through which connections could be made. The simple fact is that in view of such staggering possibilities you must acknowledge that any beings who have had a head-start on us by millions of years would necessarily have developed more robust mechanisms of traversing the universe some of which may not even involve mechanical movement along a trajectory at all, talk less of travelling at any speed of light. The possibilities regarding interstellar travel are legion: and the discovery of holes through which vast distances may be traversed in a millisecond is a significant possibility. Scientists talk about bending the fabric of space-time (i personally do not subscribe to that) to create wormholes. In view of these and other new lines of thought your submissions are out dated and altogether irrelevant. This affirms to me that you are thinking in a box. I am surprised that you dare limit or restrict with present possibilities what may be possible with another 200 years of scientific advancement. Not to speak of millions of years of scientific advancement. I tell you: what we know is a drop in the ocean compared to what is still unknown. For this reason i urge you to refrain from imagining that a being with a head-start of millions of years cannot complete a cross-universal journey. We have not been around long enough to state that in the least - we simply know too little. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 8:10pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
Its funny how in reading the explanation of natural selection one, whose eyes are open, can clearly see that humans are not just products of natural selection. The theory itself testifies that humans are just products of nature, like animals. All animals behaviour can be explained through the theory of evolution and natural selection. But in the case of humans, we find behaviours that did not originate from the natural laws of selection and evolution. There is something in humans that to some extent, even goes contrary to what one would expect from nature. Behaviorally humans have some qualities that could not have been products of biological evolution. Let just give one example--shame. Shame is peculiar with humans; and actually, to some extent it goes contrary to evolution because the feeling of shame curtails mating, which is necessary for the reproduction. Since one of the goals of adaptation is to produce offspring, why would humans evolve the feeling of shame which interferes with their mating. Two healthy animals at the mating period, once they come in contact and once all the prerequisites are met, they mate. This not feeling guilty about mating allows them to mate often and this ensures more offspring. Also, this not being ashamed to show their privates and not being ashamed of who is watching them makes it very easy for them to mate. But when two healthy humans, of the right age met, they don’t just take of their cloths and mate. Shame comes in to prevent them from doing this. The woman never feels very comfortable walking around unclothed, neither does the man. Why would they evolve this hindrance to mating which is necessary for the survival of their specie. And actually why wear cloths at all; their bodies could have adapted to regional temperatures like animal bodies. The answer is that humans wear cloths because they are ashamed of being unclothed. But why would this feeling of shame exist, if humans are just biological entities. Why did they evolve this feeling of shame; why be ashamed of your unclothedness when you have to be naked to perform one of the rituals that ensure the survival of your specie? It doesn’t make sense. It is easy to explain, through the theory of evolution, why creatures evolved the urge to mate, mating is necessary for them to reproduce. But how can you, in the light of the theory of evolution, explain the feeling of shame in humans. Humans, like all animals, feel the urge to mate( physical intimacy), this is natural, and can be explained by natural selection and evolution. But in the case of humans, this urge for intercourse is usually accompanied by or hindered by the feeling of shame. To me, this is one of the evidences that humans are not just biological entities. Granted our bodies are biological vehicles which came about through the process of evolution. But inside us resides something else, something that is alien to the physical. That’s why you cant explain away the behavior of humans, in the light of the theory of evolution. Another one is “conscience.” This is another thing that humans poses that animals do not poses; and “conscience” is not necessary for biological evolution and natural selection. To some extent it actually detrimental to it. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 9:09pm On Jun 16, 2010 |
justcool: It is a pity i have very little time, but all your postulations are wrong. There is little connection between shame and sex, i know you mean to say shy. Shyness is an egocentric reaction to a possibility of being rejected by the opposite sex. Men being highly egocentric are very adverse to being rejected. If a woman agrees to having sex without going through the mating ritual of mating, i am sure most men would happily mount the female without any feeling of shame or is it shyness. Cloths started out as being a protective covering against the elements, after the homo species lefts its natural habitat and moved into colder regions. That was why the first clothing materials were animal skin from the cold areas. and that was why we Africans only adopted clothing after it was introduced by the temperate dwellers, when it became a symbol of fashion. have to go for now |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by justcool(m): 12:07am On Jun 17, 2010 |
@wirinet Thanks for your reply. wirinet: So when a woman is stripped in the street before the eyes of everybody as a form of humiliation, the shyness(shame) she feels is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender? Ha HA HA!!!! This is really hilarious. When a woman is walking down the street and the wind blows open her clothes momentarily, she quickly covers herself feeling ashamed; so this feeling is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected by the opposite gender? So when there is no possibility of sex or the rejection of sex, shyness goes away? If so why don't women walk around their homes unclothed? Are they afraid of the possibility of being rejected by their brothers and parents? So when there is no opposite gender, shyness goes away? HHMMM. So why don't women walk around unclothed in an all women environments? So you are sure that when consent has been obtained shyness goes away? HHMMM But there are countless couples who still prefer to have the lights off during intercourse. If shyness is a reaction to the possibility of being rejected, why do so many wives still feel shy being unclothed before their husband. Or better said why do married couples still have their cloths on when they are a lone? wirinet: The above is tons of presumption. Africans did not wear cloths(cover themselves) until it was introduced by temperate dwellers? Talk about brainwashing, and inferiority complex. Majority of the peoples of Africa have always worn cloths(covered their privates at least). Their colthing may not be as thick or as elaborate as those of the temperate dwellers but they have always covered their privates. Cloths do not only serve as protection from the environment but it serves as a covering of the private areas. This need to cover some parts of the body is peculiar to humans. Even the most backward tribes in existence today, who never adopted anything from the temperate dwellers, still cover some parts of their body. Whatever they cover it with(some use leaves, sticks and etc) it doesn't matter; the fact remains that this need to cover some areas of the body is peculiar to humans. Evolution cannot explain this peculiar need in humans. Please, in the light of evolution, explain this peculiar need in humans to cover certain areas of their body. If evolution explains everything, one would expect that those who have dwelled in the temperate regions for thousands of years, should by now evolved into having furs(hairs on the body) like animals. Please tell me why humans evolved into having almost hairless bodies. Since growing hairs(furs) on the body is a very effective way of dealing with temprate regions, why did humans evolve or de-evolve to losing their furs. Remember that the primeveal primates from which humans evolved had furs. Even the present primates have furs. Why would evolution get rid somthing(furs) so nessecery, leaving humans prone to pneumonia and etc. All these goes to show that evolution was a process used to achieve the physical replica of models that already exist in the supraearthly planes. wirinet:Please return when you are chanced; you have a lot of explaining to do. Thanks |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 2:42pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
Deep Sight: Science is 'exploring' wormholes as a means of travel? No, they are not. They've never even seen a wormhole. They merely hypothetisize about it. And wormholess say nothing about speed. Nothing on our level travels faster than light. Do you have any idea of the distances involved in the universe? You'll get a headache just thinking about it. Some scientists are convinced, no matter what developments may occur, we will never travel beyond our solar system. Ever. Our solar system doesn't end at Pluto, but far beyond the Oort clouds two light years away. The speed of light is 186000 miles per second.One light minute is 186000 X 60. Imagine the distance in a light year. One thousand light years. One million light years. One billion light years. Some distances are computed in trillions of light years. And that's just for the visible universe, a tiny fraction of the entire universe itself. The edge of the visible universe is 900 billion trillion Light Years away. The universe is enormous beyond computing and incredible distances separate everything. Mind you, most physicists are sure there's intelligent biological life in the universe. Drake's equation states the possibility of millions of civilizations in the Milky Way alone. Each would have evolved to find its planet uniquely suitable for life. The building blocks of life are abundant in the universe, needig only clement conditions and lots of time to spring to life. Here you are stating tha not only are aliens visiting this planet, you 'dashed' them advanced technology to plug any loopholes. You've never even seen an alien or an alien craft. There's no shred of evidence that biological aliens come here. But you've invented an alien being and given it a head start of millions of years. All from thin air. Science may not not know much, but even the wildest scientist knows not to go that far. Why would aliens come to a planet that is poisonous to them, in which they would most certainly die? All there is are stories of alien abductions. Why is it that alien abduction stories are NEVER reported anywhere outside of North America or the reach of its media? They're telling themselves they believe in aliens and UFOs. It's not Unidentified Flying God or Unidentified Flying Religion. It's Unidentified Flying OBJECT. Where's the hard evidence? |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 3:11pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
Mad_Max: I am sure you can read more carefully than this. I wrote – “Science is exploring THE POSSIBILITY of wormholes.” I never said they have seen such and I specifically stated that I personally doubt the particular concept of folding space-time to create worm-holes as I do not regard time as a fabric. You have an annoying habit of imagining things that I never said and completely missing simple pointers. What is germane is the fact that there are myriad possibilities which may have nothing to do with speed or light. Many factors are yet to be discovered and we can [b]never [/b]tell what undiscovered laws or factors may bring to the table in terms of future possibilities or inter-dimensional mobility. Star Wars is a peek into the future just as surely as in the late nineteenth century things like fax machines were science fiction. Just DO NOT close your mind – the brilliant never do. The speed of light is 186000 miles per second.One light minute is 186000 X 60. Imagine the distance in a light year. One thousand light years. One million light years. One billion light years. Some distances are computed in trillions of light years. And that's just for the visible universe, a tiny fraction of the entire universe itself. The universe is enormous beyond computing and incredible distances separate everything. Who are you telling this? ? ? ? Me? How does this in any way limit what modes of interstellar travel may be chanced upon in a thousand years time? I understand the limitations of your mind: they are quite akin to a 1st century person being briefed on aerodynamics. Of course he will imagine it impossible. Mind you, most physicists are sure there's intelligent biological life in the universe. Drake's equation states the possibility of millions of civilizations in the Milky Way alone. Each would have evolved to find its planet uniquely suitable for life. The building blocks of life are abundant in the universe, needig only clement conditions and lots of time to spring to life. Correct. Here you are stating tha not only are aliens visiting this planet, you 'dashed' them advanced technology to plug any loopholes. You've never even seen an alien or an alien craft. There's no shred of evidence that biological aliens come here. But you've invented an alien being and given it a head start of millions of years. All from thin air. Science may not not know much, but even the wildest scientist knows not to go that far. You are simply not up to date. The existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence is more likely than not, just as you noted earlier. Now juxtapose that against the age of the universe and it emerges that logically there must be very old civilizations in existence. This only makes sense. Want to argue it further? I’m ready to go, if you are. Why would aliens come to a planet that is poisonous to them, in which they would most certainly die? Why do men go to the moon? Why is there a mission to Mars planned? Aha. Get real, and if you must give me questions, give me tasking questions, not these non-starters. All there is are stories of alien abductions. Why is it that alien abduction stories are NEVER reported anywhere outside of North America or the reach of its media? That is false. The Bible records a number of sightings which when analysed appear very much like modern saucer sightings. I wonder what "chariot of fire" really whisked Elijah up into the skies. That is hardly North America or its media, is it? Besides does it not occur to you that there is a chasm between the poor parts of the world and the rich – such that a sighting in Jalingo by a lone illiterate herdsman is not likely to be heard by anybody other than his family? What access to CNN does he have? Does it not also occur to you what areas of the world might be more interesting to an alien civilization? If we were to do the same, would we not spend more time examining the advanced races of an alien specie and their advancements rather than skoot over to muddy backwater roads in technologically empty areas? You honestly need to watch the latest Discovery expose on declassified Russian military documents regarding UFOs and USOs. The evidence is mounting and it is quite startling. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by MadMax1(f): 4:53pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
I apologise for my annoying habits but you make far less sense than you give yourself credit for. You might make more sense if you reasoned more and ranted less. The bible is part of your evidence for the alien abduction stories restricted to America and the reach of its media. And in spite of these aliens' super-advanced technology they find only Americans interesting, since America has comparatively earth-bound, antiquated technology,(perhaps the aliens want to steal it), never mind that the Japanese can give Americans a run for their money technology-wise anyday. And you want to go head to head on this. That's quite all right. I'm sure you'll find someone to take up the challenge. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 5:14pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
I have noticed your style of picking one thing you imagine suits you and abandoning the several other points which you clearly have no answer to. Now for the umpteenth time you have deliberately misquoted or misrepresented me. I am beginning to suspect you never attended English comprehension classes because no person on this forum has ever told so many up-front lies about my very clear statements. CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE I CITED THE BIBLE AS EVIDENCE FOR UFOs? ? ? ? ? What i rather did was clear - you stated that we NEVER HEAR SUCH STORIES OUTSIDE NORTH AMERICA: I POINTED TO ONE SUCH STORY WHICH APPEARS IN THE BIBLE - IN THE MIDDLE-EAST WHICH IS NOT NORTH AMERICA. I did not say that the story was true: just as i have not said any sighting is true: what remains clear is that they are all claims - and there exists a claim - in the bible - which is not north america! - contrary to what you claimed. I never said anything about the veracity of that Bible story. It is notoriously known on this forum that i do not believe in the bible. The simple fact remains that the bible story is another claim just like any other claim. Whether it is false or not does nothing to change the fact that contrary to what you said, it is and remains a claim just like the claims of today: and it is NOT in North America. You inferred that all saucer sightings are bogus. I have no problem with that so long as your proof is NOT that the sightings occur only in NORTH AMERICA. Because that is a square LIE - the sightings are recorded in many different parts of the world including Russia and similar "bogus" stories appear in the middle-eastern tradition recorded in the bible. SO YOUR CLAIM WAS CATEGORICALLY FALSE: SQUARE UP TO THAT. The issue is not the veracity of the claims or the bible but the simple fact that similar claims are made outside north america: including in the bible. Now aside from the foregoing, why were you so cowardly as to look away from the other pointers i raised? |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by DeepSight(m): 5:31pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
Now in case you have forgotten the posers I gave you: here there are again. 1. You said – Why would aliens come to a planet that is poisonous to them, in which they would most certainly die? And I answered – WHY IS MAN PLANNING A MISSION TO MARS, SINCE THE ATMOSPHERE THERE IS CERTAINLY POISONOUS AND DAMAGING TO US? ANSWER ME THIS, AND SEE HOW RIDICULOUS YOUR SUPPOSITION IS! Is it not clear that we will – a. Develop appropriate body suits and b. Seek to gain increased planetary knowledge by such a visit? Maybe you never heard of the emerging field of science called Planetary Engineering. That is the future: and your knowledge is hopelessly archaic. 2. You said that I recklessly imagined aliens to have a head start of millions of years. a. You acknowledged yourself that the emerging scientific evidence suggests strongly that there are very probably other civilizations out there b. You are aware of the age of the universe. c. [ ……. ] I leave the space; derive your own conclusion. For a + b above render it clear that there must needs be in existence many very old civilizations. 3. You still did not answer my poser on myriad futuristic possibilities. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 5:41pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
Deep Sight: Sorry to say, but you are carried away by media frenzy and media hype on exotic science, without a basic understanding of the topic itself. First, there is no science exploring wormholes, there are just mathematical equations of what might happen at the centre of black holes, where we start dealing with such quantities as infinity and zero (not infinity of oneness). Maths and science always breaks down when we approach infinity and zero. Inside a black hole you are trying to deal with infinite quantities of gravity and energy in a zero space. So worm holes have never been detected not to talk of the possibility of using for anything. Please get some education on what a black hole is. The energy contained in a black hole is so enormous that no matter or element can even approach it and still remain in material form, it would be converted to energy. So how do you think a space ship made of Elements and compounds and it living occupants survive a travel through a black hole. If we are dealing with energies (gravity) strong enough to bend space-time, then don't expect anything to remain in its material form inside it. The energy of our sun is child's-play when compared to energies inside a black hole Study this Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormhole article Worm holes for traveling through space are stuffs of science fantasy and bears no semblance to actual science. Just because there are skill many unknowns in science does not mean we have to resort to logical anarchy and make wild propositions. |
| Re: The Evolution Myth And The ‘God Question' by wirinet(m): 5:48pm On Jun 17, 2010 |
Deep Sight: This statement of yours is very funny, how can you doubt( post Einstein Law of General Relativity), the folding of space-time by gravity or speed, when it had been proven again and again to be correct? You really need to read up on some science theories to get yourself up to date, so you can get a better understanding of what we are discussing. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (Reply)
Testimony Of The Spiritual Realm(2) / Reno Omokri Interviews Lincoln Brewster: I Gave My Life To Christ At 19 / Why Does The Bible 'God' Love The Smell Of Burning Flesh?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 235 |