You just have to admit that there are some things you can't explain in life.

 

Whats logical about Love? tell me that one. I honestly don't understand a thing my heart does. Honestly I feel like a masochist cause I just end up hurt everytime haha

 

 

Yessir.

Romantic love is something meant to keep a couple together long enough to raise a child to maturity, yes?

'Tis an offshoot of lust.

 

Yep, that's all it is. A chemical reaction brought about by evolution.

 

Anything can be explained, if not now then later.

 

actually thats a good argument. and You could say that everything that happens is logical, but thats not true at all. lets take a look at my parents.

 

My dads a smoker, has been since he was a teenager. My mom has never ever smoked. He never smoked around her in an enclosed space cause she had bad asthma, and everything worked out. Somehow my mom now has lung cancer, but my dad doesn't have a spot.

 

Care to explain the logic in that?

 

Sometimes when you have a straight, the other guy has a flush.

Sometimes when you have a straight, the other guy has a flush.

Funnily enough, that's the only pairing in poker I have a hard time remembering which one wins. (No need to respond, I know the flush wins.):razz:

Sorry, even Darwin disproved evolution, and it's still just a theory, not a law, and this is why I hate public school. Everyone thinks evolution is true because thats all that they teach, they present evolution as the only option. I can't believe that this universe happened by random chance. Even if it's not christianity, I can't believe that happenstance is how something so complex could breath, walk, understand, live. and die.

 

And as for some people having to have a dogma, or chemical reasons, I personally have never been one of them. I am just trying to find whats true. I used to be an atheist, then I got over my pride, and realized there was something desperately contradictory to the things I was saying...so I started looking into things and so far, Christianity is the one thats most logical.

 

Here's a little something from a dvd series, I'll post some videos once I have them.

 

Contemporary Molecular Biology – testing Darwin's statement that his theory would absolutely break down if it could be

demonstrated that a complex organism could not come into existence without numerous, successive slight modifications

In the 19th century, the cell was viewed as a simple glob of plasma, a black box; today, micro technology reveals a

cell filled with exquisite machinery

Irreducible complexity – The cell cannot exist if one component of the machinery is missing – Examples: mouse trap

and the flagellum motor

It is in the realm of molecular genetics where we see the most compelling evidence of design on earth – evolution

fails Darwin's test

The fossil record – testing Darwin's statement that if one can't find all of the fine, graduated evolutionary steps in the fossil

record, then one can rightly reject the theory

If speciation requires many thousands of morphological changes, there should be some fossil evidence of those

changes – Darwin agreed they weren't there, but only because we hadn't dug up enough fossils

120 years after Darwin's time we have a lot more fossil evidence than he did, but we have even less support for his

evolutionary theories

Theory of punctuated equilibrium – offered by evolutionist Gould because of the lack of evidence in the fossil record;

purports immediate speciation to account for the missing links

Icons of Evolution – used for years as "proof" of evolution – all are inaccurate and outdated

Theory of directed panspermia – purports that the first living cell was sent to earth from another planet – offered by

Crick because evidence was overwhelmingly

 

And this isn't from the video series but it's the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I3f4OpT3_w

 

 

The video is extremely cheesy but it proves the point still. Evolution has been proven wrong, by this flagellum motor, because if you remove one part of this motor, it would cease to work, and all these parts have no other function without the other pieces. This couldn't have happened without someone kind of forethought.

 

It doesn't prove Christianity, but it does prove intelligent design, so don't try and tell me I'm unintelligent for believing what I do.

Strict Darwinism has been wrong for ages. Evolution today is a far, far different concept than many people think it is - at least, the true evolution being studied and proven wrong day in and day out. Survival of the fittest is more of a phrase used by people in gyms than a scientific term these days.

While I have read some of what was more recently said my attention span is only slightly longer than average, so not being read up on that stuff I'm going to post about the original idea.

 

I agree with what you have said about humans being animals and desires and stuff however I have some questions which may or may not be answerable.

 

1. Animals seek the most fit to reproduce, but then why do people stay with their abusers and continue to have children with them? While I realize you might say fear, wouldn't some sort of primordial SURVIVAL instinct kick in? (you get hurt you get away)

 

2. Do you think its possible that humans can/are de-evolutionizing? In the modern world we are provided with everything, food, water, shelter, protection. So the "weaker" of us don't die off, some examples that I can think of: Sickle cell, asthma. While this may seem like a harsh, heartless outlook I think it is true (obviously), and before you think I'm a "master race" bastard know that I have asthma and yes I have wondered if I would make the cut.

 

3.Do you think humans were meant to be monogamous? I like to think of these days as the "Satisfaction Age" in that, if you have a desire you get it. Case in point are affairs, and before you go off on a rant about how that is only these days, they happened in earlier times, they just weren't publicized.

 

While I realize that some of these ideas seem radical and maybe to you even stupid, they are really just things I've thought about not things i would argue to the death for.

Sorry, even Darwin disproved evolution, and it's still just a theory, not a law, and this is why I hate public school. Everyone thinks evolution is true because thats all that they teach, they present evolution as the only option. I can't believe that this universe happened by random chance. Even if it's not christianity, I can't believe that happenstance is how something so complex could breath, walk, understand, live. and die.

 

And as for some people having to have a dogma, or chemical reasons, I personally have never been one of them. I am just trying to find whats true. I used to be an atheist, then I got over my pride, and realized there was something desperately contradictory to the things I was saying...so I started looking into things and so far, Christianity is the one thats most logical.

 

Here's a little something from a dvd series, I'll post some videos once I have them.

 

Contemporary Molecular Biology – testing Darwin's statement that his theory would absolutely break down if it could be

demonstrated that a complex organism could not come into existence without numerous, successive slight modifications

In the 19th century, the cell was viewed as a simple glob of plasma, a black box; today, micro technology reveals a

cell filled with exquisite machinery

Irreducible complexity – The cell cannot exist if one component of the machinery is missing – Examples: mouse trap

and the flagellum motor

It is in the realm of molecular genetics where we see the most compelling evidence of design on earth – evolution

fails Darwin's test

The fossil record – testing Darwin's statement that if one can't find all of the fine, graduated evolutionary steps in the fossil

record, then one can rightly reject the theory

If speciation requires many thousands of morphological changes, there should be some fossil evidence of those

changes – Darwin agreed they weren't there, but only because we hadn't dug up enough fossils

120 years after Darwin's time we have a lot more fossil evidence than he did, but we have even less support for his

evolutionary theories

Theory of punctuated equilibrium – offered by evolutionist Gould because of the lack of evidence in the fossil record;

purports immediate speciation to account for the missing links

Icons of Evolution – used for years as "proof" of evolution – all are inaccurate and outdated

Theory of directed panspermia – purports that the first living cell was sent to earth from another planet – offered by

Crick because evidence was overwhelmingly

 

And this isn't from the video series but it's the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5I3f4OpT3_w

 

 

The video is extremely cheesy but it proves the point still. Evolution has been proven wrong, by this flagellum motor, because if you remove one part of this motor, it would cease to work, and all these parts have no other function without the other pieces. This couldn't have happened without someone kind of forethought.

 

It doesn't prove Christianity, but it does prove intelligent design, so don't try and tell me I'm unintelligent for believing what I do.

 

If you remove part of the flagellum, it doesn't work as a flagellum, but it's parts work as other things. For example, the membrane-spanning section of the bacterial flagellum is homologous to the type-III secratory system, which is basically a molecular syringe for injecting toxins into a host cell. The major failure of irreducible complexity is that it assumes that every biochemical system was designed to have one function and it's parts can't have other functions. We already know that this isn't the case for the flagellum, the blood clotting cascade and other systems. Essentially, any argument of irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance and all research has confirmed what we'd expect if evolution by natural selection is true. The complexity we see in living systems is, it would seem, reducible.

 

I recommend watching this video (it's a bit long, but it's well worth it):

 

While I have read some of what was more recently said my attention span is only slightly longer than average, so not being read up on that stuff I'm going to post about the original idea.

 

I agree with what you have said about humans being animals and desires and stuff however I have some questions which may or may not be answerable.

 

1. Animals seek the most fit to reproduce, but then why do people stay with their abusers and continue to have children with them? While I realize you might say fear, wouldn't some sort of primordial SURVIVAL instinct kick in? (you get hurt you get away)

 

2. Do you think its possible that humans can/are de-evolutionizing? In the modern world we are provided with everything, food, water, shelter, protection. So the "weaker" of us don't die off, some examples that I can think of: Sickle cell, asthma. While this may seem like a harsh, heartless outlook I think it is true (obviously), and before you think I'm a "master race" bastard know that I have asthma and yes I have wondered if I would make the cut.

 

3.Do you think humans were meant to be monogamous? I like to think of these days as the "Satisfaction Age" in that, if you have a desire you get it. Case in point are affairs, and before you go off on a rant about how that is only these days, they happened in earlier times, they just weren't publicized.

 

While I realize that some of these ideas seem radical and maybe to you even stupid, they are really just things I've thought about not things i would argue to the death for.

 

There's no such thing as "de-evolution". As long as there's genetic change in a population, it's evolution. I suspect there won't be much if we continue caring for people with all kinds of genetic diseases, but there may be some in third world countries where you either adapt to diseases or die. A well documented example is the increased rate of the sickle-cell allele in populations where malaria is common. The allele prevents the malaria parasite from invading the red blood cells, stopping its life cycle. Sickle-cell anemia is milder than malaria, hence why it's favoured by natural selection. It just goes to show that even negative traits can be beneficial in the right context.

While i suppose "de-evolution" is technically incorrect I meant it as "non-beneficially evolving". I am also aware how sickle-cell is advantageous in cases of malaria, however if sickle cell had been evolutionarily "gotten rid of" isn't it possible even plausible that a less harmful or even non harmful genetic solution would take it's place?

Evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is "[bleep] YOU I'M A FOUR YEAR OLD WITH A CRAYON"

 

Paraphrased.

Evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is "[bleep] YOU I'M A FOUR YEAR OLD WITH A CRAYON"

 

Paraphrased.

is the goal of evolution not to make the species in question best suited to it's environment?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2h9tqNYAo

Another video related to intelligent design. I didn't watch the one warri0r linked to so it may be a bit redundant, but whatever.

 

Edit: Maybe I went on a far more atheist side of the debate. Still valid though.

 

---------------------

How did this thread break down into intelligent design vs evolution again anyways?

Though this is getting away from the subject and my previous questions stand after watching that video posted just above me (which I enjoyed by the way) at one point he says we came from apes. It made me consider what could spawn from evolution becoming accepted as fact (which i believe it is well on the road to). For instance we already have animal rights but then if we formally say we came from apes isn't it reasonable to assume that SOME people will say that apes deserve the same rights we do? And I think it is POSSIBLE (though probably not probable) that it degrades until we consider all animals on the level with humans and that any for of captivity to be as bad as holding a human.

 

Post any thoughts on this.

 

Also FYI I am all for evolution but to quote Jurassic Park I think "All we ever asked was can we, can we, can we, no one every asked if we should."

Evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is "[bleep] YOU I'M A FOUR YEAR OLD WITH A CRAYON"

 

Paraphrased.

is the goal of evolution not to make the species in question best suited to it's environment?

Not at all. Evolution's goal is to evolve. Change without reason. Completely illogical and unreasonable - almost religious.

 

Which is why I totally understand some people's clutching to evolution as a sort of dogma. Although when they don't realize this, I am curious.

Evolution doesn't have a goal, it's a process, not a person.

 

And it's not really illogical.

Because your choice is always your choice. Putting something that way is like saying it's egoistical to breathe.

Or saying that giving to charity is just about making you feel better about yourself. And it is at least partly. The part of the brain that's excited by money and sex (IIRC) is also excited by giving to charity (Altruism Study).

Though this is getting away from the subject and my previous questions stand after watching that video posted just above me (which I enjoyed by the way) at one point he says we came from apes. It made me consider what could spawn from evolution becoming accepted as fact (which i believe it is well on the road to). For instance we already have animal rights but then if we formally say we came from apes isn't it reasonable to assume that SOME people will say that apes deserve the same rights we do? And I think it is POSSIBLE (though probably not probable) that it degrades until we consider all animals on the level with humans and that any for of captivity to be as bad as holding a human.

 

Post any thoughts on this.

Excellent point. I already posted my thoughts and predictions about this phenomenon and I think it's really interesting. I think the most critical step in closing the human-animal gap was when scientists discovered we share 98% of our genes with chimps (or apes, let's say primates in general for our sake).

 

This posed the question: If humans are so alike chimps, do chimps also have a soul? The role of the human sole got muddled in technicalities. If humans go to heaven, then surely apes, who share 98% of the code that makes us who we are, also go to heaven? For those who didn't shy away from the implications, this discovery really notched Humans down.

Evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is "[bleep] YOU I'M A FOUR YEAR OLD WITH A CRAYON"

 

Paraphrased.

is the goal of evolution not to make the species in question best suited to it's environment?

Not at all. Evolution's goal is to evolve. Change without reason. Completely illogical and unreasonable - almost religious.

 

Which is why I totally understand some people's clutching to evolution as a sort of dogma. Although when they don't realize this, I am curious.

 

You're not making any sense. The change isn't without reason - it's for the very reason that 321Ownage described. Natural selection favours traits that suit an organism to its environment. It's perfectly logical that this would be the case, and I don't see how dogma or religion comes into it.

 

On the whole, though, there is no real direction to evolution. Bacteria are just as successful at surviving in their niche as we are in ours.

 

On the issue of ape rights, I'm in favour of it. A lot of research shows that they're like us in a lot of ways, so being cruel to them is like being cruel to another person.

Back on the subject of evolution having a goal. I Realize it is random but the endgame isnt if you know what I mean. If I develop with one leg and im an animal that needs to be speedy I'm going to die so it isnt just anything goes. But I realize what your saying in that it isn't planned. Thats why it is so slow because it is more trial and error.

 

And thus the animal becomes best adapted to it's environment because"only the strongest survive"

Also after talking with my mom about this i thought of some things.

 

1. Do humans/carnivores have a natural need for violence/bloodshed?

since life first began things have been fighting, its just the way it is, physical combat is easier, more efficient and faster. In our modern world which is peace oriented however we don't get this sort of "satisfaction" in a natural way. We have invented substitutes (sports) but the bottom line is does this craving/ need exist?

 

2.I also don't think humans were meant to live in as large of numbers as we do(multi-million cities, even thousands)My explanation is below.

If you think about the size of a population (human) the smaller it is in general less crime, violence and all that. For instance in larger cities you see things like gangs form, smaller groups almost "tribes" who engage in general "animalistic" activity together such as "hunting" and "territorial competition" unfortunately this manifests as gang wars and "hits"(this relates back to #1). So this begs the question "why do we live in these numbers then?" My mother came up with a possible answer. Unlike animals in the wild who have natural inhibitors such as food in the area, and competition we don't. So we don't naturally break off and form our own groups.

 

and finally I don't want to move this discussion too far away from the original so do you think I should make a new thread to discuss this kind of stuff?

If so what should I call it?

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs.

Nuff said.

Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs.

Nuff said.

And Psychology trumps all. Buh Yah. :razz:

I love the hierarchy of needs. Especially because so few people actually reach self-actualization.

 

P.S.- Reading the wikipedia article about it(To double check he was referring to what I thought he was), that article seems a little biased, so if you look it up, don't take everything it says at face value. Though it's wikipedia, so you shouldn't anyway.

Really you guys didn't answer my question, I asked do we have such a need, by pointing a Maslow's hierarchy your are pointing to needs it's accepted we have, but not really answering the question..

Cynics are by their own definitions right. They just put negative connotations on well-known facts.

 

It can be logically proven.

Anything I, you, or anyone else for that matter does, has (at times along with none egoistical reasons) (an) egoistical reason(s) behind it.

 

I understand what you're saying but you can apply that to literally anything, infinitely and reducibly.

 

But, I like to believe some people sometimes are not so driven by self -- and so like many others:

 

I do not eat at a fancy restaurant soley to take a good [cabbage] the next day. :thumbup:

 

I'll try to give an example. A painter paints a beautiful picture in the hope that he will sell it for a large sum of money. The second painter paints a beautiful picture because he wants to improve himself and his skills. A third painter paints a stunning landscape because he admires the scenery around him and wishes to preserve that moment.

 

The first two are being fuelled by "egotistical" reasons, but wouldn't you say the second is better than the first ? But, I'm sure you agree that the third is the only reason why painters must paint masterpieces, why composers must compose symphonies and the rest of us should exist at all. Yes ?

 

It is not because we are invited to, but we are compelled to.

Cynics are by their own definitions right. They just put negative connotations on well-known facts.

 

It can be logically proven.

Anything I, you, or anyone else for that matter does, has (at times along with none egoistical reasons) (an) egoistical reason(s) behind it.

 

I understand what you're saying but you can apply that to literally anything, infinitely and reducibly.

 

But, I like to believe some people sometimes are not so driven by self -- and so like many others:

 

I do not eat at a fancy restaurant soley to take a good [cabbage] the next day. :thumbup:

 

I'll try to give an example. A painter paints a beautiful picture in the hope that he will sell it for a large sum of money. The second painter paints a beautiful picture because he wants to improve himself and his skills. A third painter paints a stunning landscape because he admires the scenery around him and wishes to preserve that moment.

 

The first two are being fuelled by "egotistical" reasons, but wouldn't you say the second is better than the first ? But, I'm sure you agree that the third is the only reason why painters must paint masterpieces, why composers must compose symphonies and the rest of us should exist at all. Yes ?

 

It is not because we are invited to, but we are compelled to.

 

The point still stands. Whether your actions are more self-serving or less self-serving, the bottom line is- They're self-serving. Any action done by person X must be self serving to X, and the measure plays only a tiny role.

Cynics are by their own definitions right. They just put negative connotations on well-known facts.

 

It can be logically proven.

Anything I, you, or anyone else for that matter does, has (at times along with none egoistical reasons) (an) egoistical reason(s) behind it.

 

I understand what you're saying but you can apply that to literally anything, infinitely and reducibly.

 

But, I like to believe some people sometimes are not so driven by self -- and so like many others:

 

I do not eat at a fancy restaurant soley to take a good [cabbage] the next day. :thumbup:

 

I'll try to give an example. A painter paints a beautiful picture in the hope that he will sell it for a large sum of money. The second painter paints a beautiful picture because he wants to improve himself and his skills. A third painter paints a stunning landscape because he admires the scenery around him and wishes to preserve that moment.

 

The first two are being fuelled by "egotistical" reasons, but wouldn't you say the second is better than the first ? But, I'm sure you agree that the third is the only reason why painters must paint masterpieces, why composers must compose symphonies and the rest of us should exist at all. Yes ?

 

It is not because we are invited to, but we are compelled to.

 

The point still stands. Whether your actions are more self-serving or less self-serving, the bottom line is- They're self-serving. Any action done by person X must be self serving to X, and the measure plays only a tiny role.

 

You clearly didn't read about the third painter.

 

What I'm saying now, is that even if there is no part of ego or self involved, people like you will try to find something.

 

Clearly painter 3 only painted it for so and so reason.

 

When you boil it down that much, this percieved egotism becomes a justification or reasoning of person X, that will look like self-servience but is really not.

 

Tell me what motive the third painter had.

The third painter did it because he knows it will improve his skills, that it could be worth money, and he gets enjoyment out of painting. He tells himself it's to capture the beautiful landscape to make himself feel more cultured and selfless.