Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What I wonder is where he is getting this stuff. I have never come across such a lurid and grotesque misrepresentation of the theory of evolution in any creationist literature.
You are wrong and it clearly shows that you know nothing about the topic.
The Evolution of Empathy
I recommend reading this article if you want to understand how empathy benefits species. But I doubt you will.
Wild dogs may not have empathy for the creatures they attack, but they have empathy for other dogs. Without that empathy they would never form the packs that make them so effective.
Oh no, we are talking about empathy from Evolution perspective, NOT what you actually observed in the finished product! Nice try though.
In Evolution, it is claimed that the brain, influenced by it's environment and the food they ate developed these traits, so empathy is the result of billions of years of environmental imprints on the quantum and cellular level in the body and the brain. So lets start with that, NOT the obvious Creators laws that is evident in all of creation.
That would be like me examining, then claiming that the Honda's ASIMO robot came about from a pile of junk which nature over the millions and billions of years assembled through natural selection, .. LOL. Yeah, we can claim that for any Intelligently Designed and manufactured thing, or being, take the creator right out of the picture, and claim this could come together on its own if we just give it enough time. "It Will Happen!" yeah, riiiight! But me proving this could happen just by natural selection is a whole different ballgame!
Lets go with science, not your Religious beliefs that came about by your Religious Indoctrination (you in general, meaning Evolutionists, nothing personal my friends).
So here is the amoeba (which itself came about by the most idiotic claim like the Big Bang story), and out there is the environment.
The amoeba is not the one choosing what it likes, and what it doesn't like, it is not the one struggling for survival, instead "it IS the result of its environment" and it wouldn't know to eat, drink or sleep if it wasn't its environment influencing it to do so .. remember that it's the environment 'causing' the amoeba to either survive or die. The amoeba is the creation of, and at the mercy of Mother Nature and Father Time, AKA Environment.
Unlike the false claim that animals struggle for survival, bull, .. whatever the environment is, that's what the lifeform will be. Like Pastor Dawkins says; "Man only thinks he has free will, but it is its environment that is dictating his every move". So prove it? (even that would have to come from your environment, see how messed up this whole Evolution idea really is?)
In evolution speciation came about by chaotic events in the environment, which was caused by an explosion 9 billion years before, causing earthquakes which separate entire continents thast floated away (LOL, as if the continents are floating rafts) carrying certain families of amoeba (this goes for all other animals too) from the rest of the group. Then there were the meteor showers blocking the sun, volcano eruptions that again blocked the sun, deep freezes and every other kind of chaotic events that Godless scientists could dream up.
Yet the amoeba didn't die out, contrary to what we observe in the real world, and know that if any thing, or living organisms left alone in a chaotic surrounding, .. die, and NOT evolve to something better. They won't last long enough to produce the next generation.
But hey, lets prove me wrong. We have all these Biospheres where scientists have tried to recreate our earth and its atmosphere, correct? But surprisingly I noticed that they didn't start with their belief in evolution, you know, like starting with a puddle of salty warm water called the primordial soup, instead by carefully following Gods creation of nature as we have it today. And even like this they found that the tiniest deviation from what makes nature work is left out, or just one bug, or even bacteria is introduced without them being monitored by something else to keep them in check, the entire project becomes contaminated and everything rots and dies, and NOT over millions and billions of years, but within months.
That's funny isn't it? Why doesn't things evolve and adapt in chaotic nature, but instead we see that the slightest disharmony and things rust, rot and die really fast.
Like the Leppard that just had to attack and eat the African porcupine, a few stingers stuck in its body, and the beautiful and strong animal died within a few days. Supposedly the species of this creature has survived through all kinds of evolutionary chaos for millions and billions of Carl Sagan years, yet a small stinger from the porcupine killed it overnight!?
So let's talk turkey, you guys show me how from your evolutionary point of view an amoeba that popped out of a wet rock and into a puddle of primordial soup can grow legs, lungs, reproductive organs, a body that consists of trillions upon trillions of cells in perfect harmony that, should even one of them go berserk like a cancer cell, will kill the entire body within months. Yet this evolution claims that the chaotic, and ever changing environment can build this bacteria up to us humans with a brain that can dream, create, and best of all, show love and compassion!? Yes, please show me from the Evolutions standpoint, NOT from the finished product making up every kind of BS you guys can muster.
"Oh" you say, "I don't have millions and billions of years that it would take to prove it to you!" OK, so why don't Evolutionist use the famous IBM Blue Brain computer to simulate this Evolutionary Natural Selection process, huh? It can create a working brain, yet they don't have an Evolution simulation program??
How many millions of computers are out there with Evolutionary Biologists working to prove evolution, .. or the Big Bang? Or predicting which species of animals are ready to speciate into another species???
I'll tell you how many, .. NONE, .. nor One.
Why?
Because no Big Bang Evolutionist would spend a dime, or a minute on such idiotic project, knowing well from observation that any chaotic environment will only bring chaos and death. This goes for any chaotic event like an explosion, no matter what it is, even if you take the most sophisticated thing or animal, blowing it up with a big-bang will not result in anything positive or beneficial, .. not alone exploding a quantum speck of "We don't know what?", .. no matter how long you wait after exploding it. Time will not make any improvement on anything or anyone.
Your article on Empathy is from a Creationists standpoint, looking at awesomely made, intelligently and carefully Designed products doing what they were created to do.
Try again, .. this time showing how creatures that don't yet have empathy. I mean we are all evolving right? And look, it's been 4 billion years already, so you should have a plethora of animals in the last stages in its development of empathy! Hundreds of thousands, even millions of them in the before stages, and the moment where suddenly they show empathy.
Same with those ready to speciate to another completely different species, .. not a different type of finch, but a finch turning into a different species.
Thank you.
LOL, no I am not dangerous. I'm just a big lovable teddy bear kind of guy.
Are you dangerous?
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
LOL
What the heck did I just read?
I'm fearless, does that make me dangerous?
Arius, I made my offer to assist you in understanding the theory of evolution in good faith.
I responded to you politely and respectfully, hoping to receive a reply in a similar vein.
I gave an example that provided, in my view, a very effective analogy, specifically to help you recognise a particular misunderstanding in your thinking regarding the TOE. I offered this, also, in good faith.
I did not expect, nor do I welcome, a response that seemed filled with vitriol, attacked further strawmen and resonated with sarcasm and bitterness.
I am especially disappointed that you seem to believe my aim is to convince you as to the accuracy of the TOE. I specifically addressed that in my post. You have a right to believe what you wish. You do not, however, have a right to insist upon your misunderstandings of the TOE. It is to remove those misunderstandings I was willing to work with you, via discussion on this thread. I am still willing to do so, but in a spirit of mutual respect. I look to a concilatory response from your good self, so that I can then reply appropriately, and I hope informatively, to the one relevant question from your post and to any other you choose to ask.
Some people on this site actually claim to talk to Jesus and hear his voice. Are you one of those people?
I'm asking because that is what could make you dangerous. What would you do if the voice you thought was Jesus commands you to gut your child to show your commitment and faith in the Lord?
Rather than misquote Dawkins, it would be more honest to use what he actually said - that we are 'distant cousins' of rats (and other creatures). He didn't say we evolved from them.
Arrogant and mocking dismissal of a theory based on misquotes and what appears to be a comprehensive lack of understanding of it, speaks volumes about your approach to the discussion.
Not a single "monkey" is depicted on that tree.
At least not, if we are going to use correct terminology.
Exactly.
Maybe in every-day language at the bar.
Not so much if you care about using correct terminology.
A chimp is not a monkey.
Ape vs Monkey - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
It doesn't matter what Darwin said. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
The fact is that all homo sapiens are "just as evolved".
A white caucasian is related to chimps and gorilla's in the exact same way as the blackest of africans or aboriginals.
We all come from the same ancestral homo sapiens population.
This white European does.
Most white Europeans do, actually.
Including those at the Vatican.
It's hard to take you seriously, when you say things like that.
Homo Sapiens is an animal in the biological sense.
In day-to-day english, an animal is "any organism belonging to the kingdom of animalia, except humans".
But humans most definatly belong to the kingdom of animalia. We sure as hell aren't plants...........
Yes, it's called racism.
When you are discussing facts of reality, like Australopethicus fossils, then your response should not consist of a bunch of bible quotes.
Instead of responding to this nonsense, I'll just give you a bit of advice....
Learn what evolution actually is all about, before trying to argue against it. Because at this point, there is so much you are wrong about that every sentence you write, would require half an essay to correct for all the mistakes, misunderstandings and strawmen.
God NEVER would accept a human sacrifice even in the Old Testament.
That would be like me examining, then claiming that the Honda's ASIMO robot came about from a pile of junk which nature over the millions and billions of years.
Do you understand how the word "gradual" is in contradiction with the words "at a specific moment in time flipped the switch"?
No, I guess it doesn't. Poor Ota Benga and millions of black slaves throughout US history proves that, including my ancestors on my mothers side who were labeled rats and exterminated with rat poison. But this doesn't mean we should accept this horrific reality that this Religion has brought upon us, does it?That's neat. But reality doesn't depend on your emotional objections or wants or needs or likes.
Again, your emotional objections have no bearing on reality.
Your comment about Hitler is irrelevant as well - as nazi's were animals as well.
All humans are.
The fact of the matter is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come up with a definition that describes what an "animal" is, which includes all animals, but does not include humans, without explicitly adding "...but not humans".
Because humans simply ARE animals. It's as simple as that.
animal
ˈanɪm(ə)l/
noun
noun: animal; plural noun: animals
Humans are living organisms. We feed on organic matter. We have specialised sense organs. We have a nervous system. We are able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
- 1.
a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.
Here's a more detailed biological definition:
Animal
From Biology-Online Dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Definition
noun, plural: animals
A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:
(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment
You are free to point out how we humans do not fit that definition.
Most people are smart enough to know that words can have different meanings in different contexts.
The use of the word "animal" is dependend on context.
When talking biology, an animal is an organism that fits the above definition.
When talking day-to-day english, an animal is any organism that fits the above definition except humans.
- reproduce with variation
- survive
- repeat
If they would not remain such, evolution would be false.
See this is why I adviced you to inform yourself on at least the basics of evolution.
Humans are not descendents of gorilla's. They share ancestors with gorilla's.
Having said that, your absurd "flow of events" is just that: absurd.
It is clear that you really have no idea what you are talking about.
I advice, again, to learn a bit of the basics before continuing this discussion.
It is useless at this point.
It's like you can't get ANYTHING right....
Individuals don't evolve. Populations do. Gradually.
Just like a Latin speaking mother has never raised a Spanish speaking child. Just like no Latin speaking individual invented Spanish overnight.
Instead, the language of a Latin speaking population turned into Spanish gradually over many generations. And at no point in this history was there a generation that spoke a different language then the generation that immediatly preceeded it.I speak three languages, in Hungarian there is this Hungarian language that when I went back to visit, couldn't make any of it out. I was told it was a very ancient Hungarian that only a small group speaks anymore, mostly to keep it alive.
It is still Hungarian, and the people who speak it are called Hungarians. You can trace every word from the New modern Hungarian back to this old one, and within this small country the size of Arizona there are still all the variations between the New and the Old Hungarian languages, just as we see the millions of human variations.
What I ask for is to show me all this living variations between gorilla and human, you should be able to do that with every one of the 8 million species of animals.
But you don't even have two, .. no, not even ONE between gorilla and human, not alone the millions that should be present between gorilla and human including every other species of animals.
Every creature ever born, was of the same species as its parents.
Just like every human ever born, ended up speaking the same language as its parents.
Another words Evolution is B.S., no animal ever speciate to a different species where this one can no longer reproduce with its ancestor. As you keep saying, they vary, just like we see dogs, horses pigeons etc. they all remain after their kind, and never so different that they would be considered a different species where they cant reproduce.
Yet Latin, over the course of 2000 years, turned into French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese...
All "roman languages". But all different languages.
A latin speaking individual of ancient Rome would not understand the french from the 21st century, except a few words left and right. Not enough for a proper conversation.
Evolution of life isn't any different.
Look my friend, I know exactly what you are saying, and like the globe earth spinning through the vacuum of infinite space, I used to believe and defend it. And it does sound convincing, and heck, even possible, for all things are possible with God, so why not Evolution?
But here is the problem, while this makes sense in languages, and maybe even color gradients between two colors, but that is NOT what we see between animals.
You guys claim it's been 4 billion years right? We have 8 million living species. Now look at a whale, then look at a lizard or a croc, if you claim that the whale have these vestigial legs, (yet like our tonsils are extremely important) we should see all the in-between species. How can a whale have survived millions and millions of years through loosing it's legs, yet not one of the millions of in-between whales survived? How did todays whale survive? How did we humans survive, and only the gorilla, the chimp the bonobo, which are different species are still evolving!!!
Same with gorillas to human, rats to gorillas etc. does these different species you see today show gradual to you? I mean we should see at least the variations that we see in dogs and horses and other domesticated animals, yet they are the same species, so the "amount of living animal variations" between two species like the gorilla and human should be even greater! Like that color gradient, millions of colors between like red and green, or red and blue, yet they don't exist, so you guys fill them in with fossils, dried up bones which I could sculpture any creature I want to "look" like a transition. Like the pigs jaw bones that was faked as a missing link between human and gorilla.
So WHAT happened? Did the female gorilla give birth to a white girl
As explained above: no.
OK, you want to play stubborn, fine.
Did the "population" of gorillas, that looked almost like humans, played with fire and rolled wheels around their cave trying to figure out what to use it for, one day after 9 months carrying a baby give birth to a bunch of humans, a different species that could no longer reproduce with ANY of the gorillas in ANY of their previous populations?
(Dawkins depiction in the video) or did the gorilla father and mother overnight change into humans who started the human race?
Did the Population of Gorilla fathers and mothers change overnight into humans who started the human race, no longer being able to reproduce with ANY of their previous populations, going back millions of years where they first were identified as gorillas?
So, .. either both male and female gorillas had to change human overnight, or give birth to human twins, a girl and a boy.
I'm just asking: "Which is it?"
Neither.
again, So, .. either a population of both male and female gorillas had to change human overnight, or the whole population of these "almost human gorillas" gave birth to human twins, a girl and a boy.
Which is it? No matter how much a population changed, they had to change to a point where they were no longer gorillas, and could no longer reproduce with their own species, where they were no longer gorilla, but human.
Saying rats stayed rats, gorillas stayed gorillas with varying populations, none of the populations no matter how different they became never speciated into any other species, can ONLY mean ONE thing, "Evolution never happened", .. period.
So either you tell me what happened with that gorilla population that over the billions of years varied to almost human, or admit Evolution never happened!? Which you already admitted several times in your above responses. I just would like some honesty and admit it?
Have you not read Judges 11? Jephthah sacrifices his virgin daughter as thanks to God for helping him defeat the Ammonites.
LOL, yeah God can't help idiots. No one asked him to do such idiotic thing, especially our Creator who so loved us that He gave His own begotten Son, who also loved us where he was willing to give himself over to be crucified.
What was even more terrible is that Jephthah had time to think it over while his daughter mourned with her friends, and plenty of time to pray and ask God: "God, did you let me win because I offered a sacrifice, or you would have helped me win either way, because you loved me?"
God would have responded: "What did you say? Do you actually think you can buy me, or bribe me you fool?"
You see God doesn't take rewards or payment for doing things for us, what a foolish man he was. He thought he was dealing with one of his compadres: "I'll rub your back if you rub mine" kind of human dealings. God doesn't need anything from us, only that we show our love towards one another, that is enough for Him to see that we love Him too.
good point. see this thread: the self replicating watch argument
I guess this confirms that you've not read that passage or simply didn't understand it. What a shame.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?