• 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.

The question Evolutionsists can't answer

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
J

Jet Black

Guest
ignoring everything that people have said to you doesn't make you a clever poster, it just makes you ignorant.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
if I got annoyed, and got hold of your feet and started tickling them with a feather, that would be a stimulus. I don't think you even understand what a stimulus is. for a bacterium a stimulus could just be the presence of a chemical.
I am trying to explain the basic biological concepts that you do not even understand, and must understand before you can even begin to grasp how something like an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would evolve.
 
Upvote 0
C

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
I think Colossions needs to learn a bit more about instincts and neurochemistry.
Rather, you need to understand that redunctionistic analysis, telling us what goes into the pudding, tells us nothing about how it got there.
And then you need to stop putting the cart before the horse. It is your blindness and willfulness of spirit that causes you to overlook the circularity of your answers. If it were in any other field of study, you would not engage in such circularity; nor would your teachers mark your paper with anything else but an “F”.

I did tell you why it got here: chance mutation.
The desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself?
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself. The trap you are falling into is assuming that the desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] exists independently of the desire for pleasurable stimuli when it does not.
I doubt very much that I have overlooked the substance of my own thread.
On the contrary, it is you who have yet to demonstrate which came first. Telling us they both came together does not fuse their separate aspects together: desire is desire, and event is event. The dichotomy is eternal. You have answered nothing.

As Jet Black later demonstrates, desire for pleasurable stimuli pre-exists in any organism with a sufficiently complex nervous system,
The only thing Jet Black is capable of demonstrating is his talent at creating circular statements. And your example here is yet another of such: telling us that a desire exists in a complex system is like telling us that a comuter exists at NASA. Profound.

Mutations do not occur from anything.
Let’s try and make it a little more simple for you: what mutated into what became desire?

Subjects of the evolutionary process do not have ANY conscience as to what they are evolving into
Then they cannot evolve conscience, and you defeat yourself.

You have to tell us how what was missing was found, and more importantly, how it was realised that it was found.
Already told you. Beneficial mutation. ..
All you have done is reassert your position. This is an old trick (with you it is accidental) that debaters use. You must instead defend you position: do not tell us that desire is beneficial for the preservation of us, we already know that. Tell us instead how desire itself arose as desire.

the urge to have [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] comes as a result of pleasure during sex being already there.
The pleasure is based upon the relief provided by the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Such relief is based upon the desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. Such desire is based upon the anticipation of the relief.
You have said nothing. As usual.

What's so hard to understand?
You would benefit greatly in studying some logic.

I dunno...you'd think the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] came first. Either way, God is responsible for it.
God is indeed responsible for this very central part of us. But the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] came after the desire for it.
God put the desire for knowledge (“knowledge” used metaphorically to mean that which communes intimately with another person) inside us, and then as with all spiritual attributes, the flesh must mirror it. Thus the desire for carnal knowledge was irresistably a product of our spiritual substance.

Natural =/= No God.
As well as logic, you need to study some linguistics.
Natural is a-spiritual, not non-spiritual.

theistic evolutionist
Such a high-falutin term. Makes you sound important.
Tell us, if you were God, would you create a primordial soup, or perhaps something a little more to the point?
Or maybe the corollary question is better for you: “why would waiting around for a while to see what popped out, be desireable to a God for whom time does not exist?”

There is nothing to learn about that if you say that it explains how [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] came into existence.
Sorry, but how am I to interprete that?
"There is no explanation for the existence [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] beyond my explanation, so if you offer a different explanation it must be false"…
So you’re now OK with “God did it”?

Of course, the incentive to have sex (and reproduce) doesn't solely rest on the ability to have a pleasurable [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]
This statement high-lights the fundamental difference that [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] plays in the constitution of the male, as distinct from the female. I have yet to hear of a male who [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] without pleasure and the anticipation of it.

.. I'm a theistic agnostic who uses the term 'God' to include all possible....er...possibilities of supernatural being/s or forces. But hey-I could be wrong.
You are.

(INTREPID) In the first post, you said that there is something called incentive in animals that would motivate for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. In the next post, you say that they dont have any conscience of what they are evolving into. Which also means that they lack the instinct for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] when they are in a process of evolving. Or why they are evolving.
You contradict yourself.
Very well pointed out. They use words like “incentive” mischievously, crossing from the usual cognitive meaning, to a matter-of-fact meaning. This is one of the main ways they hood-wink themselves, and the public.

Well, natural selection selects based on procreation. Thus a desire to have more kids would be a beneficial desire and thus would stick around.
You’ve told us about the cart; now tell us how the horse got hitched up in front of it.

I can't believe this thread has already grown to 17 pages.
Sin always fights hard and long against the truth. That there is such a desire in the evolutionists to not suffer defeat (though such occurred at the outset of the thread, they providing nothing but circular answers), should perhaps tell you that man is more than matter and energy.

In a very simple example: "Evolution," "nature," or even a given member of this species didn't "know to do anything." The creatures with longer necks were able to reach the food, so they ate and lived to pass on their gene to their offspring.
So how did they eat before they had the gene? Use a ladder?

Long-neck genes and all. Meanwhile, the ones with the shorter necks died off,
Including the ones who were yet to evolve long necks.

not being able to feed themselves. "Nature" didn't need to "know" or "desire" anything at all. The "long-neck" gene continued to be passed on and evolve because that trait allowed them to reach food.
In other words: it exists, therefore it evolved. Redundant. Like rigging the data of a science prac to get to an already manifest result.

So, sex being the act of reproduction, the creatures that have more sex will reproduce more successfully.
Now tell us whether in their minds they were trying to preserve themselves, or whether it was because they felt frisky one Friday morning. Then tell us where the frisky and the realisation of such, came from.

Animals (in general or those within a given species) that enjoy sex more will inevitably have more sex and reproduce more.
You have a lot of gifts going to waste. You should be giving sex-education classes for youth programmes.

Those that enjoy it less will have it less, and reproduce less.
Riveting stuff.

Now specific to the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]: the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is just a pleasurable reaction to a specific type of stimulation.
Now tell us how the pleasure itself came into being.

because desire isn't really a part of the evolutionary process (not at the biological level, anyway).
So you have non-biological desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? Tell us how it feels.

(INTREPID) Whats the need to have sex when they did not have pleasure at the time they were not having any pleasure? Their needs to be some desire for sex that would motivate them to have sex. And that motivation is nothing but [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and pleasure. If that did not exist when having sex, no animal would have sex.
Well summed up.

Natural selection is one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs. How do you think they are contrary to each other? How could they be?
Natural selection is wrongly coined: it is rather “natural culling”. It culls the sports, the variants. It does not produce new information, but allows only the most suitable products of the existing gene-pool information, to continue on. You need to study some IT. And some Mendelian genetics.

If you think that evolution and natural selection are contrary to each other, then I do have to say, You don't understand the theory of evolution at all.
It is you who have no idea of the false utility you derive from what is simply one manifestation of the second law of thermodyamics. You would have us believe that cars with nice new paint jobs evolve because the ones with rust fall apart. Your whole doctrine is ‘post hoc ergo proper hoc’. Laughable.

Do you have any idea how other organisms reproduce sexually? Are egg-depositing female fish, and sperm-spreading male fish motivated by [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and pleasure? You should also look into insect reproduction before making general claims for all animals.
And you should read the OP.
We are not concerned with those entities which reproduce without pleasure. What we are concerned with, is why pleasure in sex evolved, when we were doing quite well without it. Your examples militate against your own platform. 75% of life is a-sexual. And such life reproduces at far far greater rates than that which does so for pleasure.

pleasure and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] do not need to be present to provide motivation.
Like saying that money does not need to provide wealth.
They do, and it does.

(Intrepid) “It is important know the fact that evolution and natural selection are not the same. But, they are contrary to each other”
Educate yourself. Making statements like this only indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.. .
Rather, get your head into some real science, instead of the propoganda that you are indulging in.
Natural selection is actually natural culling: the gene pool is impoverished, not expanded.
No new information is added.
New cars do not evolve because old ones are junked. You have equated a negative with a positive, by virtue of your after-the-fact perspective. Redundancy.

(Intrepid) “Just answer, where did they get the thought that they need to have sex for their continuity of species.”
Not THOUGHTS, MOTIVATIONS maybe. Where do they get these motivations? INSTINCT.
I wish I had your talent for synonyms.

I'd like to point out, again, that plants reproduce sexually, so motivation or desire is definitely not needed for sexual reproduction.
Poof goes your ‘incentive’ for the evolution of sexual desire!
 
Upvote 0
C

Colossians

Veteran
Aug 20, 2003
1,175
8
✟2,700.00
Faith
The question was NOT, "how did the first sexual organisms know to have sex in order to reproduce." This, to me, is a vastly different question. I will say, with a good degree of certainty, that pleasure and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] had little to do with this process.
Then I will say, your camp’s misused and often touted “incentive”, is null and void.

"Why did they have sex in the first place, for reproductive survival." To this specific question I say again - I don't know.
We already know that you don’t know.

You still need the bee and the bee needs to desire the flower.
Nice parallel.

(Intrepid) “It just cannot happen on one day BAM as you said. “
I never said that.
You didn’t say it with what you said, but with what you did not say.

The original question was:
Which evolved first, sexual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], or the desire for sexual [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?
Not
Where did instinct for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire for it come from.
The second is necessary implication/corollary of the first. Your semantic dichotomy is false.
wouldn't larger muscle contraction by the male organ force the "seed" over larger area of eggs in that type of reproduction
Like telling us that a piston in an engine forces out exhaust. What started the piston moving?

well first of all one would start off with something like an organism that ate stuff. those with more of a drive (chemical response) to carry out a certain behavious (i.e. feeling hungry or thirsty)
Tell us.. how was hunger perceived as such?

this drive would also involve a pleasure/displeasure response
Yes yes we know that. Now tell us the answer to the OP.

... those organisms that derived a pleasure response from something good for them would be more likely to eat it again
Like sex. So how does one evolve a desire for that which does not yet exist?

Shall we start over? It seems to be a theme around here.
Because explaining the current utility of what is, is no explanation of how it came to be. It is a redundancy. We already know the benefits of what is. The very existence of such benefits is that which provides the impetus for this thread.

Where did the pleasure from watching baseball come from?
You tell us.

really? A population of sexally reproducing organisms will not die out if they don't have sex?
You miss the question: it matters not what sexually reproducing organisms do. The issue is why such method of reproduction came into being, and what the impetus for such was.

I see you like to confuse instinct with desire.
It is your camp that interchanges these words.
microorganisms divide and increase population without desire or sex. so the need to replicate is instinct, a chemical process.
I see you like to confuse instinct with a chemical process.
And life with non-life.

basically colossians has embarked on a strange track of debate, where he actually ignores all the foundational principles that determine the effectiveness of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse],
In other words, you have no effective rebuttal, and prefer to employ bluff.
when it appears
Why did it appear?
another point to note is that (from experience) not all [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] are the same, some are weak, some are strong, but even a weak response that stimulated the ALREADY PRESENT chemical and neurological INSTINCTS
Already present instincts? How so? (Your circularity astounds me.)

to get more of whatever it was that was pleasant would give a reproduction advantage.
Well done. You’ve described what already is and is known, as though it presents to us how such got here. Redundant. And void in the absence of memory: nothing can seek a repeat experience, if it cannot remember it.

most organisms do not care about the continuity of their species
Why haven’t they evolved such care? Would not this be beneficial?
(most organisms aren't even capable, unless you think that drosophila melanogaster has a yearning for happy evenings by the fermenting apple under the sunset,
How did the evolution of such yearning for happy evenings produce an advantage? Or was this one evolved during a period of down-time?
The instincts and hence genes that produce a phenotype with a higher breeding success will proliferate through the population as a result of differential reproductive success between the organisms that carry those genes.
High-falutin speak for “natural selection” (the ideology that says “7 plus 1, because 11 minus 3” ) .
It appears that your understanding of evolution is somewhat flawed.
Evolution is itself flawed, at the very fundamental level of logic.
simply does it as a result of instinct,
And where did that come from? (As though we hadn’t pointed out your question-begging earlier).
forethought is not required for breeding, when instinct will do.
All very interesting, but hardly that which answers the OP.
again, this is a terrible strawman. ignoring the fact that microorganisms don't even have a nervous system,
Then why evolve one?
the issue os not over happiness, it is over breeding success. those organisms which had genotypes and phenotypes which increased their success in their environments over other present organisms would see their numbrs proliferate.
More “cart before horse” or “horse BECAUSE cart” (which everway you want to look at it) reasoning.
"having a fun time" has nothing to do with it.
So why did the fun (desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]) evolve?

You have it backwards. sex evolved as a means to reproduce, and it is still a chemically driven act, just like in every organism
Now I’ve heard everything: we are told that we have it backwards if we do not understand that sex evolved the means to reproduce. No wonder this bizarre theory has such numbers of followers if this represents their logical skill.

instinct does not have anything to do with pleasure or desire.
Which begs the question.

microorganisms have nothing more than reflex - an automatic unlearned reaction to a stimulus,
Invalid use of “unlearned”, confining it to its narrow sense of cognition. It is neverthless programmed, and in such sense, has already been ‘learned’. You simply conceal your dilemma beneath another layer.

the reflex is chemical
Purpose isn’t.
and the result of the actions of various genes which behave differently depending on the concentrations of the various chemicals and proteins in their internal and immediately external environment.
I behave differently when someone sticks a needle in me. Wind behaves differently when it meets a wind barrier. Electrons behave differently when they are place in an electric field.
Now explain how the perception of desire, the memory of it, and the desire to repeat the fulfillment of it, evolved. And when you have finished, tell us how such was achieved when that which was desired did not exist.

(Intrepid) “Allright, tell me what came first, [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], as we told you 20 pages ago.
You forgot to tell us why.

Thinking does not result in genetic change.
The guy who wrote this however would have us believe that genetic change results in thinking.
And that he can pull himself off the ground by tugging at his shoe-laces.
What would being happy have to do with evolving?
Here’s another one from the same pen. He tells us that happiness did not cause evolution, but believes that happiness was nevertheless the result of evolution (which didn’t need it anyway).
What does pleasure have to do with evolution?
And just to cap things off, he enters a debate which asks him how pleasure came into being, and in answer to such, tells us that pleasure has nothing to do with evolution. (He thinks that it was just a bonus that evolution produced – would have been pretty boring otherwise.)

Pureone and Jet Black are doing a fine job of explaining it, though!
They are certainly doing a fine job: but not at what you think they are. Try “circular reasoning”.
Jet black likes to define chemical mechanisms as though they have the memory and perception to want to do it again. He would then have us believe that memory, perception, and desire (want) themselves came into being through the same mechanism.
And he delights in reductionism. Electron spin, however, has little to do with why one goes to the football.

Wrong.
Need = necessary to live.
Desire = something you get pleasure from, but it is not necessary for survival.
Pleasure needs to live.

We have seen Colosiums arguments crumble under an argument analysis
Perhaps the fact that you spell my name wrong, is cause by the fact that you are seeing things.

To summarize:
Sexual reproduction evolved before [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
Then desire for sex evoloved.
How was this desire felt?
Then [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolved.
Did the feeling the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] produced have anything to do with the desire?

The question in the OP was answered like 22 pages ago, and at least 5 times on every page since then.
Wrong answer.

(Intrepid) “Stimuli is nothing but incentive. How is it inborn pattern when the parents of the offsprings dont have it?
Well asked.
This dosent explain anything about evolution or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or desire for it. You are just explaining the mechanics of God's creation.
Spot on: all they do is tell us what is, not how it came to be.
You ask an evolutionist : “How is it that giraffes have long necks?”. He answers: “Long necks allow them to eat from tall trees, and since there are no short necked giraffes around, they must have been culled through natural selection”.
Obviously if things exist, they are more advantaged to exist than to not exist. Their postion is redudant.

An [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is simply a chemical reward for passing on your genetic material.
A reward is mute in the absence of perception, memory, and volition.

If God did exist, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be one thing I'd thank him for.
Would your thanking of Him constitute an evolutionary advantage?

ignoring everything that people have said to you doesn't make you a clever poster, it just makes you ignorant.
Sure does.
 
Upvote 0
M

Magnus Vile

Well-Known Member
Jan 20, 2004
2,507
212
✟18,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private


I think many evolutionists are banging their heads against keyboards and staring at the screen, just not for the reason you mentioned...
 
Upvote 0

funyun

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Feb 14, 2004
3,637
163
37
Visit site
✟4,544.00
Faith
Atheist

 
Upvote 0
I

Intrepid99

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
882
55
38
✟23,921.00
Faith
Christian
funyun said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
You dont need to show your symptoms in this thread. We didnt ask for it. All we asked was to tell what evolved, desire for [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] itself.
 
Upvote 0
I

Ishmael Borg

Guest
Nice ad hom. Your question has been answered numerous times in this thread, Mr. Studly.
 
Upvote 0

funyun

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Feb 14, 2004
3,637
163
37
Visit site
✟4,544.00
Faith
Atheist

Look, everyone who has entered this thread has given an answer. So why don't you take the initiative and READ their responses. It's not hard. Take it one word at a time. Is that too much to ask? Is it too much for you to take into account what the other debaters say in a debate forum?

Or are you just gonna sit there and keep saying things "Well, the evolutionists are just banging their heads against their computer monitors right now cuz they can't seem to answer the question." If you were half as witty as you think you are you would realize there's more information regarding the question asked in the OP than you can shake a stick at. All at your fingertips.

Look at this thread. It's 26 pages long. Lots of really smart people have given lots of really informative posts. They've all taken time out of their lives to help answer the question which was originally posted by Colossians. But it's all wasted, apparently. For all the pages, for all the time, for all the responses, you haven't even tried to learn a damn thing. I doubt you've even read a single sincere response.

So either grow up and actually start confronting what other people say instead of ignoring it, or just be on your way, little boy.

***Edited cuz the OP was made by Colossians, not Intrepid.
 
Upvote 0

funyun

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Feb 14, 2004
3,637
163
37
Visit site
✟4,544.00
Faith
Atheist
The following posts seriously answer the question asked in the OP, or at least have provided insightful information pertaining to the topic:

4, 5, 6, 15, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37.

And those are only from the first 5 pages.

I suggest, Intrepid and Colosians, that before you make yet another post saying something to the effect of “The evolutionists can’t come up with an answer”, you read them, since it's obvious you have yet to do so.
 
Upvote 0
I

Intrepid99

Senior Member
Jun 25, 2004
882
55
38
✟23,921.00
Faith
Christian
Ishmael Borg said:
Nice ad hom. Your question has been answered numerous times in this thread, Mr. Studly.
Click to expand...


Guess you guys skipped post number 244 and 245. But thats ok. You can read them now.
 
Upvote 0

funyun

aude sapere...sed praeterea, aude esse
Feb 14, 2004
3,637
163
37
Visit site
✟4,544.00
Faith
Atheist
Intrepid99 said:


Guess you guys skipped post number 244 and 245. But thats ok. You can read them now.
Click to expand...

I did. Wasn't impressed. Not much feedback of any substance there. Mostly responses of a personal nature, not pertaining to the topic at hand. Most of the responses that do have to do with the topic don't contain any volume of evidence for Colossians case. Lots and lots of strawmen about what desire is, about what evolution is, and even about what [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is. I wish Colossians would come back and give a clear and concise answer on exactly what it is he wants to know. Because based on these two posts, I really have no idea what the heck state of mind he is in.
 
Upvote 0

Sopharos

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek
May 16, 2004
1,245
77
Nah nah nah-nah nah! I'm HERE and you're NOT!!!
✟1,739.00
Faith
Other Religion
Colossians said:
Let’s try and make it a little more simple for you: what mutated into what became desire?
Click to expand...

Desire do not evolve. Desire developed AFTER [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] evolved. Mutations don't come from anything. Mutations are spontaneous.

 
Upvote 0

Sopharos

My big fat tongue in my plump pink cheek
May 16, 2004
1,245
77
Nah nah nah-nah nah! I'm HERE and you're NOT!!!
✟1,739.00
Faith
Other Religion
Colossians said:
As well as logic, you need to study some linguistics.
Natural is a-spiritual, not non-spiritual.
Click to expand...

nat·u·ral ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.
4.
1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
7. Faithfully representing nature or life.
8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.
11.
1. Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
2. Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
12. Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
13. Music.
1. Not sharped or flatted.
2. Having no sharps or flats.

Says nothing about being "a-spiritual".


I never knew God is a supposed to think like men.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Long Distance Funeral Plans
Replies
5
Views
424
Requests for Christian Advice
Sir Joseph
Celibacy and Sexual Deviancy: Mystical Theology Has the Answer
Replies
0
Views
63
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Be Polite but not Friendly to Bishops; be Good to all Poor Parish Priests.
Replies
0
Views
92
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
Michie
Energy chief suggests Trump administration is altering previously published climate reports; staff for next iteration all fired already
Replies
75
Views
3K
American Politics
DaisyDay
Hegseth to Return Memorial Biden Tore Down in Arlington National Cemetery
Replies
212
Views
5K
American Politics
DaisyDay
Menu
Log in
Register