Gramsci wrote:

Cranius wrote: The evolutionary development the of modern human seems to have been relatively quick.

The past 10,000 have been the freakiest. At the end of the last Ice Age we were nothing more than hunter-gathers. Scientists now think that the last Ice Age probably ended in a matter of years. There seems to have been a critical mass in our brain power that has snowballed.

It blows my simian mind!

I was watching a documentary in which an evolutionary anthropologist posited that Homo Sapiens had inter-bred with Neanderthals, producing hybrid traits and that some of these traits were still visible in vestigal forms. To illustrate his point he produced a photo of his father, wryly pointing to his dad's pronounced brow-ridge as an example of Neanderthal-like features.

Crazy!

I don't know about other people but I find the real world as is now being discussed far more rewarding on a very deep level than simply saying, "God did it." Which seems about as lazy and depressing as it's possible to be.

Evolution: wonderful and life affirming

Creationism: depressing and suffocating... oh, and wrong.

Creationism is wrong. It should be opposed and destroyed and not accommodated in any scientific curriculum.

Creationism is wrong in the intellectual and moral senses. It is factually incorrect.

It is a grotesque sideshow to the main event of disinterested scientific endeavour.

Triceratops with a saddle = bullshit.

Gramsci wrote:Creationism: depressing and suffocating... oh, and wrong.

Scroll back into this thread and read my little post about the human appendix, sir. It is a prime example of how evolutionary science oversimplifies and smears over so much to come to its erroneous conclusions.

I think I've said this already, but I have no opposition to biological evolution per se. However the evidence is lacking, that which exists is riddled with serious problems, and finally the elite among those who propound it all too often have a rather anti-religious metascientific agenda.

I will also say this: you postulate, in essence, a universe where blind natural forces rule. In the midst of all this, there is intelligibility (not to mention things- human beings- who can perceive the intelligibility of this universe). Now, in order for anything to be intelligible, there has to be a principle which itself is intelligent to make it intelligible. You have said in the past in so many words that this is not the case. Explain how intelligibility can occur without an intelligence. And don't hand me facile crap about "the appearance of intelligibility"- either a thing is intelligible or it is not, and furthermore if a thing is not intelligible it is more often the case that the intelligence trying to comprehend (we humans) the thing has a shortcoming. By the same token don't hand me some "it's all in our minds" crap; this computer is here in front of me and I'm typing with my hands. Dispute that.

I'm pinning you down here. Not on evolution per se, but on the atheistic foundations for your faith in it. Feel free to divert about how I'm a moron and a bigot and I hate gay people and whatever else strikes your fancy. But I'm going to continue pinning you down here regardless.

matthew wrote:I'm pinning you down here. Not on evolution per se, but on the atheistic foundations for your faith in it. Feel free to divert about how I'm a moron and a bigot and I hate gay people and whatever else strikes your fancy. But I'm going to continue pinning you down here regardless.

Ok, let's get the ad homo out of the way first...

Matt you're a brainwashed retard.

Now that's out of my system.

Matt, your attempt to "pin me down" is like watching someone nail-gun jello to the ceiling.

Firstly Matt, whether you hate gay people isn't of much consequence because God hates gay people. It says it very clearly in the Bible. So you get points for at least being honest about the nonsense you believe.

Secondly Matt, whether think Evolutionary Biology is right or is of no importance either. If you are any kind of Christian that actually believes the Bible is the infallible word of this particular god then you should shut up and be a creationist. Don't try and tip-toe around it because you know that you position is totally untenable, stick to your guns. You're the man who first came to prominence here on EA with a "is plate tectonics real" thread... ask the good people of Indonesia et al about that one...

Thirdly you, as always, try the ol' strawman, but tell everybody what I think when you are most either plain wrong or twisting my - or, heck, anyones - words, you don't seem to mind.

So lets be clear. I'm not making claims of anything. I simple declare that I do not believe in the Christian explanation of reality anymore than I do Thor's. I reject entirely Jesus, or any other saviour god or myth. I make no assumption about anything in the universe other than what evidence and human scientific inquiry has shown us. Even then I'm happy to have anything I believe to be the truth tried, tested and proven wrong at any given turn.

I lead a satisfying and spiritually - for want of a better word - life without the need for a supernatural crutch as you do. I totally reject any claim you make that the Bible is a "moral" document or even vaguely a good example of how lead a good life. The Bible's moral stance is frankly revolting for the most part and Christianity is a terrible method by which to deduce how to live "the good life".

Matt, I really do think that you are a deluded and possibly mentally ill person. But I'm not surprised, you wouldn't be the first human mind to be raped by the Catholic Church.

Here is a page with some helpful organisations if you can ever feel like looking reality in the face:

Various Secular Humanist and Atheist Groups

...because Matt I don't really believe that you actually believe what you claim you do, I think you believe in belief.

Gramsci wrote:

matthew wrote:I'm pinning you down here. Not on evolution per se, but on the atheistic foundations for your faith in it. Feel free to divert about how I'm a moron and a bigot and I hate gay people and whatever else strikes your fancy. But I'm going to continue pinning you down here regardless.

Ok, let's get the ad homo out of the way first...

Matt you're a brainwashed retard.

Now that's out of my system.

Matt, your attempt to "pin me down" is like watching someone nail-gun jello to the ceiling.

Firstly Matt, whether you hate gay people isn't of much consequence because God hates gay people. It says it very clearly in the Bible. So you get points for at least being honest about the nonsense you believe.

Secondly Matt, whether think Evolutionary Biology is right or is of no importance either. If you are any kind of Christian that actually believes the Bible is the infallible word of this particular god then you should shut up and be a creationist. Don't try and tip-toe around it because you know that you position is totally untenable, stick to your guns. You're the man who first came to prominence here on EA with a "is plate tectonics real" thread... ask the good people of Indonesia et al about that one...

Thirdly you, as always, try the ol' strawman, but tell everybody what I think when you are most either plain wrong or twisting my - or, heck, anyones - words, you don't seem to mind.

So lets be clear. I'm not making claims of anything. I simple declare that I do not believe in the Christian explanation of reality anymore than I do Thor's. I reject entirely Jesus, or any other saviour god or myth. I make no assumption about anything in the universe other than what evidence and human scientific inquiry has shown us. Even then I'm happy to have anything I believe to be the truth tried, tested and proven wrong at any given turn.

I lead a satisfying and spiritually - for want of a better word - life without the need for a supernatural crutch as you do. I totally reject any claim you make that the Bible is a "moral" document or even vaguely a good example of how lead a good life. The Bible's moral stance is frankly revolting for the most part and Christianity is a terrible method by which to deduce how to live "the good life".

Matt, I really do think that you are a deluded and possibly mentally ill person. But I'm not surprised, you wouldn't be the first human mind to be raped by the Catholic Church.

Here is a page with some helpful organisations if you can ever feel like looking reality in the face:

Various Secular Humanist and Atheist Groups

...because Matt I don't really believe that you actually believe what you claim you do, I think you believe in belief.

You haven't answered my question. I'll distill it for you "How can intelligibility exist without intelligence?". And where did I even mention Jesus?

I'm not letting you off the hook.

matthew wrote:You haven't answered my question. I'll distill it for you "How can intelligibility exist without intelligence?". And where did I even mention Jesus?

I'm not letting you off the hook.

You haven't got me on a hook.

You question is the same as "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound."

Yes it does make a sound.

You are assuming that human intelligence is important in the greater scheme of things. which is it not. It may well be quite fun, but human "intellignce" is no more important than ant "intellignce". You are just another animal Matt. The question is the kind of question theists pose to sound clever, when in reality it's not even a real question.

Here is a book you can read that will clear a few things up for you:

The Non-Existence of God

Is it possible to prove or disprove God's existence?
Arguments for the existence of God have taken many different forms over the centuries: the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments; arguments which invoke miracles, religious experience and morality; and prudential arguments such as Pascal's Wager. On the other hand are the arguments against theistic belief: the traditional problem of evil; the logical tensions between divine attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience and eternity; and arguments from the scale of the universe.
In The Non-Existence of God, Nicholas Everitt reconsiders all of these arguments and examines the role that reason and knowledge play in the debate over God's existence. He draws on recent scientific disputes over neo-Darwinism, the implication of "big bang" cosmology, and the temporal and spatial size of the universe; and discusses some of the most recent work on the subject, such as Plantinga's "anti-naturalism" argument in favor of theism. Everitt's controversial conclusion is that there is a sense in which God's existence is disprovable, and that even in other senses a belief in God would be irrational.

Try asking a question you didn't pick up talking to your Uncle.

Gramsci wrote:

matthew wrote:You haven't answered my question. I'll distill it for you "How can intelligibility exist without intelligence?". And where did I even mention Jesus?

I'm not letting you off the hook.

You haven't got me on a hook.

You question is the same as "if a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one to hear it, does it make a sound."

Yes it does make a sound.

You are assuming that human intelligence is important in the greater scheme of things. which is it not. It may well be quite fun, but human "intellignce" is no more important than ant "intellignce". You are just another animal Matt. The question is the kind of question theists pose to sound clever, when in reality it's not even a real question.

Here is a book you can read that will clear a few things up for you:

The Non-Existence of God

Is it possible to prove or disprove God's existence?
Arguments for the existence of God have taken many different forms over the centuries: the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments; arguments which invoke miracles, religious experience and morality; and prudential arguments such as Pascal's Wager. On the other hand are the arguments against theistic belief: the traditional problem of evil; the logical tensions between divine attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience and eternity; and arguments from the scale of the universe.
In The Non-Existence of God, Nicholas Everitt reconsiders all of these arguments and examines the role that reason and knowledge play in the debate over God's existence. He draws on recent scientific disputes over neo-Darwinism, the implication of "big bang" cosmology, and the temporal and spatial size of the universe; and discusses some of the most recent work on the subject, such as Plantinga's "anti-naturalism" argument in favor of theism. Everitt's controversial conclusion is that there is a sense in which God's existence is disprovable, and that even in other senses a belief in God would be irrational.

Try asking a question you didn't pick up talking to your Uncle.

I do have you on the hook, because you have yet to answer my question.

Gramsci wrote:Thirdly you, as always, try the ol' strawman

Intelligibility and intelligence is the heart of the matter I'm talking about. After all, isn't this thread about evolution and Intelligent Design?

matthew wrote:

Gramsci wrote:Thirdly you, as always, try the ol' strawman

Intelligibility and intelligence is the heart of the matter I'm talking about. After all, isn't this thread about evolution and Intelligent Design?

and yet you and Gramsci are both stupid monkeys.


go figure.