Darwin's theory

Frank Bullitt

catallus wrote: »

Are you actually having a laugh? Seriously?

Self-criticism is one of the biggest themes in any organised religion.

Am I having a laugh?

- Israelite conquest of Canaan
- Islamic expansion
- The Crusades
- The Thirty Year's War
- The French Revolution
- The Taiping Rebellion, and the similar Muslim one which I can't remember the name for
- WW2
- Lord's Resistance Army
- Lebanese Civil War
- Algerian War of Independence and Civil War
- Iranian Revolution
- Starting the first World War
- The pogroms

Self criticism within religion does NOT exist.

gladrags

What Darwin does not touch on, is human attributes,and there evolution through time.

For example,good and evil,love and remorse.

Self destruction,wanton greed.

Attributes specific to humans.

Why?

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

Where has the debate on Darwins theory gone?

... is it under poe bridge ... or up crap creek?:)

Ok, lets get back to it then.

Shows us proof that Evolution is not true. You made the claim, now back it up.

gladrags

J C wrote: »

Where has the debate on Darwins theory gone?

... is it under poe bridge ... or up crap creek?:)

It has evolved.

M5

gladrags wrote: »

It has evolved.

Ha ha, classic

Frank Bullitt

I thought god did it though?

gladrags

Gintonious wrote: »

Ok, lets get back to it then.

Shows us proof that Evolution is not true. You made the claim, now back it up.

Agree,stop beating around the bush.

gladrags

Gintonious wrote: »

Ok, lets get back to it then.

Shows us proof that Evolution is not true. You made the claim, now back it up.

Agree,stop beating around the bush.

Frank Bullitt

gladrags wrote: »

Agree,stop beating around the bush.

Keep your expectations in check, no scientist has done this so far, so don't expect it to pop up on boards.

Cianmcliam

gladrags wrote: »

What Darwin does not touch on, is human attributes,and there evolution through time.

For example,good and evil,love and remorse.

Self destruction,wanton greed.

Attributes specific to humans.

Why?

See his 'The Descent of Man'

J C

rozeboosje wrote: »

Because evolution is about life changing to fit niches. Apes fit their niche, we fit ours.

... or do they choose a niche because of their pre-existing phenotype?
... and if you don't know which it is ... just tell me how many apes are occupying niches on cliffs with Eagles?:)

Saipanne

J C wrote: »

Yes, the ancient Israelites were a hard-hearted people ... living among even more hard-hearted neighbours.

Where did that rule come from?

J C

gladrags wrote: »

It has evolved.

... devolved ... by the sound of it!!!;)

kingchess

gladrags wrote: »

Agree,stop beating around the bush.

the Burning Bush???:p

J C

Cianmcliam wrote: »

See his 'The Descent of Man'

... also sounds like devolution ... rather than evolution ... to me.

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

... also sounds like devolution ... rather than evolution ... to me.

Reading this thread shows that it does happen.

Cianmcliam

J C wrote: »

Where has the debate on Darwins theory gone?

... is it under poe bridge ... or up crap creek?:)

Yeah it was interesting and actually going places for a while before the stand off over why earthworms excrete unused nutrients.

I have been wondering about the theory that a genetic cause for homosexuality in males persists because it made female relatives more fertile. I don't think it makes a lot of sense in the past, even if it does seem so today.

Theoretically, males can have a pretty much unlimited number of offspring as long as they can find enough mates, women are much more limited as they have the 40 weeks of pregnancy and possibly up to two years of nursing before having another child.

So while having a slightly more fertile female is positive, the potential number of children a gay male could have had is relatively massive. But these have to be written off as the gay male would not be pursuing the same number of female partners as their brothers.

I don't see it persisting over evolutionary time.

J C

kingchess wrote: »

the Burning Bush???:p

Please keep private medical issues private ... or at least under your knickers ... I'm trying to eat my dinner!!!!:)

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

Am I having a laugh?

- Israelite conquest of Canaan
- Islamic expansion
- The Crusades
- The Thirty Year's War
- The French Revolution
- The Taiping Rebellion, and the similar Muslim one which I can't remember the name for
- WW2
- Lord's Resistance Army
- Lebanese Civil War
- Algerian War of Independence and Civil War
- Iranian Revolution
- Starting the first World War
- The pogroms

Self criticism within religion does NOT exist.

I could comment ... but this thread seems to be as confused and 'clapped out' as its subject. If this is how the AH rock and rolls ... I'm going back to A & A for a rest!!!:)

catallus

J C wrote: »

I could comment ... but this thread seems to be as confused and 'clapped out' as its subject.

But what can one say to such blinkered nescience?!

It is flabbergasting!

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

I could comment ... but this thread seems to be as confused and 'clapped out' as its subject.

No no, please continue. Although I noticed that I missed out on WW2 there as well.

usernamegoes

We are apes.

J C

usernamegoes wrote: »

We are apes.

Leave out the 'we' ... and speak for yourself, if you want ... and not for me.
Count me out on that particular 'flight of fancy'.

... could you please tell me when you started grunting and throwing crap at windows, like the apes in Zoo do ?

... and the next time I see an ape driving a lorry I'll take your point.:)

Frank Bullitt

J C wrote: »

leave out the 'we' ... and speak for yourself ... and not me.
Count me out on that particular 'flight of fancy'.

I think we should count you out for anything, I have read your contribution on this subject in other threads.

J C

catallus wrote: »

But what can one say to such blinkered nescience?!

It is flabbergasting!

I see ... this thread has turned into 'the battle of the books'
... one written by an old white-haired man

... and the other written by God.:)

... I know which I'd put my money on!!!

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

The only point I've proven is the one about the malicious and craven mental-acrobatics that theophobes will go to to skew their perception of not only culture but all worldly phenomena.

Theophobes? Goddammit, stop playing the victim here. You're not being hunted down by gangs of neo-Nazis, you're not being called "deviants" in front of packed megachurches and I can assure you that none of us proponents of evolution on this thread want to emulate North Korea, regardless of however fun it might be to watch some guards forcing you to confess to your trolling.

J C

Gintonious wrote: »

I have read your contribution on this subject in other threads.

Thanks

Frank Bullitt

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Theophobes? Goddammit, stop playing the victim here. You're not being hunted down by gangs of neo-Nazis, you're not being called "deviants" in front of packed megachurches and I can assure you that none of us proponents of evolution on this thread want to emulate North Korea, regardless of however fun it might be to watch some guards forcing you to confess to your trolling.

Trying to conjure up some sort of pity here. Faith does not deserve any respect, and must expect it's claims to be ridiculed. Simple as that.

SaveOurLyric

iDave wrote: »

Everyone is born atheist.

Quite the opposite. All men are born with a sense and belief in God. All societies, throughout history, have without exception believed in a higher power. Though expressing it in different ways. Some construct sophisticated arguments trying to rationalize a lack of belief in God. But only do so later in life - not from birth.
This is the nature of man. Apes do not have this gift, were not created equal, and thus the contention that men are apes is nonsense.

GreeBo

Knasher wrote: »

Sure, but then surely that suggests that whatever genes that code for homosexuality must also code for behaviours that are beneficial? And then that must be the basis for it being carried on genetically, which was your original question.

That assumes that homosexuality is a single gene and that single gene does more than homosexuality.
I dont think anyone agrees on that.
More likely that the combination of genes that makes people homosexual is very close to some combination of genes that has a positive impact on procreation.

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

..what a fu**** downer, what's the point in getting up in the mornin'?

Actually its better to stay in bed, easier to procreate.

catallus wrote: »

I'd bet you've never even read the bible without some annotated guide by some internet theophobe who revels in their pseudo-intellectual wankery.

To dismiss the bible is to ignore 3000 years of culture.

Culture != Science



At this stage unfortunately the interesting thread has turned into religious babble and LOUD NOISES so Im out.
Thanks to those who partook in the debate.