Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01
Hardly. No one accepts evolution based on faith. They accept it based on the evidence.
Much of it is probably down to genes that specify the development of brain structures, such as the amygdala and the frontal lobes, that have been shown to be involved in guiding social behaviour and the emotions. Unfortunately, the start of the art in evolutionary neuroscience is way off having any kind of explanation of how that actually happens, so I doubt anyone can give you a more concrete answer that.
I guess we can take your juvenile insults as an admission that you don't actually have any cogent points to make in this discussion.
Because I've evolved to be afraid of death. And because I've also evolved to find pleasure in many of the things life has to offer, so I want to keep on enjoying it. I've also evolved to find certain things painful, and if there was a preponderence of pain over pleasure in my life maybe I'd be tempted to see non-existence as the preferrable of the two.
(The reality is actually more complicated than that, because there are cultural factors involed in addition to the evolutionary factors. But in simple terms I think what I've said is enough to answer your question).
It is just another immaculate conception, a belief that life just evolved from nothing. Like the “Big Bang” it relies upon a singularity, the DNA molecule. They are inadvertently admissions the universe and life are immaculate conceptions and they are dependent on each other. Categorically, they are the same - - mythology...
Only if you define "evidence" to mean extrapolations and assumptions, and not observed events. Read post 518. BTW, a number of MET advocates have admitted it's matter of faith. Google's our friend. :)
Thanks for your patience.
The relevant threads are:
New Scienctis Issue on iD posts 395, 439 and follow-ups
and
Let's have no more monkey trias to teach faith as science is to undermine both posts 209, 236, 248,280 and 829
"On The Origin of Species (but not Colors)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Powered Flight, Which Hasn't Been Invented Yet But That's No Excuse)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Continental Drift)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Pi)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Pie)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Witches)."
"On The Origin of Species (but not Card Tricks)."
Why are there no mammal fossils found in cambrian rock? The theory of evolution has a good explaination for this. In fact the theory of evolution requires this to be true. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't find elephant, horse, or human fossils in the cambrian if evolution were not true.
Just one example of coincidence that just so happens to allow evolution to survive as an explaination. Hundreds of such coincidences lead me to believe it is true.
This isn't an assumption. It is coincidence upon coincidence until it is simply beyond doubt.
My, my, my. We are in a lather, aren't we?
I haven't seen this level of creationist discourse since ALS was banned.
Mayve he will.
"As far as CarolinaGuitarman is concerned, he is just a Marxist troll, f--k him... I don't know why he brought you into it except, since he is so weak, maybe he thought he might get some support..."
Too scared to ping me? You're losing your edge there Dashboard.
Thanks for giving us a good laugh! :)
I see a site URL that says "noDNC.com" and I think it's something I could support. Lurking under that banner is a rubbish heap of central casting stock characters attacking a scientific theory with about 150 years of accumulated evidence for it and none against.
I'm reminded how, forty years ago, I thought environmentalism was just Teddy Rooseveltian conservation and was of course a good idea. By thirty years ago, it was clear that environmentalists were a bunch of communists. That in turn led to my decision that the whales could go screw themselves if it came to that.
You guys are doing the DNC a big favor.
"vacuous"? "Homo"?
You guys have reached the zenith of your intellectual powers. You are on a roll.
Satisfactory to you, perhaps, but not to them.
There they are, cheerfully posting answers to your post.
BTW, there are very few evolutionists posting, just scientists and interested amateurs.
Uh...this isn't going to help.
See post 263 on that second thread you referenced.
You are overemphasizing or exaggerating the commentary.
He says himself he is simply "being over the top" and debating with the same style used against him.
To call it anything else than a friendly "needling" is a bit overly dramatic.
Be thankful someone trys to hold you accountable for your faith...if no one ever called you on it, you may be walking down the wide path without realizing it. No one wants that.
your first post must not be spelled right...i cant find it
I also remember the Teddy Rooseveltian form of conservation and, as a matter of fact, I remember when the left was trying to get national parks turned over to "the people" to squat or whatever.
Conservation got infiltrated and marxistified, then turned to environmentalism.
I'm still a conservationist. Can't find too many others, though.
I'm pre-caffeine, sorry.
New Scientist Issue on ID
posts 395, 439, 503
Who is"trying to hold me accountable for my faith"
Other than God, of course, whch is no one else's business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.