EVOLUTION - Page 6

Back in the old days, people went around talkiing about 'how organic this and that as being natural and therefore better for you. Which was later disproved by man's production of organic (carbon-based reactions) molecules. Organic Chemistry is the chemistry of Carbon compounds -- biochemistry deals with organic molecules which are derived from living organisms. The primary distinction is that nature process molecules which tend to be optical active (rotate polarized light in a specific direction, ie stereo-specific isomers). Man -made organic molecules form a racemic mixture ( mixed rotational isomers), unless man uses a stereo-specific molecule in order to produce stereo-specific compounds.
Edited- Oops
The male - female hormone is representative of similar bio-organic molecules with opposite polarity (rotation). These kinds of distinctions is at the molecular level and indictative of life processes. Generally, enzines are compounds of this class which is why they are added to laundry soap to remove organic stains.
teen thermodynamics is not universal? Does the perception of absolute zero degree temperature still exist?

For your own research for answers, let's look at the bang theory.
Here you have a huge bang, without a catalyst, because even a catalyst has to have an origin, so let's assume, logically, there is no catalyst. Therefore, the bang cannot happen. Even gaseous states have a 'purpose' and an origin of a beginning.
Ok, now, for your research, please make yourself a cherry bomb, or anything lightly explosive.
Now, after you make this said explosion, please tell us which creatures have evolved from this smal explsion. Perhaps a new sort of insect. Anything you may discover coming from this erupted element that you could tell us about.

As for the creation story, if you know of a miracle more obtuse than a person filled with living and complex DNA cells that is able to reproduce itself and walk, communicate, think (that in itself is an enormous feat for a creature evolved from gas) and breathe, and function, and then die...then you tell me, please, about that miracle.

Life is a miracle, and without a purpose, we would be mute point.

My personally opinion is obvious, I am sure. No one can suggest any other theory to me yet, that makes any relevance to how complex we are.
Emotions for one thing is beyond explanation. If you can explain HOW we love and why, besides the obvious phermones, I mean the emotional state, then you need to give us the insight.

What I am saying as eloquently as possible, is, we are too advanced in many ways to be an evolved species from another living form.
IE monkeys. ..?
I think not, because in evolution (which in fact does exist) but is not the primary reason we exist, the monkey and species of the like would have disappeared.
In evolving we become better creatures, and therefore the older 'versions' become unindated and obsolete.

'The better ones survive.'

Did I make anyone see the rationale here?

Nicely said but then I agree with your evaluation.

"For your own research for answers, let's look at the bang theory.
Here you have a huge bang, without a catalyst, because even a catalyst has to have an origin, so let's assume, logically, there is no catalyst. Therefore, the bang cannot happen."
Science doesn't pretend to be the absolute truth. What science does do is disprove certain ideas and propose more likely ones (which will eventually disproved). These new ideas, are rarely true, but they are always more true then the ideas that precedented it.
So no, we don't know where the bang came from, no more then we know where God came from.

Even gaseous states have a 'purpose' and an origin of a beginning.

"Now, after you make this said explosion, please tell us which creatures have evolved from this smal explsion. Perhaps a new sort of insect. Anything you may discover coming from this erupted element that you could tell us about."
There is a difference between a cherry bomb and the big bang. The big bang is different in two major ways : 1 the big bang CREATES the universe and is not influenced by outside factors, 2 it took billions of years for anything to devellop from the big bang. The comparison is moot.

"As for the creation story, if you know of a miracle more obtuse than a person filled with living and complex DNA cells that is able to reproduce itself and walk, communicate, think (that in itself is an enormous feat for a creature evolved from gas) and breathe, and function, and then die...then you tell me, please, about that miracle."
Yes, life is a miracle, the odds of it happening are incredibly low. Perhaps 1 chance in a trillion. Lucky for us, there are trillions of stars and trillions of planets, at least one was lucky enough for life to happen.
I see no proof for creation, not even any evidence mildly suggesting creation over big bang and evolution.

"Life is a miracle, and without a purpose, we would be mute point."
Then we are moot without point from your point of view. You assume that we must have a point, and therefore arbitrarily believe in a fairy tale which claims we have a point.
But in truth, life has a point, though it is probably not loving a megalomaniacal God, but rather, it is simply being happy.


"Emotions for one thing is beyond explanation. If you can explain HOW we love and why, besides the obvious phermones, I mean the emotional state, then you need to give us the insight."
I don't understand the problem. Emotions are an evolutionary necessity they help, in people and animals to live in society and ultimately help us reproduce.

"What I am saying as eloquently as possible, is, we are too advanced in many ways to be an evolved species from another living form. IE monkeys. ..?"
We are not so different. We live in society, our main emotion is love (checkout art/songs), we are sheepish, we follow dominant males (military strongmen). Now we ARE different, and that arises from out ability to learn and to an extent our limited ability to reason, but aside from those 2 key difference we are nothing more then 2 legged naked monkeys.

"I think not, because in evolution (which in fact does exist) but is not the primary reason we exist, the monkey and species of the like would have disappeared.
In evolving we become better creatures, and therefore the older 'versions' become unindated and obsolete."
That's an archaic view of evolution. There is rarely a "good" or "bad" version. There are good or bad in certain situations but not universally good or bad.
Second, many humans have been wiped out. There are dozens of apes which are closely related to us which have been wiped out. In fact, neanderthal man is not the same species as us, he was intelligent could make tools and used fire, but we wiped them out. Perhaps they were a "bad" version, but that's besides the point, the point is we HAVE been wiping out other kinds of apes. In fact we've wiped out so many that only ones in remote places have survived.


'The better ones survive.'
That's how things have been. Though that is inaccurrate, the "better in this situation survive".

Anyway, yes it is sad, we have been wiping out other species for millions of years and no there is rarely such a thing as a "better" species.

Been a while since I contributed here so please excuse that it is more related to the discussion of previous pages.
But after one of Teen's post about preModern homo siepian (sp) I just happen to watch a program (history channel, I think) that delt with this very subject. They were discussing some prehuman man, that they had found a rudeminentary shaped stone knife.In the synopsis, they made the impression that their extinction probably resulted as they had not made (evolved) the knife into an axe in their million years of existence. I found that statement rather short sighted at best. Man like other beings that gather and / or hunt for substain, generally hunt smaller prey than themselves. While an axe type blade with the handle (lever arm) would be benefical for cutting trees or defence against larger predators (including Modern man), a bag containing smooth round stones to throw at small prey would be more suitable of their needs or prehaps a hide sling for larger ones as the area of their existence seemed to be semi arid, at lest today. Which leaves our scientific opinions basically built upon flimsey constructs to fit our preceptions?

Dumteen knows a lot of stuff - but most of the stuff he thinks he knows is opinion he has chosen to believe.

I agree that the science on this subject is flimsy - Why is it so hard for them to say - we don't know? (because the funding would stop). So they make stuff up to keep the funds coming while they continue to study, trying to figure it out for themselves, they know they don't really know but have others convinced that they do know. It is a mystery. My theory is just as far fetched as their's, I just don't have to try to prove it, as I don't need the funding.

What bothers me is the status quo. The great minds did not follow the status quo. Einstein very much believed in God while his piers did not. He was driven to try figure out what he believed. The status quo and the great minds did not have the answers and don't have the answers. But those who search shall find. It is not knowing but asking that makes one wise.

There are mysteries far and great, when we see them or hear of them, we close our eyes and ears to them and say no it is not true because we don't understand it. But it is those who ask why who are the smart ones. The fools make there judgments without study.

Anyways, Dreamers Post: 9:27:48 pm - December 17th I find to be very impressive. And as for all of you - I'm lost, I know very little what you're talking about. I'll be honest, when it comes to evolution you have studied a lot more than I have.

I do believe in evolution, but, there is something very different about humankind that evolution fails to explain - that doesn't make evolution false, but I can see that there is much more to it then just evolution.

cturtle - I agree I'm not sure exactly what use an axe would be to hunter gatherers. Perhaps collecting firewood and warding off other types of human? But I really don't know.

"I agree that the science on this subject is flimsy - Why is it so hard for them to say - we don't know? (because the funding would stop)."
Because science is never true, science is very often the most true. Science is about constantly creating new theories, disproving them and replacing them with other theories. Its true the details of human evolution of uncertain, but that doesn't mean we have to resort to higher beings. There is no reason man would have been created differently then other beings.

"I do believe in evolution, but, there is something very different about humankind that evolution fails to explain - that doesn't make evolution false, but I can see that there is much more to it then just evolution."
What is that thing?

"Dumteen knows a lot of stuff - but most of the stuff he thinks he knows is opinion he has chosen to believe. "
Well, if I come off that way, please tell me why, because I trully like to believe I have logical beliefs.

In Christian terms, the word is a two edged sword so sharp as to divide the spirit and the soul.

Why is God not logical? Just because we don't know. Is logic then what we know. Then what we don't know is not logical. That is not logical. What is logical? It is logical to say, "I don't know".

Logic is about consistency. True logic is having as few inconsistencies as possible.
Belief in God tends to be without objective proof or even evidence leading towards to the belief of God. It is often (as far as I know) believed in with personal experiences suggesting God's belief. However, in objective debates, it is only proof, evidence and the conclusions we can draw from them which count.
Belief in God is inconsistent objectively (and thus illogical) because it means believing in something over something else for no reason. Why not believe in Elephant-headed-gods, Zeus, or a martian penguin god over God?
There is no reason I know, except that many believe in God and therefore many are inclined to do the same.
There is no objective reason to believe in God over Zeus, and to do so, is illogical.

Logic is about consistency. True logic is having as few inconsistencies as possible. The current theory of Physics is that matter is neither nor destoried but rather changed in form? Or rather, mass is a form of energy whose conversion factor is related by the equation energy equals mass times the constant, the velocity of light in a vacumn squared?

quote:

---

FYE: (For Your Editification)
As a hunter I have noted the symbol of the Dove used instead of the sign of the Fish, used during the Roman putting to death Christians in the arena and referring to the Fisher of Men.
Scriptural reference to 'the Spirit descending like a dove' may relate to the characteristic flight pattern of doves rather than spirit appearing in the form of a Dove?

---

Reading in the Book of Mormon

quote:

---

1 Nephi 11:27And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the World, of whom myfather had spoken; and I also held the prophet who should prepare the way for Him. And the Lamb of GOD went forth and was baptized of him; and after He was baptized, I beheld the heavens heavens open, and the Holy Ghost (spirit / soul?) come down out of heaven and abide upon Him in the form of a dove.

---

Now I can understand that many would say evil is my statement that it contradicts scripture! Does it?
What descended . . . a dove?
The (form) perception relates to characteristic concepts defined by the form? ANIMISM, what does that mean?
[url=http://www.geocities.com/hpymed/spirit/shamans.html]

MERRY CHRIST MASS * Christmas C. Turtle

Faith is not logical - I agree, it is a belief. We believe in things we cannot see hear or touch, that is faith, because it cannot be proven, I agree.

But I'm sorry Dumb Teen - It is very logical to me that there is a God, I guess to realize that you just have to see thru my eyes, and I wish you could. There is proof all around that there is God. But, what is God? That's were the faith comes in. We can only guess. There is no way in the world we can know what God is. I think I'm praying to something and that something is hearing my prayer, and I think that something is God, but I don't know. But still, I know there is a God, that is logical. In science there are theories. Those theories are logical, however, what those theories conclude could be, and are sometimes proven to be, very far from the truth. We peer through a crack in the wall and only see a small portion of what is beyond. To stay within the realm of only what you can see is safe, but, don't you get tired of it. If you could guess at what else there could be, would you. In the imagination we build castles in the sky. Why not? We don't know and can't know, so why not guess.
But you have studied more about evolution then I will ever know, you have much to teach me. But I'm telling you - there is a God, you're missing something if you can't see that, I wish I knew how to show it to you.

" But I'm telling you - there is a God, you're missing something if you can't see that, I wish I knew how to show it to you."
Well, maybe if you explained to me why you believe in God, I might do so myself.

I've been trying to. But I will try some more - but if you don't believe, that's ok - I guess its something you have to see for yourself

I would just like you to understand that to me. It is very logical to believe in God.

Just look at a tree and all the things that live because of it. Something created that. It could not have possibly been created by an accident. To think that any life has been created by an accident is not logical.

Well since you asked me why I think God is illogical, your turn, why is believing in life as an accident illogical