Evolution is just a theory
-
Originally posted by Kyutake:
Evolution is a theory that has many facts to be able to derive from it. Religion survives through faith not science.
Simply saying Science and Religion cannot be brought together. Cause no one can prove that religion is real cause its only real in your heart. You yourself choose what to beleive and no one can argue because you already beleived wholeheartedly.
Science on the other hand has the ability to change all critics into believers because of the facts. things that cannot be denied. threading science and religion TS your only asking for vulgarities to be thrown at you. This is a web where hundreds and thousands of people can access.
If you wanna know whether evolution is real or not here is when i bring science and religion together. I send you to hell and you ask Charles Darwin about it. There that is how you make nonsense which is called.. Science and Religion.
PS- If you say there is a God. Then my form of God is a form of never ending energy. God is the energy that created the big bang. If we believe in God... Then Aliens believe in the same God meh? Wonder if they even have Gods. One day science will rule it all. Religion is starting to dissipitade within the Ipod Generation already.. How much longer can religion last againts time? Its just a question i wonder about myself.
Actually i would like to bring out some doubt regarding how Science would naturally lead to undeniable Truth.Already there has been numerous debates about whether global warming, resource depletion and overpopulation is upon us. Both sides are basically looking at the same piece of data, but derives different conclusions from it.
And how much people really bother to check whether the particular conclusion is based on firm Science? Do we not tend to believe more the conclusion that's blasted through the TV and newspaper? Do we not tend to believe the conclusion that's less horrifying and socially acceptable?
Faith, the belief where evidence is not required may be more common with religions but it is not restricted to them. Many self declared secular people and insitutions often arrive at Faith based conclusions as well and are unwilling to budge where concrete evidence has presented itself.
LKY has Faith that his way of governance can make Singapore strong, while individuals like Ah Chia, AndrewPKYap, Atobe have the Faith that his way screws Singapore's future right from the begining.
Neither is right or wrong until the crash really comes, no? The last paragraph is not intended to turn this discussion into something political but the fact is that Truth, is always subjective.
-
Originally posted by xalkyrie:
so you believe that we had achieved our present physical condition on the basis of evolution? a single-celled thingy started a few hundred million years ago worked its way finally to humanhood?
Hey let's talk about something smaller, an organ of a body and see if it could have logically taken that evolution route. If you were to take any part of the eye the retina for example, it does not work. the lens or the cornea? blindness. for the eye to see, all parts must be functional and or course present. that in in itself is a strong argument for design am i right?
i go into another direction, we take the concept back into the evolutionary chain. somewhere along the way, a creature making its way to humanity would have had to begin having an eye. the eye could not have evolved because there is nothing that would have caused a creature to begin forming a sightless eye. Since the evolutionary theory says changes come about because of adaptation, tell me what could have caused an eyeless thing to will a useless eye into its head? how would it ever know that it would need an eye that could see?
An eye could either see or it can't and there is no reason for a creature to develop a partial eye just so it could become a seeing eye later. So where did the eye begin? Randomly or by design?
Actually the core idea of evolution is that which random traits would favour the particular hunting environment and whether you are able to breed enough to absorb losses through diseases, famine or outright conflict.
You are assuming that evolution is pyramid shaped, meaning all beings will evolve towards the same pinnacle - that of the human paradigm.
Omnivores, for example are not reliant on whether there are herbivores to feed on and thus enjoy a higher and more flexible energy consumption. Also, the human trait of not having any mating period allows us to keep on multiplying, absorbing losses through natural disasters and lack of food.
I recently read this interesting article by a Chinese scholar.
Female apes - Our closest cousins did not develop breasts until they are pregnant. So why do human females do? The simple answer is that the first female human that developed breasts without pregnancy gave the false illusion that she is fertile (since she has the visible traits of having been pregnant) and thus attracted more males to mate with her. This created a snowball effect where her descendants would inherit the traits and be more attractive towards males, even if they were from different tribes.
I do not believe that evolution neccessarily works towards a singular grand design. The idea of a singular grand design is indicative of the human brain's limitations and does not fully demostrates the wonders of Evolution.
Evolution works on a "just enough" basis. It doesn't bother about being perfection. Our body is basically a vassal for the gene and its Primary Imperative is to multiply itself, it doesn't really know what traits is best for its current environment but that particular winning trait would manifest itself in a few generations.
That is why the winner for eating competitions aren't the 150 kilo behemoth, but sometimes the petite 50-65 kg woman.
I believe human evolution is coming to a crossroads. We are descendants of traits that value high consumption and increased breeding. That conflicts with physical limits of resources, are we going to obey our Prime Imperative of High Consumption until our numbers are decimated ?
Has the traits that made us progressed thus far going to be our Achilles Heel?
Are we smarter than Yeast (I would recommend to read about this experiment if you're free)?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Actually the idea of Heaven or Hell is quite subjective.To me, the whole idea of spending Eternity having my every needs and wants attended without effort is absolutely horrifying. And the idea of not having to think since i am in the Realm of the Ultimate Truth doesn't sound particularly enjoyable to me either.
Not to say that i would enjoy having every orifice on my body poked at, but i think you get what i mean.
Haha...
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Actually the core idea of evolution is that which random traits would favour the particular hunting environment and whether you are able to breed enough to absorb losses through diseases, famine or outright conflict.
You are assuming that evolution is pyramid shaped, meaning all beings will evolve towards the same pinnacle - that of the human paradigm.
Omnivores, for example are not reliant on whether there are herbivores to feed on and thus enjoy a higher and more flexible energy consumption. Also, the human trait of not having any mating period allows us to keep on multiplying, absorbing losses through natural disasters and lack of food.
I recently read this interesting article by a Chinese scholar.
Female apes - Our closest cousins did not develop breasts until they are pregnant. So why do human females do? The simple answer is that the first female human that developed breasts without pregnancy gave the false illusion that she is fertile (since she has the visible traits of having been pregnant) and thus attracted more males to mate with her. This created a snowball effect where her descendants would inherit the traits and be more attractive towards males, even if they were from different tribes.
I do not believe that evolution neccessarily works towards a singular grand design. The idea of a singular grand design is indicative of the human brain's limitations and does not fully demostrates the wonders of Evolution.
Evolution works on a "just enough" basis. It doesn't bother about being perfection. Our body is basically a vassal for the gene and its Primary Imperative is to multiply itself, it doesn't really know what traits is best for its current environment but that particular winning trait would manifest itself in a few generations.
That is why the winner for eating competitions aren't the 150 kilo behemoth, but sometimes the petite 50-65 kg woman.
I believe human evolution is coming to a crossroads. We are descendants of traits that value high consumption and increased breeding. That conflicts with physical limits of resources, are we going to obey our Prime Imperative of High Consumption until our numbers are decimated ?
Has the traits that made us progressed thus far going to be our Achilles Heel?
Are we smarter than Yeast (I would recommend to read about this experiment if you're free)?
Interesting to see an intelligent being talking in here...
I wonder what has happened to the original 'human beans' who are suppose to the cream of animals..?
?