Evolution vs. Creation

So Dyr, do you mean that ancient man had less complex systems than ours? I mean for example less complex brain and lung structure?

Is that mean also that we have systems (respiration, digestion, etc) which already evolve?

Well, we're always evolving minimally. If your family are great swimmers more than two generations back, then usually the ability to hold your breath, or even move your muscles in a manner less physically exerting sometimes is created through adaptation.

I'm saying that we had the same general systems though. Our brains were about as complex, they just weren't able to be used as thoroughly since our understanding of the world was lessened. For the most part, you could say they were as creative as we are since all mankind has that natural portion of our minds, but the difference of biological structures was more than likely just more reliance on physical adaptation over time rather than mental. Anything huge though, like loss of hair or walking on two legs, obviously takes a lot more time.

Like how some folks say their good at math because their parents were, but back in the day one might've been good with a bow, rather than a spear because of where one grew up or how one's family hunted. Hard to say, really, but int terms of skeletal structures, we're pretty sure that a primitive mind was just as capable of all we're capable of today. Even the neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens (which were chro-magnums (sp)) at the time) until we wiped them out.

Hopefully that answers somewhat of your question.

You see, there is no ultimate proof for or against God. There are minor proofs, but for the most part, athiests ignore them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Wow. You sound a bit brainwashed. Actually, a lot of people do think of the home as a brainwashing facility and see it as the task of becoming an adult to liberate themselves from the received ideas passed on to them by their parents. One of which might be religious belief.


Sorry, but this is just nonsense. Every action has a consequence - although the idea of heaven is a fantasy of a place where there aren't any and the idea of being forgiven all your sins and going there is a fantasy of the consequences here on earth ultimately not mattering.





Yes. This is why these arguments are so pointless - because the religionists deny the basic terms of argumentation from the outset, stating that through their faith, their going to continue to believe no matter what arguments the rest of us offer. Their faith apparently doesn't extend to faith in the idea of logical argument. And yet they continue to argue.
You immediately jump from stating that proof doesn't matter to giving proof. This obstinate clinging to something that doesn't make sense is making you incoherent, or preserving your incoherence.

---

There are countless creation myths the world over - but of course the old testament is the only true story. Of course. God just made all the other ones up to...er...to test us! That's it - to test our faith. That and the dinosaur bones. HELLO!

Scheherazade - "...won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times" Chomsky reckons that's one of the problems with American society - the 'for or against mentality' - that gave rise to 'Americanism/UnAmerican activity' and so on.

If we just say 'Yes' or 'No', we often learn nothing. Catma not Dogma! 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - the only way to the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandini

Scheherazade - Won't answer a simple 'yes/no' question at times Chomsky reckons that's one of the problems with American society - the 'for or against mentality' - that gave rise to 'Americanism/UnAmerican activity' and so on. If we just say 'Yes' or 'No', we often learn nothing. Catma not Dogma! 'Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis - the only way to the truth.

---

Hmm?
.
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by incka

The amount of creationism believers this poll shows scares me, especially seen as though this is a community of intellectuals...

---

Are you saying that people who believe in creation are stupid? Just curious...

Its just that what you said came across as condescending...

But why women today still having such a hard time and lots of pain when delivering a baby, same as the ancient days...??? Why isn't changed or evolve?
I'm still wondering though...somehow I can't get the idea..Isn't the evolution proceess involves everything...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dyrwen

Well, we're always evolving minimally. If your family are great swimmers more than two generations back, then usually the ability to hold your breath, or even move your muscles in a manner less physically exerting sometimes is created through adaptation.

I'm saying that we had the same general systems though. Our brains were about as complex, they just weren't able to be used as thoroughly since our understanding of the world was lessened. For the most part, you could say they were as creative as we are since all mankind has that natural portion of our minds, but the difference of biological structures was more than likely just more reliance on physical adaptation over time rather than mental. Anything huge though, like loss of hair or walking on two legs, obviously takes a lot more time.

Like how some folks say their good at math because their parents were, but back in the day one might've been good with a bow, rather than a spear because of where one grew up or how one's family hunted. Hard to say, really, but int terms of skeletal structures, we're pretty sure that a primitive mind was just as capable of all we're capable of today. Even the neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens (which were chro-magnums (sp)) at the time) until we wiped them out.

Hopefully that answers somewhat of your question.

---

Molko...
Do you see that advertisement in his/her sig? I'm assuming s/he implicitly tried to say " join my forum peeps...you"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Molko

Are you saying that people who believe in creation are stupid? Just curious...

Its just that what you said came across as condescending...

---

Incka - yea it was satirical. Molko - yes it was condescending. Subterranean - perhaps there is an evolutionary advantage conferred by painful childbirth; it is painful and 'dangerous' so perhaps that is selection. Also, the evolutionary advantages conferred by having a large cranium (and brain) probably override any advantages of pain free child birth. That said, I wouldn't want to go through it myself!

Schez - it was a bit of an unclear post - had a couple of glasses of wine. What I meant to say was, we get much more from making everything a dichotomy. That said, I do think Creationism is utter nonsense. Ahhhh! meant 'not making everything a dichotomy' - wine again I'm afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by subterranean

But why women today still having such a hard time and lots of pain when delivering a baby, same as the ancient days...??? Why isn't changed or evolve?
I'm still wondering though...somehow I can't get the idea..Isn't the evolution proceess involves everything...

---

How is a reduction of pain supposed to help in evolution? It's a small hole that pushes out a large object. It has to remain small for a few reasons: 1. So that intercourse can occur with a marginally smaller object that fits, 2. So that if a child is born within, the thing won't just fall out, or possibly, 3. Because without pain in that "region" as childbirth occurs, you'd have less nerve endings down there and sex would therefore be about as exciting as inserting tab A into slot B.

So you would have an option in terms of evolution, if it were at all a choice: Feel pleasure while having sex, anytime, or feel no pain while having a child, maybe once or twice in life. To get right down to it, the whole pain factor, outside of the obvious, might just be that so long as its mildly painful it'll remain an activity that doesn't happen all the time (forcing the population to rise) or perhaps it just creates that great ordeal of pain that the "miracle" of life deserves to have on its platter because of the amount of sheer complexity involved in the activity.

Bandini said, "That said, I do think Creationism is utter nonsense." You should realise that Creationism and Religion are two very different things.

Creationism is not an accepted religious doctrine, it only started out around the time of Darwin's "Origin of the Species" to contradict it. The Church has no problem with evolution...the late Pope said that there was nothing in evolution that went against the idea of God. Creationism is a cult of false "scientists" who twist ideas into a new faith of their own. Creationism is often warring with orthodox Christianity.