RE: Evolution, religion, and ignorance.
May 13, 2014 at 11:00 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2014 at 11:15 pm by RDK.)
I have been directed to multitudes of things to read on this site, and I have investigated them all. The difficulty with any teaching (religion included) is that whoever you listen to on a subject only give you the positives of the argument. When you went to church, did anyone EVER give you a list of contradictions or difficulties about the book they were trying to share with you? Of course not. It's human nature to (give you all the good stuff to make you believe) for approval and credit to the teachers intelligence. I've studied the pro's and con's of all kinds of subjects. I can't know all of the answers, but I can sure point out the goofy ones. It takes time to learn something, and you feel proud when you make knowledge connections. I try to share what I find in the Bible to fellow Christians, but they yell and howl every time I don't agree with them. I've seen so many problems with scriptures that I wonder how I can even keep my faith. A book is not my God and literature of any kind that doesn't hold water needs to be reviewed.
If a partnership of two future mates, or many mates, the difficulty lies here. The notion that something good can happen later doesn't work as an argument in favor of future pair bonding. If the different parts have yet to be tested, there is no way that evolution can modify it. All of the connections have to be right, at the same time, in order for the future use of the parts to be handed down. You have to cross the line that at one particular moment a man coupled with a woman with-who knows what- consequences. Adaptation of an alternate to suit some future use can not happen. There are trillions of ways to make mistakes here which can not be adjusted with time or circumstance.
(May 13, 2014 at 10:50 pm)Beccs Wrote:(May 13, 2014 at 10:45 pm)RDK Wrote: You have to make unwarranted leaps of (logic?) to make sense out of scenarios which can make no sense.
Imagine if the female mentioned before did not have one of the needed parts to create a child. You know that nothing would happen. What would a sole holder of genetic information do when his byproduct had to match that of the female who would be needed to provide the other half of the genetic traits he was giving half of? The biggest impossibility would be that he had any desire to do something about this problem. His drive to be with a woman had not even been developed yet.
Multiply this by every animal that exists and you see that growth of species could never have gone this way. Any other ideas?
There was NO time that there were only male or females of a species.
Genders evolved alongside one another.
Good Grud, how is that complicated?
If a partnership of two future mates, or many mates, the difficulty lies here. The notion that something good can happen later doesn't work as an argument in favor of future pair bonding. If the different parts have yet to be tested, there is no way that evolution can modify it. All of the connections have to be right, at the same time, in order for the future use of the parts to be handed down. You have to cross the line that at one particular moment a man coupled with a woman with-who knows what- consequences. Adaptation of an alternate to suit some future use can not happen. There are trillions of ways to make mistakes here which can not be adjusted with time or circumstance.
