Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

by **Tekania** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:07 pm

Neutraligon wrote:Anyone want to see a crockoduck?

Don't need to, I see one all the time, I subscribe to King Crocoduck's channel.

by **Tekania** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:10 pm

The Foxes Swamp wrote:how does evolution explain alive?

How does evolution explain alive?

How do you explain delightful?

by **Conscentia** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:12 pm

New DeCapito wrote:Influenza, amphibious fish, and the homo species, ranging from homo habilis to homo sapiens.
My proof of evolution.

"Homo" isn't a species - it's a genus.

by **Norstal** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:08 pm

The Foxes Swamp wrote:how does evolution explain alive?

how is babby formed?

by **Infected Mushroom** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:19 pm

Sun Wukong wrote:
Infected Mushroom wrote:
well one possibility is that a highly intelligent life form caused it to happen, and then for reasons of his own, erased all traces of that having happened in the past

so to analogise; we're looking at a white board and we see that it is blank. Unbeknownst to us, its been erased many many times. We just can't detect those things with science (here assume, science is our eyes). A highly intelligent life form knows how to completely erase.

See what I'm getting at?

Except for that's entirely opposite of the degeneration you proposed earlier. You know, the thing I'm arguing against.

Try to at least keep track of your own bullshit.

what do you mean?

by **Imyoji** » Thu Feb 19, 2015 5:51 pm

Scientific literacy fucking important, blah blah blahhh.

In elaboration, theology stays in theology. Science stays in science. A theory in science is not the same as a theory in layman terms. Terminology is fucking important. Willful ignorance to evidence is not an option. If something doesn't have evidence, is is neither true or false, but if it is clear that evidence shows a side is blatantly false, then it is what it is.

by **Kainesia** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:02 am

Norstal wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:how does evolution explain alive?

how is babby formed?

wen mumee an dadee luv eech otha vry much...

by **Kainesia** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:13 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Kainesia wrote:
Nope.

Evolution says that a species of organism will change to adapt to its environment or social requirements through the natural selection of genes and behaviours over the generations.

Random chance is the opposite of evolution.

but the environment seems to be the result of random chance (ex Big Bang), and so the adaptations flow from the random combination...

The climate of various areas of earth have nothing to do with the big bang. And if your point is environments come about by random chance, then correct, but evolution is about specifically adapting to those changing environments, and has nothing to do with random chance.

If a small mammal lives in a forest with tall, sparse trees, and has to get between them, the environment may be there by chance, but this little guy isn't.

by **The Foxes Swamp** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 3:32 am

can evolution explain love?

by **European Socialist Republic** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:14 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Is that even relevant?

by **Benierra** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:47 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Love has nothing to do with how species change over time to better suit their enviroment.
however a study by Westminster University found that when people are hungry they find larger people more attractive. putting this in an evolutionary perspective there are clear reasons why, if you are struggling to find food, being close to people with lots of food would be advantageous.

by **Alyakia** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:51 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

well, yeah

by **Benierra** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:55 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:how does evolution explain alive?

because dead animals are really bad at reproducing :lol2:

by **The Foxes Swamp** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:14 am

European Socialist Republic wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Is that even relevant?

love is always relevant

by **Neutraligon** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:22 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:
European Socialist Republic wrote:Is that even relevant?

love is always relevant

To answer your question, yes it can. And no,love is not always relevant.

by **Tekania** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:12 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Yes, love is a characteristic emotion produced by our brains it is one of the many component drives in our psyche which is a component of our species as a social creature whereby our species as found and evolutionary advantage by conglomerating in social groups. Love is one of the many neuro-chemical processes which help to bind us into cohesive social groups.

by **Sociobiology** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:41 am

Sun Wukong wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:
Yep
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatosuchus

I suppose Spinosaurus also sort of counts. It is, of course, more closely related to birds then to crocodiles, but it sort of resembles a crocodile, and probably behaved quite a bit like a duck.

icthyornis is a a duck like bird with razor sharp teeth.

or you could just think of a velociraptor.

by **Sociobiology** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:43 am

Tekania wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Yes, love is a characteristic emotion produced by our brains it is one of the many component drives in our psyche which is a component of our species as a social creature whereby our species as found and evolutionary advantage by conglomerating in social groups. Love is one of the many neuro-chemical processes which help to bind us into cohesive social groups.

Its far more important in long term pair bonding needed to raise our helpless needy offspring.

for instance many bird love their mates and mourn their deaths.

by **United North Atlantic States** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 11:33 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

by **Alaizia** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:12 pm

United North Atlantic States wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Put that thing in spoilers, "smartass".

by **Technocratic Federation of Synertia** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 7:01 pm

United North Atlantic States wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Since when are those two mutually exclusive?

by **Sun Wukong** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 8:53 pm

The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Yes.

But it may hurt you.

Baby.

by **Stagnant Axon Terminal** » Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:00 pm

Sun Wukong wrote:
The Foxes Swamp wrote:can evolution explain love?

Yes.

But it may hurt you.

Baby.

Don't.
No more.

by **The Foxes Swamp** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:14 am

my idea on love is best described by Richard Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller who says Love is metaphysical gravity.

by **Kainesia** » Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:47 am

The Foxes Swamp wrote:my idea on love is best described by Richard Buckminster "Bucky" Fuller who says Love is metaphysical gravity.

And this relates to evolution how?

Evolution (and abiongenesis, Cosmology, etc) vs ID, again

Who is online