Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your side is doing a fabulous job at making the world a worse place. I feel sorry for the future generations.
Yes, go ahead and blame the non religious. Ask all those who now have equal rights if the world is worse. Fact is, there are many more problems caused BY religion than non religion. Look at the Middle East and the Catholic Church...
As if some Atheist don't push and promote their ideology on others?
I know very few atheists who actually invest time into getting people to not believe in God, which is the only aspect of atheism. Things like evolution, equal rights for homosexuals, and secular government are often promoted, but they are not atheist exclusive beliefs. Most of the Christians I know support all of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Seems like evolution adapts every other species towards their environment, but it just one day decided, hey let's make humans were they can survive anywhere on a variety of food. Sure seems like evolution has a mind behind it.
There are a number of species that are omnivores. And humans aren't adapted to live everywhere. We are however adapted in our intellect and are capable of creating tools to aid in our survival. A human cannot survive in the arctic. A human with technology possibly could. I assure you, the only intellect that allows us to survive in unthinkable places is our own.
I know very few atheists who actually invest time into getting people to not believe in God, which is the only aspect of atheism. Things like evolution, equal rights for homosexuals, and secular government are often promoted, but they are not atheist exclusive beliefs. Most of the Christians I know support all of those things.
There are a number of species that are omnivores. And humans aren't adapted to live everywhere. We are however adapted in our intellect and are capable of creating tools to aid in our survival. A human cannot survive in the arctic. A human with technology possibly could. I assure you, the only intellect that allows us to survive in unthinkable places is our own.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
There are a number of species that are omnivores. And humans aren't adapted to live everywhere. We are however adapted in our intellect and are capable of creating tools to aid in our survival. A human cannot survive in the arctic. A human with technology possibly could. I assure you, the only intellect that allows us to survive in unthinkable places is our own.
I'll make sure I let some of my Inuit friends know that their fathers could not have survived in the Arctic without technology. Or their grandfather before that. Or their great great grandfather. For generations going back thousands of years.
I'll make sure I let some of my Inuit friends know that their fathers could not have survived in the Arctic without technology. Or their grandfather before that. Or their great great grandfather. For generations going back thousands of years.
Regular visits from doctors, and access to modern medical care raised the birth rate and decreased the death rate, causing an enormous natural increase. In the 1950s, the Canadian government began to actively settle Inuit into permanent villages and cities, occasionally against their will (such as in Nuntak and Hebron). These forced resettlements were acknowledged by the Canadian government in 2005.By the mid-1960s, encouraged first by missionaries, then by the prospect of paid jobs and government services, and finally forced by hunger and required by police, most Canadian Inuit lived year-round in permanent settlements. The nomadic migrations that were the central feature of Arctic life had become a much smaller part of life in the North. The Inuit, a once self-sufficient people in an extremely harsh environment were, in the span of perhaps two generations, transformed into a small, impoverished minority, lacking skills or resources to sell to the larger economy, but increasingly dependent on it for survival.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Regular visits from doctors, and access to modern medical care raised the birth rate and decreased the death rate, causing an enormous natural increase. In the 1950s, the Canadian government began to actively settle Inuit into permanent villages and cities, occasionally against their will (such as in Nuntak and Hebron). These forced resettlements were acknowledged by the Canadian government in 2005.By the mid-1960s, encouraged first by missionaries, then by the prospect of paid jobs and government services, and finally forced by hunger and required by police, most Canadian Inuit lived year-round in permanent settlements. The nomadic migrations that were the central feature of Arctic life had become a much smaller part of life in the North. The Inuit, a once self-sufficient people in an extremely harsh environment were, in the span of perhaps two generations, transformed into a small, impoverished minority, lacking skills or resources to sell to the larger economy, but increasingly dependent on it for survival.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument for a second. Why would evolution take away superior traits and give us something unique, the human brain in replacement. Why not a superior brain while keeping the superior traits?
To take something away (or give something) you need an intentional agent, which natural selection is not. It is an effect not an effector.
The way it works is to favor information (genes in this case) that favors reproductive survival (not strength, enjoyment, security, hegemony, or other human concerns other than perhaps in a very general and incidental way). No claim has ever been made by evolutionists that all naturally selected features are stronger / superior, only that they result in the reproduction of more entities with the selected traits. These traits are favorable or neutral only in that limited way. Some naturally selected traits are actually problematic in certain scenarios. For example the selected trait of sickle cell anemia protects against malaria even while causing other problems; however, in malarial climates, people with that trait live long enough to reproduce which is all natural selection "cares" about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Then evolution should have given human like brains to other species line. Why only pick the primate line?
No "picking" or "should have" is involved. It is not an intentional agent. It is an emergent property of biological life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Your statement that God is an awful designer only points to skeptic's arrogance.
No more than your statement that natural selection is an awful selector only points to the arrogance of true believers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
You can't claim the bad design argument unless you believe that science understands every single thing about the human body.
Nor can you claim the bad selection argument unless you understand the basic principles involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
[Science] doesn't understand consciouness. It doesn't understand the placebo effect. Why are some people left handed? It can't even figure out exactly why I have tinnitus. It's quite possible that there is a practical reason for the design of testicles that science hasn't figured out yet.
We are in agreement here. Where we disagree is how we respond to what is not fully understood at present. I await the day when we know more; you fill gaps in knowledge with unsubstantiated assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
From a survival aspect compared to our evolutionary ancestors, human beings are pathetic. We are weaker and more susceptible to disease. From a designer perspective, we are uniquely different from animals, designed for reasoning, to create, and to love and experience physical intimacy.
If we are weaker and more susceptible to disease and are pathetic AND we are designed, then it is on the designer. If we are weaker and more susceptible to disease and pathetic and are NOT designed then it is just the way things are.
Of course as you point out, at the same time we are pathetic relative to other animals in some ways we are obviously better off with our particular mix of characteristics. We are currently the apex species on this planet because of mix of strengths and weaknesses has allowed us that position (so far).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
