Author Topic: The Real Eve (Read 4104 times)

wsnpr · « **Reply #210 on:** August 28, 2002, 04:51:28 AM »

It is funny how most of us JUST HAVE TO convert one over to their side of thinking. In the end it really doesn't matter

.
I am an atheist by choice for that is what I believe in. I believe in evolution (there are so many examples). I truly believe that after I die that will be it, no afterlife, no continuous travels of 'my soul/spirit', etc.
Do I really know? Nope, just what I believe. Do not confuse my being atheist as being agnostic. I truly believe there to be no God and/or devine intervention.
That is the same reason that I cannot tell anyone else what they believe in anymore than anyone else telling me what I believe the truth to be.
My wife is Catholic. I do not try to convince her that she is wrong to believe in her God. I do not try to convince her to not pray. I do not try to convince her to not to go to her church.
By the same token she does not try to 'convert me over', she does not try to have me go to her church.
We truly love each other.
It is irrelevant to what one believes in, rather it is relevant to how one treats another.
You all have a good day

BTW, namecalling is stupid (think about it)

wsnpr · « **Reply #211 on:** August 28, 2002, 05:15:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
I started this thread to promote peace, brotherly love, and harmony between the races. Such a nice little thread.

WOW!

What happened?

I would like to add one thought here. One of you has said we will learn the truth when our feeble minds shut down. That isn't exactly true.

If atheists are right about the existence of God, when they die they will never know the truth, for they will be aware of nothing.

If deists are right about the existence of God, they will have the satisfaction of knowing the truth.

Would that about sum it up?

Regards, Shuckins

As an atheist let me give you my take:

If atheists are right about the non-existence of God and afterlife,
when we all (atheists and everyone else) die it will not matter as we will not have the capacity to be aware.

That will sum it up for me

BTW nice thread you've started.
Regards,
wSNPR

Vulcan · « **Reply #212 on:** August 28, 2002, 05:33:03 AM »

Hortland the whole flaw in your argument is your interpretation of the odds and what it means.

We, here in NZ, have Lotto. The probability that I, or anyone elses chance of winning it is something like 40 Million : 1. Yet every week there is usually more than 1 winner.

The funny thing about most Christians, or deity believers, is that the faith is usually wrapped around their complete and utter fear of... no not dying

.... but fear of NOT EXISTING. The human mind struggles to comprehend infinity, and equally struggles to comprehend oblivion. From what I've found, 9/10 religious followers are, for the lack of a better term, feeble minded, and religion is more of a following than anything else.

Whereas the remaining 10% are very smart, well educated people, but the one thing they always seem to struggle to grasp is oblivion. IE, 10% of my religious discussions end in the 'oblivion' cul'de'sac.

Initially I struggled to explain the WHY of oblivion, or in simpler terms death. And was often asked to explain the use of oblivion in evolutionary terms.

The Christian concerned would sorta say "if evolution is so great, and when we die there is nothing, what gives?". The answer is simple, to evolve more. If we did not die, if we lived forever, our species would not evolve, it would stagnate, and eventually flaws would catch up with us and wipe us out. Something as simple as a virus strain resistance can mean 1 evolutionary step.

Death, is an evolutionary feature in itself. Without death, the species cannot evolve. Without evolution, the species will cease to perpetuate.

When you comprehend that your death does serve an evolutionary function, then you've taken a step forward.

senna · « **Reply #213 on:** August 28, 2002, 06:37:37 AM »

You people are gona end up going to HELL if your not carefull.

SATAN!

Apache · « **Reply #214 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:11:48 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Hortland the whole flaw in your argument is your interpretation of the odds and what it means.

We, here in NZ, have Lotto. The probability that I, or anyone elses chance of winning it is something like 40 Million : 1. Yet every week there is usually more than 1 winner.

The funny thing about most Christians, or deity believers, is that the faith is usually wrapped around their complete and utter fear of... no not dying .... but fear of NOT EXISTING. The human mind struggles to comprehend infinity, and equally struggles to comprehend oblivion. From what I've found, 9/10 religious followers are, for the lack of a better term, feeble minded, and religion is more of a following than anything else.

Whereas the remaining 10% are very smart, well educated people, but the one thing they always seem to struggle to grasp is oblivion. IE, 10% of my religious discussions end in the 'oblivion' cul'de'sac.

Initially I struggled to explain the WHY of oblivion, or in simpler terms death. And was often asked to explain the use of oblivion in evolutionary terms.

The Christian concerned would sorta say "if evolution is so great, and when we die there is nothing, what gives?". The answer is simple, to evolve more. If we did not die, if we lived forever, our species would not evolve, it would stagnate, and eventually flaws would catch up with us and wipe us out. Something as simple as a virus strain resistance can mean 1 evolutionary step.

Death, is an evolutionary feature in itself. Without death, the species cannot evolve. Without evolution, the species will cease to perpetuate.

When you comprehend that your death does serve an evolutionary function, then you've taken a step forward.

If we did not die, were immortal as I believe you are saying, how could these supposed eventual flaws wipe us out?

Apache · « **Reply #215 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:25:35 AM »

BTW, I have yet to see any of you evolutionists explain how evolution gets around the second law.

Fyre · « **Reply #216 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:30:21 AM »

if we lived forever then the same people would forever continue to mate. with the same genes floating around forever virus strains would eventually become immune to our bodies natural defenses, and the human race would be wiped out. think of it this way, if Adam and Eve were still alive, how would their bodies cope with some of today's viruses? since viruses have evolved since then, so have our bodies natural defenses. if we didn't die, the viruses would evolve, but we would not, leaving us totally defenseless against even the most basic of diseases, like the common cold.

Apache · « **Reply #217 on:** August 28, 2002, 07:35:46 AM »

That makes no sense at all. Immortal is immortal isn't it?

midnight Target · « **Reply #218 on:** August 28, 2002, 08:09:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apache
BTW, I have yet to see any of you evolutionists explain how evolution gets around the second law.

Here you go.

There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis

from http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

Apache · « **Reply #219 on:** August 28, 2002, 08:30:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

Here you go.

There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.

To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes.

Also, to repeat a caution: The foregoing only describes energetic relationships involving the second law. It does not mean that most complex substances can be readily synthesized just by mixing elements and treating them in some way. The second law has nothing to do with pathways or procedures of synthesis

from http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html

Quote

Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory.

To overcome the 2nd law of nature, there must be an input of information and energy.

H. Godwineson · « **Reply #220 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:42:44 AM »

Do you guys really understand all this data you're posting, or are you just bs'ing everybody?

Regards, Shuckins

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #221 on:** August 28, 2002, 09:56:23 AM »

Shuckins- Hortlund is the one throwing data around... well atleast he's the one that started it.

Of course, in the end... everyone is BSing everyone. There is no absolute, only what you have come to believe.

I'm not saying there isn't a God... I am saying, I don't believe there is one, and I am only supporting my argument.

Whether you choose the Bible, the Koran(sp?), or a culmination of scientific studies, it's all BS because we have a very limited understanding of reality as we know it.

Simply put, I see religion as a means to explain the as of yet unexplained. Not the unexplainable, because what we know isn't much. There's a whole lot more we can study and come to know, and it ain't gonna happen in any of our life times.
-SW

miko2d · « **Reply #222 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:15:18 AM »

Second Law:
Second law is not broken by life processes - the enthropy of the whole system still increases.
That is beside the point. The evolution is an informational process in it's essence - not just physical/chemical. Human's genome is smaller than that of many plants. Less energy may be required to sequence it. It is still more evolved.
A 500 page book with random gibberish takes as much energy to print as normal book of the same size. 2nd law does not apply here directly.
Less energy is required to procreate complex mouse than a huge promitive jelly fish. What evolved is pattern - sequence of bases on a DNA string, not a physical entity.

Immortality:
Evolution does not work on the level of species or even indiciduals - it works on the level of genes. Longevity of a vehicle is not as beneficial to the success of gene's differential propagation as early and active procreation.
Genes that rely on a vehicle living long to procreate are usually at disadvantage compared to genes that do not require longevity.
Longevity is a huge uphill battle against physical processes as the damage to vehicle tends to accumulate with time. Chance of genetic damage to a baby increases exponentially with women's age. Apparently it was much simpler genetically "not to bother with longevity".

Of course a case can be made that sentient species are capable of accumulating experience/wealth with age and increase survival/procreation chances even after reaching maturity despite physical deterioration.
Such development increases lifespan and chance of having cildren at a later age - and makes it harder to have them in early age while still poor and inexperienced. Such accumulated experience can be affecting survivability of childern born at earlier age - if the elders affect the survival of their yet inexperienced grown children and grandchildren.

That makes good case that humans can evolve towards greater longevity. It has not been that long since humans evolved enough to easily communicate experience (language, etc) - about 100,000-200,000 years.
Still, there is data that shows ethnicities that lived longer in civilised conditions (where experience and wealth accumulation is more important for advancement than brute physique) live longer in the same conditions than other.
(Of course an end was put to it in many places by welfare state that subcidises early and frequent procreation of least capable while taking resources from most capable and making their life miserable and expencive by spread of "underclass".)

Example:Compared to otehr races, blacks are much more likely to fall to whole slew of old-age ilnesses that never had a chance to surface (and be selected against) in brute short jungle life from which they energed centuries or millenia later than caucasians/asians.
Of course they did not have time to get adapted to civilized killers like alcohol, abundance of fat and salt too.
Hard to say which contributes more to to blacks' shorter lifespan - old-age ilnesses or being unadapted to "comforts".
In many cases those agravate each other - hypertention is affected by salt intake. Diabetes is affected by diet. Allergies and asthma are affected by absense of animals in the urban house resulting in deficient/untrained immune system.

To all those white races lost a lot of population with time. A whole lot of our grand-grand-... aunts and uncles died childless so that we could inherit more adapted genes of their brothers/sisters - our forefathers.

miko

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #223 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:27:09 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Allergies and asthma are affected by absense of animals in the urban house resulting in deficient/untrained immune system.

Hey! You were watching the news last night too, huh?

Seriously though, I can't believe that was ever in question (about immune systems)... muscles will atrophy if you don't use 'em.

If you don't put the immune system through it's trials and tribulations early on, that would lend itself to being under developed.

Then when you look at it from the evolution point of view, if several generations go on where people do not use their immune systems (animals bring in outside naturally occuring irritants that would otherwise not be present inside a closed home), then who's to say eventually the offspring of two parents who did not develop their immune system will result in a child possibly without an immune system or with a very weak one....

Oh wait, this is already happening. Children are born(fairly rare, but that's how evolution works..) without an immune system or with a very weak one. Some die, others have to live in bubbles.

Many birth "defects" come not only from two parents who were unhealthy, but also from very healthy parents. So healthy in fact, that the construction plans for their offspring altered such that the underused/unused body operations weren't fully developed, or developed at all in some extreme cases.
-SW

midnight Target · « **Reply #224 on:** August 28, 2002, 10:27:18 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Apache

To overcome the 2nd law of nature, there must be an input of information and energy.

As to understanding, I majored in Biological Science at Cal Poly SLO. I have forgotten most of it, but still know where to look for the answers. I also taught elementary level science for 5 years after graduation.

Apache - If you really want to know, read the article I posted. Makes no sense to pick one sentence out of context and claim it as valuable information. If you had posted the whole paragraph it would refute the very point you were trying to make.

Quote

Most complex molecules may require the expertise of one or of many chemists to put them together in a laboratory. However, so far as the second law of thermodynamics is concerned, not only water but cholesterol, DNA, the anti-depressant in St. John’s Wort and millions of other complex substances contain less energy than their constituent elements. Therefore, thermodynamically, their formation from those elements would be a spontaneous process, energetically favored by the second law.