News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

We die--then what??

Started by Mike Cl, August 31, 2015, 11:31:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

thebesttrees

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on September 01, 2015, 12:24:45 PM
It does look like the MO of the creationist who does not understand how natural selection works. He probably thinks it could not have been possible to make the first homo-sapiens baby without two homo-sapiens parents, and that it could only have proceeded from a single genetic fluke at a single geographic point, and that anyway it would be born a different species, unable to mate with anyone (CHECKMATE!!!) I actually believe in natural selection. And no we did not need two parents.

Fortunately, natural selection doesn't make such logical complications for itself - it began with silica particles in river bed clay (probably) which were able to bond with base chemicals for RNA, which began to self-replicate. They were the first life forms, no more complex than modern viruses, which probably had to consume each other because there were no large animals for them to prey on. The strong survived, the offspring of their subsequent generations evolved, and eventually there were life forms with DNA, which in turn made possible the complexity and diversity of life as we know it today. When apes which were closely related to modern chimpanzees and bonobos were driven out of their shrinking African forest habitat and forced to forage the steppes in search of food, while dodging predators, the pressure to make the best of any genetic changes which may help any one among them survive was on! Taller apes could see further, spot remote food sources, and avoid predators before they got too near. Better were tall apes who could stand longer on their hind legs. Those which could stand straight up and walk naturally that way were able to go greater distances than any ape, because this requires less energy than the use of four legs. The steppes had a dearth of trees, therefore arms made for climbing became less useful than arms that could throw objects at their prey and predators more effectively. Those who had the most of these traits scored highest in the mating game, and it's how natural selection follows the best suited individuals in any group as they head down whatever environmental path they are moving in. Thank you for the great examples.

So, how does this relate to a fetus developing in a womb? I don't think it does at all. It's not only how the "womb" metaphor smacks of creationist woo, when natural selection is no sort of a mother, it violently oversimplifies the process. You only need two sets of gens to create a life form in a womb, and you should not expect one womb in one lifetime to change it by much, if it is to survive at all. The apple really doesn't fall far from the tree unless it's an apple from the 1000th descendant of the tree. Also, nothing that happens under natural selection is properly referred to as the "development" of an end product, and we should not presume to be the final chapter in our branch on the scientific tree of life. I respectfully put to you that your first assumption that i am a creationist who does not believe in natural selection was wrong. Therefore your last paragraph which is based on a wrong assumption begs for an honorable retraction. And by the way, with all due respect, this thread is about death and what happens afterwards!!!

Please see my comments in red.

peacewithoutgod

#76
Quote from: thebesttrees on September 01, 2015, 05:40:32 PM
Please see my comments in red.
Why do I need to retract anything? You made an awful analogy on evolution, and I unpacked it for you. While I'm sorry you didn't enjoy that, you should be more careful with how you address an idea which has become a point of contention for millions, and a serious threat to the competency of a nation's education system.

Anyway, if you weren't setting up a clever anti-evolution argument, then WTF were you trying to say?
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Unbeliever

I think that when I die it won't just be (for me) as though I never existed - it'll be as though existence never existed at all: absolute oblivion. That saddens me not at all, it just makes me realize I might as well enjoy this brief time I have, and get on with it.
God Not Found
"There is a sucker born-again every minute." - C. Spellman

thebesttrees

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on September 01, 2015, 06:12:56 PM
Why do I need to retract anything? You made an awful analogy on evolution, and I unpacked it for you. While I'm sorry you didn't enjoy that, you should be more careful with how you address an idea which has become a point of contention for millions, and a serious threat to the competency of a nation's education system.

Anyway, if you weren't setting up a clever anti-evolution argument, then WTF were you trying to say?

i seek refuge here from the theists who clubber me on the head with nonsense only to encounter this.

Baruch

PS - Unbeliever ... I really like your Sam Pascoe quote!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: thebesttrees on September 01, 2015, 06:47:01 PM
i seek refuge here from the theists who clubber me on the head with nonsense only to encounter this.

Awwwe, don't run away cry'n, not while we're having so much fun with you!

Honestly, and in all sincerity, I believe the question on whatever it is you were trying to say is a valid one - and I'm all ears! Maybe you think I was nitpicking a bit, but I doubt you would if you understood evolution the way I do.
There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.

Baruch

"understood evolution the way I do" ... apparently you haven't evolved enough ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

peacewithoutgod

Quote from: Baruch on September 01, 2015, 09:53:24 PM
"understood evolution the way I do" ... apparently you haven't evolved enough ;-)
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
:anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal: :anal:
:axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe:

There are two types of ideas: fact and non-fact. Ideas which are not falsifiable are non-fact, therefore please don't insist your fantasies of supernatural beings are in any way factual.

Doctrine = not to be questioned = not to be proven = not fact. When you declare your doctrine fact, you lie.