Evolution Vs Creation
Discussion
ChrisGB said:
Something posited as an ultimate explanation that is itself unintelligible or without explanation.
But why do you assume the prime mover has to be a "brute fact"Why does the prime mover have to be unintelligible or without explanation. There is no reason to make this assumption.
Again - it's almost like you are arbitrarily assigning attributes to the prime mover that meet the definition of god (i.e. that god is unknowable, unexplainable etc).
Edited by Moonhawk on Monday 14th April 17:01
ChrisGB said:
@KaraK
Thank you for the long reply and for the effort to contain the dislike you feel for my view.
1. Natural law theory would be for women's vote.
2. The certain other conditions are arbitrary though. If it is all about making and raising children well, as traditionally in the typical case, then changing marriage to say that it is fundamentally nothing to do with children, because look, these two ca get married and there is no way at all they could conceive, then we have redefined marriage so totally that it's arbitrary to say we are now calling it any 2 people with certain restrictions. Why these restrictions? Why 2 people? Etc. before there was a logic: kids will probably arrive, if you make them, you'd better look after them. Now there is no logic.
3. The gay lobby made same sex marriage an issue; if the polyamorous lobby for the estimated 500,000 in such unions in the US alone was a vocal lobby, things would have changed differently. If loudness of lobby brings about change, this is again arbitrary change.
The gay lobby could not have had the influence it had if marriage had not already been emptied of much of its meaning already, with no fault divorce, backing by C of E of contraception in 1930, legalised abortion, large numbers of children born out of marriage. So it's the decadence of "heterosexuals" as much as the gay lobby that brought the change about though.
4. There's nothing sad about linking the pleasure to the responsibility.
5. if sex is primarily for procreation then lots of people determined not to procreate having sex are doing something that isn't as it should be. Without agreeing with me you can I hope see the inevitability of the conclusion.
6. If we were asexual and reproduced asexually, there would be friendship, but not erotic love driving is to have sex. Why is this a straw man?
7. The disaster is that as countries get wealthy the birth rate falls and people accumulate things rather than children. People need all the encouragement that can get to have kids. Telling them that there is no intrinsic link between sex and babies or now marriage and babies is only going in the wrong direction in terms of encouragement. If conception is a whim, what future for any society?
You change the subject, on death:
The guy wished me dead. You say I say he threatened death, then build rather a lot on this misreading - every 5 minutes?? - I understand you are struggling to talk about this dispassionately and thank you for the effort, really.
8. People should be respected when they say till death us do part. But impossible situations should be fled. I guess we need two sorts of marriage: one absolutely indissoluble, the other easy to get out of.
Wait, we have that! It's just we confuse things by using the same word for both.
9. Protect the weak. Someone confused isn't going to be less confused by being told whatever they are attracted to, it's ok. To say a perhaps temporary attraction is part of a permanent whole lifestyle-encompassing thing is to place an enormous burden on someone out of misguided 19th century ideology.
A boy coming out to his parents - they will not help by saying its all ok, nor by reacting badly and creating guilt. But they will know his inevitable sadness of never having a child with the person he loves, even if the boy has no idea of the enormity of that yet. There is no happy outcome to a coming out from that point of view.
10. No single marriage needs to have kids - there may be problems, pensioners can marry - but the typical case is marriage leads to kids. Gay marriage says there is no link whatsoever in principle between marriage and kids, and this is just not true.
But yes, people not married and therefore not in a position to make AND look after a child shouldn't have sex - this was pretty standard view until about 50 years ago. The breakdown of family life and the number of lonely people suggest this shift hasn't been a success.
11. Sorry, I don't know what this is about?
12. Of course there is great emotional bonding from sex, and the point of this is providing a secure environment for any kids. Orherwise there are approximations of this. But the chemicals that create the subconscious bond do so to help mating, the female orgasm moves semen to aid conception, etc. it's all subordinated in nature to procreation.
13. Again you misread and make it more dramatic.
Wish dead, no maybe, but not same as threaten to kill.
14. Natural law theory. A thing is fulfilled when it attains the goals its natural faculties exist for. In terms of sex, doing this with a firm intention not to reproduce, by the nature of the act, is depriving this faculty of its natural goal. This holds for contraception, oral sex, anal sex, etc. So there is something not right here. As I said elsewhere, I take this as a guide to well-being, not a way to judge. Not illness, of course, but a sort of missing element in one's view of the world.
OK here we go.. might be a touch abrasive today but you'll have to bear with me as I'm not feeling well and it's all I can do not to vomit at the minute so please don't take any of this personally..Thank you for the long reply and for the effort to contain the dislike you feel for my view.
1. Natural law theory would be for women's vote.
2. The certain other conditions are arbitrary though. If it is all about making and raising children well, as traditionally in the typical case, then changing marriage to say that it is fundamentally nothing to do with children, because look, these two ca get married and there is no way at all they could conceive, then we have redefined marriage so totally that it's arbitrary to say we are now calling it any 2 people with certain restrictions. Why these restrictions? Why 2 people? Etc. before there was a logic: kids will probably arrive, if you make them, you'd better look after them. Now there is no logic.
3. The gay lobby made same sex marriage an issue; if the polyamorous lobby for the estimated 500,000 in such unions in the US alone was a vocal lobby, things would have changed differently. If loudness of lobby brings about change, this is again arbitrary change.
The gay lobby could not have had the influence it had if marriage had not already been emptied of much of its meaning already, with no fault divorce, backing by C of E of contraception in 1930, legalised abortion, large numbers of children born out of marriage. So it's the decadence of "heterosexuals" as much as the gay lobby that brought the change about though.
4. There's nothing sad about linking the pleasure to the responsibility.
5. if sex is primarily for procreation then lots of people determined not to procreate having sex are doing something that isn't as it should be. Without agreeing with me you can I hope see the inevitability of the conclusion.
6. If we were asexual and reproduced asexually, there would be friendship, but not erotic love driving is to have sex. Why is this a straw man?
7. The disaster is that as countries get wealthy the birth rate falls and people accumulate things rather than children. People need all the encouragement that can get to have kids. Telling them that there is no intrinsic link between sex and babies or now marriage and babies is only going in the wrong direction in terms of encouragement. If conception is a whim, what future for any society?
You change the subject, on death:
The guy wished me dead. You say I say he threatened death, then build rather a lot on this misreading - every 5 minutes?? - I understand you are struggling to talk about this dispassionately and thank you for the effort, really.
8. People should be respected when they say till death us do part. But impossible situations should be fled. I guess we need two sorts of marriage: one absolutely indissoluble, the other easy to get out of.
Wait, we have that! It's just we confuse things by using the same word for both.
9. Protect the weak. Someone confused isn't going to be less confused by being told whatever they are attracted to, it's ok. To say a perhaps temporary attraction is part of a permanent whole lifestyle-encompassing thing is to place an enormous burden on someone out of misguided 19th century ideology.
A boy coming out to his parents - they will not help by saying its all ok, nor by reacting badly and creating guilt. But they will know his inevitable sadness of never having a child with the person he loves, even if the boy has no idea of the enormity of that yet. There is no happy outcome to a coming out from that point of view.
10. No single marriage needs to have kids - there may be problems, pensioners can marry - but the typical case is marriage leads to kids. Gay marriage says there is no link whatsoever in principle between marriage and kids, and this is just not true.
But yes, people not married and therefore not in a position to make AND look after a child shouldn't have sex - this was pretty standard view until about 50 years ago. The breakdown of family life and the number of lonely people suggest this shift hasn't been a success.
11. Sorry, I don't know what this is about?
12. Of course there is great emotional bonding from sex, and the point of this is providing a secure environment for any kids. Orherwise there are approximations of this. But the chemicals that create the subconscious bond do so to help mating, the female orgasm moves semen to aid conception, etc. it's all subordinated in nature to procreation.
13. Again you misread and make it more dramatic.
Wish dead, no maybe, but not same as threaten to kill.
14. Natural law theory. A thing is fulfilled when it attains the goals its natural faculties exist for. In terms of sex, doing this with a firm intention not to reproduce, by the nature of the act, is depriving this faculty of its natural goal. This holds for contraception, oral sex, anal sex, etc. So there is something not right here. As I said elsewhere, I take this as a guide to well-being, not a way to judge. Not illness, of course, but a sort of missing element in one's view of the world.
- You missed the point I was making by so far you would have to get two buses and a taxi just to get into the same postcode as it.
- It's not arbitrary, and saying that it is doesn't make it so. Kids are not the only reason two people may wish to marry and even if that were the previously accepted logic behind marriage that doesn't mean that it always has to be, nor would such a change remove all logic from the process of setting the circumstances in which marriage may happen.
- Once again.. saying something is arbitrary doesn't make it so. Your narrow-minded views on what marriage means (i.e. children or GTFO) mean that you see no meaning in marriage for gay people or those otherwise unable or unwilling to procreate but interestingly the "gay lobby" to which you refer clearly place a great deal of meaning on marriage otherwise they wouldn't have fought so hard to get it.
- So you can literally only get pleasure from sex that results in procreation? Well I suppose we all have our fetishes and who am I to judge?
- Nope, really can't see the inevitability of the the conclusion. It couldn't have more of a tenuous leap in it if it tried.
- It's a straw man because such a hypothetical version of humanity is so far removed from reality as to be impossible to predict how it would and remarkably pointless to do so.
- Oh look.. the birthrate argument again
Unless you actually have anything that substantively rebuts my original debunking on this why keep trotting it out? Also in most countries in the world (especially the wealthy ones) an increased birth rate is the last thing we need right now! - For ordinary people (Daily Mail-favoured celebs aside) divorce is still a Very Big Step. So whilst I would agree that you wouldn't want to make it too easy as that would lessen the commitment of marriage neither can I condone trapping people in unhappy marriages. TBH I actually don't think the UK has this balance too far wrong in terms of making marriage a commitment but not a trap.
- Ah the old homophobic favourite of it being a "phase" Care to elaborate on exactly why talking to a responsible elder on the subject and being told that it doesn't mean they are evil/sinful/inferior for being attracted to those of the same sex wouldn't help? Or are you just happy to pronounce such a stance and hope I take it as fact? Oh and once again you are back to marriage needing kids or it's all "inevitable sadness" again.
- Gay marriage doesn't say there is "no link whatsoever" between marriage and kids, saying that a marriage is a sensible starting place for those wanting to start a family (which I'd probably agree with) doesn't mean that all marriages need to have kids (where are you on that point again.. I get confused?). And there isn't anything wrong with having sex that isn't intended to have kids, be that inside a marriage or outside of it - being aware of the possibility of that outcome, taking sensible precautions to prevent it if it is undesired, and being prepared to step up and deal with it if it happens are all things I would say are pre-requisites for sex. And something being the "standard view" 50 years ago doesn't make it right, untill very recently it was the "standard view" in the US that black people weren't as important as white people.
- Nevermind.. you don't want to address it so I won't continue to bring it up.
- Kids and their protection are not the only reason why there is great emotional bonding from sex, not even at a tribal level. Yes a lot of the biological functionality is geared towards kids. That doesn't in any way mean however that it is the only purpose sex can/should be used for. It surprises me that someone who clearly believes in the soul would be so keen to reduce everything down to a purely biological mechanics level.
- The only person making it more dramatic is you - if you stop mentioning it, I'll stop calling you on it.
- So you are taking a fairly ancient philosophical-legal outlook filtered through a fairly specific interpretation of those principles as applied in the 13th Century. Seems like you are trying a fancy version of "a priest told me" and quite how does that make it bad for you? In terms of wellbeing my own observations have very much supported the idea that people who are having regular sex (regardless of intention to procreate) are generally much happier people then those who aren't! Can you give me one demonstrable negative affect that having sex not intended for procreation has on the participants that is intrinsic to the act itself?
I've decided the best solution is that people who don't believe scientific facts should be forced to live without the science they don't believe in... So goodbye Chris you can come back when catholic science and philosophy catches up,good luck with that given most cutting edge scientists aren't religious.
I'll sum it up.
If you are religious you are a mindless spaz that needs others to tell you what to think and how to live your life.
Religion is a political tool used to control thick people. If you can't see that- you must be one of them.
I've spent too much time in here wallowing in the detritus already.
Bye.
If you are religious you are a mindless spaz that needs others to tell you what to think and how to live your life.
Religion is a political tool used to control thick people. If you can't see that- you must be one of them.
I've spent too much time in here wallowing in the detritus already.
Bye.
Chunkymonkey71 said:
I'll sum it up.
If you are religious you are a mindless spaz that needs others to tell you what to think and how to live your life.
Religion is a political tool used to control thick people. If you can't see that- you must be one of them.
I've spent too much time in here wallowing in the detritus already.
Bye.
Can we worship you, Chunky?If you are religious you are a mindless spaz that needs others to tell you what to think and how to live your life.
Religion is a political tool used to control thick people. If you can't see that- you must be one of them.
I've spent too much time in here wallowing in the detritus already.
Bye.
Engineer1 said:
DickyC said:
Can we worship you, Chunky?
Chunjy the true messiah let us worship him and his holy flashing light equipped chariot
I can't believe people are still replying to that fanatic, it's obvious he will never change his views at all. Probably too afraid. The only threads he has posted on in the last three years(couldn't be bothered to go back further) are to do with religion, I can't help but feel he would be more suited to a religious forum and not a motoring one.
Chim said:
Christ on a bike, our education system really has a lot to answer for these days.
I can't help wondering if Evolution shouldn't be a stand alone subject on the national curriculum. Separate from biology. Darwin was British, and he came up with the single greatest advancement in our understanding of the natural world, explaining where we came from. Evolution is our greatest achievement as a nation, the most important thing we gave to the rest of humanity. There should be a statue of Darwin in every town in the UK.And what have we got instead. If some of the utter crap posted on this thread is anything to go by, a population that doesn't understand it, has never read it, and only knows that some moronic t
t at their particular holy house has told them that it's not to be trusted.So they attack something they don't even know what they are attacking, and they talk complete nonsense about self assembly watches and how peacocks should be 50 shades of grey.
It's a national disgrace.
Chunkymonkey71 said:
I'll sum it up.
If you are religious you are a mindless spaz that needs others to tell you what to think and how to live your life.
Religion is a political tool used to control thick people. If you can't see that- you must be one of them.
I've spent too much time in here wallowing in the detritus already.
Bye.
Take that for a brute fact.If you are religious you are a mindless spaz that needs others to tell you what to think and how to live your life.
Religion is a political tool used to control thick people. If you can't see that- you must be one of them.
I've spent too much time in here wallowing in the detritus already.
Bye.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff