If you take my point about the altruism/fierceness matrix, then I’m not sure how we can discuss one claim without discussing the other. Likewise,
Maybe this is some kind of semantic thing where you and I don’t even realize how we’re disagreeing: what, exactly, do you mean by “fierceness”?
The motivation isn’t “to adopt an oryx”.
The motivation is “to adopt a helpless widdle itty-bitty baby” – which (a) leads to selfish-gene benefits when you’re often among kinfolk who leave young orphans behind, and (b) doesn’t too negatively impact selfish-gene math when it occasionaly leads to adopting this or that unrelated baby. Over time, a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt the helpless widdle itty-bitty baby in front of you either nets a good result for you and yours or at least doesn’t net too bad a result.
It doesn’t state the earth is round it just mentions the circle of earth,If it does mean that, then human kind didn’t except it until many centuries later! Job 22: 18 talks about filling their home with good things and the councel of the wicked is far from Him. and How does Job 26:7"He streaches out the north over the empty place,and hangeth the earth upon nothing" Have any scientific value? It doesn’t answer why for thousand of years humans thought the earth was the center of the universe. The writers were not aware of gravity that we know about today.
It is a matter of translation, and there are as many translations as there are religions. I really do not put any stake in what the Biblical writers state because there are too many contradictions and do not believe that a beibg who created the evil people himself could expect them to be any different. He could have prevented evil yet he punished humans with death for trying to know the difference, but let a monster that he created survive and enjoy destroying His creations. It just doesn’t add up. If a human father did the things you heavenly father did, he would be put in jail!!
I am referring to theologans I have heard on TV. There is one Jewish theologan that speaks a lot on the science chanel.
You may say God is knowable but it sure doesn’t seem to me that you know anything about a God, just your belief. If you know, you can prove it, and so far you haven;t given any proof! Theology itself means “Faith”.
[quote=“aigonz, post:823, topic:551952”]
If God was not in existence,which would have to exist before a being could exist, then this god was nowhere, if it is not in existence, then it doesn’t exist. Existence must come first, if God is not first some where, He is no where!!!
AiGNOZ: Do you not realize what you state as facts (that you base your beliefs on) are just Beliefs… not facts! That is why the debate is moot! You argue beliefs, the rest argue that they need facts first, before it can be stated as fact!
The opposite of altruism. In other words, and returning to my explanation:
1> evolutionary theory posits that altruism evolved
2> if altruism evolved, it wasn’t always there
3> before altruism, societies were 'fierce, ie they operated on a tooth and claw, survival of the fittest basis.
But here’s another take on that. By adopting someone else’s baby, the animal gives valuable resources to a child who does not carry on it’s genes, AND competes for reosurces against those offspring who do. Why would the lioness bother in the first place?
I won’t defend the stupidity of man, but I do know the Bible.
1> Circles are round.
2> The Bible never, not once, speaks of the earth being flat.
3> The Bible reiterates the round earth by references to the rotation of the planet, and an abundance of other references.
The idea of a spherical Earth was developed in ancient Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), however you are right that most early civilisatins believed the earth to be flat. It’s a shame they didn’t read the Bible.
Your other comments are theological. I’d love to engage on those, buI’d need more time than I have to do you the courtesy of reasoned responses.
Again I will not speak for the stupidity of man. A fundamental tenet of the Christian faith is that of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, who is God. How is that possible if this God is unknowable? Still, that’s theology.
I stand by what I have previously stated:
1> Conceptually the word ‘proof’ relates to the natural or physical realm, of which God is clearly not a part.
2> The God hypothesis requires faith to move to acceptance, but no more so, indeed I propose less, than the various explanations proferred to remove this hypothesis from our thinking.
[quote=“monavis, post:845, topic:551952”]
And? I never said God was 'not in existence. So what is your point?
Can you please provide the facts on which the following beliefs are based:
1> The Multiverse hypothesis.
2> The Panspermia hypothesis.
3> The evolution of altruism.
But even better, you might like to ponder this.
The special theory of relativity hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between two point. This crucial element cannot be proven by science, and must be assumed to hold to the theory.
So ‘belief’ strikes even at the very heart of that noble bastion of rationality, scienece itself.
Well, crap. We’re just in the “repeating ourselves” stage now, I guess.
I’m saying a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt a baby leads to selfish-gene benefits when you’re often among kinfolk who leave young orphans behind. I’m saying that such a trait doesn’t too negatively impact selfish-gene math when it occasionally leads to adopting this or that unrelated baby. I’m saying that, over time, lionesses who have a somewhat indiscriminate willingness to adopt the helpless widdle itty-bitty baby in front of them adopt a good number of baby relatives (which is helpful, in a selfish-gene sense) and the occasional baby oryx (which isn’t) – and the former benefits outweigh the latter drawback.
I’m not sure which part of that you want to disagree about. So long as I’m repeating myself, I’ll stress again that evolution isn’t about perfect; it merely has to be good enough.
I’m still not 100% sure we’re on the same page, but I’ll try to disagree with the angle I think you’re pushing.
Taking the last first, you’re wrong. Again, consider single-celled organisms that get by just fine without altruism or ferocity. I was on about euglena a little while back; let’s run with that for a bit; let’s say they’re effectively in a “before altruism” setting, just like they’re also in a “before ferocity” one. So they don’t mate, but simply produce offspring by asexual fission – and they don’t stick around to raise the offspring either – and they don’t hunt in packs, sure as they don’t bother with cooperative agricultural projects, and they don’t engage in red-in-tooth-and-claw ferocity.
And, like I was just saying, that combination is “good enough” to get the job done; it’s good enough to persist for generation after generation after generation. Now, in that context, what happens if we postulate an unusual euglena that starts taking an interest in the survival of its offspring, who then take an interest in their offspring, and so on? What happens if – as per your first and second point – altruism therefore starts to evolve, because it starts to pay off? What happens such a trait (a) maybe incurs the occasional drawback, but also (b) nets plenty enough benefits to outweigh the drawbacks?
Still, of course, with ferocity not yet in the picture?
Can it hypothetically be falsified with adequate experimentation?
Science doesn’t state a theroy as fact until it can be proven as fact. Faith starts out believing something is fact, Science starts out searching for facts! Big difference!!
Did it ever register with you that maybe some stupid man wrote the Bible? You are believing in the Biblical writers and their interpertation of a God there is no difference!
[quote=“aigonz, post:851, topic:551952”]
Sorry I didn’t answer this before,my point is that there had to be a place in existence before a God could exist. No existence no nothing!!!
The Sun.
And spheres are round. But circles are not spheres.
Well, it does speak of four corners, and it does speak of a mountain from the top of which all nations can be seen. Maybe the Bible writers thought the surface was concave!
What? You have no clue how science works, it’s as if you learned science from Ken Ham or Kent Hovind.
The Theory of Relativity takes as a starting point that the speed of light is constant for all observers, and makes specific predictions. Every one of those predictions has been accurate. The concept of “proof” has no role in science.
[quote=“monavis, post:856, topic:551952”]
You make assumptions about both God and ‘nothing’.
When it is claimed that nothing can come from nothing, the reference is to the natural world, as I made clear.
God is outside of the natural world, therefore your objection is invalid.
It is proven to be constant in a vaccuum. And nothing so far has been observed to exceed that speed.