Originally posted by FabianFnas
According to the legend... However, we don't believe in legends uncondtionally do we?

Some think it's a legend but "we" millions don't.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
because you don't evolve to be the best you evolve to survive.

and even so, we are the most intelligent, what more do you want? why do you need now prefect eyesight when you can buy binoculars and you aren't even watching for predators? what use is that to you?

Lol... Strange explination. But I guess or ancestors ran over to WalMart and bought themselves some binoculars to catch their dinners with. I forgot about that...

Originally posted by galveston75
Some think it's a legend but "we" millions don't.

You JW culter minority believes it. Do you believe in other fables too? Like how the elephant got his long trunk? And why elephants cry? And such?

We, who observe the nature, and dismiss the legends that not fit into these observations, know that Adam and Eve story is beautiful, but still a legend.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Do you hold that planet earth, the Milky Way, other galaxies and the unfathomable

universe itself also evolved as the handiwork of something unintelligent and blind?


................................................................................

And this has to do with Darwinian evolution ... how?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And this has to do with Darwinian evolution ... how?

Everything, Swede. Thought maybe the 'a fortiori' argument might add critical leverage/depth to your intellectual posture and bolster your public forum claims. You still remember the inferential principle of stronger/greater to weaker/lesser: if the origin and continued presence of an entire universe is definitively attributed to something unintelligent and blind then, ipso facto, logically follows that the selfsame unintelligent/blind something could easily be relied upon to populate one tiny planet with ease.



............................................................................

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Everything, Swede. Thought maybe the 'a fortiori' argument might add critical leverage/depth to your intellectual posture and bolster your public forum claims. You still remember the inferential principle of stronger/greater to weaker/lesser: if the origin and continued presence of an entire universe is definitively attributed to something unintelligent ...[text shortened]... with ease.



............................................................................

Are you trying to avoid the Darwinism matter because you know you are wrong?

Darwin didn't say much about astronomical matters, so this cannot be "Everything", that's just a non-answer, meaning nothing, meaning pure avoidance.

So again, what has it to do with Darwinism? And don't give me a non-answer now, just answer it, or admit that you don't know anything about evolution.

Originally posted by FabianFnas

Are you trying to avoid the Darwinism matter because you know you are wrong?

Darwin didn't say much about astronomical matters, so this cannot be "Everything", that's just a non-answer, meaning nothing, meaning pure avoidance.

So again, what has it to do with Darwinism? And don't give me a non-answer now, just answer it, or admit that you don't know anything about evolution.

Thread topic happens to be 'evolution'. Darwin happens to be one of many human authors who have speculated on the concept and become steadfast proponents. Open ended broad scale conversation holds far more appeal than prematurely diving headlong into some myopic surf on Darwin Street Beach at low tide. And doubt Freaky would take kindly to hijacking.



....................................................................

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Everything, Swede. Thought maybe the 'a fortiori' argument might add critical leverage/depth to your intellectual posture and bolster your public forum claims. You still remember the inferential principle of stronger/greater to weaker/lesser: if the origin and continued presence of an entire universe is definitively attributed to something unintelligent ...[text shortened]... with ease.



............................................................................

“…if the origin and continued presence of an entire universe is definitively attributed to something unintelligent and blind then, ipso facto, LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that the selfsame unintelligent/blind something could easily be relied upon to populate one tiny planet with ease….” (my emphasis)

No it doesn’t! that does not logically follow!
You are saying that:

“If something unintelligent U can do M then it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that U can do L where L is something “Lesser” than M.”

So, for example, if:
U = river current
M = moving billions of tons of water
L = make a single water molecule.
Then we have:

““If a river current can moving billions of tons of water then it LOGICALLY FOLLOWS that a river current can make a single water molecule”

Which is false; One does not logically follow from the other.

And the argument is irrelevant to your claim anyway because Darwinian evolution is not a theory of the “origin and continued presence of an entire universe” 😛

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thread topic happens to be 'evolution'. Darwin happens to be one of many human authors who have speculated on the concept and become steadfast proponents. Open ended broad scale conversation holds far more appeal than prematurely diving headlong into some myopic surf on Darwin Street Beach at low tide. And doubt Freaky would take kindly to hijacking.



....................................................................

“…Thread topic happens to be 'evolution'….”

Exactly!
So what does, as you said “the origin and continued presence of an entire universe” got to do with it? -Nothing.
But you think it is relevant to evolution which clearly shows you don't understand what evolution is.
Evolution is not a theory about “the origin and continued presence of an entire universe”.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You JW culter minority believes it. Do you believe in other fables too? Like how the elephant got his long trunk? And why elephants cry? And such?

We, who observe the nature, and dismiss the legends that not fit into these observations, know that Adam and Eve story is beautiful, but still a legend.

Not just the JW's buddy.

Originally posted by galveston75
Not just the JW's buddy.

No, I know. For that I'm sorry.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thread topic happens to be 'evolution'.

Right. So let's stick to evolution then. Not astronomy. Let's not get off-topic.
If you want to discuss astronomy instead of evolution, then I reccomend you to start another thread with your astronomy topic.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Thread topic happens to be 'evolution'….”

Exactly!
So what does, as you said “the origin and continued presence of an entire universe” got to do with it? -Nothing.
But you think it is relevant to evolution which clearly shows you don't understand what evolution is.
Evolution is not a theory about “the origin and continued presence of an entire universe”.

Many anti-evolutionists don't understand evolution. When they do, maybe they change their opinion.
One fundamentalists once thought BigBang theory was the same as evolution! 🙂

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thread topic happens to be 'evolution'. Darwin happens to be one of many human authors who have speculated on the concept and become steadfast proponents. Open ended broad scale conversation holds far more appeal than prematurely diving headlong into some myopic surf on Darwin Street Beach at low tide. And doubt Freaky would take kindly to hijacking.



....................................................................

Expected, really.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just some intersting differances that are posted here.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sciences/scienc8.htm

Something I've thought of about humans and if we did evolve, it would seem to me that if we are the result of all the trial and error of evolution constantly improving a species and the end result as we see it now is the human, why woul t that evolution could develope up to this point on all levels, but I just don't see that....

Why are we not the strongest, the fastest, the best eyes, lungs, hearing, strenght, etc?

We have pretty awesome eyes, and we are the fastest running primates I know of due to our specialized feet - especially while holding things in our hands like a spear! This, however, prevents us from climbing like gibbons. Our hands are the best hands. Our walking endurance is second to none due to our straight bipedal stance - all we have to do is stick a foot out front and fall on to it, unlike with other mammals who need to actively push themselves. Our voices are pretty awesome too.

Neandertal, who was stronger than us, had a really hard time throwing a spear precisely because of the anatomy that gave him great strength. This is why we aren't strong like gorillas.

All anatomical characteristics require energy, protein and nutrients to create and use. When they are not used, they atrophy to preserve bodily resources.