Explain how male and female is not a creation.

User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

You ever wonder how non creationists explain male and female? Okay let's agree that it's an idea. Alright then who's idea? In raw evloution there cannot be an idea or a plan, because that would denote a personage , so that can only be used in creationism.

Evolution has no ideas. So what then is male and female? Its brilliant for one thing but "Why" male and female? Is it a concept that was self inheirtant and self developed? Who developed it? Well in evolution there is no "Who" where the origin of things is concerned.

Male and female is an excellent design , but we cannot use that if we embrace mindless existence, because design demands there be a designer. So where does male and female come from?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522132 wrote: You ever wonder how non creationists explain male and female? Okay let's agree that it's an idea. Alright then who's idea? In raw evloution there cannot be an idea or a plan, because that would denote a personage , so that can only be used in creationism.

Evolution has no ideas. So what then is male and female? Its brilliant for one thing but "Why" male and female? Is it a concept that was self inheirtant and self developed? Who developed it? Well in evolution there is no "Who" where the origin of things is concerned.

Male and female is an excellent design , but we cannot use that if we embrace mindless existence, because design demands there be a designer. So where does male and female come from?


Male and female is not a design, it's evolved that way because it is the most efficient way of introducing change into a species.

In the beginning there was asexual reproduction where a single cellular organism split into two identical daughters, a process called mitosis. In evolutionary terms this is inefficient as the only change comes from mutation (which, given the higher radiation levels would have been more common but still not efficient).

One of those mutations would have led to the daughter cells being haploid, only having half of the chromosomes of the parent. OK, this would have happened many millions of times before the next stage occurred and progress was made as two of these haploid daughter cell merged to form a diploid cell similar to the parent, the benefit being that the two haploid cells would have come from two different parents and thus the offspring would be a combination of their genotypes rather than a clone.

The problem with your argument is its insistence on "who". With evolution there is no reliance of a director of operations, there are billions of trials, most of which are less efficient and therefore die out but some of which are more efficient and therefore succeed. It is not conscious design it is massively redundant trial and error finding the most efficient pattern (that will itself be superseded by a more efficient pattern at some point in the future).
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522134 wrote: Male and female is not a design, it's evolved that way because it is the most efficient way of introducing change into a species.

In the beginning there was asexual reproduction where a single cellular organism split into two identical daughters, a process called mitosis. In evolutionary terms this is inefficient as the only change comes from mutation (which, given the higher radiation levels would have been more common but still not efficient).

One of those mutations would have led to the daughter cells being haploid, only having half of the chromosomes of the parent. OK, this would have happened many millions of times before the next stage occurred and progress was made as two of these haploid daughter cell merged to form a diploid cell similar to the parent, the benefit being that the two haploid cells would have come from two different parents and thus the offspring would be a combination of their genotypes rather than a clone.

The problem with your argument is its insistence on "who". With evolution there is no reliance of a director of operations, there are billions of trials, most of which are less efficient and therefore die out but some of which are more efficient and therefore succeed. It is not conscious design it is massively redundant trial and error finding the most efficient pattern (that will itself be superseded by a more efficient pattern at some point in the future).




The problem with your argument is obvious , you are willing to sell the magnificence and beauty of the splendor of life, to the stupor of trial and error , as if life was the result of a casino that creates only when it lines up right and hits the scientific Jack pot.

In that insensitive model , male and female are the result of endless spins of a wheel of long-term luck and mindless pot luck power.

You cannot remove the plan that birthed humanity , without reducing us to clones of the uncredible minds of reckless men who are afraid of their origin. No evolution can create gender. The problem with most views of evolution is that they have no creative thought.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522135 wrote: The problem with your argument is obvious , you are willing to sell the magnificence and beauty of the splendor of life, to the stupor of trial and error , as if life was the result of a casino that creates only when it lines up right and hits the scientific Jack pot.

In that insensitive model , male and female are the result of endless spins of a wheel of long-term luck and mindless pot luck power.

You cannot remove the plan that birthed humanity , without reducing us to clones of the uncredible minds of reckless men who are afraid of their origin. No evolution can create gender. The problem with most views of evolution is that they have no creative thought.


Then we will obviously have to agree to disagree, there is no reply to this emotive missive.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522136 wrote: Then we will obviously have to agree to disagree, there is no reply to this emotive missive.


I agree to disagree .

I fail to see a thing like gender , the anatomy of humans , the physical universe, the animal kingdom and so much more to be the result of redundant , non thinking, unplanned massive power that created itself from nothing. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence.

Its asking a lot to give our existence over to random theory, that we split into gender like we were "Supposed to".
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by LarsMac »

Mickiel;1522137 wrote: I agree to disagree .

I fail to see a thing like gender , the anatomy of humans , the physical universe, the animal kingdom and so much more to be the result of redundant , non thinking, unplanned massive power that created itself from nothing. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence.

Its asking a lot to give our existence over to random theory, that we split into gender like we were "Supposed to".


Since the Universe has been around for millions of years, I suspect it has had time to come up with some pretty amazing stuff, all by its own self.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

LarsMac;1522138 wrote: Since the Universe has been around for millions of years, I suspect it has had time to come up with some pretty amazing stuff, all by its own self.


The universe is a descriptive term that describes a location of a very large physical place , you are willing to treat the universe as if it thinks , plans , creates and solves problems. Its your God: your creator.

You seem to believe that the universe is the parent of humanity.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40346
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by spot »

The divide is between those who regard the cause as aware, and those who regard the cause as the natural expression of physics. If it's aware then it can legitimately carry the label God, if it has no will then I don't see that the word God is appropriate.

Neither Bryn not Lars nor myself see any evidence that the universe thinks, plans, creates or solves problems. Those are all attributes of awareness.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13205
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by LarsMac »

Mickiel;1522139 wrote: The universe is a descriptive term that describes a location of a very large physical place , you are willing to treat the universe as if it thinks , plans , creates and solves problems. Its your God: your creator.

You seem to believe that the universe is the parent of humanity.


I would not go that far, though after several billion years, it would not surprise me in the least were I to discover that the Universe had developed some sentience.

How that has to do with the concept of male/female. But if you believe that is indicative of a Conscience in the universe, perhaps you can explain why Plants, Insects, and even most species of worms, Crustaceans, Molusks, and many microorganisms appear to have multiple genders.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40346
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by spot »

LarsMac;1522143 wrote: I would not go that far, though after several billion years, it would not surprise me in the least were I to discover that the Universe had developed some sentience.


I have no problem with that. There's a difference between an emergent awareness such as you're suggesting and an intelligent primal cause bringing creation into existence through an exercise of will. As for its then biblically tyrannizing all creation, that's sheer obscene fantasy.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522139 wrote: The universe is a descriptive term that describes a location of a very large physical place , you are willing to treat the universe as if it thinks , plans , creates and solves problems. Its your God: your creator.

You seem to believe that the universe is the parent of humanity.


I see no need to consider that the universe thinks in any way shape or form (it might or might not - there is no need for it to do so in order to explain evolution).

It has been shown (the Miler experiment et al) that given the starting conditions on a primitive Earth basic organic chemicals will form and will develop into amino acids etc - the basic building blocks of life as we know it.

Given such a primordial soup the development of life is a matter of time, not design (the main question here is "what is life"? Is a virus alive when it can be crystallised out into a non-living solid and re-animated by injecting it into a living cell).

Given the first living single celled organisms the evolution of more complex life is again a matter of time rather than design and when you're measuring time by the billion years there's plenty of time to play with.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1522137 wrote:

Its asking a lot to give our existence over to random theory, that we split into gender like we were "Supposed to".Not that we were "supposed to", but rather that it turned out to be the obvious best, most efficient way forward. As has been mentioned, there have been many other ways that we've never witnessed happen live that failed through trial and error.

To the gist of your sentence: It would not be asking much at all if we'd been properly educated regarding existence in the first place and not told ancient stories invented by sheepherders in order to control the behaviors of their young.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522147 wrote: I see no need to consider that the universe thinks in any way shape or form (it might or might not - there is no need for it to do so in order to explain evolution).

It has been shown (the Miler experiment et al) that given the starting conditions on a primitive Earth basic organic chemicals will form and will develop into amino acids etc - the basic building blocks of life as we know it.

Given such a primordial soup the development of life is a matter of time, not design (the main question here is "what is life"? Is a virus alive when it can be crystallised out into a non-living solid and re-animated by injecting it into a living cell).

Given the first living single celled organisms the evolution of more complex life is again a matter of time rather than design and when you're measuring time by the billion years there's plenty of time to play with.


I agree that life is just a matter of time , I just disagree with the interpretation of its source. In my view creation is a skill , the more complex the greater the skill. I then disagree with any notion that our universe exist without skill. Its like trying to subtract talent from art.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1522148 wrote: Not that we were "supposed to", but rather that it turned out to be the obvious best, most efficient way forward. As has been mentioned, there have been many other ways that we've never witnessed happen live that failed through trial and error.

To the gist of your sentence: It would not be asking much at all if we'd been properly educated regarding existence in the first place and not told ancient stories invented by sheepherders in order to control the behaviors of their young.


I don't accept the trial and error view of the universe , it is too unbalanced and wild.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1522151 wrote: I don't accept the trial and error view of the universe , it is too unbalanced and wild.I was talking about Evolution.

ETA: BTW, the truth is not dependant on what any of us believe or accept.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1522148 wrote: Not that we were "supposed to", but rather that it turned out to be the obvious best, most efficient way forward. As has been mentioned, there have been many other ways that we've never witnessed happen live that failed through trial and error.

To the gist of your sentence: It would not be asking much at all if we'd been properly educated regarding existence in the first place and not told ancient stories invented by sheepherders in order to control the behaviors of their young.


Do I think that creation was perfect , no I don't , I think there was trial but not error. I think primordial man was a trial.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522150 wrote: I agree that life is just a matter of time , I just disagree with the interpretation of its source. In my view creation is a skill , the more complex the greater the skill. I then disagree with any notion that our universe exist without skill. Its like trying to subtract talent from art.


Your final comparison is totally specious but it you insist that to have creation you must have conscious direction then that is your right - I just cannot agree that it is so.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522154 wrote: Your final comparison is totally specious but it you insist that to have creation you must have conscious direction then that is your right - I just cannot agree that it is so.


Yes conscious direction , which means planning and purpose , which I see as far more accurate explanation than random self creation. The universe is the result of skill and design; high powered skill and talent . obvious purposeful conscious planning.

The universe shows obvious forethought and intentions. First background was created, space - like a canvas by an artist. Then it was filled in, amazingly obvious. I am dumbfounded that it has to be defended.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522155 wrote: Yes conscious direction , which means planning and purpose , which I see as far more accurate explanation than random self creation. The universe is the result of skill and design; high powered skill and talent . obvious purposeful conscious planning.

The universe shows obvious forethought and intentions. First background was created, space - like a canvas by an artist. Then it was filled in, amazingly obvious. I am dumbfounded that it has to be defended.


Not obvious at all, a matter of opinion taken as an article of faith.

To me it's an outside possibility for which I see no evidence whereas I can see a rational chain of cause and effect that explains evolutionary theory.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Mickiel;1522155 wrote: Yes conscious direction , which means planning and purpose , which I see as far more accurate explanation than random self creation. The universe is the result of skill and design; high powered skill and talent . obvious purposeful conscious planning.

The universe shows obvious forethought and intentions. First background was created, space - like a canvas by an artist. Then it was filled in, amazingly obvious. I am dumbfounded that it has to be defended.


If I may continue with my analogy , random theory is like believing the canvas created itself and started drawing on its own: stunning belief. In my view , male and female shows obvious design with intent. These genders did not evolve , they were established on purpose with purpose because of purpose. You cannot derive human gender and genome from random unpurposed aimless time. Male and female were intended matches in a mating ritual that does not embarass truth.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522157 wrote: Not obvious at all, a matter of opinion taken as an article of faith.

To me it's an outside possibility for which I see no evidence whereas I can see a rational chain of cause and effect that explains evolutionary theory.


Evolution is expected results from the beginning of a design. Its what was supposed to happen. In my view evolution is purposeful stages not happenstance mutation.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522158 wrote: If I may continue with my analogy , random theory is like believing the canvas created itself and started drawing on its own: stunning belief. In my view , male and female shows obvious design with intent. These genders did not evolve , they were established on purpose with purpose because of purpose. You cannot derive human gender and genome from random unpurposed aimless time. Male and female were intended matches in a mating ritual that does not embarass truth.


Your analogy is a statement of your own belief, it does not reflect my belief or anything I see in the world around me.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522159 wrote: Evolution is expected results from the beginning of a design. Its what was supposed to happen. In my view evolution is purposeful stages not happenstance mutation.


No, evolution is a mechanism whereby changes of parameters within a system, whether that be an ecosystem, a neural network or whatever, are selected or rejected according to the changes in efficiency they introduce into that system. Understand that and you will see that there is nothing happenstance about it.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522161 wrote: No, evolution is a mechanism whereby changes of parameters within a system, whether that be an ecosystem, a neural network or whatever, are selected or rejected according to the changes in efficiency they introduce into that system. Understand that and you will see that there is nothing happenstance about it.


No evolution is not selection of the fittest, it's a detailed purposed change. Pupi to butterfly is a good example. My view is different than yours.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522162 wrote: No evolution is not selection of the fittest, it's a detailed purposed change. Pupi to butterfly is a good example. My view is different than yours.


Pupae to butterfly is not an example of evolution at all and neither is it purposed change - to claim that it is purposed is to place an intelligence into the mechanism that does not exit within evolutionary theory and turns it into something else entirely (Intelligent Creation maybe but certainly not evolution).
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Mickiel;1522162 wrote: No evolution is not selection of the fittest, it's a detailed purposed change. Pupi to butterfly is a good example. My view is different than yours.


The male penis and the female vergina were well purposed design's. Its academic.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522163 wrote: Pupae to butterfly is not an example of evolution at all and neither is it purposed change - to claim that it is purposed is to place an intelligence into the mechanism that does not exit within evolutionary theory and turns it into something else entirely (Intelligent Creation maybe but certainly not evolution).


I disagree it's classic evolution.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Mickiel;1522164 wrote: The male penis and the female vergina were well purposed design's. Its academic.


In my culture we call small porcelain statues "due hickeys". You can buy matching pairs for display. Male and female are purposeful created matching pairs meant to go together, it's obvious intention.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522166 wrote: In my culture we call small porcelain statues "due hickeys". You can buy matching pairs for display. Male and female are purposeful created matching pairs meant to go together, it's obvious intention.


What has this got to do with evolution?
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522169 wrote: What has this got to do with evolution?


Oh nothing, I was just getting back on topic. But we can continue to discuss it if you like.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

Mickiel;1522170 wrote: Oh nothing, I was just getting back on topic. But we can continue to discuss it if you like.


I give up.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Bryn Mawr;1522174 wrote: I give up.


Sorry.
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by FourPart »

Lifeforms as simple as worms reproduce sexually as well as asexually, producing both eggs & sperm, even with the ability to fertilise their own eggs. Barnacles, and many other marine life forms reproduce sexually by releasing their sperm randomly into the water. Plants reproduce in the same way. However, fossil records show that the very first plant life known were ferns, which produce asexually by the spreading of their roots. Gradually variations appeared on the geological ladder which demonstrated a development of seeds, as with plantains and, accordingly, pollen. Bananas are a good example. Although they do produce seeds within the fruit, most of these are barren, as most of their reproduction cycle is also done through roots, just as with its fern ancestors. Many animals have the ability to change gender, according to environment, such as crocodiles / alligators, where their eggs will change gender according to temperature. Plus there are bees, which can change gender depending on what they are fed. The fossil record clearly shows asexual lifeforms as having been around little or no change before those that reproduced sexually came onto the scene - at which point diversity exploded as they ceased to be merely clones of each other. Evolution, contrary to what Creationists like to think is not a matter of one species suddenly giving birth to an entirely different species. It is a slow, gradual change adjusting to their environment. Even Creationists will accept their own invented term of "Macro Evolution", but how many Macro Evolutions does it take before they accept that the difference between the 1st stage is so vast that it can no longer be identified as being anything like the current stage? Christopher Hitchens gave one good example of observed Evolution, and that is in elephants. It has been observed that elephants are now growing shorter tusks. This is because the ones with the longer tusks end up getting shot & not surviving to pass on their genes. This much has been observed over the past 50 years or so. Evolution has been happening for more like 50 MILLION years.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

FourPart;1522177 wrote: Lifeforms as simple as worms reproduce sexually as well as asexually, producing both eggs & sperm, even with the ability to fertilise their own eggs. Barnacles, and many other marine life forms reproduce sexually by releasing their sperm randomly into the water. Plants reproduce in the same way. However, fossil records show that the very first plant life known were ferns, which produce asexually by the spreading of their roots. Gradually variations appeared on the geological ladder which demonstrated a development of seeds, as with plantains and, accordingly, pollen. Bananas are a good example. Although they do produce seeds within the fruit, most of these are barren, as most of their reproduction cycle is also done through roots, just as with its fern ancestors. Many animals have the ability to change gender, according to environment, such as crocodiles / alligators, where their eggs will change gender according to temperature. Plus there are bees, which can change gender depending on what they are fed. The fossil record clearly shows asexual lifeforms as having been around little or no change before those that reproduced sexually came onto the scene - at which point diversity exploded as they ceased to be merely clones of each other. Evolution, contrary to what Creationists like to think is not a matter of one species suddenly giving birth to an entirely different species. It is a slow, gradual change adjusting to their environment. Even Creationists will accept their own invented term of "Macro Evolution", but how many Macro Evolutions does it take before they accept that the difference between the 1st stage is so vast that it can no longer be identified as being anything like the current stage? Christopher Hitchens gave one good example of observed Evolution, and that is in elephants. It has been observed that elephants are now growing shorter tusks. This is because the ones with the longer tusks end up getting shot & not surviving to pass on their genes. This much has been observed over the past 50 years or so. Evolution has been happening for more like 50 MILLION years.


Slight correction, at least five hundred million years
User avatar
FourPart
Posts: 6485
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:12 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by FourPart »

Bryn Mawr;1522184 wrote: Slight correction, at least five hundred million years


Either way - a bit more than 8,000 years.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 40346
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by spot »

Bryn Mawr;1522184 wrote: Slight correction, at least five hundred million years


Nonono - that's multicellular. Life on earth dates back over three billion years. As opposed to the creationists' 7,000 years.
Nullius in verba|||||||||||
To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.

Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game!
My other operating system is Slackware
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Ahso! »

FourPart;1522177 wrote: Plus there are bees, which can change gender...I wanted you to say "on the fly". :)
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15990
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Bryn Mawr »

spot;1522187 wrote: Nonono - that's multicellular. Life on earth dates back over three billion years. As opposed to the creationists' 7,000 years.


I never did trust the creationist method of dating the world - count the number of generations mentioned in the Bible and multiply by the average generation span in the eighteenth century. That seems a bit arbitrary to me.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by gmc »

You are the one that claims male/female is a creation. As the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you. I don't know how so it must be a creator is not proof or even a reasonable argument.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

gmc;1522194 wrote: You are the one that claims male/female is a creation. As the one making the claim the burden of proof is on you. I don't know how so it must be a creator is not proof or even a reasonable argument.


You are the proof, wonderfully made.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by gmc »

Mickiel;1522196 wrote: You are the proof, wonderfully made.


I think therfore I exist.

something must have made me

therefore god exists.

Stupid argument I could see through when I was nine years old.

If as you have stated in previous posts the bible is the unadulterated word of god then you presumable believe god made adam and then eve as his plaything. You have also stated that you do not believe in free will so god made adam and eve told them not to eat the fruit amd must have known what eve would do and that adam would take the fruit and so for this act mankind was turfed out of paradise and eve and her descendants cursed for all time.

It's up to you if you want to believe such creationist nonsense just thank the good lord he also created the secular society in which you live.

All theologians have done throughout the ages is tie themselves up in knots trying to prove something exists. I'm an atheist . that does not mean I don't believe there isn't a god or that I can prove that there isn't one it means I don't know that there is and no one has ever been able to provide any evidence that such a thing exists. On balance I don't think there is any such thing as a creator. Who made god? Has been and always will be is just not an answer. You choose to beleive in god because it suits you, that's fine if that's what you want to do.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

gmc;1522197 wrote: I think therfore I exist.

something must have made me

therefore god exists.

Stupid argument I could see through when I was nine years old.

If as you have stated in previous posts the bible is the unadulterated word of god then you presumable believe god made adam and then eve as his plaything. You have also stated that you do not believe in free will so god made adam and eve told them not to eat the fruit amd must have known what eve would do and that adam would take the fruit and so for this act mankind was turfed out of paradise and eve and her descendants cursed for all time.

It's up to you if you want to believe such creationist nonsense just thank the good lord he also created the secular society in which you live.

All theologians have done throughout the ages is tie themselves up in knots trying to prove something exists. I'm an atheist . that does not mean I don't believe there isn't a god or that I can prove that there isn't one it means I don't know that there is and no one has ever been able to provide any evidence that such a thing exists. On balance I don't think there is any such thing as a creator. Who made god? Has been and always will be is just not an answer. You choose to beleive in god because it suits you, that's fine if that's what you want to do.


I believe in God because it makes the most sense to me. I do believe God cursed humanity , it explains our behavior. But I also believe all humans have a right not to believe , and I am fine with that.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1522199 wrote: I believe in God because it makes the most sense to me.Therein lies the issue.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1522200 wrote: Therein lies the issue.


I have a thread ," is God real", over 200 pages explaining why I think so, amazingly people still ask me to explain it. A lot of things about God cannot be explained , like his creation of consciousness. I know it did not create itself; I am not falling for that. One of the problems with God is he cannot be explained. But still I try.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Mickiel;1522201 wrote: I have a thread ," is God real", over 200 pages explaining why I think so, amazingly people still ask me to explain it. A lot of things about God cannot be explained , like his creation of consciousness. I know it did not create itself; I am not falling for that. One of the problems with God is he cannot be explained. But still I try.


The question is often asked , who created God? Where did he come from? Well I do know from the bible that he created parts of himself.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Mickiel;1522164 wrote: The male penis and the female vergina were well purposed design's. Its academic.


Its senseless to assume that the female breast created themselves , or that their reproduction system designed and created itself. Absolutely dense to think that. How can a brain create itself? I mean I could go on and on , but I give up.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Ahso! »

Mickiel;1522210 wrote: Its senseless to assume that the female breast created themselves , or that their reproduction system designed and created itself. Absolutely dense to think that. How can a brain create itself? I mean I could go on and on , but I give up.


Perhaps giving up is the thing to do unless you decide to put aside your presuppositions and educate yourself. You're forbidding yourself from understanding this. Gotta get out of your own way.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

Ahso!;1522211 wrote: Perhaps giving up is the thing to do unless you decide to put aside your presuppositions and educate yourself. You're forbidding yourself from understanding this. Gotta get out of your own way.


I do get in my own way in areas, but I still learn even from my mistaken views, if I wake up and see it. I am well as aware of my differences with Atheist as I am of my agreements with them. I think Atheist are among the finest minds I have argued with, and some of them the stupidest.
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by gmc »

Mickiel;1522213 wrote: I do get in my own way in areas, but I still learn even from my mistaken views, if I wake up and see it. I am well as aware of my differences with Atheist as I am of my agreements with them. I think Atheist are among the finest minds I have argued with, and some of them the stupidest.


Rather than consider it an argument - which implies each is trying to convince the other of their point of view, to change their opinion. Consider it as a discussion, an exchange of ideas.

"discuss verb [ T ]

uk ​ /dɪˈskʌs/ us ​ /dɪˈskʌs/

​A2 to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:

The police want to discuss these recent racist attacks with local people.

to talk or write about a subject in detail, especially considering different ideas and opinions related to it: "

Your wits are only as good as those you practice with.
User avatar
Mickiel
Posts: 4440
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:28 am

Explain how male and female is not a creation.

Post by Mickiel »

gmc;1522218 wrote: Rather than consider it an argument - which implies each is trying to convince the other of their point of view, to change their opinion. Consider it as a discussion, an exchange of ideas.

"discuss verb [ T ]

uk ​ /dɪˈskʌs/ us ​ /dɪˈskʌs/

​A2 to talk about a subject with someone and tell each other your ideas or opinions:

The police want to discuss these recent racist attacks with local people.

to talk or write about a subject in detail, especially considering different ideas and opinions related to it: "

Your wits are only as good as those you practice with.


I agree with you, that was very well written. I am a hindsight conservationist , meaning I tend to have to think about what has been said to me and sometimes I see it later on , I mean I see their point later. But I have to pray a lot about this , asking God to help me understand people better. It's important to me. But I have been sickly over the last 4 year's and I think it affects me some. But engaging in conversations also helps me.

Return to “General Religious Discussions”