Ringer

Most theologians don't think this was a matter of hygiene as much as a matter of differentiating social groups. If you live in the same area as other groups that all look more or less alike then an easy way to stay separate from others is what you eat. As moontanman said, letting the ground sit would do very little. But again as he said, 7 was symbolic. Such as the day of rest, etc Polytheism did, and still does, work fine for most people who practiced it. Do you really think that in biblical times they knew disease came from having sex with multiple partners or same sex partners? If they did they would probably make laws to outlaw polygamy, prostitution, etc. And would have loved the ideas of condoms. This was the idea that it was unnatural to have intercourse with the same sex or with a different species because it wasn't about making children it was about physical pleasure. God would disagree that there is only one god: Exodus 15:11 "Who is like You among the gods, O LORD?" Deuteronomy 6:14 "You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you" 2 Kings 17:35 ""You shall not fear other gods, nor bow down yourselves to them nor serve them nor sacrifice to them" Even Exodus 20:3 is "You shall have no other gods before me" not there are no other gods. Also, the Egyptians used their gods to make miracles same as moses before the plagues. Your second point is thrown off by saying you can't divide you love by a quote from Jesus, who isn't god, but gods only son. Thus your love is divided by 2 "lordly beings". Such as worshiping at the cross is symbolic of worship of Jesus not god.

You realize that virtually nobody takes Freud's methods seriously anymore. Pretty much the only way he is taught is in a historical sense. Even the new age Freudians are only very loosely based on Freud's psychoanalysis theories. You could spend hours and hours talking about his research and finding and why they are wrong, but there's no need.

I saw the thread addressing this point so I won't say anymore on this here There are also studies that show some cultures distinguish different shades of yellow as different colors. That doesn't mean that we see different colors we are just taught to group them differently. The first sight of people walking being like trees walking assumes previous knowledge of what trees look like and puts them in the same category. Since we can assume that the blind person has never seen trees that they didn't say, "that looks like a walking tree!" Their trouble distinguishing figures by sight doesn't mean they experience them differently either, imagine trying to read with your eyes closed using your hands (I used to do this when I was a kid a lot). Same thing, you're just not used to doing it so it's troublesome until you are used to using your hands in that way. The link seemed to be a good read on musical tastes from a scientific point of view.

Here you go. Here's another good link

I reread this entire thread, every one of your points have been proven incorrect over and over again, you obviously refuse to understand what anyone else is trying to show you. You again and again tell us how science is when you obviously have no experience working in these areas of science. I was always told as a child, "never argue with an idiot, they will bring you down to their level and beat the hell out of you with experience." Not that I'm saying you are actually an idiot, but it's obvious that no amount of evidence will make you change your mind and it's an exercise in futility to try. I would like to understand how you believe evolution works, you say you understand it very well but I didn't read a single straight answer to anyone's questions about what you are trying to argue. If you could actually fully answer: 1.) exactly what you mean when you say random 2.) how does evolution work 3.) why you think everyone's links aren't enough evidence when you provide none of your own that alone would make this discussion much more meaningful. It's difficult to have any type of discussion when people from different sides are using different meanings of the same words.

He already said it is deterministic. It's that way because chemistry follows certain laws that allows chemicals to be formed. My point stands because you don't realize that evolutions doesn't go *poof* new animal. Macro-evolution is compounded micro-evolution. My point of you misunderstanding evolution stands.

Their lungs are extremely similar to ours. There has been quite a bit of research on how lungs evolved, even between birds and dinosaurs. You must not realize how lucky we are to have fossils to help us. But even without them common descent is a fairly solid theory. Species are animals that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, if there were no species there would be no life. Other classifications are somewhat arbitrary in nature but are still useful for our purposes of understanding plant and animal life. Like my statement about fish earlier, it still allows us to classify and that's what it's there for. Have you ever read anything of evolution of instinct. I'd post more links but I think this post has enough already. My previous post still stands. The gulping of air is normal for most fish to create buoyancy, it's not a stretch to use the same thing to start breathing. An easier way to thing about it, If you're dying from suffocation you will do anything to try to breath, the ones who figure it out live and breed, those who don't die and don't reproduce. <-- vast oversimplification but hey.

Really? So saying, "Oh, I don't consider that a science so everything they study I can disregard. Oh, other scientists respect those "quasi-sciences" and consider them science, well what do experts know?" makes it a valid argument. You don't consider them sciences because they have an element you're uncomfortable with? How can you say biology/geology/psychology doesn't make accurate predictions? So are you asking to predict what she would experience? We can't tell if she'd experience red? Of course she would, that's like saying, "well this person has never been burnt before so we can't accurately predict if that fire will hurt her." PhD's link looks like a fine retort. But all too many times these things turn into semantic wars I could be wrong but I believe she was more talking about the duality theory of consciousness

This whole conversation seems to be jumping around a lot so I'll try to stick with what I think is going on. First, Sleep is a time when the metabolic processes slow as well as a recovery process. It is safe to assume that early hominids didn't hunt or gather at night due to the need for light to gather fruits and berries and such. We, like almost all other animals, need a time to recover and sleep let's us use more energy towards healing, recovering energy, etc. than on cognitive functions, muscle movement, etc. Second, you premise of us having something because it offers a selective advantage is misguided. There are many things that can't be attributed to advantage, i.e. genetic drift, and there are some things that evolved as an offshoot of something that was used in a different way, i.e. the area used to recognize faces often sees faces in anything that is roundish and has certain patterns of shadows. Just because it's there doesn't mean it was needed or helpful, it just didn't harm anything enough to cause the inheritors to die off. Third, your statement about the earliest animals says that they slept because there was a shortage of food, what evidence is this based on? Even with your presumption that early animals didn't move much, who's to say that they didn't move because there was an abundance of food.

X may not be the ancestor of Y but that doesn't rule out a common ancestor of X and Y You show a harsh misunderstanding of evolution Transitional is a bad word to use in this, it assumes an end point that isn't there. All animals at all times are transitional animals. Also, there are "fish" that can breath air now, that doesn't make the evolution of water to air any less valid. Fish is also a blanket word to describe a wide variety of species. Salmon are more akin to humans than sharks. Again, you show a deep seeded misunderstanding of evolution. is a video that might help you. Also, knowledge and instinct are two totally different things, but I won't get into that. I can almost guarantee that the majority of people really don't know how breathing works and they still do it all the time. Instinct isn't taught, that's why it's instinct. Where you taught what pain felt like or how to breath. No, you just do. And if that book gave a ruinous argument against evolution I would think that it would be found somewhere else besides that website. I can't find the author's name anywhere, could you give the name so I can see credentials.

But tropical areas like that aren't very hospitable to us as a species nor are they useful for social structures. Orangutans live in tropical areas and they are one of the very few non-social great apes with "higher" cognitive abilities. That hints at a social structure that broke down due to pressures arising in their environment.

Hypotheses on why our brains developed the way they did range from interesting to nonsensical. The only ones I have ever heard that I could see as being truthful, at least in part, are: 1.) Social animals have a larger body:brain ratio, we as a species developed a very intricate social hierarchy that helped our brains develop. (the exception being the orangutan) 2.) Hunting animals usually tend to have " " 3.) The development of fire led us to start cooking and that helped shift our metabolism from breaking down food to using it to developing cortical processes. Those, IMO, are the only ones that actually have a strong stance. The reason PhDwannabe attacks your stance is because they aren't strong stances. Anywhere you make a claim you have to be ready for attacks and should be prepared to defend your position. Also, if you are going to make the same claims that PhD and I are going to be the only ones in the discussion you might as well stay with one thread since they pretty much discuss the same thing

So what you're saying is that since I can imagine a car moving, cars don't actually move?

I'm sorry but what the hell are you talking about

Just because you imagine something doesn't mean it's there.

http://www.epjournal.net/ http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/index.html http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=1851683569 theres a few for you. Personally I think Pinker puts things in ways that virtually anyone can understand if you're not that into neurobiology. And I'm going to take the liberty of explaining your footprint example, feel free to correct me. You assume that we don't know the process which each part of the brain evolved, but there is evidence on which part of the brain came before another. One way is seeing what brain areas we have in common with other animals and another is using cranial endocasts. Anybody can do this.

Macro evolution is thought to be caused by compounded micro evolution. My point still stands formation of chemicals is non-random, so any chemicals that form will not be random. Rocks and apples don't go up, that alone makes it non-random. You contradict yourself quite well sir.

It's called Mary's Room if anyone wants to look it up. The thought process is lacking in my opinion, since we can not see infrared we are somehow lacking for those who do? Also, what about when she is taken out of the room and experiences red? You see the same red, the experience is the same. So are you saying that our answers are lacking because they are based in psychology while you use philosophy as an argument?

You show a severe misunderstanding of evolution my friend The occurrences are not random because there the apple and the rock slide have observable causes, trajectories, etc. Also, I said you confuse random and arbitrary because random is something with no purpose or direction or all outcomes being equal, while arbitrary something seemingly random with still having a purpose.

similarity in action and survival based on how many genes match up with other animals is pretty pointless. We share 50% of our genetic code with bananas as well, why don't they have half the intelligence we do. Genetics are good markers for speciation and things like that, but genes are extremely hard to say what exactly certain ones do at any given time for the most part. To an extent all pack animals that have a certain hierarchy think about their "place in the universe" to an extent. As to why we don't have closer relations than the chimps, we have been very close to extinction in the past and it's no real surprise that our close relatives didn't make it through those bottlenecks. science is a method, you don't have to believe science works for it to work. The predictions made could be wrong, but that's why they're tested. There are leaps of faith at times when it comes to scientific hypotheses, but that's only so make sense of certain subject matter and again must be falsifiable. Saying science only works because we believe it works is like saying magnets wouldn't work if we stopped thinking they would

why would we? We have hands and thumbs to grab, hold, etc. And as far as I'm aware we have tools that do anything proboscis' can do. So I can't think of a reason why there would be a reason for it to be needed

I was just commenting on the quote and that science works because it is just practice based on evidence. You said it can't explain itself, maybe I just misunderstand what you mean, but it is self-explanatory for the fact that is just a practice. On second thought, maybe you were talking about the fact that pure mathematics can't prove itself consistent. Or as Andre Weil said, "God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it."

Personally I believe freedom of speech is only truly rational thing where information is freely available. Freedom of opinion should be freely exercised everywhere, freedom of speech in the form of telling people whatever you want to tell them without being able to find alternative opinions is truly terrifying.

First, western society isn't the whole human condition. There are still quite a few cultures that don't have any sort of formal schooling or have any need for formal schooling. Second, Language isn't something learned at school. Language is learned on the knee of you're mother, as linguist John McWhorter once said. Virtually everyone knows at least one language, barring some sort of brain damage or isolation. And in what way does schooling teach you how to interpret situations or teach one what an "accepted reality" is and what is this "promised-natural" reality. As Shakespeare wrote "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" Maybe I just don't understand where you're coming from, but this whole idea makes no sense to me

1.) Psychology has made headway into why we have the values we do and what sounds, colors, landscapes, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(personal_and_cultural) 2.) Science works because it bases everything on empirical evidence. I did a little search on the quote and from what I understand it's just based on the fact that our perception is flawed and we can't conceive everything that science explains 3.) Science works to explain the mysteries you mean. Just because it doesn't have answers now doesn't mean it never will. 4.) Science works to explain the universe and make predictions based on testable outcomes. It's used to understand what, how, why, etc. God in the Christian sense is a higher power that can never be understood or the idea of him even conceived. So in Christian's own definition it's pointless for science to try to test, or even care, if there is a god. This is my opinion.