Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:

Quote:

---

LeadB-
Just curious, you have a list...
"there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?

---

i dont believe so.. but this is where i differ from these other guys. its my opinion that the variety of 'races' make up the human 'archetypical' range, different tones or features etc.. but still 'man'. i do not believe we were ever part of the primate family, which is IMO a completely separate species. for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
i'm not missing the point, perhaps you are Sarge. i stress more then anything the work of a Creator, a 'great architect', which established the laws of the universe(including the role of matter/elemnents/morality etc).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
are their differences between cats and dogs? or did they share a common ancestor?

---

Quote:

---

the extinction of dinosaurs allowed for the dominance of mammals, right.. so what preceded the bear, or the gazelle, or the lion?

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?

---

show me what the cat species was before they were cats?

---

Quote:

---

the burden of proof is in fact on you

---

Quote:

---

the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism.

---

Quote:

---

what is the difference between Earth and Venus(or Pluto or Mars)? we either exist here, by design, or by mathematical chance

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
thats ridiculous.. so one day, an ape was born hairless

---

Quote:

---

and upright, with newfound mental abilities?

---

Quote:

---

maybe this only happened over a few generations.. but what caused it?

---

Quote:

---

Fredgiblet-

Evolution has no logical endpoint except extinction, none, there's no logical reason for it to not progress to extreme levels.

---

Quote:

---

YOU are saying that there is a reason that it can't, YOU need to demonstrate the "archetype barrier".

---

Quote:

---

No, we exist here because Earth can support life, the only chance involved is that we are on Earth instead of some other life-supporting world.

---

Quote:

---

If we had appeared on Mars that would be great evidence for ID as there's no way we could have evolved into our present forms there.

---

Quote:

---

The origin of life is not randomly picked, life doesn't have an equal chance of appearing and evolving in deep space or in the middle of Jupiter as it does on Earth, life appeared on Earth because the conditions were favorable, if they were favorable on Mars or Venus life would have appeared there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I'm not a theist, though I've been considering HKC's idea of gods being in everything.

---

Quote:

---

Do you consider yourself a theist?

---

Quote:

---

Rue-
Hairlessness I can barely even guess at ... the aquatic ape theory draws parallels between other mammals who went back to warm water and became hairless, or nearly so (dolphins, whales, elephants, pigs)

---

Quote:

---

Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion ... it's faster to run with four legs than two. Living your life wading in water would make an upright position mandatory.

---

Quote:

---

We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages ... the big increase in brain size, our biochemistry regarding fats, the composition of the human brain ("fish oil" is the largest single component after water) indicate that humans increased their brain size on a fish diet. The shore would also be a good place to have improved hand skills and a great place to develop tools for smashing shells, digging clams, carrying water etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!

---

Quote:

---

Rue-

HEY ! if this is a contest I've got one just like it ...
Whatever makes an object decide to fall to earth, even if it hurts ?

---

Quote:

---

And another one -
What do electrons get out of flowing through a conductor toward a positive charge ?

---

Quote:

---

Oh and here's one too-
Why does light refuse to go around corners?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
...otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive? why not all the time? primates may be comfortable now, but they have to envy our frugality.. so is it only a matter of time?...

---

Quote:

---

Rue-

I was truly wondering if you could imagine, starting from your beliefs, that a god that could make it the nature of matter to come together under gravity, to have opposite charges attract, to have light EM go in straight lines, and even to self-assemble into solar systems - might be able to make matter whose nature is to self-assemble into life.

---

Quote:

---

Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!- Signy

hey, what about abiogenesis... just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?- Anti

---

Quote:

---

yeah i can imagine that. it seems more logical to me then elements intelligently ordering themselves. so if i follow this to its logical end.. we have to consider the 'designer'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by fredgiblet:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by leadb:
All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

---

I believe that none of our religions are correct, I believe that if there is a god it has not chosen us to receive special treatment, I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god-like supernatural entity but do not believe that such an entity exists. I am an Atheist with minor concessions to Agnosticism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Yeah - what Fred said.

Anti, you're killing me. I gave you evidence of evolution, and you ignored it.

---

Quote:

---

I know - textbook posts aren't as fun as hand-waving and saying "I believe this and I believe that" with no actual substance behind it. Too much mental effort, I guess. But your inability to ingest new information makes you look more and more like a man in pretty serious levels of denial... fingers in ears, singing "LA LA LA LA" really loud.

---

Quote:

---

We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Urghh. I can't answer that question as framed, since the theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with inspiration and intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

If you had asked me "how" abiogenesis occurred ...instead of "what" ("who" actually, in your usage) caused it... I would have been able to answer the question!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, since you clarified!

My answer to the question "How did abiogensis occur" is I don't know. So perhaps the question really is DID abiogensis occur and my answer is still I don't know. There are all kinds of self-assemblying molecules: crystals (even snowflakes), DNA, prion proteins, and all the fancy stuff now being done with nanotechnology. But one of the things that all self-assemblying molecules have in common is there has to be a high enough concentration for the molecules to find each other so the forces of assembly aren't over taken by the forces of dissolution.

I haven't spent a lot of time on the abiogenisis argument. My guess is that if it occurred, it would have to take place in an area where chemicals are close to precipitating- where a hot sea-vent outflow meets colder ocean water, for example, or in a shrunken lake or even an underwater cave. But the chemicals involved in those examples (salt, cyanide, sulfide etc) are not the chemicals involved in life as we know it (amino acids) so I would have to posit conditions that are a far cry from what see see today, and I'm simply not enough of a geologist or biochemist to speculate what that might be. So for now, the answer (for me) is unknown.

---

Quote:

---

can cats and dogs mate? theres your archetype barrier right there.

---

Quote:

---

cats HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CATS..

---

Quote:

---

like which one? we don't know of any others.. so what are you basing that on?

---

Quote:

---

so again, either we are here by chance, or by design

---

Quote:

---

what IS evolving on mars?

---

Quote:

---

i believe a species does have a 'barrier', after which point it will become extinct due to natural selection

---

Quote:

---

otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive?

---

Quote:

---

just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?

---

Quote:

---

can a computer or car build itself?

---

Quote:

---

you seem to think that a hand full of elements, given enough time, will properly order themselves to create something complex(like a human being)

---

Quote:

---

you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct

---

Quote:

---

you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?

---

Quote:

---

at some point, the object(inanimate or otherwise) literally has to 'will' itself to change.. does it not?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by antimason:
I AM NOT IGNORING IT!

---

Quote:

---

am i the close minded one? as far as i can tell i include every belief in mine, evolution, polytheism, theism... and it still makes sense(to me). you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct. maybe you are the one in denial

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution.

---

so youre a pantheist.. finally, some honesty! thats not quite the same as atheistic evolution.. you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:

Well, see, I posted a list of fossils that are clear evidence of one body type changing to another. You didn't respond to that, you clearly never went to the web site that lists all manner of such transitions, and a few posts later you're AGAIN saying that there is no evidence of large changes in body types... That's not ignoring the evidence? Wow, I'd hate to see you when you are ignoring something LOL!

---

Quote:

---

And how about C14 dating and ice cores? Are you going to address the flaws we've brought up in your arguments there?

---

Quote:

---

To quote my earlier post: "BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists." I have stated that I know God could exist.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not denying that it's a possibility. It's not the thing I personally believe. But that's not the point. What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!

---

Quote:

---

And... when did you allow that evolution could be true? I don't recall you ever saying that... I could have missed it. My presence online is spotty.

---

Quote:

---

Here's the thing you don't seem to get: you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness

---

Quote:

---

What I've told you before is that nature is not purely random. It is guided by physical and chemical forces, and those have acted to create order. This is well documented.

---

Quote:

---

But - here's the thing - it's not necessary. We don't *need* an active hand of God to explain what we observe of life and the universe. The natural "factory" can do it all.

---

Quote:

---

Really, it's mind-blowingly beautiful. I'm sad that you can't see it.

---

Quote:

---

Signym-
So Anti, at the risk of being a nudge, did you see my snowflake question?

---

Quote:

---

it [evolution] negates or relegates any work done by God to something which happens purely randomly, by chance, with no higher purpose or guidance or design.
if there is no purpose for our being here, but that we happened into existence, it makes the case for moral and ethical absolutes...
... you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont. i take the data, and i see intelligence and purpose...
every species or plant of its 'kind' is designed for a purpose, with their own inherent uniqueness. this is what we mean by order, which by contrast makes your view appear chaotic
these are still just circumstantial observations.. every species makes use of its designed 'niche', we just happened to be created for a *special purpose

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Signym:

what is the purpose of a snowflake?

---

Quote:

---

posted by Rue-

I think AntiM has a hard time not seeing the entire universe in anthropomorphic terms. Since humans create things for a purpose, the universe was created by a human-like being for a purpose.

---

Quote:

---

I guess what I find amusing is that people say god(s) is huge - unknowable and all powerful.

---

Quote:

---

But WE got it(them) all figured out. We know exactly what god(s) wants from you.

---