Hello

  • Thread starter Thread starter Annabea
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
Annabea, I’m a dudette :D, and no, you can’t get in the minds of animals but you can observe them, correct? And you’re answers were always wishy washy.
Click to expand...
I think I gave my opinion on this earlier in the thread, but I’ll repeat it since it’s late and I should get some sleep.

I explained earlier in the thread how love could have developed through evolution. Obviously this would apply to animals as well - after all we are just a particularily bright species. Some animals would probably have “less love” than humans, simply because it’s not a trait that’s as needed for survival as it is for humans. Mothers abandoning their cubs when they reach a certain age for instance - the mothers didn’t need to develop the “love gene”, or whatever it is, any further than that because the cub survives. Following the same principle I would assume that there are also some species which show even “greater love” than what we see in humans, because it is more essential for their survival.
 
mrhenrik said:
I think I gave my opinion on this earlier in the thread, but I’ll repeat it since it’s late and I should get some sleep.

I explained earlier in the thread how love could have developed through evolution. Obviously this would apply to animals as well - after all we are just a particularily bright species. Some animals would probably have “less love” than humans, simply because it’s not a trait that’s as needed for survival as it is for humans. Mothers abandoning their cubs when they reach a certain age for instance - the mothers didn’t need to develop the “love gene”, or whatever it is, any further than that because the cub survives. Following the same principle I would assume that there are also some species which show even “greater love” than what we see in humans, because it is more essential for their survival.
Click to expand...
Also depends if the animal is social or solitary .
 
mrhenrik said:
Blind chance, given enough time and opportunities will inevitably hit at some point. We have seen no other planets with life, so perhaps our planet is the only one who hit - at this point?
Click to expand...
The probability of blind chance creating life is astronomically improbable (actually impossible considering the age of the universe, it’s only 14.5 billion years old). That is why people like Dawkins have to believe (on faith not reason; for there is no proof of such other universes) in hypotheses like multiverses to make blind chance a little more probable (which is doesn’t).
 
mrhenrik said:
I think I gave my opinion on this earlier in the thread, but I’ll repeat it since it’s late and I should get some sleep.

I explained earlier in the thread how love could have developed through evolution. Obviously this would apply to animals as well - after all we are just a particularily bright species. Some animals would probably have “less love” than humans, simply because it’s not a trait that’s as needed for survival as it is for humans. Mothers abandoning their cubs when they reach a certain age for instance - the mothers didn’t need to develop the “love gene”, or whatever it is, any further than that because the cub survives. Following the same principle I would assume that there are also some species which show even “greater love” than what we see in humans, because it is more essential for their survival.
Click to expand...
Do everyone a favor, you go learn more about love, what it is, how it works and how to put it in pratice and when you come back to post later maybe you won’t be so angry and bitter sounding. Just a suggestion. :hey_bud:
 
josie_L said:
The probability of blind chance creating life is astronomically improbable (actually impossible considering the age of the universe, it’s only 14.5 billion years old). That is why people like Dawkins have to believe (on faith not reason; for there is no proof of such other universes) in hypotheses like multiverses to make blind chance a little more probable (which is doesn’t).
Click to expand...
How is this impossible? Do you have an approximation of the odds, given the number of planets and all that jazz? I would again consider it unlikely or very unlikely (I am really no mathematician by far), but not impossible. We do not know if the Big Bang is the beginning of the entire world, but it’s very likely that it at least started the universe. Now this doesn’t mean that nothing existed prior to the big bang. There is a theory, for instance, that the universe will continue to expand before reaching a certain point and begin contracting again. Perhaps there is no beginning to the world, and that there have been an endless amount of big bangs before the latest one? In that case, every big bang could be seen as throwing a pair of dices and eventually hitting two 6’s, creating life.
 
jam070406 said:
Do everyone a favor, you go learn more about love, what it is, how it works and how to put it in pratice and when you come back to post later maybe you won’t be so angry and bitter sounding. Just a suggestion. :hey_bud:
Click to expand...
That seems to be a very cowardly way to say “I have no counter arguements, let’s move to a different topic that doesn’t contradict my views”.
 
Annabea said:
If you observe us, would it be apparent that we loved to the capacity we do? The ways we express love are not the same as other animals. Sometimes we do not show that we love something or someone. Take a monkey, very social indeed. Might them grooming each other be an act of love? Perhaps, its just love like you love your mom, or brother or father, or a close friend. What I’m saying is even if we observe them, they are going to have different ways of showing feelings. Again, the elephants.
Click to expand...
Obviously, we don’t all live to the expectations of love residing in us, but that does not change the fact that as humans we have a greater capacity to love than animals. How do I know this, well, how many animals love for the sake of love (feeding the hungry, providing for the sick, giving shelter and hospitality to strangers, providing time to volunteer for others less fortunate, offering commiseration in times of misfortune. . . .etc.), and how many animals mate for the sake of love (and remain faithful to the one they mated with) Do male animals usually stick around when their offspring are born? Do you see what I’m getting at? You will not find a Blessed Mother Theresa amongst animals, and that is fact.
 
mrhenrik said:
That seems to be a very cowardly way to say “I have no counter arguements, let’s move to a different topic that doesn’t contradict my views”.
Click to expand...
Case in point.

No, actually, it’s a subtle way of trying to tell you that you are very rude. For someone that likes to give the appearance that you are so comfortable in your “belief” there is no reason for you to be so rude and makes such rude comments. I commend Josie for being so patient with you.
 
josie_L said:
Obviously, we don’t all live to the expectations of love residing in us, but that does not change the fact that as humans we have a greater capacity to love than animals. How do I know this, well, how many animals love for the sake of love (feeding the hungry, providing for the sick, giving shelter and hospitality to strangers, providing time to volunteer for others less fortunate, offering commiseration in times of misfortune. . . .etc.), and how many animals mate for the sake of love (and remain faithful to the one they mated with) Do male animals usually stick around when their offspring are born? Do you see what I’m getting at? You will not find a Blessed Mother Theresa amongst animals, and that is fact.
Click to expand...
I said that animals do not express love in the same ways. I’m not saying that all animals have the same love capacity. Elephants, primates, cats and dogs (they show extreme love towards their owners, you probably have never had a pet. They also love each other, though probably not as much), ect.
 
josie_L said:
Obviously, we don’t all live to the expectations of love residing in us, but that does not change the fact that as humans we have a greater capacity to love than animals. How do I know this, well, how many animals love for the sake of love (feeding the hungry, providing for the sick, giving shelter and hospitality to strangers, providing time to volunteer for others less fortunate, offering commiseration in times of misfortune. . . .etc.), and how many animals mate for the sake of love (and remain faithful to the one they mated with) Do male animals usually stick around when their offspring are born? Do you see what I’m getting at? You will not find a Blessed Mother Theresa amongst animals, and that is fact.
Click to expand...
Looking at humans as a species, we really are a truely weak bunch. One person could not, for instance, win a one-on-one fight with practically all of the carnivorus, and most omnivorous and a large bunch of most herbivorus animals. We have no claws, useless teeth, weak muscles, practically no fur and we’re not that large either. So - we need to develop other traits which keep us together, for instance love. Animals, I would theorize, also has these traits to some degree but those that aren’t as dependent a tribe, pack, group or family as us would probably have them in a considerably lesser degree. I’m quite sure there are at least some male species who might stick around when their offspring is born.
jam070406 said:
Case in point.

No, actually, it’s a subtle way of trying to tell you that you are very rude. For someone that likes to give the appearance that you are so comfortable in your “belief” there is no reason for you to be so rude and makes such rude comments. I commend Josie for being so patient with you.
Click to expand...
If I am percepted as rude I truely apologize for that - it’s by far not my intent. Would you please point out the parts you find rude, and explain why? I came here to learn about your faith and discuss it as to learn about the basis of it, and why you believe, not to offend you.
 
mrhenrik said:
How is this impossible? Do you have an approximation of the odds, given the number of planets and all that jazz? I would again consider it unlikely or very unlikely (I am really no mathematician by far), but not impossible. We do not know if the Big Bang is the beginning of the entire world, but it’s very likely that it at least started the universe. Now this doesn’t mean that nothing existed prior to the big bang. There is a theory, for instance, that the universe will continue to expand before reaching a certain point and begin contracting again. Perhaps there is no beginning to the world, and that there have been an endless amount of big bangs before the latest one? In that case, every big bang could be seen as throwing a pair of dices and eventually hitting two 6’s, creating life.
Click to expand...
I just gave you one example of what the probability (pretty much nil) to put together one very small protein with 100 amino acids by chance would be. Now, do you know how many hundreds of proteins you would need to make one cell. That’s why I said to you do the math. It’s impossible that blind chance could lead to life.

P.S. What you just stated above is that not basically the multiverses hypothesis. As an Atheist you are going against your own tenets (seeing is believing).
Will you do me the favor of reading “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God”? Thank you and God bless.
 
mrhenrik said:
If I am percepted as rude I truely apologize for that - it’s by far not my intent. Would you please point out the parts you find rude, and explain why? I came here to learn about your faith and discuss it as to learn about the basis of it, and why you believe, not to offend you.
Click to expand...
Whoooah, sorry! I TOTALLY got you mixed up with the person that said:

“More excuses for your incompetent God.”

Soooo sorry about that. I truly apologize. :o
 
josie_L said:
I just gave you one example of what the probability (pretty much nil) to put together one very small protein with 100 amino acids by chance would be. Now, do you know how many hundreds of proteins you would need to make one cell. That’s why I said to you do the math. It’s impossible that blind chance could lead to life.

Blind chance can lead to life, but it’s immensively (name removed by moderator)robable. That is a mile away from impossible though.
P.S. What you just stated above is that not basically the multiverses hypothesis, As an Atheist you are going against your own tenets (seeing is believing).
Will you do me the favor of reading “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God”? Thank you and God bless.
Click to expand...
We’re all human, eh? 😉
Click to expand...
 
Annabea said:
I said that animals do not express love in the same ways. I’m not saying that all animals have the same love capacity. Elephants, primates, cats and dogs (they show extreme love towards their owners, you probably have never had a pet. They also love each other, though probably not as much), ect.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that humans love in a greater capacity than animals?

P.S. Yes, animals do not express love as we do because they have a limited understanding of love.
 
josie_L said:
So, are you saying that humans love in a greater capacity than animals?

P.S. Yes, animals do not express love as we do because they have a limited understanding of love.
Click to expand...
Oops, I meant that not all animals have the same love capacity (worm to a monkey) A worm probably doesn’t posses much love, while a monkey is, i say this again, very sociable.
How do you know they have a limited understanding of love?
Not as good as some I have seen but
youtube.com/watch?v=TjtrdpSwEUY
Its only a minute long, please watch.
 
mrhenrik said:
Blind chance can lead to life, but it’s immensively (name removed by moderator)robable. That is a mile away from impossible though.

How do you describe this mathematically: 12 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 to 1. I would say that it is mathematically impossible given the outrageously enormous improbability that a small protein of 100 amino acids be put together by chance alone. Add that to the fact that we have hundreds of other proteins that make a cell, and that “probability” gets strained to the point of :eek:.

Oh, I believed the multiverses hypothesis described multiple universes co-existing.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to put a question mark at tIhe end of that sentence. I actually was asking you if multiverses was what you meant in your last post describing multiple big bangs.

Again, you need to look at what an atheist is. An atheist is a person who does not believe in god - there is absolutely nothing more to it. I do intend to read a book replying to Dawkins’ book, but I can’t promise it will be that exact one. 😉

I’m glad to hear that because, truthfully, I really don’t like Richard Dawkins (I consider him one of the horsemen of the Apocalypse :D).

We’re all human, eh? 😉
Click to expand...
Yes, with souls.

I wanted to quote from that book again, here goes:

“This is a fundamental confusion that runs throughout Dawkins, the confusion of improbability with impossibility. “Coincidence,” Dawkins assures the reader, “means multiplied improbability.” That is a fancy way saying that anything can happen. Since anything is possible, then anything is probable, even if that probability is astronomically small . . . In short, if God is only highly improbable, could His existence be any less probable than an event of such mind-numbing improbability that one couldn’t write down the calculated improbability in 13.5 billion years (sorry, I stated 14.5 billion years)? Given the outrageously enormous improbability, how could one even calculate accurately which was more probable? If on Dawkins’ reckoning God is at least as probable as the sudden waving of a marble statue, then according to his own reasoning God causing the miraculous waving of the Virgin Mary statue is at least as probable as random atomic jostling.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top