Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
64,641 - 64,660 of 114,579 Comments Last updated 5 min ago

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68846
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
This is another assertion, but how do you account for a mother somehow knowing that her child was just injured even though her child may be hundreds of miles away? I have heard of many stories like this and when the mother contacts her child, that child informs her that he/she did just suffer an injury, such as falling off a ladder while painting the house or burning their hand on the stove.
There's no scientific explaination for things like telepathy and other psychic events. I believe the only explaination for these psycic events is that its our souls that do the communicating.
Some mothers are more connected to their children than others.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Shared cellular memory could be the reason.
Rose

Santa Monica, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68847
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
What about his wife and kids? They may want him to stick around so he can go on loving and supporting them.
They will see his was willing to die for his belief in Christianity, and maybe convert. At the very, very most, they will live another 100 years without him. And then they will end up in heaven, too. Right? What's that 100 years vs eternity?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68848
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I've had something like that happen, something about the sky, even the stars the sun and moon had an effect on me.
It's just probably our bio-logical clock ticking and being in-tune or in synch with nature. Ancient people were very good at this. Call of nature, eh?
yes I felt that too...again science would call that some kinda of illusory psychological state...but I'm not buying.lol

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68849
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't think "interbreeding with Neanderthals" is not wild guessing? No one has directly observed them.
What do you mean..'nobody has directly observed them'?? Is that your evangelical fundamentalist bullsh!t argument? In your alternate universe nobody saw God's creation of the universe either and I don't see you denying that with no proof at all.

The fact that almost all humans on the face of the earth carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes is factual proof. It also connects us to earlier hominids. We ARE in the line that includes the great apes.

That old argument is the lamest argument the religious fundamentalists have ever come up with...go back to school.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68850
Dec 29, 2012
 
Time and Space wrote:
Just wondering...
If man could evolve from nothing...who's to say 'god' or a 'divine being' could not also have evolved from nothing?
Man did not evolve from 'nothing'. We evolved from the great apes, and they evolved from earlier hominids and so on back to the first germ or bacteria or whatever...3.5+- billion years ago.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68851
Dec 29, 2012
 
ever hear of the oceanic feeling?...didn't really know they had this defined in psychological terms until recently...lol

Oceanic feeling is a psychological term coined by Romain Rolland and popularized by Sigmund Freud in his books The Future of an Illusion and Civilization and Its Discontents to criticize the psychological feeling of religion, the "oceanic" feeling of limitlessness. According to Rolland's definition of the term, this feeling is the source of all religious energy which permeates in various religious systems. It is a sensation of an indissoluble bond, as of being connected with the external world in its integral form.[1] This feeling is an entirely subjective fact and is not an article of faith. Rolland's view is that one may justifiably call oneself religious on the basis of this oceanic feeling alone, regardless if the adherent renounces every belief and every illusion.[2] On the other hand, Freud cannot sympathize with such feeling since he admits he cannot find it in himself. It is not easy, he says, to analyze emotions scientifically. To Freud, this feeling is a fragment of infantile consciousness when the infant begins to differentiate himself from his human and non-human environment. In his opinion, there is not a strong enough need for it to be the source of all religious energy. Freud does not deny that this feeling may occur in people and offers a psychoanalytical explanation.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68852
Dec 29, 2012
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
of course it's wild guessing...but if science wildly guesses to support a preconceived theory, it is more than likely accepted as fact.
Not a guess at all...read something outside of religious text sometime.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68853
Dec 29, 2012
 
all this from getting that warm fuzzy feeling when you look out into the ocean at the beach...lol

Psychoanalytical explanation

Freud argues that the "oceanic feeling", if it exists, is the preserved "primitive ego-feeling" from infancy. The primitive ego-feeling precedes the creation of the ego and exists up until the mother ceases breastfeeding. Prior to this, the infant is regularly breastfed in response to its crying and has no concept that the breast does not belong to it. Therefore, the infant has no concept of a "self" or, rather, considers the breast to be part of itself. Freud argues that those experiencing an oceanic feeling as an adult are actually experiencing a preserved primitive ego-feeling. The ego, in contrast, comes into existence when the breast is taken away, and involves the infant's recognition that it is separate from the mother's breast, and therefore, that other persons exist. Freud argues that it would not necessarily contradict psychoanalytical theory for this primary ego-feeling to coexist along with the ego in some people. The main argument for this is that psychoanalytical theory holds that all thoughts are preserved in a conservation of psychic energy. Therefore, the "oceanic feeling" described as a oneness with the world or a limitlessness is simply a description of the feeling the infant has before it learns there are other persons in the world.

Oceanic feeling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68854
Dec 29, 2012
 
albtraum wrote:
<quoted text>
If you can't separate fantasy from reality, one would think you've got a bit of a problem....just sayin'
I said I separate my creative side from my rational side, in case you missed that. Everyone even a mad scientist has "fantasies" too. They're not robots, they're humans too.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68855
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean..'nobody has directly observed them'?? Is that your evangelical fundamentalist bullsh!t argument? In your alternate universe nobody saw God's creation of the universe either and I don't see you denying that with no proof at all.
The fact that almost all humans on the face of the earth carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes is factual proof. It also connects us to earlier hominids. We ARE in the line that includes the great apes.
That old argument is the lamest argument the religious fundamentalists have ever come up with...go back to school.
If you were my teacher I would drop out

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68856
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What were the neanderthals doing in what is now called Belgium? How did they get there if all great apes originated in Africa? Can you fill in the gaps in your theory?
Neanderthals have been traced back from 350,000 to 500,000 years ago in Africa. Neanderthals left a trail of skeletons from Africa to Europe and Asia. There was found several skeletons of Neanderthals in Israel dated to 50,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago. The last ones apparently died of in the Spain area around 25,000 years ago.

All you have to do is google neanderthals, and an amazing amount of factual evidence is at your fingertips.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68857
Dec 29, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Not a guess at all...read something outside of religious text sometime.
really now...was that a wild guess about my reading habits?...lol

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68858
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were my teacher I would drop out
Ever been to college?? When I was there centuries ago If you spouted a lame theory like that the hazing would never stop...this was long before Political Correctness took over the world.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68859
Dec 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
From your favorite source, Wikipedia:
"Rejection of the state religion was tantamount to treason. This was the context for Rome's conflict with Christianity, which Romans variously regarded as a form of atheism and novel superstitio."
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. The point was that the Romans at one point considered Christianity to be nothing more than a new form of superstition.
Ofcourse. That was why they agreed to crucify Christ.
But when Constantine discovered the truth, there was a re-think.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68860
Dec 29, 2012
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
all this from getting that warm fuzzy feeling when you look out into the ocean at the beach...lol
Psychoanalytical explanation
Freud argues that the "oceanic feeling", if it exists, is the preserved "primitive ego-feeling" from infancy. The primitive ego-feeling precedes the creation of the ego and exists up until the mother ceases breastfeeding. Prior to this, the infant is regularly breastfed in response to its crying and has no concept that the breast does not belong to it. Therefore, the infant has no concept of a "self" or, rather, considers the breast to be part of itself. Freud argues that those experiencing an oceanic feeling as an adult are actually experiencing a preserved primitive ego-feeling. The ego, in contrast, comes into existence when the breast is taken away, and involves the infant's recognition that it is separate from the mother's breast, and therefore, that other persons exist. Freud argues that it would not necessarily contradict psychoanalytical theory for this primary ego-feeling to coexist along with the ego in some people. The main argument for this is that psychoanalytical theory holds that all thoughts are preserved in a conservation of psychic energy. Therefore, the "oceanic feeling" described as a oneness with the world or a limitlessness is simply a description of the feeling the infant has before it learns there are other persons in the world.
Oceanic feeling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_feeling
When I'm in the ocean I feel I'm in theta and alpha wave consciousness. lol

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68861
Dec 29, 2012
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
really now...was that a wild guess about my reading habits?...lol
Don't mind him, he's just ego-surfing

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68862
Dec 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
From your favorite source, Wikipedia:
"Rejection of the state religion was tantamount to treason. This was the context for Rome's conflict with Christianity, which Romans variously regarded as a form of atheism and novel superstitio."
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. The point was that the Romans at one point considered Christianity to be nothing more than a new form of superstition.
That still does not change the fact of Christianity in the empire.
Policies do differs. A case in point, is the Vatican city.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68863
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
If you were my teacher I would drop out
Just think about the concept and then think about things you might have heard about in the news or read in science magazines or eZines.

No one was there to SEE it, but we know without doubt that a humongous meteor fell to the earth just off the Yucatan peninsula 65 million +- years ago and ultimately caused the demise of the Dinosaurs and almost wiped out all other life on earth. Nobody was there, but a meteor fell to the ground in Arizona about 50,000 years ago and made a crater almost a mile across. We weren't there to see it, but we know the earth once had just one super continent we now call Pangaea about 225 million years ago.

And there are literally millions of things that science has found out about our world and universe because we train ourselves to find and interpret data and physical evidence that almost any event leaves behind, or we build instruments to analyze stuff we can't naturally see/hear/taste/smell/etc.

Not meant to be disrespectful, but from the comments I read you don't really understand science and how it works...you are the dream of fundamentalist recruiters.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

G'dansk

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68864
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't mind him, he's just ego-surfing
Yeah....like North Shore Hawaii....fantastic!

“Ungood doubleplus duckspeak.”

Level 6

Since: Dec 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68865
Dec 29, 2012
 
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Some mothers are more connected to their children than others.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Shared cellular memory could be the reason.
I agree and that's an interesting theory. Cheers :)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••