Spirituality, global hoax or personal truth?

[Pako]

That's domination.



You have a positive reaction to it because it's a good place to live. Just like people like living near the ocean - there's lots of wildlife and often freshwater near the ocean.

We're drawn toward water. Babbling brooks are beautiful, waterfalls are captivating, mountains (with all their ice and water running down them) are awe inspiring. Mountains also tend to have rain near them because they cause condensation in the air due to pressure differences as the air runs over them.

It's no coincidence that human have a positive reaction to water.

I don't like swimming all that much. I don't like the process - you get wet, you get cold - you get mostly naked in front of a bunch of strangers (and even though I'm a sight to behold and inspire awe myself, I still don't like that ). Anyway I don't like swimming. But every time I see a pool I want to be near it.

Now why on earth would I have some sort of natural impulse and fascination with a clean-looking pool of water?

Why is it that I'm inspired and captivated by images of a grove of trees with sunlight filtering through near a waterfall with a fresh pool of water, soft grass, and a wide variety of plants?

I think you just like shiny sparkly things. Water sparkles, dew in the morning when the sun hits it sparkles, water falls sparkle. Face it, you like shiny sparkly things.

[grossly off topic]
Doctors are reporting now that if you hydrate too much you can actually die from too much water. Their suggestion now is to (better be sitting down for this) just drink when you're thirsty. Really? Now there's a concept.
[/grossly off topic]

So where were we, oh yes. Duke, Blake, danoff, all those things are possible, on some level it even makes logical sense. I know a lot of people who hate the mountains. They feel claustrophobic in the valley here surrounded by mountains. They would rather be in Eastern Montana where the mountains are simply rolling hills. So are you saying that maybe their ancestry originated on the plains? Famine probably knows, but isn't that genetic cognition? On the specific topic of water, we die without it. Seems completely rational that most people would be drawn towards it. We also die without air, and what better place to find fresh air then in a forest surrounded by fresh air being produced by the trees.

 

[Duke]

Evolution is not going to explain every little quirk. The human mind is not so conditioned that we must all like the beach or the plains or the mountains or whatever. There's plenty of room for variation that does not actually produce an anti-survival trait.

 

[Danoff]

So where were we, oh yes. Duke, Blake, danoff, all those things are possible, on some level it even makes logical sense. I know a lot of people who hate the mountains. They feel claustrophobic in the valley here surrounded by mountains. They would rather be in Eastern Montana where the mountains are simply rolling hills. So are you saying that maybe their ancestry originated on the plains? Famine probably knows, but isn't that genetic cognition? On the specific topic of water, we die without it. Seems completely rational that most people would be drawn towards it. We also die without air, and what better place to find fresh air then in a forest surrounded by fresh air being produced by the trees.

Yea, it makes perfect sense.

I just find it fascinating when I catch myself having an emotional or intagible reaction to something that would benefit me in the wild.

I like heavy contrast in paintings. Most people do. If you show me a muddy brown painting with lots of underbrush, I might think it looks cool (might) but it doesn't make me want to jump into it and roll around.

High levels of contrast in paintings (especially landscapes) make features stand out. It makes the area look clean. Clean means fewer bugs, it means I can spot an insect coming to sting me. It means that I can spot a snake in the grass.

In the wild, visibility is everything. It's your ass if you can't see 5 feet in front of you. So it makes sense that the paintings you want to jump into and hang out it are the ones where you can see things clearly.

When you're camping you naturally pick the grove that's clean and you might not even wonder why - you just thought it was pretty.

 

[Swift]

Evolution is not going to explain every little quirk. The human mind is not so conditioned that we must all like the beach or the plains or the mountains or whatever. There's plenty of room for variation that does not actually produce an anti-survival trait.

I said the same thing about the bible, but I was shot down.

 

[Danoff]

I said the same thing about the bible, but I was shot down.

When?

 

[Swift]

When?

In the entire Creation vs Evolution thread. Perhaps, I didn't say those exact words. But people would say "what about this that and the other" when it came to details of the bible. I explained it and people would say, "That's bogus" Now, Duke says it about evolution and it's apparently accepted.

 

[Duke]

No, I'm not saying that the details of evolution are wrong or even incomplete. I'm just saying that evolution does not micromanage the details of each species. If something is not anti-survival, there's going to be no compelling evolutionary pressure to remove it. This is why dogs have a little toe in the center of the back of their ankle, and humans have an appendix.

But the mechanics of evolution and adaptation are clear and detailed in how they work.

 

[Blake]

But evolution has caused those useless things to slowly dissapear, I mean our apendix is much smaller than it would be if we needed it.

Blake

 

[Duke]

Yes, it has allowed them to slowly disappear, but it has done nothing to cause it.

 

[Earth]

Darwin himself believed that God 'blew life into a few forms' at first. The idea that life arose from non-living matter was brought up at some later point, probably from individuals looking to take all the credit away from the creator.

Some of us who believe in a creator have very valid reasons in doing so. We aren't blind fools following the masses. That definition can be for evolutionists and creationists, who both have wavering thoughts that are manipulated by their leaders/scientists.

 

[Duke]

Uhhh, OK, yeah.

 

[Earth]

Just look at my avatar

You think she evolved from slime?

 

[Famine]

Darwin himself believed that God 'blew life into a few forms' at first.

If Darwin did indeed state this, it was in his early days as a man of the cloth. He never, after the publication of "On the Origin of Species", renounced or contradicted the theories had advanced - though proponents of "I.D." often make this claim.

Some of us who believe in a creator have very valid reasons in doing so. We aren't blind fools following the masses.

Yet few who DO believe in a Creator adopt a religion which is not formalised and decreed by a book.

However, this discussion is more suited to one of our many Creation/Evolution threads. Though I'd love to hear your "very valid reasons" for believing in something which cannot possibly be proven.

 

[Earth]

However, this discussion is more suited to one of our many Creation/Evolution threads. Though I'd love to hear your "very valid reasons" for believing in something which cannot possibly be proven.[/color]

As of yet evolution hasn't been proven, yet there are many followers.

I will post my reasons and other replys in the evolution vs creation thread

 

[Famine]

As of yet evolution hasn't been proven, yet there are many followers

There are none.

 

[Blake]

Yes, it has allowed them to slowly disappear, but it has done nothing to cause it.

Well, yeah.

As of yet evolution hasn't been proven, yet there are many followers.

Evolution is a religion now?

Blake

 

[Duke]

Just look at my avatar

You think she evolved from slime?

Yeah, I do... she just had about a 65 billion year head start.

 

[Pako]

Evolution is a religion now?

Blake

The way it's preached it sure sounds like one. Organized and everything, but lacking spirituality.

 

[Famine]

I honestly can't believe we're still stuck in the 1860s, with "Evolution" being seen as a devious plot against Christianity.

Evolution is NOT preached. It is presented - as with all science - as being the most accurate representation of the facts we have to hand currently. Nothing about evolution is hidden - you can read up as much or as little as you want about it, for free. As with all science, you can make your own mind up, as it doesn't affect the facts whether or not you agree with them. You can get a paper from anyone who has written on the subject, follow their experiments to the letter and see if you get the same results or not - and write your OWN paper based on this for other people to do the same with.

If only the same could be said for organised religion. The usual excuse for observed religious evidence being unrepeatable is that you shouldn't try to "test" God - though it seems you can test everything else out which they believe He created and get reproducible results.

 

[Blake]

I honestly can't believe we're still stuck in the 1860s, with "Evolution" being seen as a devious plot against Christianity.

Evolution is NOT preached. It is presented - as with all science - as being the most accurate representation of the facts we have to hand currently. Nothing about evolution is hidden - you can read up as much or as little as you want about it, for free. As with all science, you can make your own mind up, as it doesn't affect the facts whether or not you agree with them. You can get a paper from anyone who has written on the subject, follow their experiments to the letter and see if you get the same results or not - and write your OWN paper based on this for other people to do the same with.

If only the same could be said for organised religion. The usual excuse for observed religious evidence being unrepeatable is that you shouldn't try to "test" God - though it seems you can test everything else out which they believe He created and get reproducible results.

Blake