Quote:

I suppose, I, like many others, enjoy "underdog", "against-all-odds" stories (it might seem to be you against a vast army of intellectuals, some with nothing but time + ridiculous amounts of resources, to study, research, test, experiment, explore, analyze, ponder, theorize, etc.)



All of these traits sound like scientists. So you must be using the argument that 'all scientists agree with evolution.' They do not. And the majority is shrinking as we find new evidence. Its only a matter of time.

Amazingly enough, creation scientists do all of the things you just mentioned. So which side is right? My argument is that your side ignores the science. Your argument is that your side is bigger than mine.

This is just another way to use the old, "My dad can beat up your dad argument."

Quote:

but I don't really intend to encourage what might seem to be, from some perspectives, destructive behavior.



Yeah, what?

Quote:

If I were pretending to be you, I think I might strike this one from the list.



As long as I'm not merely pretending to be me, I think I'll stick with this one. Its a good one.

Quote:

I definitely wouldn't want to become side-tracked with elaborate discussions about love, what it really is, how it is defined, its meaning, its relevance, etc



You don't have to. You just have to look at some of the behavior that love causes. I'll elaborate below.

Quote:


I, being the dummy that I am, must have missed something, because even a dummy can obviously see, that an organism, that aids its offspring in the quests for survival, when possible, may ultimately extent its version of "code" further into the future, in greater numbers, than an organism which merely aids itself. Particularly for the maternal parent, the materials of which offspring are composed, may represent resource costs which might be considered "investments".



Certainly, parental behavior could be selected for. But that's one example out of the many other examples that contradict evolution.

Natural selection causes animals that are better at obtaining resources for themselves and their offspring to survive. In other words, selfishly keeping yourself alive especially at the expense of others is more selectively correct. Raising children would be to your benefit in this case because it propogates your genes.

Let's start with the recent hurricane Katrina that hit my country not too long ago. We responded by sending aid to people we've never met, giving things for nothing in return. People volunteered to help others with no benefit for themselves.

If we were the result of natural selection, you would think we would just finish the weak, or let them tend to themselves.

In fact, many workers asked some of the survivors (who were sitting around watching relief workers) to help out and they were told, "We aren't going to help. We just lost our home." Selfishness like that was common amongst the survivors, and yet we helped out in spite of this.

If there's a genetic tendency for people to do dangerous things to help others (soldiers going to war, firemen rushing into burning buildings, etc), those people should have been selected against a long time ago because they would be more likely to die before passing on their genes. Especially in the context of a more primitive, perhaps tribal society of people (early humans before civilization). Certainly its more advantageous to be the one who decides its safer to never put your life on the line for a complete stranger. And yet humans seem to almost be driven to do this.

You can't look at love as already existing. You have to find a natural explanation for why it would arise, without being biased towards the fact that it already exists. Otherwise you're just back peddling to save your theory.

Certainly love has its advantages. But evolution can't explain how it sprang out of non-love.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/18/06 00:06.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."