This is a homework assignment for philosophy (we are doing Augustine's proofs for the existence of God).

My question to you:

Do you believe in God?

If No, thank you for your time, bye.

If Yes, Why?

I have to ask random people and type up 3 of the affirmative responses I recieve. Your answer can be as short or as long as you want.

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

Yes,

Mainly by looking at the history of sciences like chemistry and seeing how learning simple things cost many lives. Too be a chemist a few hundred years ago you needed to be a rich nobleman and buy some chemicals, you then mixed them together until you discovered something or died trying. The second result was probably alot more common than we will ever know because only the ones that discover something before dying get remembered.

Early man learn to do some pretty impresive and complicated things like make fire, potery, metal and gained knowledge of the plants and animals in thier area and there uses. Stubbling around blindly trying things like the alchemists and chemists takes time that needed to be spent on finding food and shelter. In small tribes the result of exsperimentation could be deadly either because of bad results or lost labor. I think God(s) had to have provided some inspirarion to people throughout the ages because I can't see the human race as being that lucky.

yes. I can see God working in my life, and I don't think that in the amount of time earth has been here, I find it hard to believe that life would've evolved this far on its own. I believe the Koran and New Testament and Torah are historically acurate.

There's no reason not to believe in God. Science, philosophy..no reason not to.

Yes. Personal bias you might say but whatever. I say atheists are equally biased in their beliefs.

Anyway, ive been raised in somewhat of a Christian home. Went to a Christian school. Whatever.

But when you actually listen in church and start understanding what the Bible is saying you cant help but to see how God works. Hes given me the answer to many problems that i would have either never found or wouldnt have thought of as fast. So yes i have a personal relationship with Him, so His evident presecnce is evidence enough for me.

Its like the big bang. You cannot prove that it happened. You can make assumptions and theorize that it did based on things we can observe and experience. The same with God.

But ive taken an objective veiw as well. Believing in evolution by observing mere statistics is just arrogant and brainless. Atheism is definitely a religion and it is definitely an opiate.

No.

I'd have to say one of the main reasons is lack of evidence. Yes, I know that it IS possible for a supreme being to exist, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's true. A higher power could be the motivating force behind the universe, and it could be what sparked life on Earth. But, there's too many "coulds" and "ifs" for me to believe in it whole-heartedly.

I believe people believe in God. People are so dumb.

Yes.

quote:Originally posted by Zman:



There's no reason not to believe in God. Science, philosophy..no reason not to.

One has to be blind not to see God(or at least a greater being)in our world. Even the way your body works...Your heart pumping blood, for many, many years, nerves telling you how things feel...just move your fingers and look at it. Something that perfectly built...it's truely wonderfull.

No.

I believe in a higher power. Not necessarily the judeo-christian-islamic god...But I do believe there is something more powerful than us calling the shots behind the scenes. I'm a bit divided on the issue a bit...I believe in evolution...though I also believe that theres a little too much to human beings that cannot be attributed to evolution. I have taken many courses in religion and philosophy, and have heard the popular arguments for the existence of god. None of them convince me, they are just possibilities....The argument from the infinite regress, and the argument (i forgot what its called) that says life is too complex to be randomly created (they use as an example finding a watch on the beach and knowing it wasn't just randomly created, it had a maker). So I believe there is a god. But I don't think any of the religions have it right. I don't think any of us will come even close to understanding it until we die.

You refer to the intelligent design argument...and yes...like all other arguments relating to God's existance it is flawed,

quote:

I) Time is Contiguous.

This cannot be "proven", as we cannot know if we are the result of a near infinite to one chance that the laws of physics are completely and utterly random, and that our whole concept of the continuous nature of time is liable to colapse at any one instant in time. However, we have never seen a massive discontinuity in time with a near infinite number of chances to have done so in the past.

II) The universe has at least one rule, or law of nature. Point I is a rule, or law by definition. Since it applies to the universe, it is a universal law, or a natural law, or a law of physics. Take your pick as to what name you desire.

III) We are not alone!

This cannot be proven, and is, in fact, completely irrelevant.

IV) If the universe's ruleset was created, the creator would be an intelligent being.

What level of inteligence is unimportant. If the ruleset were created by a being of no inteligence, it would be random, as the creator wouldn't know what the hell to do. As shown in point I, at least one rule in our universe isn't random.

V) If time had a starting point, the ruleset had to be created.

That seems clear to me, if it doesn't to you, you've got issues man. Because time didn't exist before it's own creation, whatever created it must lie outside of time.

VI) If the universe were not created, and as such, extends infinitely into the past, (oscillating universe model): It still has a ruleset, and that has to come from somewhere. If it didn't it would be random. The reason it would be random is that if the universe had no starting point, there is NO reason for time to be the way it is. It doesn't have a cause and would be random. Because the ruleset had to come from somewhere, other than the past (can't precede something that extends infinitely int the past), the ruleset's creator would have to exist outside of time.

VII)I'm tired, and I'm just going to say, screw this thread, people in the God forum are idiots, I'm going back to mad scientists.

VIII) Whether or not time has a starting point, the ruleset in point I was created by a being outside of time.

Whether you wish to call this entity/entities god, or something else is your choice.

In response to the inevitable multiverse argument. Cool, let's have a multiverse. It doesn't matter if there are concious beings or not.

I know you say, "But we could only have this discussion in a universe in which time appears to be contiguous." Well, if time isn't contiguous, there is a near-infinite chance that armageddon will occur as all sense of casuality is razed to the ground. Nope didn't happen. Proof enough for me. If it's not for you, fine, stake your bet against the near-infinite to one chance of there being a god.



There's my refined argument for the existence of God. Even if it fails, it manages to avoid many of the ways people disprove Aquinas and Augustine.

As for why I actually believe there is a God? Mostly that comes from being unable to believe thet we got here, and remain here through complete chance.

i believe

yet im not sure why

im guessing its because the whole coming from monkey thing just seems even more far fetched

i even believed in god even before i knew other people did too

i pray and thats what keeps me believing cause on occasions they have been answered



hope thats not to confusing

im also an active church goer too

[This message has been edited by rodrat16 (edited 06-02-2005).]

I believe in a god, god being the Creator, who then took a fucking vacation and left humanity to themselves, and who doesn't intervene in our lives.

I belive in God because of a little thing called Pascal's Wager:

- If you believe in God, and He does exist, then you will gain eternal afterlife in his kingdom

- If you Believe in God and He does not exist, you will have lost nothing

- If you do not believe in God, and He does exist, you will live in pain and sorrow for the rest of eternity.

I also believe in God because The Big Bang theory contradicts itself many times over. Well, not itself, but the Law Of Conservation Of Matter states that no matter shall be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Where would it come from? Only a God would be powerful enough to break his own rules.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

[B]

My question to you:

Do you believe in God?

If Yes, Why?



Yes.

Because it's apparent in the way living things are made, and the way all the stuff in the universe is so perfectly made, and works together. For example, there's a perfect air mix for us to breath, the planets are in perfect orbit, and lots of other examples.

Also history coincides with the biblical events, and that's proof enough for me.

Who?

No.

No evidence.

Ask me to prove god doesn\'t exist? Ockham\'s Razor.

You suck at directions.

quote:Originally posted by CesareBorgia:

.....

If No, thank you for your time, bye.....





No. You're quite welcome. Bye.

Seems like everyone needs a higher power to make sense of this crazy world we live in.

Not even a higher power, just something to believe in. Whether this be government, social reform, or Steve McQueen.

I don't believe in god.

That said, I think that god serves as a figurehead or metaphor that brings all of the ideals and morals of a religion together.

Thanks for all these responses; you've been a big help for my homework.

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

I say atheists are equally biased in their beliefs.

Allow me to play Devils' advocate.

Here is what an atheist would say to your argument that he/she is, "equally biased in [his/her] beliefs:"

"We live in a world where existence is determined rationally through science and observation. Therefore, it is the position of many strong atheists that the default position is non-existence, that the burden of proof always lies with someone asserting the existence of an entity, and that things which cannot be observed and tested and proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt do not exist. The idea that non-existence is the default is based on Occam's Razor. By this argument, absolute certainty about the nonexistence of the god or gods is not required to be justified in denying their existence."

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



But when you actually listen in church and start understanding what the Bible is saying you cant help but to see how God works. Hes given me the answer to many problems that i would have either never found or wouldnt have thought of as fast. So yes i have a personal relationship with Him, so His evident presecnce is evidence enough for me.



Aren't you saying that you have a personal relationship with the Bible? How does that prove the existence of God? Granted, the Bible contains some very good advice, but that in itself does not prove the existence of God.



quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:



But ive taken an objective veiw as well. Believing in evolution by observing mere statistics is just arrogant and brainless.

How so? Could you expand on this comment a bit?

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

Yes, I know that it IS possible for a supreme being to exist, but just because it's possible doesn't mean it's true.

St. Anselm would disagree. Here is his argument for the existence of God (commonly known as the ontological argument for the existence of God)

Every man can think of a being than which nothing greater can be concieved. Because existence is greater than non-existence, that being than which nothing greater can be concieved must exist.

P.S. This is a heavily compressed form of the argument. If this does not suffice, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by xXPhoenixFireXx:

Even if it fails, it manages to avoid many of the ways people disprove Aquinas and Augustine.



No it doesn't. It is rife with problems. It falls easily to Hume's work on causation, to mention one difficulty.

Faithully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by rodrat16:

i pray and thats what keeps me believing cause on occasions they have been answered



On occasions? That's enough for you? Assuming you answer yes, why is that enough for you to believe in God?

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

I thought this was a homework assignment, not a way to collect everyone in one area to shoot them down.

I wondered if this was going this direction.

quote:Originally posted by Tom_Sawyer:

I belive in God because of a little thing called Pascal's Wager:

- If you believe in God, and He does exist, then you will gain eternal afterlife in his kingdom

- If you Believe in God and He does not exist, you will have lost nothing

- If you do not believe in God, and He does exist, you will live in pain and sorrow for the rest of eternity.



See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager

Wikipedia has a few compelling refutations of Pascal's Wager.

quote:Originally posted by Tom_Sawyer:



I also believe in God because The Big Bang theory contradicts itself many times over. Well, not itself, but the Law Of Conservation Of Matter states that no matter shall be created or destroyed, only changed in form. Where would it come from? Only a God would be powerful enough to break his own rules.



Do you even understand the Big Bang Theory? It states that our universe originiated by the explosion of space itself, from an enormously dense state at some finite time in the past. It doesn't violate the Law of the Conservation Of Matter, it rests on the universal application of that law.

P.S. In the future, to prevent from appearing to be an idiot, you should research the scientific theories you seek to debunk.

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by darkmatter89:

the planets are in perfect orbit



Actually they are not. They don't even line up.

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

I thought this was a homework assignment, not a way to collect everyone in one area to shoot them down.

I wondered if this was going this direction.

Since I already turned my homework assignment in, I thought I would try to keep this thread viable. I am asking questions to better understand peoples' reasons for believing in God. The original aim of the thread still stands. I am just seeking clarification and trying to flush out the crap.

Faithfully Submitted,

Cesare de Borgia

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

I believe people believe in God. People are so dumb.

I remember reading Augustine when I was a first year in college. I can't quite recall what his reasons were off the top of my head and I don't know where the book is. Oh well.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Yes,

Mainly by looking at the history of sciences like chemistry and seeing how learning simple things cost many lives. Too be a chemist a few hundred years ago you needed to be a rich nobleman and buy some chemicals, you then mixed them together until you discovered something or died trying. The second result was probably alot more common than we will ever know because only the ones that discover something before dying get remembered.

Early man learn to do some pretty impresive and complicated things like make fire, potery, metal and gained knowledge of the plants and animals in thier area and there uses. Stubbling around blindly trying things like the alchemists and chemists takes time that needed to be spent on finding food and shelter. In small tribes the result of exsperimentation could be deadly either because of bad results or lost labor. I think God(s) had to have provided some inspirarion to people throughout the ages because I can't see the human race as being that lucky.

A.)That made me chuckle quite a bit, good one!

B.) No, I dont belive

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:



Early man learn to do some pretty impresive and complicated things like make fire, potery, metal and gained knowledge of the plants and animals in thier area and there uses. Stubbling around blindly trying things like the alchemists and chemists takes time that needed to be spent on finding food and shelter. In small tribes the result of exsperimentation could be deadly either because of bad results or lost labor. I think God(s) had to have provided some inspirarion to people throughout the ages because I can't see the human race as being that lucky.

1. Who said it was experimentation?

Let's take fire.

The most accepted theory of how man discovered fire, is not the result of experimentation, but accident. Fire is commonly produced by nature, via lightning, something which causes many wildfires in the United States. Furthermore, the areas where man was when he discovered fire, are littered with flint, which is what they used in weapons; which again is another source of the discovery of fire, without the need of "experimentation".

Let's take pottery.

Pottery is made out of soil. You can see, without experimentation, that certain soils harden after being wet (by rain) and dried (by the sun). You do not need any inspiration of a god to create pottery after that. In fact, that too can be arrived at without experimentation. A footprint, of an animal, of even themselves, in soil, would produce an indentation in it, which would the harden. Behold, a bowl.

Let's take metal.

What about metal? Its use in weapons? There is virtually no difference in the creation of metal weapons, the most basic ones, and the creation of weapons made from rock, like flint. Both where eventually created by heating the flint (the metal in this case) and hitting it with rocks.

Let's take plants.

What about plants exactly? Their medical uses? The vast majority of them where failures, they did not provide any medical benefit. Apparently god inspired them wrong... http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Let's take animals.

What animals? Their use as food? Why must have that been inspired? Are you claiming he inspired dogs, cats, leeches, mosquitoes, flies, et cetera, as well?

2. Why would they have to lose time from hunting? Not every member of the tribe hunted. Hunting doesn't take the whole day. They didn't hunt everyday.

Yes I do believe in God. I believe in the God spoken of in the Old and New Testament but unfortunetely most Christians and Jews believe in a false God. What do I mean by this? Well if you imagine God in your mind you create God in your mind. Also some people think believing in God and Jesus is like being part of a good team. They just think people that go to church are good people and that people that don't are bad. The teachings of the bible have little effect on some of there lives.

I also believe the existence of a personality is proof of God's existance.

Basically I view God as being the force behind all things. Kind of like Star Wars. Actually very much like Star Wars.

[This message has been edited by URa11FUX (edited 06-05-2005).]

QUOTE Originally posted by Rust:

Furthermore, the areas where man was when he discovered fire, are littered with flint, which is what they used in weapons; which again is another source of the discovery of fire, without the need of "experimentation".[b]

ok, Rust, i agree here. Someone making a flint hatchet, drops the 'blade' on more flint (back at the village, near the woodpile), and happens to light his toe on fire. But what about "rubbing two sticks together? I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesnt make sense that this method was discovered by accident. It takes too long and is rather difficult.. even when you know the outcome, you need some practice.



[b]Let's take pottery.

Pottery is made out of soil. You can see, without experimentation, that certain soils harden after being wet (by rain) and dried (by the sun). You do not need any inspiration of a god to create pottery after that. In fact, that too can be arrived at without experimentation. A footprint, of an animal, of even themselves, in soil, would produce an indentation in it, which would the harden. Behold, a bowl.

It took a special person to make the connection from a footprint.

A few weeks back, my youngest step-daughter needed to make a catapult (roman style) for school and asked me to help. We looked on the web for directions, and the only directions we could find were ones you need to pay for. So we printed out pictures (of drawings) and descriptions. One description said that the Romans would have used a sling on the end of the throwing arm. Now, we have seen catapults in movies and in books, so we knew that they existed and worked. But in spite of this, it was a little hard to make the 'pult' work... either the sling was too long or too short. After messing around with the length, we finally got it right (she got a "A"), but it got me thinking (and metephorically, patting the ancients on the back), the made things from scratch... and alot of things would have been the giant, not "standing on the giant's shoulders" by improving someone else's design.

What about metal? Its use in weapons? There is virtually no difference in the creation of metal weapons, the most basic ones, and the creation of weapons made from rock, like flint. Both where eventually created by heating the flint (the metal in this case) and hitting it with rocks.

I'm not sure what you are tryingto point out here. They did need to learn how to make fire hotter.

But, against MasterPython, all the things that he mentioned (fire,pottery, metal etc.), he is implying that the time it took, would be taken away from the time needed for survival (food & shelter). But this is doubtful (atleast in most cases). None of these things are in direct competition to survival. You dont need cooked food, just food. And if you dont need cooked food, you dont need pots and pans... err, i mean pottery for holding the food... just hands. And metal works, again, not nessesary for survival.

What i'm getting at, is; when these things were discovered/invented, it most likely would have been after the food and shelter problem was "solved". During times of, let's say, "leisure". Times when one had time to think and observe.

Now, you might be thinking, "why is john addressing me, instead of MasterPython? Because, he is putting a case against MasterPython's, "God = human inspiration" reason for belief.

Well, maybe you weren't thinking it, but i was. And the answer i have to myself is: on the same line as Master's.. "If evolutionary origin were true, why the need for the first clothes?" My dad had said that when he was a kid, there was a family that never wore shoes, except for church (and we live in Wisconsin.. it gets mighty cold in winter). If evolutionary origins were true, why lose the hair/fur, so that there would be the need for alternate forms of warmth? ie fire, blankets, clothes.

You could say that it might be a byproduct of having shelter. But bears and foxes have dens. Badgers dig holes. etc.

Let's take plants.

What about plants exactly? Their medical uses? The vast majority of them where failures, they did not provide any medical benefit. Apparently god inspired them wrong... http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

Again, i agree with you.. but (and still in agreement) i think he was talking about food.. moot point.

Let's take animals.

What animals? Their use as food? Why must have that been inspired? Are you claiming he inspired dogs, cats, leeches, mosquitoes, flies, et cetera, as well?

I still agree; however, yes, i believe God gave all creatures the need and desire to eat.

Yup, Cause worst case scenario is I live a happy self-decieving life. Works for me. But seriously I also just had a relegious experience last year so I believe.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

ok, Rust, i agree here. Someone making a flint hatchet, drops the 'blade' on more flint (back at the village, near the woodpile), and happens to light his toe on fire. But what about "rubbing two sticks together? I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesnt make sense that this method was discovered by accident. It takes too long and is rather difficult.. even when you know the outcome, you need some practice.

He said, it took experimentation to discover fire. If you agree that flint + stone doesn't need experimentation, then you agree with me and he is wrong.

They need not have rubbed sticks together to create fire.

quote:few weeks back, my youngest step-daughter needed to make a catapult (roman style) for school and asked me to help. We looked on the web for directions, and the only directions we could find were ones you need to pay for. So we printed out pictures (of drawings) and descriptions. One description said that the Romans would have used a sling on the end of the throwing arm. Now, we have seen catapults in movies and in books, so we knew that they existed and worked. But in spite of this, it was a little hard to make the 'pult' work... either the sling was too long or too short. After messing around with the length, we finally got it right (she got a "A"), but it got me thinking (and metephorically, patting the ancients on the back), the made things from scratch... and alot of things would have been the giant, not "standing on the giant's shoulders" by improving someone else's design.

Why would it need a special person? A foot step already creates the necessary indentation, needed to collect water. After that, you don't need a special person, you need a person with eye-sight.

As for your example, do you think they got it right the first time? No. They failed, numerous times. That's an argument for humans arriving at those inventions with trial an error and ingenuity, not an argument for humans being inspired by a god, unless that god is so stupid he inspired them wrongly.

quote:I'm not sure what you are tryingto point out here. They did need to learn how to make fire hotter.

That's incorrect. For other metals? Yes. But not with the metals they used in the first place, and not for the kind of forging they used.

quote:

Now, you might be thinking, "why is john addressing me, instead of MasterPython? Because, he is putting a case against MasterPython's, "God = human inspiration" reason for belief.

Well, maybe you weren't thinking it, but i was. And the answer i have to myself is: on the same line as Master's.. "If evolutionary origin were true, why the need for the first clothes?" My dad had said that when he was a kid, there was a family that never wore shoes, except for church (and we live in Wisconsin.. it gets mighty cold in winter). If evolutionary origins were true, why lose the hair/fur, so that there would be the need for alternate forms of warmth? ie fire, blankets, clothes

.

You could say that it might be a byproduct of having shelter. But bears and foxes have dens. Badgers dig holes. etc.

1. The first clothes provided warmth. They were animal skins.

2. The first humans weren't much hairier than we are right now, at least, that's the current interpretation. Hair would have caused them to sweat, which would have caused them to freeze to death.

3. I don't even begin to understand what any of that has to do with anything.

I believe in a god ( well kind of) we are our own Gods we should worship not really ourselves but our consciousness, our brains I guess. We wrote the bible, we build skyscrapers, we climb mountains, we take individual pieces of metal glass plastics put them together and make something like a computer. We are the miracle makers. We are our own Gods.

[This message has been edited by bsouthern6 (edited 06-08-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

ok, Rust, i agree here. Someone making a flint hatchet, drops the 'blade' on more flint (back at the village, near the woodpile), and happens to light his toe on fire. But what about "rubbing two sticks together? I'm not disagreeing with you, but it doesnt make sense that this method was discovered by accident. It takes too long and is rather difficult.. even when you know the outcome, you need some practice.

He said, it took experimentation to discover fire. If you agree that flint + stone doesn't need experimentation, then you agree with me and he is wrong.

They need not have rubbed sticks together to create fire.

quote:few weeks back, my youngest step-daughter needed to make a catapult (roman style) for school and asked me to help. We looked on the web for directions, and the only directions we could find were ones you need to pay for. So we printed out pictures (of drawings) and descriptions. One description said that the Romans would have used a sling on the end of the throwing arm. Now, we have seen catapults in movies and in books, so we knew that they existed and worked. But in spite of this, it was a little hard to make the 'pult' work... either the sling was too long or too short. After messing around with the length, we finally got it right (she got a "A"), but it got me thinking (and metephorically, patting the ancients on the back), the made things from scratch... and alot of things would have been the giant, not "standing on the giant's shoulders" by improving someone else's design.

Why would it need a special person? A foot step already creates the necessary indentation, needed to collect water. After that, you don't need a special person, you need a person with eye-sight.

As for your example, do you think they got it right the first time? No. They failed, numerous times. That's an argument for humans arriving at those inventions with trial an error and ingenuity, not an argument for humans being inspired by a god, unless that god is so stupid he inspired them wrongly.

quote:I'm not sure what you are tryingto point out here. They did need to learn how to make fire hotter.

That's incorrect. For other metals? Yes. But not with the metals they used in the first place, and not for the kind of forging they used.

quote:

Now, you might be thinking, "why is john addressing me, instead of MasterPython? Because, he is putting a case against MasterPython's, "God = human inspiration" reason for belief.

Well, maybe you weren't thinking it, but i was. And the answer i have to myself is: on the same line as Master's.. "If evolutionary origin were true, why the need for the first clothes?" My dad had said that when he was a kid, there was a family that never wore shoes, except for church (and we live in Wisconsin.. it gets mighty cold in winter). If evolutionary origins were true, why lose the hair/fur, so that there would be the need for alternate forms of warmth? ie fire, blankets, clothes

.

You could say that it might be a byproduct of having shelter. But bears and foxes have dens. Badgers dig holes. etc.

1. The first clothes provided warmth. They were animal skins.

2. The first humans weren't much hairier than we are right now, at least, that's the current interpretation. Hair would have caused them to sweat, which would have caused them to freeze to death.

3. I don't even begin to understand what any of that has to do with anything.

This was the post that i felt that i owed you a response, but after rereading it, i dont recall what it was i wanted to address.

Save maybe the ending.

You say that the current thinking is that early humans were not much hairier than we are today, AND that hair/fur would have caused them to sweat and thus freeze.

Are there animals today that have fur and sweat glands that live in cold climates and dont freeze? .. i'm not sure, but i think (wild)horses, for one, fit that bill.

The point i was making about the shoeless family, was that they must have gotten "toughened" to the elements. From evolutionary thinking, clothes (and fire/shelter) would have had to have been the reason for becoming mostly hairless--- and needing more clothes. Not "needing clothes" as a result of becoming hairless.

.. I know this post makes even less sense. I'm sorry Rust, i lost my train of thought. I should have replied to you when i first noticed your response... i should just delete this, but maybe a reponse from you might spark my memory.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:



You say that the current thinking is that early humans were not much hairier than we are today, AND that hair/fur would have caused them to sweat and thus freeze.

Are there animals today that have fur and sweat glands that live in cold climates and dont freeze? .. i'm not sure, but i think (wild)horses, for one, fit that bill.

Wild horses do not live in the artic; they live in places where it is "cold" but not really where it snows.

Even then, lets say they do. They have a much bigger surface area than we do, hence need more warmth. Also, they do not have to actively hunt for their pray, which is what causes one to over-work, and then sweat.

yes,

one, in religon, at least mine, there are no loops, in things like evolution, there are many theorys, and many loop holes...

two, if you study the bible, REALLY study it, you'll know there HAS to be a god

three, many times where things have happen that semm liek god had a hand in.ex:

on vacation with my sister, who was a lifeguard...we were at a beach, had to take a boat to get there, anyways, a little boy started drowning at my sister, who is christian, and 2 other buys whom we didn't even know were there, also christian and had lifeguard training, out of the 20 people on the beach, many of them being native to the land (non-christian) anyways, the 3 of them saved the boys life, got him breathing again, brought me by boat to the hospitial. The mother of the boy was christian btu started slacking in the religon and stop going to chruch....the 2 other boys who helped, followed up and she is going back to chruch.

quote:Originally posted by john_deer:

yes,

one, in religon, at least mine, there are no loops,

What do you mean no loops do you mean you cant pick and choose what of a religion you want to believe and what you dont then unless you are a catholic (if christian) then that is how your religion was started. All christian religions except catholicism were started by picking and choosing what you want and then making a new branch.

If that is not what you mean by loops there are loops in every religion just look at all the different sects of different religions especially christianity.



[This message has been edited by your_daemon (edited 06-13-2005).]