Masculine creation and feminine evolution

[Caladona]

I don't feel the need for any "creation vs. evolution debates" here, I just wanted to state some observations about the general ideas of "creation" and "evolution".

Evolution is feminine, and acknowledges Mother Nature as the origin of life on earth. Much as how it is the mother who does the "evolving" during the process of pregnancy - nurturing and developing the child in her womb until it reaches full maturity..

Creation is masculine, and acknowledges "Father Sky" as the origin of life on earth. Much as how it is the father who initiates the "creation" of new human life, by initiating the process of conception. (Rather than "evolving" the human life in her womb until maturation, as the mother does).

---

This almost makes me wonder if there's some inherent disposition for people to favor ideas of creation or ideas of evolution. Perhaps people who favor their mother over their father prefer the idea of evolution, or Mother Nature, being their originater. While people who favor their father, prefer the idea of creation, or "Father Sky", as being theirs.

 

[Hamish Howl]

UNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

 

[mrjurrs]

I don't feel the need for any "creation vs. evolution debates" here, I just wanted to state some observations about the general ideas of "creation" and "evolution".

Evolution is feminine, and acknowledges Mother Nature as the origin of life on earth. Much as how it is the mother who does the "evolving" during the process of pregnancy - nurturing and developing the child in her womb until it reaches full maturity..

Creation is masculine, and acknowledges "Father Sky" as the origin of life on earth. Much as how it is the father who initiates the "creation" of new human life, by initiating the process of conception. (Rather than "evolving" the human life in her womb until maturation, as the mother does).

---

This almost makes me wonder if there's some inherent disposition for people to favor ideas of creation or ideas of evolution. Perhaps people who favor their mother over their father prefer the idea of evolution, or Mother Nature, being their originater. While people who favor their father, prefer the idea of creation, or "Father Sky", as being theirs.

More likely science v faith imo.

 

[Caladona]

More likely science v faith imo.

False dichotomy.

Fail.

Having faith in what you were told or taught to believe is science isn't "science". (Just like how if you were told or taught it was a scientific fact that the earth is the center of the universe, you'd be believing that based on faith as well simple because a teacher or perceived authority figure "said so").

What a silly conflation.

 

[Hamish Howl]

False dichotomy.

Fail.

Having faith in what you were told or taught to believe is science isn't "science". (Just like how if you were told or taught it was a scientific fact that the earth is the center of the universe, you'd be believing that based on faith as well simple because a teacher or perceived authority figure "said so").

What a silly conflation.

This thread is a fail.

SciEnCe iS FeMAlE aNd CrEAtIoN iS ThE DaDdy

 

[Hamish Howl]

FELLAS, IS IT GAY TO STUDY EVOLUTION?

 

[Caladona]

This thread is a fail.

SciEnCe iS FeMAlE aNd CrEAtIoN iS ThE DaDdy

Evolution is effeminate and is worship of Mother Nature - you seem to think there's something wrong with that which was never stated, why is that?

 

[lwf]

False dichotomy.

Fail.

Having faith in what you were told or taught to believe is science isn't "science". (Just like how if you were told or taught it was a scientific fact that the earth is the center of the universe, you'd be believing that based on faith as well simple because a teacher or perceived authority figure "said so").

What a silly conflation.

The difference is: A scientific theory is refutable when more evidence is gathered. Faith isn't refutable regardless of the evidence.

 

[Caladona]

The difference is: A scientific theory is refutable when more evidence is gathered. Faith isn't refutable regardless of the evidence.

The theory that "scientific theories" should be refutable when more evidence is gathered isn't refutable when more evidence is gathered.

 

[lwf]

The theory that "scientific theories" should be refutable when more evidence is gathered isn't refutable when more evidence is gathered.

Of course it is. It's just that the evidence shows that scientific theories are refutable when more evidence is gathered. It also shows that faith isn't refutable when more evidence is gathered.

 

[Caladona]

Of course it is. It's just that the evidence shows that scientific theories are refutable when more evidence is gathered. It also shows that faith isn't.

Nope, the belief that scientific theories should be refutable when more evidence is gathered isn't refutable, it's just a faith-based belief about how "scientific theories" should be designed or developed.

Just as how a person who only reads at about the 6th grade level "believing in evolution" simply because they were taught or indoctrinated to believe such (not because they developed any of the theories themselves) is just more of the same vein of anti-intellectual, faith-based thinking. They believe it because they were "told" or "taught" so, not because they have any evidence that it's actually true beyond childish faith and naivete in what they were simplistically taught.

 

[lwf]

Nope, the belief that scientific theories should be refutable when more evidence is gathered isn't refutable, it's just a faith-based belief about how "scientific theories" should be designed or developed.

This is incorrect. Science isn't a belief. It is a system of apprehending reality that doesn't require faith. It requires empirical evidence and theories are updated and changed as evidence warrants. Faith doesn't require empirical evidence and is updated and changed on a whim. Science does require empirical evidence. Therefore science is not faith.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Evolution is effeminate and is worship of Mother Nature - you seem to think there's something wrong with that which was never stated, why is that?

That was a stupid post. Is this going to be a habit of yours?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Nope, the belief that scientific theories should be refutable when more evidence is gathered isn't refutable, it's just a faith-based belief about how "scientific theories" should be designed or developed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Slartibartfast]

So how does this sky daddy impregnate the earth and should we be inside when it happens because it sounds gross?

 

[Caladona]

This is incorrect. Science isn't a belief. It is a system of apprehending reality that doesn't require faith.

Your belief in what you were told or taught to believe that "science is" is faith.

You're not a Newton or Einstein and would never have discovered any scientific theories yourself - you just blindly believe in what you were simplistically "told" is science by teachers or authority figures. Just as if you'd been told that "science says the earth is flat" or "science says the sun revolves around the Earth" you'd be believing that too.

It requires empirical evidence and theories are updated and changed as evidence warrants. Faith doesn't require empirical evidence and is updated and changed on a whim. Science does require empirical evidence. Therefore science is not faith.

False dichotomy, poor understanding of what "evidence" or "empirical means", and so on and so on...

The belief that "science should require empirical evidence" doesn't change based on empirical evidence, it's just a belief or axiom held on faith.

The rest of what you're saying is just you mindlessly repeating a script by rote which you were taught or indoctrinated.

 

[Daisy]

I adore both my parents so what does that make me?

 

[Caladona]

So how does this sky daddy impregnate the earth and should we be inside when it happens because it sounds gross?

The initiation of life on earth was allegedly caused by lighting, or the sky. The further nurturing and evolution of life was done by mother nature.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The initiation of life on earth was allegedly caused by lighting, or the sky. The further nurturing and evolution of life was done by mother nature.

Lightning causes life?

 

[Caladona]

Lightning causes life?

7 Scientific Theories on the Origin of Life, Plus A New One | Futurism

What is the "beneath the ice" theory? Explore this and other theories of the origin of life, including a new explanation of life from MIT.

futurism.com

Yes, there is a theory that life on Earth began Frankenstein style! It has been proven that electricity can produce simple sugars and amino acids from simple elements in the atmosphere. This leads to the theory that lightning may have been responsible for the origins of life, primarily by striking through rich volcanic clouds.

 

[lwf]

Your belief in what you were told or taught to believe that "science is" is faith.

You're not a Newton or Einstein and would never have discovered any scientific theories yourself - you just blindly believe in what you were simplistically "told" is science by teachers or authority figures. Just as if you'd been told that "science says the earth is flat" or "science says the sun revolves around the Earth" you'd be believing that too.

The difference is: Science is testable through experimentation and observation. While I am not a Newton or an Einstein, none of their theories are based on faith. Anyone can challenge them using the scientific method, and if the evidence they discover supports their theory, then that theory supplants the old one. That's the beauty of science. A beauty that faith doesn't share.

False dichotomy, poor understanding of what "evidence" or "empirical means", and so on and so on...

The belief that "science should require empirical evidence" doesn't change based on empirical evidence, it's just a belief or axiom held on faith.

It's not a belief that science requires empirical evidence. It is established fact.

Science is based on faith the way 2+2=4 is based on faith. In other words: Not at all.

You are the one who is not using the word faith correctly here.

 

[HIP56948]

 

[LittleNipper]

View attachment 67401819

I totally realize this is a joke; however, at least the professor here has provided his class with an equation, which is more than any professor explaining evolution has ---- and I've been to enough of science classes to know.

 

[soylentgreen]

False dichotomy.

Fail.

Having faith in what you were told or taught to believe is science isn't "science". (Just like how if you were told or taught it was a scientific fact that the earth is the center of the universe, you'd be believing that based on faith as well simple because a teacher or perceived authority figure "said so").

What a silly conflation.

No it was never taught as a scientific fact. It was taught as a religious belief nothing more.

Again no, that is not faith that is someone being a sheeple.

The fail here is truelly yours if you think scientific knowledge is simply something people just accept because some one said so.

 

[Gordy327]

The difference is: Science is testable through experimentation and observation. While I am not a Newton or an Einstein, none of their theories are based on faith. Anyone can challenge them using the scientific method, and if the evidence they discover supports their theory, then that theory supplants the old one. That's the beauty of science. A beauty that faith doesn't share.

Another beauty of science is when there is contradictory evidence to a theory, the theory gets revised or thrown out. Science is tough on itself like that. Science also admits when it's wrong. Both conspicuously does not happen often, if at all in religion/fatih. Also, science doesn't make $#!t up like religion does.

It's not a belief that science requires empirical evidence. It is established fact.
Science is based on faith the way 2+2=4 is based on faith. In other words: Not at all.

Indeed. Science doesn't go by mere belief.