The thing is, we do know. Aside from a very small number of exceptions, people fall in love with nice or good looking or clever people. All these traits are beneficial to the offspring thepat will hopefully be produced. Love is simply the way to get you to procreate with the right people.

So your saying you don't believe in love?

I'm saying that love is an exaplainable occurance due to all life's purpose. To survive, and breed.

were not animals. We feel, that's what makes us human. We have other reasons for love than breeding.

That's where we disagree then. We are animals. We feel, as do other animals. Love is a process almost solely for breeding. I doubt a consensus will be reached here but by all means continue the debate :)

Edited 4/18/2014 22:13:47

In the technical sense, we may be animals. But Humans and Humanity are not animalistic, even the most "uncultured" tribes of Indians, or natives, anywhere, have a concept of love. Love is not a base need for animals, they procreate without love, they procreate on base instinct, while, humans, on love and devotion.



honestly, I'm out of facts to argue with. So, that's all I've got, I hope one day you can fall in love and feel it for yourself.

even the most "uncultured" tribes of Indians, or natives, anywhere, have a concept of love.

even darkies?

So let's take the most uncultured tribe as a control (no outside influence)*. They often bond and mate without this true love, sometimes having multiple partners, but ok, sometimes sticking (for whatever reason; perhaps love) with one partner for their entire life. However, so do many animals. Gibbons are exceptionally faithful for example. Combine this with the fact that they are pretty good at communicating with each other, and you have a different species that exhibits the same characteristics of 'true love' that we are seeing here. I'm not trying to appear like a pessimist; it's just what I believe. I believe in the scientific evidence of something, whether it favours me or not.

Also, being in the 10th grade (not sure how old that is, 14, 15?), do you really think you have felt true love? If so, how can you talk about it? Have you read something that you think describes the true love you hope you will feel? It would be nice, but in the UK, something like a third of marriages end in divorce. A marriage begins with the thought of true love, yet so many end without it.

* For the record, your description of tribes was very ignorant.

Edited 4/18/2014 22:27:42

Edited 4/20/2014 02:43:55

You said that just to get the 69th post didn't you (considering that the issue you raised was already answered)?


I suggest you contact the local police station. Your sense of humour appears to have been stolen.

Edited 4/20/2014 00:00:08

I am not an animal!

Just some choice quotes from this thread:

I am a veteran of several internet discussions about Creation vs Evolution and related subjects.



Why is it mostly men encouraging/forcing their women into abortion?



Maybe I'm brainwashed, maybe not. Anything you say won't change my opinion. I'm a Christian and will remain one the rest of my life.

Well, at least he sparked some healthy debate.

Marc, what you are referring to is the actual Evolution Theory as adapted to the discovery of Genetics. This was not the subject of this thread due to several reasons. And I just presumed that it is known, so I did not mention it at all. Main reason for this choice is that this scientific explanation is so remote from our every-day-life experience that we have to simply "believe" what science says or - more detailed - what science magazines would deem fit for publishing and what scientists would deem fit to publish in order to further both their careers and their reputation respectively.

Some exception to this double-filtering in favor of Evolution was Michael Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" and just look at the shit-storm he provoked and how bullied his looks were on YouTube discussions. And although his main point, the obvious irreducibility of certain biological mechanisms and systems isn't refuted nor tackled in any way at all, it is deemed refuted by science. Silence is what remains.
And this just because they proved that the molecules of the obviously irreducible system can be found somewhere else and so they told the believing public that irreducibility was refuted without divulging how they came to this bombastic conclusion. In fact they actually circumvented the whole problem totally which leaves you with a gaping mouth after you actually read the articles in detail and you just cannot believe it. Because just finding the parts of a irreducible system somewhere is, of course, a necessary condition, but at that point the actual problem does firstly initiate and arise and that was the point where they stopped fully and claimed victory. Now, Michael Behe's voice was drowned in the chanting of the mantra "EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, WE GOT IT". And this is an example why I do not choose to talk about stuff that I cannot verify myself, but have to believe THEM for.

Therefore, this thread was about real-life phenomena. And when you start about love or beauty or joy of sex and this stuff - which existence you simply cannot deny and for which you do not need Science to tell you - as being a proof of god, then Evolution - figuratively spoken, mind you - steps out of its hiding place in Genetics and claims the honor for itself. This is a step out of Genetics into another field. And here Evolution can be hunted down, because it has left its undisputed sovereignty and field of worship inside the realm of Science. Figuratively spoken, again, I know. I just like this, because it simplifies some meanings and blows the cover off of some foggy abstract phenomena.

Yes, of course, you might and you will trace back or legitimize these evolutionary explanations of real-day life back to a genetic explanation. Of course, but once you did this you have to suffer that you need such an explanation for all real-life phenomena or else the whole approach is in doubt. And when the whole approach is in doubt and Evolution is chased back into its hiding place in Genetics then doubt follows into that place, as well, like some Erinys of old. At least so goes my reasoning. ;)

Edited 4/19/2014 14:50:56

Now back to the spreading of abortion as something Evolution should answer for, if evolutionary explanation for human psychology, human choices, human feelings and all the stuff is valid at all like it is readily done in this thread already to the fullest for the concept of love and choosing your loved one and so on. Why stop there? So just as you explained so convincingly, love and choosing your loved one happens out of evolutionary strategems beyond human cognition. Nice. Enter abortion. Now what? I am a moron and evolutionary complexity is far above my comprehension? Right...

I stated that small girls would think of their future children. And mind you, small boys would not think of their future children. Again, small girls would not think of killing their future children and small boys would not think of killing their future children neither.

Still, this means that girls got right from young age on a bigger attachment to their children. And call upon Evolution again. It's alright. Just go ahead. And then they got this deep deep relationship to the baby in their womb that no man could and would reach, ever, at all.

Now, an abortion is a shattering of this life-long dream and identity for the grown woman. It is a destruction of life and the dream of life- and this not just for the child. You turned a mother into a killer, who is looking to forget. This is, we are far from Eden.

Enter the leftist who illuminates with luciferous beams this dark path and declares it righteous and persecutes with fiery fury all and everyone who would not consent. Who am I, if I would not resist this diabolical message?

Have you ever read Solzenitschyns GULAG? You would be astonished as I was when you read that the civilians of the Soviet Union had far reaching civil and constitutional rights, despite all the ruling leftist' arbitration in killing. But here comes the leftist "Catch 22". Once you tried to learn about your rights you received an invitation from Secret Police, because why would you want to learn about your rights, if you were not in opposition to the system or so goes leftist reasoning. So the leftist rule is not one of law, but one of terror. You would know better than to evoke your rights or even ask about them.

So you don't have to ride an aeroplane into a skyscraper to bully someone into submission. Leftist got a more subtle way that raises less opposition and still reaches its strategic goal. Just look at Brandon Eich, just recently having to leave his position at Mozilla Corp just because he executed his freedom rights. This is an act of terror just like 9/11, but more subtle. One day you will wake up in an America where all your civil and constitutional rights are still in place and intact, but you would know better than to execute them. Soviet Union Redux.

Well, now you know all my personal enmities and well, this is somehow the subject of this thread to diss all the stuff I hate, because I do think about them and how to properly fight them. Just like I would think of fighting and beating my Warlight opponents. And God gave me skill for it. Both. Praise the Lord. =) Though the latter is no enmity, mind you, but a fun game, of course, with friends. :)

Edited 4/19/2014 14:48:15

Evolution is not a theory of everything. How could a scientific fact answer for abortion? What nonsense is this?

Yes, evolution is scientific fact.

Please stop using this thread as though it is a blog. This is a forum, not your personal soapbox.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Actually I did write an answer. Lets sum up the last posts: Hell Bender did explain his understanding of love. Arun did state that love and choosing of your partner is ruled by a hard-wired evolutionary stratagem beyond human sentient cognition. My question simply was, if you explain love that way, how do you explain abortion that way? Why is Evolution not over-riding this decision beyond human sentient cognition? Or in other words: How could that have happened at all in the first place? If we are a result of Evolution hard-wiring winning stratagems into our minds, how could this have happened? And I read Mulva's post stating that you need variety. Of course. But, abortion does not strike me like some new phenomenon or variety, but like a pressure valve for our love of sex in combination with a hatred for the responsibilities that come afterwards. Therefore this is a valid discussion and you might add to it. Because this hatred is hard-wired or isn't it?

And then there are my other three initial thoughts. If you venture to explain love with evolutionary influence on our minds - or sense of beauty as some result of a long-lasting evoltionary process coping with what you randomly got in this world, then how do you explain the pain on break-up with Evolution? That is sure hard-wired as well. And then if you do actually state that this pain means in Evolutionary terms that staying with your woman is a winning strategy, then how do you explain male (and female) promiscuity? And if you venture so far as to state that both are somehow contradictory winning strategies, then how do you explain that we rather jump to the option of killing off the result of our promiscuity? So there we are. Discussion yes/no? I would say it is.

Edited 4/19/2014 15:14:47

And right. Evolution is scientific fact, you say. That dogma let's me start going again. I already explained why Science is a rigged system. I mentioned Michael Behe as an example. No answer from your side? You might add to the discussion.

Then there is this: The scientific frame of explaining this world is naturalistic and materialistic. No other explanations allowed. Isn't that like a monopoly? Sure, admitted, it is the only practicable way, sure. But this effective claim on absolute truth therefore is not valid. Plainly, Evolution is the only practicable explanation in the scientific mindset.
There. Can. Simply. Be. No. Other. Explanation.
And that not due to evidence, but due to arbitrary choice of this scientific frame of allowed explanations. Funny, now, if this frame of explanation is wrong, then the explanation might be flawed. At least, please add a little decency to this statement of Evolution being a scientific fact or it is just simply a religious mantra.

You have seriously misundertsood evolution. It does not deal with day to day human interactions. It does not deal with abortion. It describes how, over millions of years, species change, how species diverge and create new ones, how dinosaurs became birds.

It has absolutely nothing to do with something so short term as you choosing one partner or three, a woman having having an abortion, or explaining love. Evolution does not deal with these things at all.

I made no claim that evolution is absolute truth, or that there can be no other explanation. It is however scientific fact.

What this means is that the scientific evidence is absolutely overwhelming in its support of evolution. You must understand that facts are not as solid as many believe, they do change over time but at this moment evolution is a fact. There are no alternative theories with credible evidence.