Evolutionists: Tell Me about Love (nh)

[Johnny Kilroy]

atheism isn't dependent on 'science' having an answer for everything

Then why do atheists insist "religious folks" have an answer for everything? Seems like science should be providing most of the answers out of the 2. That's a cop out in every sense of the term.

'Preciate your input though. Honestly. Most of these guys are clowns.

 

[daze23]

Then why do atheists insist "religious folks" have an answer for everything? Seems like science should be providing most of the answers out of the 2. That's a cop out in every sense of the term.

'Preciate your input though. Most of these guys are clowns.

atheists don't insist "religious folks" do anything

it's "religious folks" that claim to have the ultimate answer

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

atheists don't insist "religious folks" do anything

it's "religious folks" that claim to have the ultimate answer

What's the difference between saying "IDK but the answer exists" and "IDK but the answer exists with God/Creator"?

Personally, I think everybody has a right to believe whatever they want and that belief should be respected by everybody. Neither side can prove their position or disprove the other side's sufficiently so that's all moot to me.

I'm just trying to learn something. I had a question so I asked it.

Didn't mean to offend anyone, yet I've been accused of being a troll and assumed to be "coming from a strong religious viewpoint". Why can't we just have a discussion?

 

[AllHolosEve]

thread

yes !t !s, cant bel!eve ! read half th!s sh!t..... wasted part of my l!fe just now....

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

yes !t !s, cant bel!eve ! read half th!s sh!t..... wasted part of my l!fe just now....

So you don't have an answer either. I guess if you only answer what you know, you're bound to get 100%. Problem is it creates a false sense of intelligence. You think you're smart but you're proving you're not.

 

[daze23]

What's the difference between saying "IDK but the answer exists"...

who says that?

just because you can put words into the form of a question doesn't mean there's an answer. much of science is about what we could know and how we could possibly know it

 

[AllHolosEve]

So you don't have an answer either. I guess if you only answer what you know, you're bound to get 100%. Problem is it creates a false sense of intelligence. You think you're smart but you're proving you're not.

never tried to answer d!d ! breh, d!dnt even bother.... so !m not prov!n how smart ! am e!ther way....

you asked a quest!on, got the answer, avoided answer, reasked the quest!on, got the same answer, both sides pointlessly argue the same sh!t !n d!fferent words... ! bel!eve !n evolut!on, not a waste of my t!me...

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

who says that?

just because you can put words into the form of a question doesn't mean there's an answer. much of science is about what we could know and how we could possibly know it

You don't have to say it, it's implied. I don't know your first name, but I'm sure you have one. Now, I didn't need to state that for it to be the case.

But back to the original question... are you saying evolution doesn't really have an explanation for it? If that's the case fine, hell, I definitely don't know.

But why are your homies parading around like experts when they clearly don't know either? Obviously that's rhetorical but the nerve of these cats. Call me a troll because I've stumped them. I was stumped that's why I asked.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

never tried to answer d!d ! breh, d!dnt even bother.... so !m not prov!n how smart ! am e!ther way....

you asked a quest!on, got the answer, avoided answer, reasked the quest!on, got the same answer, both sides pointlessly argue the same sh!t !n d!fferent words... ! bel!eve !n evolut!on, not a waste of my t!me...

First of all, using !'s for i's is really gay. I hope you're a female. Do you use hearts for a's and o's when you write too?

Secondly, the answer was very vague and insufficient. That's like me asking what is homeostasis and you saying "it's a scientific process." Gee, thanks Einstein.

A chemical reaction? Making pancakes is chemical reaction, that doesn't tell me much.

Now, that's all the responding you'll get from me because I'd rather be a troll than a fukking idiot, like yourself.

My bad. !d!ot.

 

[Fillerguy]

That's it?

We're talking about possibly the most important aspect in human nature and you explained it in 4 words? Wow.

Anyone else wanna provide some insight?

By this time I already knew this was a troll thread

 

[daze23]

You don't have to say it, it's implied. I don't know your first name, but I'm sure you have one. Now, I didn't need to state that for it to be the case.

you can't extend that logic to every question though. just because some questions clearly have an answer, doesn't mean every question does:

what color is frustration?

But back to the original question... are you saying evolution doesn't really have an explanation for it? If that's the case fine, hell, I definitely don't know.

well it gets back to what I, and other posters, said earlier about the exact definition of "love". if you can't specifically define what you're talking about, it seems a fool's errand to try to specifically explain it. although evolution can offer explanations for traits that are connected to this concept of "love"

 

[AllHolosEve]

First of all, using !'s for i's is really gay. I hope you're a female. Do you use hearts for a's and o's when you write too?
Secondly, the answer was very vague and insufficient. That's like me asking what is homeostasis and you saying "it's a scientific process." Gee, thanks Einstein.
A chemical reaction? Making pancakes is chemical reaction, that doesn't tell me much.
Now, that's all the responding you'll get from me because I'd rather be a troll than a fukking idiot, like yourself.
My bad. !d!ot.

youre a fukk!n joke r!ght now... us!n "!" fukk !ts my g!mick, who cares.. so you want these n!ggas to g!ve you the textbook chem!cam process !n deta!l now?? you got the answer now you want the detailed process too???? you keep reword!n quest!ons that were answered w!th!n the 1st responses....

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

op you gotta make up your mind, are you goin at evolutionists or atheists? they're not one in the same...


anyways what does love have to do with evolution? is love necessary for procreation? have you ever heard of a "love" gene? i don't think there's anything necessarily 'mysterious' in the question why animals don't fall in love the same way we do, animals lack a lot of the abstract concepts and emotions we have, simply cuz we have a higher level of thinkin. i could just as easily ask you to explain why animals don't show envy or greed, etc.


this is only my interpretation, but if you're tryna get a semi 'scientific' answer i think you'd have to look at maslow's hierarchy of needs. we all have the physiological urge to procreate and thats pretty much where the evolution part of it ends, but the rest of the needs, safety, psychological, self esteem, etc would be where love develops... your experience when partnered with someone that meets your personal needs

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

op you gotta make up your mind, are you goin at evolutionists or atheists? they're not one in the same...


anyways what does love have to do with evolution? is love necessary for procreation? have you ever heard of a "love" gene? i don't think there's anything necessarily 'mysterious' in the question why animals don't fall in love the same way we do, animals lack a lot of the abstract concepts and emotions we have, simply cuz we have a higher level of thinkin. i could just as easily ask you to explain why animals don't show envy or greed, etc.


this is only my interpretation, but if you're tryna get a semi 'scientific' answer i think you'd have to look at maslow's hierarchy of needs. we all have the physiological urge to procreate and thats pretty much where the evolution part of it ends, but the rest of the needs, safety, psychological, self esteem, etc would be where love develops... your experience when partnered with someone that meets your personal needs

I'm not going at anybody. I'm asking a question.

You asked what love has to do with evolution? That's my question! If evolution is about life and procreation, I'm asking how evolution explains love.

I have a question for you, personally. Do you think animals and humans are essentially the same or do you think humans are a degree (or more) above based on what you just said: "animals lack of the abstract concepts and emotions we have", and our "higher level of thinking"? The rest of your questions in that paragraph are 100% valid as well IMO. Why don't animals show these emotions and we do? Seems to me like we're definitely different. And where we differ are important matters! Morality, civility, etc.

What does evolution say about these huge differences? This isn't minor stuff here and I don't think it should be brushed off as easily as it has in this thread.

 

[Johnny Kilroy]

you can't extend that logic to every question though. just because some questions clearly have an answer, doesn't mean every question does:

what color is frustration?

Yeah I feel you but that is way more specific than what we're talking about.

well it gets back to what I, and other posters, said earlier about the exact definition of "love". if you can't specifically define what you're talking about, it seems a fool's errand to try to specifically explain it. although evolution can offer explanations for traits that are connected to this concept of "love"

See I just find that pathetic. Why are you posting in HL if you don't know what a simple thing like love is? This isn't a trick question. You and every other poster here knows what love is. And if you don't, why are you posting in a thread that deals with love when you admittedly "don't even know what it means"? But you do know. And so do they. But they can't answer the question that's why they're trying to complicate things.

What day is it?

Define "day".