To our more religious members...a few questions

[corysold 0]

more like first men and first women.. otherwise we'd all be jacked up! ;D are you saying my dog doesnt have a soul!

 

Speaking of first men and women, can you please explain the process by which single celled, self replicating organisms would evolve to create separate, yet perfectly matching sexes of the same species?

[ND3 0]

Link please (pun intended).

 

I see what you did there haha.

 

What evidence to you have of this? Hard, indisputable evidence. Not heresay, not theory, not guesswork. Actual factual evidence.

 

Oh, you have none, of course. Your belief in your "theory" is just as filled with holes as you seem to think my belief in my "theory" is.

 

But you have a tailbone they say. Of course, apes don't have tails either, but what matter is that. And "tailbone" is the vernacular for coccyx, but let's skip over that. And a "tailbone" has a distinct use in sitting vertically, but forget that. And evolution always gets rid of useful things like tails right? And explain why my tailbone is proportionately larger than that of an ape. So not only did evolution get rid of my tail, it then made my tailbone bigger than my supposed ancestor? That makes no sense at all. If it was no longer of use, why would it get bigger?

 

It works both ways. I can poke just as many holes in your theory as you can in mine. Neither of us will ever win an argument like this. You go on believing all of the ridiculous mish-mash that had to occur for your theory to work and I'll stick to mine.

 

Over time, as apes evolved from monkeys, they lost their tail. Isn't this microevolution, and almost universally accepted? Humans, and all other mammals, have tails during development in the womb, hence the tailbone. Sometimes, humans with birth defects are born with tails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail#Human_tails

 

Of course we can look at other vestigial structures, the most obvious one being the appendix. Unless we start eating grass (*cough* Les Miles *cough*), it's unnecessary.

 

Wisdom teeth- needed when our ancestors were hunting mammoths and regularly lost teeth, not so much anymore.

 

The little muscles in the eye that, in some animals, are used to close a second eyelid, along with the fold of tissue on the interior of the eye used for the same purpose.

 

Muscles in our ear that most people are incapable of using that allow for movement of the ear for better directional hearing.

 

Getting goosebumps- we don't need the hair on our bodies to stand up to appear larger when we're frightened anymore.

 

The vicegrip that babies have- They instinctively cling to something put in their hand, but they don't need to cling to their momma's anymore to escape danger. They are known to be able to be able to support their own weight with their grip.

 

http://gif.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LES-MILES-EATS-GRASS.gif

[piratey 6]

that makes sense because ripping holes in the arguments of christianity is pretty easy!

 

::shrug:: Depends on how you approach it. I find the belief in the absence in a creator is patiently absurd. Especially when you consider the insane amount of "random" occurrences that need to happen to have an inhabitable planet. Then you have to explain to me what sort of "evolutionary benefit" there is to be human. Free consciousness spits in the face of "Survival of the Fittest."

 

As far as ripping holes in Christianity...You have to understand that the Bible was a "series" of scriptures combined into one book. It's use, in my opinion, was to provide a moral compass during a time before our current hedonistic society. Find me a lesson from the bible you inherently disagree with. You try explaining M-theory to someone in the 2nd century, lemme know how that works out. What chaffs people these days, are as I said, we live in a hedonistic society. Me, me, me, everyone wants everything and they want it easy. You're not going to cheat on your wife because she'll take you to the cleaner. You're not going to murder someone(steal) because you'll get caught. You're going to honor your mother and father because they pay for you till you're on your own. Compare societal structures at the time of the Bible's writing and now.

 

I'd wager half the reason people turn away from Christianity is because they don't want to go to church and joining some new-age religion(atheism, If you ask anyone why they are an atheist they will proceed to explain their religion of non belief) provides them justification. Can an Atheist confirm for me, but when you "announce" yourself as an Atheist, do you get a free lesson in smugness? I love communities like /r/atheist, where they all just sit around and circle jerk about how great being an Atheist is. And how dumb we who believe in a creator are. Get a better hobby, might I suggest reading comics? I can get you a couple to start with... Or perhaps reading books? I love science fiction and historical fiction, got some great recommendations on both fronts. Video Games? But discussing religion when you claim to believe in the absence of a god always struck me as vindictive.

[corysold 0]

I see what you did there haha.

 

 

 

Over time, as apes evolved from monkeys, they lost their tail. Isn't this microevolution, and almost universally accepted? Humans, and all other mammals, have tails during development in the womb, hence the tailbone. Sometimes, humans with birth defects are born with tails. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail#Human_tails

 

Of course we can look at other vestigial structures, the most obvious one being the appendix. Unless we start eating grass (*cough* Les Miles *cough*), it's unnecessary.

 

Wisdom teeth- needed when our ancestors were hunting mammoths and regularly lost teeth, not so much anymore.

 

The little muscles in the eye that, in some animals, are used to close a second eyelid, along with the fold of tissue on the interior of the eye used for the same purpose.

 

Muscles in our ear that most people are incapable of using that allow for movement of the ear for better directional hearing.

 

Getting goosebumps- we don't need the hair on our bodies to stand up to appear larger when we're frightened anymore.

 

The vicegrip that babies have- They instinctively cling to something put in their hand, but they don't need to cling to their momma's anymore to escape danger. They are known to be able to be able to support their own weight with their grip.

 

http://gif.mocksession.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LES-MILES-EATS-GRASS.gif

 

Sure, but some kids are born with 6, 7 or 8 fingers. Does this mean we evolved from 6,7 or 8 fingered apes? Or maybe on occasion defects are simply defects?

 

The point is, you can point to all of these vestigial structures you want, and point to all of the theories you want, yet, when it comes to answering evolutionary questions with actual facts, the discussion stops.

 

There is almost zero evolutionary reason for sexual beings to arise. None. Most of the theories of why have been debunked. It is ineffiecient and costs too much metabolically. Yet, here we sit as sexualized beings.

 

We have millions of years of fossilized evidence, yet there is no direct link that can link humans to apes. The evolutionary tree is filled with gaps, huge ones in some cases, yet those just get skipped over when they topic comes up.

 

So yes, I won't dispute that there are some things that would point to the possibility of evolution (even though religion and evolution don't have to be exclusive), but there are just as many things, on many of the "major" evolutionary questions that have no logical explanation.

[piratey 6]

Speaking of first men and women, can you please explain the process by which single celled, self replicating organisms would evolve to create separate, yet perfectly matching sexes of the same species?

 

Or conscious thought? Never quite got that one from an evolutionary stand point. Where is the evolutionary benefit of this thing poppin' out gremlins?

http://blog.sfgate.com/dwiegand/files/2012/08/01-honey-boo-boo-family.jpeg

 

But seriously, we as a species, don't adhere to the basic principal of evolution, Survival of the fittest. If that was the case, mates would be chosen solely on child rearing genetics... Plus survival of the fittest sort of encourages rape doesn't it?

[TheGipperSB 0]

It is funny to read through this entire thread and seeing how the Christians are handling this topic vs the atheists. From what I've have read, the Christians are being more respectful towards the subject and telling their point of view on everything. However, many of the atheists decide to mock religion and be complete ass holes about it.

 

If you don't believe in my religion, that's fine by me. But it pisses me off when you're trying to make wise-ass comments about my religion just to put it down. I'm not a devout person by any means, but I know that it's important part of many people's lives. So to post on here and tell someone how stupid they are for believing in their religion is ridiculous. Have a blessed day.

[piratey 6]

Sure, but some kids are born with 6, 7 or 8 fingers. Does this mean we evolved from 6,7 or 8 fingered apes? Or maybe on occasion defects are simply defects?

 

The point is, you can point to all of these vestigial structures you want, and point to all of the theories you want, yet, when it comes to answering evolutionary questions with actual facts, the discussion stops.

 

There is almost zero evolutionary reason for sexual beings to arise. None. Most of the theories of why have been debunked. It is ineffiecient and costs too much metabolically. Yet, here we sit as sexualized beings.

 

We have millions of years of fossilized evidence, yet there is no direct link that can link humans to apes. The evolutionary tree is filled with gaps, huge ones in some cases, yet those just get skipped over when they topic comes up.

 

So yes, I won't dispute that there are some things that would point to the possibility of evolution (even though religion and evolution don't have to be exclusive), but there are just as many things, on many of the "major" evolutionary questions that have no logical explanation.

 

That's a big one because evolution would point toward physical attraction as counter-intuitive. That size zero wast super model? A disaster when looking at it from a evolution standpoint, those aren't child rearing hips! Homosexuality? How can you explain that on the basis of evolution? Unless of course you're willing to say, yeah will we adhered to evolution and natural selection until we became human and now we're above it. And then you have to explain how, without a supreme being or a grand designer, we are so special to be above evolution.

 

You can't have evolution without a guiding hand, sorry.

[Tenacious_ND 0]

Sure, but some kids are born with 6, 7 or 8 fingers. Does this mean we evolved from 6,7 or 8 fingered apes? Or maybe on occasion defects are simply defects?

.

 

 

 

its ok buddy.. god created himself out of nothing, got bored sitting around in nothing and created a universe for us. thats LOGICAL right there! wow! my mind is blown again. God didnt need a creator! amazing!he created himself! so if it is possible to believe that for GOD made himself. why couldnt the universe do the same..

 

explain. i want factual evidence.

 

go!

[Tenacious_ND 0]

It is funny to read through this entire thread and seeing how the Christians are handling this topic vs the atheists. From what I've have read, the Christians are being more respectful towards the subject and telling their point of view on everything. However, many of the atheists decide to mock religion and be complete ass holes about it.

 

If you don't believe in my religion, that's fine by me. But it pisses me off when you're trying to make wise-ass comments about my religion just to put it down. I'm not a devout person by any means, but I know that it's important part of many people's lives. So to post on here and tell someone how stupid they are for believing in their religion is ridiculous. Have a blessed day.

 

If you dont believe in atheism my religion, thats fine by me. But it pisses me off when you're trying to make wise-ass comments about evolution and put it down. IM not a devout evolutionist person by any means, but i know its an important part of many peoples lives. so to post on here and tell how someone how stupid they are for believing in evolution is ridiculous.. Have a Evolutionary day!

[corysold 0]

its ok buddy.. god created himself out of nothing, got bored sitting around in nothing and created a universe for us. thats LOGICAL right there! wow! my mind is blown again. God didnt need a creator! amazing!he created himself! so if it is possible to believe that for GOD made himself. why couldnt the universe do the same..

 

explain. i want factual evidence.

 

go!

 

Apparently you are missing the point.

 

I can give you whatever answer I want, and you will be able to find fault with it in someway. The creation argument from a religious point of view is just as disputable as the creation argument from a scientific standpoint. Neither side can provide the other with indisputable facts.

 

I can also ask you the exact same question as many have done throughout this entire thread. But seemingly, you are more interested in providing insults than facts.

 

Many people have attempted to answer questions for you, yet you respond with insults to every one.

 

Many people have asked you questions and you are yet to provide even a simple explanation or answer to any of them.

 

Do you even have any idea on the basis of creation from either point of view, or are you just spouting ideas and insults provided to you from your youth?

[ND3 0]

But seriously, we as a species, don't adhere to the basic principal of evolution, Survival of the fittest. If that was the case, mates would be chosen solely on child rearing genetics... Plus survival of the fittest sort of encourages rape doesn't it?

 

I fundamentally disagree with this. Numerous studies have shown "attractive" features to be the features that show someone is healthy- physical strength, height, body ratios, etc. Obviously some people find other features attractive, but for the most part, people are physically attracted to others that would have healthy babies. As far as the rape comment, didn't Todd Akin have something to say about that...?

 

Sure, but some kids are born with 6, 7 or 8 fingers. Does this mean we evolved from 6,7 or 8 fingered apes? Or maybe on occasion defects are simply defects?

 

The point is, you can point to all of these vestigial structures you want, and point to all of the theories you want, yet, when it comes to answering evolutionary questions with actual facts, the discussion stops.

 

There is almost zero evolutionary reason for sexual beings to arise. None. Most of the theories of why have been debunked. It is ineffiecient and costs too much metabolically. Yet, here we sit as sexualized beings.

 

We have millions of years of fossilized evidence, yet there is no direct link that can link humans to apes. The evolutionary tree is filled with gaps, huge ones in some cases, yet those just get skipped over when they topic comes up.

 

So yes, I won't dispute that there are some things that would point to the possibility of evolution (even though religion and evolution don't have to be exclusive), but there are just as many things, on many of the "major" evolutionary questions that have no logical explanation.

 

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I understand it. Let's start with the common ancestors of all apes. The gibbons branched off from the common ancestor of the great apes. The orangutan branched off from the common ancestor of gorillas, man, and chimps. Then gorillas branched off and we are left with the common ancestor of man and chimps. Then we have the Homo and Neandertal species branching off from the chimps. Is this what you're asking? Obviously, there are several species that have gone extinct along the line.

 

Seriously, I thought microevolution was almost universally accepted?

 

As far as developing theories concerning sexual reproduction- Every theory will have holes in it. It happened hundreds of millions of years ago and we are only scratching the surface of data collection and theorizing. However, it's not chance that mutations that benefit the production of life will happen- it's a statistical certainty over time. The benefits to sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction are the combining of DNA from 2 organisms, as a way to "diversify your portfolio", if you will. I just recently watched Jurassic Park, so I have to throw this line in: "Life always finds a way."

 

I do agree that many, many random things must happen just right to ensure life, but, again, it's a statistical certainty that, over time, all these things will fall into place somewhere in the giant universe. Check out "The Known Universe" on Youtube. The universe is just so massive that sometime, somewhere, life will happen. One of the places that it did happen is Earth.

 

To your comment about the smugness of atheists- I don't consider myself an atheist (maybe agnostic, maybe a skeptic... I don't know, they're all just words to me. I don't really identify with anyone), but most atheists that I know are very accepting and kind people. There are always going to a small portion of people that ruin it for everyone. It's the very same with Christians. I unsubscribed from r/atheism as soon as I could.

[piratey 6]

its ok buddy.. god created himself out of nothing, got bored sitting around in nothing and created a universe for us. thats LOGICAL right there! wow! my mind is blown again. God didnt need a creator! amazing!he created himself! so if it is possible to believe that for GOD made himself. why couldnt the universe do the same..

 

explain. i want factual evidence.

 

go!

 

Give me factual evidence of anything bro. M-Theory, have at it. Give me factual evidence of dark energy, which supposedly makes up 75% of the universe. You can't. You can't even prove to me that there is such thing as a black hole, nor can you tell me what would happen if you got close to a black hole. Is matter lost? Or isn't it? M-Theory would dictate that it wouldn't be lost because it would exist elsewhere in the multiverse. But how do you prove that?

 

St.Thomas Aquinas(The Catholic Plato) laid it out pretty simply, God is simple. He's not some bearded guy.

(Not this)

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bf68b53ef01348624d3f9970c-800wi

He has no physical form because a physical form would be imperfect and God is perfect. The idea and scope of a grand designer goes above and beyond would we could comprehend.

 

Something that's always bothered me is that we see thing through imperfect lenses, eyes. We don't take in 99% of the world due to the limited wave scope of the human eye. We judge things on the basis of carbon based principles. Now flip that script, say on Jupiter there is a race of beings that are hydrogen based. They would exist based on an entirely different set of rules...nothing on earth isn't Carbon based... More likely though would be a Silicon based life form. But I digress...

 

The point is, it is infinitely more likely that there was a grand designer as opposed to random chaos, in human life existing. It's also an question, much like quantum physics, that can be answered. But the scientific community scoffs at religion, but get excited about worm hole travel, the multiverse, grand unified theory, bending space time, brane holes...

[ND3 0]

That's a big one because evolution would point toward physical attraction as counter-intuitive. That size zero wast super model? A disaster when looking at it from a evolution standpoint, those aren't child rearing hips! Homosexuality? How can you explain that on the basis of evolution? Unless of course you're willing to say, yeah will we adhered to evolution and natural selection until we became human and now we're above it. And then you have to explain how, without a supreme being or a grand designer, we are so special to be above evolution.

 

You can't have evolution without a guiding hand, sorry.

 

In the 1600's, the sexiest women were overweight, because it showed that they had money and didn't have to work outside. Today, overweight people are seen as unhealthy. The human species is still evolving over time.

 

Homosexuality is thought to be a means for population control when a species becomes overpopulated in a certain area.

[piratey 6]

Obviously some people find other features attractive, but for the most part, people are physically attracted to others that would have healthy babies.

 

False. 1 in 5 woman over 45 are childless and many by choice. My aunt and uncle never wanted kids, so they didn't. That spits in the eye of evolution. Look at the birth rates in Europe, Spain specifically. Married couples average only slightly more than 1 child. That would mean they are not just stagnating but declining as a nation.

 

Also, compassion doesn't serve well in that case either. Per survival of the fitest, would you marry someone who has a genetic disorder? Or if their family had a history of it?

[piratey 6]

In the 1600's, the sexiest women were overweight, because it showed that they had money and didn't have to work outside. Today, overweight people are seen as unhealthy. The human species is still evolving over time.

 

Homosexuality is thought to be a means for population control when a species becomes overpopulated in a certain area.

 

In Africa now... the sexiest woman are overweight, same with most third world countries. You can't call societal forms of attraction evolution, any more than you can their taste in music or the arts... What do the German's having a thing for scat porn or the Japanese with tentacle rape have to do with evolution? Other than maybe sickle cell anemia, where is an instance of modern evolution? You can't point toward our size or longevity because both of those are products of advancement in modern medicine, diet and hormones.

 

As for the homosexuality thing...By who? Revisionists? Homosexuality has been around for as long as time has existed. Spartan's got married after they were done soldiering and took young boys to bed with them until then. It was rumored that Alexander the Great was gay. Plato surmised that Achilles and Patroclus were in fact lovers.

Edited December 10, 2012 by piratey

[ND3 0]

False. 1 in 5 woman over 45 are childless and many by choice. My aunt and uncle never wanted kids, so they didn't. That spits in the eye of evolution. Look at the birth rates in Europe, Spain specifically. Married couples average only slightly more than 1 child. That would mean they are not just stagnating but declining as a nation.

 

Also, compassion doesn't serve well in that case either. Per survival of the fitest, would you marry someone who has a genetic disorder? Or if their family had a history of it?

 

I don't think it spits on evolution. I think that the people who don't want/have children won't have their genes passed on, so they are not "the fittest" in terms of natural selection.

[corysold 0]

I fundamentally disagree with this. Numerous studies have shown "attractive" features to be the features that show someone is healthy- physical strength, height, body ratios, etc. Obviously some people find other features attractive, but for the most part, people are physically attracted to others that would have healthy babies. As far as the rape comment, didn't Todd Akin have something to say about that...?

 

 

 

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but here's how I understand it. Let's start with the common ancestors of all apes. The gibbons branched off from the common ancestor of the great apes. The orangutan branched off from the common ancestor of gorillas, man, and chimps. Then gorillas branched off and we are left with the common ancestor of man and chimps. Then we have the Homo and Neandertal species branching off from the chimps. Is this what you're asking? Obviously, there are several species that have gone extinct along the line.

 

Seriously, I thought microevolution was almost universally accepted?

 

As far as developing theories concerning sexual reproduction- Every theory will have holes in it. It happened hundreds of millions of years ago and we are only scratching the surface of data collection and theorizing. However, it's not chance that mutations that benefit the production of life will happen- it's a statistical certainty over time. The benefits to sexual reproduction over asexual reproduction are the combining of DNA from 2 organisms, as a way to "diversify your portfolio", if you will. I just recently watched Jurassic Park, so I have to throw this line in: "Life always finds a way."

 

I do agree that many, many random things must happen just right to ensure life, but, again, it's a statistical certainty that, over time, all these things will fall into place somewhere in the giant universe. Check out "The Known Universe" on Youtube. The universe is just so massive that sometime, somewhere, life will happen. One of the places that it did happen is Earth.

 

To your comment about the smugness of atheists- I don't consider myself an atheist (maybe agnostic, maybe a skeptic... I don't know, they're all just words to me. I don't really identify with anyone), but most atheists that I know are very accepting and kind people. There are always going to a small portion of people that ruin it for everyone. It's the very same with Christians. I unsubscribed from r/atheism as soon as I could.

 

But again, these are all "well the Universe is big, it has to happen" kind of arguments.

 

I understand the supposed evolutionary tree, but again, if you will use a child born with a tail, forgetting for a moment that none of these have ever been "functional", as a point of evolution, how do you explain a child born with 7 fingers? Which of our evolutionary ancestors ever had 7 fingers?

 

Further, if the benefits of sexual reproduction are so much greater than asexual reproduction, why are there still examples of asexual reproduction after billions of years, especially in those forms we supposedly evolved from?

 

What exactly are the benefits of sexual reproduction? If "diversifying the portfolio" was required for evolution, why do any asexual organisms still exist? And how did any survive long enough for evolution to begin in the first place?

 

Sure, statistically speaking, in something the size of the universe, eventually the right mix would come together to create life. But what about the statistical measure of the universe beginning to start with? The statistical chances of having the correct proportions of every necessary element at the precise time, from the moment of the Big Bang, through stellar development, is astronomical. Yet it happened.

 

So I guess that leaves us with two options. Intelligent design/supreme being or M-Theory/string theory/super string theory, which is just starting to be developed with the idea of multiple dimensions and multiple universes. So is is possible that so many universes were created that eventually the statistical chance of one succeeding is almost a certainty? I suppose. But you have to admit that at some point, that idea begins to sound nearly as "crazy", if not more so, than a supreme being creating everything.

 

Surely we could both go on and on on this topic. I guess my point is, on both sides of the argument, there are just as many unanswered questions as answered ones.

[ND3 0]

In Africa now... the sexiest woman are overweight, same with most third world countries. You can't call societal forms of attraction evolution, any more than you can their taste in music or the arts... What do the German's having a thing for scat porn or the Japanese with tentacle rape have to do with evolution? Other than maybe sickle cell anemia, where is an instance of modern evolution? You can't point toward our size or longevity because both of those are products of advancement in modern medicine, diet and hormones.

 

As for the homosexuality thing...By who? Revisionists? Homosexuality has been around for as long as time has existed. Spartan's got married after they were done soldiering and took young boys to bed with them until then. It was rumored that Alexander the Great was gay. Plato surmised that Achilles and Patroclus were in fact lovers.

 

Evidence of evolution: You can do a simple E. Coli experiment. Start with a natural batch and expose to different environments and watch as they develop a tolerance for it. In my Bio 3 in college, I used citric acid and UV rays. Over the course of weeks, the E. Coli samples have become resistant to these substances, when it killed of most of them initially.

 

I'll find a link for the homosexuality theory tonight, but I really need to get back to work (sorry, scapegoat, I know...). I really enjoy these discussions, so I'll get back to it later and respond to you and corysold.

 

Also, call me out if I'm being a dick- I promise I don't mean to

[nd1baby 0]

I think we're evolving into a bunch of seedless grapes.

[piratey 6]

But again, these are all "well the Universe is big, it has to happen" kind of arguments.

 

I understand the supposed evolutionary tree, but again, if you will use a child born with a tail, forgetting for a moment that none of these have ever been "functional", as a point of evolution, how do you explain a child born with 7 fingers? Which of our evolutionary ancestors ever had 7 fingers?

 

Further, if the benefits of sexual reproduction are so much greater than asexual reproduction, why are there still examples of asexual reproduction after billions of years, especially in those forms we supposedly evolved from?

 

What exactly are the benefits of sexual reproduction? If "diversifying the portfolio" was required for evolution, why do any asexual organisms still exist? And how did any survive long enough for evolution to begin in the first place?

 

Sure, statistically speaking, in something the size of the universe, eventually the right mix would come together to create life. But what about the statistical measure of the universe beginning to start with? The statistical chances of having the correct proportions of every necessary element at the precise time, from the moment of the Big Bang, through stellar development, is astronomical. Yet it happened.

 

So I guess that leaves us with two options. Intelligent design/supreme being or M-Theory/string theory/super string theory, which is just starting to be developed with the idea of multiple dimensions and multiple universes. So is is possible that so many universes were created that eventually the statistical chance of one succeeding is almost a certainty? I suppose. But you have to admit that at some point, that idea begins to sound nearly as "crazy", if not more so, than a supreme being creating everything.

 

Surely we could both go on and on on this topic. I guess my point is, on both sides of the argument, there are just as many unanswered questions as answered ones.

 

And the issue is one side of the isle is able to recognize this fact while the other is not. Science is used as some sort of a crutch that Atheists fall back onto during theological discussions, like it's infallible.(Which the humor is not lost on me, given the father of scientific method Francis Bacon, is quoted as saying, "A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion. ")