# Where do we come from?



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Are you one of those who have a "Darwin fish" on your car? Or is it a plain fish indicating your belief in fundamentalism? Here's a chance to express yourself


----------



## andrewenterprise (May 22, 2005)

I believe in science. I think that the story of Adam and Eve was derived to give a simplistic explantion of how earth was created to children, especially little ones.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

That "giant snail" option is awfully tempting ...


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I'm an evolutionist.

There's a funny thing about the Genesis account of creation. In Genesis 1:26, God creates man after having created the animals. But in the second creation account starting at Genesis 2:4, God created man (Adam only) first, and then creates plants and rivers in Eden for him to live off, and animals to be his companions. Than then he makes Eve from Adam.

What's really funny is the reason God makes Eve. God made the animals for Adam because “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” (Genesis 2:18). Adam met and named all of the animals, "but for man there was not found a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:20). So God made Eve.

God tried to make Adam a suitable helper, but failed, so he had to try again. Eve, of course, managed to to be rather "unsuitable" and causes the two to be driven from Eden. It appears "God" is prone to screwing up.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

andrewenterprise said:


> I believe in science. I think that the story of Adam and Eve was derived to give a simplistic explantion of how earth was created to children, especially little ones.


Most likely, Genesis was truly believed by everyone among the ancient Hebrews. I don't think children were the target audience. Most ancient cultures have preposterous accounts of the origin of man. Most of them do not read like fairy tales.

(For example, Ra created the universe from masturbation. Marduk created the earth from the carcass of Tiamat the sea-serpent. Odin created the earth from the skull of a giant.)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'm kind of partial to James P. Hogan's take on the matter, from his trilogy, "Inherit the Stars." Here's how Jim describes the story:


> <img src="http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/inherit/ballantine77/big.jpg" align="right">Science had long appealed to me as a glorious, ongoing detective mystery. Mysteries have dead bodies that need accounting for, so I made the discovery that of a body--found dead, in a space suit, on the Moon. To get scientists interested and excited would take more than footprints and blunt instruments, however. It turned out that "Charlie" had been there for forty thousand years.
> 
> Charlie is fully human in every respect. The question, of course, is, where did he come from? Logic allows only two possibilities: (1) Earth; (2) somewhere else. But (1) would imply the existence of a spacegoing civilization long ago, which is rejected due to the absence of any artifacts or other evidence. (2), on the other hand, requires two independent evolutionary lines to produce identical end products, which is also rejected as untenable. Therefore Charlie can't exist. But he's lying right there, on the slab.
> 
> The story relates the unraveling of Charlie's origins from the clues available. And the scientists reconstruct a remarkably detailed picture of the world that Charlie came from. The only problem is, half the evidence seems to indicate that it must have been Earth, while the rest says that it can't have been.



M


----------



## trump (Dec 7, 2004)

I go by a hybrid theory - that god created primitive life, and basically let evolution have at it. 

On a side note, the Darwin Awards kick ass


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

I don't suppose anyone cares that Darwin rejected his own theory after it had "evolved" beyond his original scope, used by his partner to "kill God."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerbill, to be fair, I think creationists contend that everything was created 6700 years ago, and not 6000. I used the 6000 year number in a "discussion" with a creationist and my Darwinian views were discounted because I had my "facts incorrect" about creationism. Ergo, if my facts were incorrect about creationism (i.e., 6000 years and not 6700), I must also be wrong about Darwin.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

CubaMark,
thanks for that post - looks like a good read
i'll be looking for that trilogy next time i am at a book store


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Mi amigo, Mark, that sounds like a unique book. Try reading "Decipher' , a book by Stel Pavlou.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

BlueMax said:


> I don't suppose anyone cares that Darwin rejected his own theory after it had "evolved" beyond his original scope, used by his partner to "kill God."


Evidence, please? 

Don't forget, Darwin didn't invent the idea of evolution, simply a possible explanation (natural selection) for the already established fact that life was clearly evolving. While the theory of evolution by natural selection has "evolved" since Darwin first formulated it, the basics are still intact, and stronger than ever.

See www.talkorigins.org for tons of interesting information.


----------



## talonracer (Dec 30, 2003)

The hospital.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Mi amigo, Mark, that sounds like a unique book. Try reading "Decipher' , a book by Stel Pavlou.


 Dr. G., Thanks for the tip - the synopsis looks good... I'll see if I can dig it up in the local used book stores...

M.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

I think the title of the thread should be renamed: "Mommy, where do we come from?"

I think it somewhat amusing that in a board filled mostly with computer nerds, someone might ask this question.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

If anyone knows any Scientologists, ask them if they really think we came from clams.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Crash landing...Has to be...After all humans are very good at having accidents.


----------



## Glipt (Aug 7, 2003)

The Bible does not claim the universe and Earth were created in 6 literal days so I cannot claim to be a 'Creationist' although I do belive we were created. The Bibles use of the word 'Day' is similar to our use. Quite often it referes to a literal day of 24 hours but we sometimes speak of a day in more general terms. If I spoke of my fathers 'Day' I'm quite sure no one would claim my father only lived for one day. Rather than concluding my father did not exist it would be reasomable to assume I meant a much longer period than a day. Creationists do the creation argument a great disservice by insisting on a literal 6 day period for the creation of everything. While the Allmighty could undoubtedly do this, the evidence seems to indicate he did it over a much longer period.

P.S. I'm looking into the giant snail thing. Sounds cool.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

BlueMax said:


> I don't suppose anyone cares that Darwin rejected his own theory after it had "evolved" beyond his original scope, used by his partner to "kill God."


I'd like to see a reference for that story, if you please.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

Ah, I was young once and thought I knew all the answers. Thought God started the evolutionary chain of events.... then I got older and started researching. And studying. And more researching.

The more I learn, the more I realize that evolution as described by Darwin & friends (and I see his denial is buried pretty deep on the web, I'll have to get you book sources) is simply ridiculous and scientifically impossible.

I realize full well I could quote one scientific and archaeological source after another, most are completely impassive and will hold fast to an idea of either their own creation or someone elses that best fits their needs and lifestyle. Consumer-led belief system - very common these days.

I do love the fact that Darwin's "evidence" of the human evolutionary steps are completely fabricated, from "Lucy" being nothing more than a monkey with a single human bone thrown in that doesn't even match, one skeleton of a man with bad arthritis, to two different steps based on a single fragment; one a tiny fraction of skullcap, another a single tooth (later revealed to be a pig's tooth.)

Archaeology and historical literature from both Jews and Romans all mention the genuine living person, which was Jesus Christ. It can't be denied that Jesus lived, so it's been up to most religions to do their best to remove the "Son of God" portion of all that. Even the most modern translations of the Bible remove that fact, making Jesus a holy man, but not the son of God, and thus, certainly not anyone's saviour. Most religions on earth are still waiting for the _first_ appearance of a messiah, thus are easily fooled by impostors, and that includes a vast majority of _Christian_ churches. Ironic, eh? 

More and more, most religions on earth are simply rejoining the Roman Catholic Pope, and the Pope is doing his best (along with the United Nations) to unite all religions of the world together. The only way this is possible is to eliminate Jesus as the son of God... and they're succeeding. Check for pictures of the pope kissing the Koran with muslim leaders, etc, etc. 

Oh, and the United Nations has also enforced _manditory _teaching of evolution in ALL schools, including religious and home-based school curriculums. 

Like I said.... I like research.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Gerbill, to be fair, I think creationists contend that everything was created 6700 years ago, and not 6000. I used the 6000 year number in a "discussion" with a creationist and my Darwinian views were discounted because I had my "facts incorrect" about creationism. Ergo, if my facts were incorrect about creationism (i.e., 6000 years and not 6700), I must also be wrong about Darwin.


 I never took Logic at university, but a little of it rubbed off - that sounds like one of the classical logical fallacies - argumentum ad hominem? false analogy?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerbill, I agree with your contention that "...sounds like one of the classical logical fallacies - argumentum ad hominem? false analogy?"


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BlueMax said:


> Ah, I was young once and thought I knew all the answers. Thought God started the evolutionary chain of events.... then I got older and started researching. And studying. And more researching.


And now you know everything....?



BlueMax said:


> The more I learn, the more I realize that evolution as described by Darwin & friends (and I see his denial is buried pretty deep on the web, I'll have to get you book sources) is simply ridiculous and scientifically impossible.


Translation: I don't have any references, so you'll have to take my word for it.



BlueMax said:


> I realize full well I could quote one scientific and archaeological source after another, most are completely impassive and will hold fast to an idea of either their own creation or someone elses that best fits their needs and lifestyle. Consumer-led belief system - very common these days.


Does this paragraph mean anything at all?



BlueMax said:


> I do love the fact that Darwin's "evidence" of the human evolutionary steps are completely fabricated, from "Lucy" being nothing more than a monkey with a single human bone thrown in that doesn't even match, one skeleton of a man with bad arthritis, to two different steps based on a single fragment; one a tiny fraction of skullcap, another a single tooth (later revealed to be a pig's tooth.)


I guess I'll have to take your word for it on this, too.



BlueMax said:


> Archaeology and historical literature from both Jews and Romans all mention the genuine living person, which was Jesus Christ. It can't be denied that Jesus lived, so it's been up to most religions to do their best to remove the "Son of God" portion of all that. Even the most modern translations of the Bible remove that fact, making Jesus a holy man, but not the son of God, and thus, certainly not anyone's saviour. Most religions on earth are still waiting for the _first_ appearance of a messiah, thus are easily fooled by impostors, and that includes a vast majority of _Christian_ churches. Ironic, eh?


I haven't seen a single translation of the Bible remove reference to Jesus as the son of God. None of this has anything to do with evolution, either.



BlueMax said:


> More and more, most religions on earth are simply rejoining the Roman Catholic Pope, and the Pope is doing his best (along with the United Nations) to unite all religions of the world together. The only way this is possible is to eliminate Jesus as the son of God... and they're succeeding. Check for pictures of the pope kissing the Koran with muslim leaders, etc, etc.


Which denomination has rejoined the Roman Catholic Church? And again, none of this has anything to do with evolution.



BlueMax said:


> Oh, and the United Nations has also enforced _manditory _teaching of evolution in ALL schools, including religious and home-based school curriculums.


Last I checked, the UN can do no such thing.

I am at a loss for words. I am not a pyschiatrist, so I shouldn't call you opinions "delusional," but you reallly need to focus your thinking more if you want to be understood.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Gerbill said:


> I never took Logic at university, but a little of it rubbed off - that sounds like one of the classical logical fallacies - argumentum ad hominem? false analogy?


Fallacy of the undistributed middle.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Gerbill said:


> I never took Logic at university, but a little of it rubbed off - that sounds like one of the classical logical fallacies - argumentum ad hominem? false analogy?


Not to nitpick, bt an ad hominem argument is not = false analogy. Ad hominem means against the person, i.e., "the theory of natural selection is wrong, because Darwin was a wife beater*" The argument goes that, becuase the theory is by a bad person, the theory is wrong. That is an ad hominem argument and, of course, does not follow logically.

*wife beating thing is not based in fact, but used for illustration.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Not to nitpick, bt an ad hominem argument is not = false analogy. Ad hominem means against the person, i.e., "the theory of natural selection is wrong, because Darwin was a wife beater*" The argument goes that, becuase the theory is by a bad person, the theory is wrong. That is an ad hominem argument.


Not to nitpick, but he wasn't claiming that ad hom = false analogy. Read what he wrote again.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

nxnw said:


> Evolution and the existence of God are not mutually exclusive.


No, but evolution and the belief in the Inerrancy of the Scriptures is. That is why fundamentalist Christians are so opposed to evolution.


----------



## BlueMax (Aug 8, 2005)

Funny how you skipped over the evolutionary debunking I just gave.... but hey, I could quote source after source - there's nothing I can say that's gonna' change your mind.

No I don't know all the answers, and the more I study things for myself, the more I realize is out there to uncover. You think I'm delusional... things are only gonna' get crazier in the very near future - they're already afoot now. It won't be long before folks like myself will be labeled as heretecs to be burned at the stake (not necessarily literally) for not giving in to the popular "group-think" -- much like the dark ages under the hand of the Catholics and Jesuit Order.

As a man of science (yes, really!) this is a decision I've not made lightly or in ignorance. All too many sheep are willing to follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear. (counting seconds before he throws that one back at me with the almost-inevitable, "Just like you.")


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

BlueMax said:


> Funny how you skipped over the evolutionary debunking I just gave.... but hey, I could quote source after source - there's nothing I can say that's gonna' change your mind.


Au contraire!

All you need to do is provide evidence. That's what science is all about. Your "debunking" consisted of throwing out a bunch of dubious creationist claims, commonly made by folks like Kent Hovind.

Whether Darwin abandoned his theory (which is highly unlikely, though deathbed conversion stories are always popular) is irrelevant, as the evidence was pointing in that direction anyway. Natural selection was proposed simultaneously by Alfred Russel Wallace and possibly others; Darwin was published first and therefore took the glory and the heat. He also did a good job of anticipating the most likely criticisms of his theory, and proposing solutions that the evidence subsequently supported.

While there have certainly been hoaxes and errors of evidence, these were revealed and corrected by scientists, not creationists. And the theory ended up stronger as a result.

The bottom line is that evolution doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's confirmed and augmented by work in many fields, from chemistry and geology to genetics and paleontology. And evolution makes specific predictions that would be easily falsifiable. When asked what would disprove evolution, JBS Haldane replied "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." Indeed, there are lots of simple things that could disprove the theory in an instant--but only if the evidence survives the scrutiny that would result. Thus far, none has.

That said, I'm fully prepared to accept that it could happen some day. But I'm not holding my breath!

I would be very interested to hear what makes you dismiss evolution as "ridiculous and scientifically impossible," though...


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

nxnw said:


> Not to nitpick, bt an ad hominem argument is not = false analogy. Ad hominem means against the person, i.e., "the theory of natural selection is wrong, because Darwin was a wife beater*" The argument goes that, becuase the theory is by a bad person, the theory is wrong. That is an ad hominem argument and, of course, does not follow logically.
> 
> *wife beating thing is not based in fact, but used for illustration.


 I didn't say that they were the same - I was just groping for the right fallacy and hoping someone with more philosophy courses could come up with the right answer.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

BlueMax wrote:


> Oh, and the United Nations has also enforced manditory teaching of evolution in ALL schools, including religious and home-based school curriculums.
> 
> Like I said.... I like research.


....I'm... I'm speechless. (Well, temporarily).

Ok... managed to refill my lungs with air.

This statement is not unlike those spouted by the conspiracy theory / black helicopter / U.N. army-poised-to-take-over-the-U.S. believers. Where on earth did you "research" that bit of fantastical gibberish?

The U.N. can "enforce" nothing - hell, it couldn't even stop the U.S. from blowing up half of the Middle East. It's aid programmes are severely compromised by U.S. religious nutbars who won't fund any sort of sex education efforts if the word "condom" is even whispered. The U.N. has no standing army, it has no jurisdiction over what is taught in schools.

It's that sort of paranoid delusion that makes it very difficult to discuss a philosophical matter, like evolution vs. creationism, with some people.

If you "like research" so much, provide some sources. Convince us. We like supporting data - take a look at the lambasting MacNutt has received over the years, he who is King of the Unsupported Hyperbole.

Sheesh!
M


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Creationism has been re-invented as "Intelligent Design". Same thing. Scientists are fallible. They are human. They make mistakes. Others correct them. They look for proofs and try to discredit them by finding more evidence. Science is empirical. However, Intelligent Design is based on a belief that cannot (by the words of the ID protagonists) be proven. Hence, the ID "believers" attempt to disprove evolution to bolster ID as the only reasonable alternative. Except, it is not based upon reason.

There is a significant debate in the US over the teaching of evolution and ID in schools. The ID believers want stickers on biology textbooks stating that evolution is only a theory. Of course it is! So is electricity and gravity. Of course, evolution hasn't exactly stood still (pun intended) and the sequencing of hundreds of genomes and the emerging field of metagenomics have spawned significant new insights - filling in the species gaps and resulting in the field of evolutionary biology being one of the hottest areas of basic research.

Ultimately, in the intelligent design vs evolution "debate", it comes down to whether you ascribe the same weighting to a fact as a belief? It's important, because this defines how you perceive life. And appreciation of evolution does not deny the existence of a God. Scientists are skeptics - its a requirement for the job. But many are also religious.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I choose the Snail argument as I can't remember anything past two weeks ago.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I choose the Snail argument as I can't remember anything past two weeks ago.


Ah, but by the Snail theory, you should only remember things back until last Friday--only THREE DAYS AGO!!! How do you explain that, smart guy?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planders said:


> Ah, but by the Snail theory, you should only remember things back until last Friday--only THREE DAYS AGO!!! How do you explain that, smart guy?



Um, well... hhmmmmm. RRrrrrrrr curses! foiled again.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

What?! No <a href="http://www.venganza.org/">Flying Spaghetti Monster</a> option?! Pshaw.










BlueMax, you claim to be sitting on a large amount of research to support your assertions that evolution is bunk. Please share it if you wish to be taken seriously. So far you've given only your assertions and suspect accounts of human fallibility. 

I should stress the word "suspect" here as Darwin died almost 100 yrs before Lucy was discovered, and so your finding pleasure in Darwin's use of Lucy to derive the evolutionary steps of humans is misguided. Not to mention that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis">Lucy is certainly NOT a collection of monkey bones</a>, so you are wrong that she is a fabrication, anyway. Hmm, then there is the slight inaccuracy that it was actually Thomas Huxley, not Darwin, that was first to propose the human evolutionary steps. The rest of your "debunking" is kinda incomprehensible, so do clarify.


BlueMax said:


> As a man of science (yes, really!) this is a decision I've not made lightly or in ignorance.


I am also a man of science so don't feel like you need to dumb it down for the audience. I have a very open mind and am skeptical--part of the job. I'll change opinion on any subject based on the best evidence at hand, and haven't been a "sheep" in a very long time, so don't feel as though you'll never get me to change my mind. Go ahead and try.

For the record, though, creationists really don't need to fabricate lies about evolutionary evidence in order to hold onto their beliefs or to recruit others into them. It only makes them look bad when the lies are exposed, the same way scientists look bad (and loose their careers) when found faking data. Your faith can stand in spite of evolutionary theory. It is <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith">faith</a>, after all!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

A guiding prinicple of scientific method is peer review.

BM - is about to meet that head on.

What is BMs thesis?

_The theory of evolution is wrong._

We await his supporting evidence.


----------



## draz (Jun 13, 2005)

We came from the akward bumping of uglies by our slightly intoxicated parents.

Damn the bench seat, and the cheap wine!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Damn, I have to quit taking weekends off, I miss too much on ehMac! 

Cool book CubaMark, I'll have to look it up.

As for where we come from, I think I agree with this statement: "For centuries, we've searched for the origin of life on Earth...We've been looking on the wrong planet." I think we're an offshoot of an Alien race, similar to what's proposed in the movie Mission to Mars


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MacDoc, that should be "De-evolution of NAFTA"... The United States seems to be going back to a pre-NAFTA era where they want to put a tax, duty or tariff on anything coming into the states as is proven by the Softwood Lumber and closure of the border to Canada beef.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I personally can't wait for the day when the moon landing is uncovered as a scam, and we finally have proof that dinosaur bones and shells in limestone weren't found in old rock , but were actually planted by scientists.

Till then, Darwin rules. 
/Stem Cells do more good than feeding tubes.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

planders said:


> Ah, but by the Snail theory, you should only remember things back until last Friday--only THREE DAYS AGO!!! How do you explain that, smart guy?


False memories implanted by the snail to confuse us and for the snail's own amusement.

d'uh.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Kosh said:


> As for where we come from, I think I agree with this statement: "For centuries, we've searched for the origin of life on Earth...We've been looking on the wrong planet." I think we're an offshoot of an Alien race, similar to what's proposed in the movie Mission to Mars


Alrighty then, where did those Aliens come from?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

BlueMax said:


> You think I'm delusional... things are only gonna' get crazier in the very near future - they're already afoot now. It won't be long before folks like myself will be labeled as heretecs to be burned at the stake (not necessarily literally) for not giving in to the popular "group-think" -- much like the dark ages under the hand of the Catholics and Jesuit Order.


How "not necessarily literally" are they planning to burn you at the stake? And what exactly is "already afoot" now?



BlueMax said:


> All too many sheep are willing to follow anyone who tells them what they want to hear.


Give me a break.

I'll always remember you, BlueMax. Your "hysterical chick" avatar matches your hysterical arguments.


----------



## Eukaryotic (Jan 24, 2005)

I am a great admirer of Darwin and his work - he was a fascinating guy. 

I think sometimes people try and force the mechanism of natural selection into the model of biological classification. Natural selection is an awesome force, but classification (e.g., male/female, species, etc.) is a very simplified version which attempts to represent a continuum in nature.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

BlueMax said:


> The more I learn, the more I realize that evolution as described by Darwin & friends (and I see his denial is buried pretty deep on the web, I'll have to get you book sources) is simply ridiculous and scientifically impossible.


So, I take it you are well trained in the biological sciences, and therefore qualified to replace the cornerstone of all modern biology with a better theory? I await enlightenment with baited breath.



> Consumer-led belief system - very common these days.


Given that the average consumer couldn't begin to describe evolutionary theory, or articulate how it is integrated into all of the disiplines and applications of biological science, I can't imagine what you're trying to get at here.



> I do love the fact that Darwin's "evidence" of the human evolutionary steps are completely fabricated, from "Lucy" being nothing more than a monkey with a single human bone thrown in that doesn't even match, one skeleton of a man with bad arthritis, to two different steps based on a single fragment; one a tiny fraction of skullcap, another a single tooth (later revealed to be a pig's tooth.)...


I think your tinfoil hat is rusting. Time to get back on your meds.

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I await enlightenment with baited breath.


Ah, been eating rotting fish again have we?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now now Bryanc he is a self proclaimed "man of science" and it's only fair to review his thesis tho the peer part might be a tad overdone 

That said I must admit his approach to date leaves one .............hmmm ....a gentle phrase ..think ...think......._not hopeful_.


----------



## Mike Y (Nov 9, 2003)

Creationism is a matter of faith whereas Evolutionism is a matter of facts.

A little obvious where I fit in .

Although I since Friday night I have been having nightmares involving a giant snail.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

One can believe the Darwin theory and yet still have faith.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

The snail theory resembles a story, or part of one, by Jorge Luis Borges, which I remember all too vaguely. In it, the narrator argues that the universe was created five minutes ago, including all apparent "evidence" of the past and all of our memories.

A snap for an omnipotent creator, really.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

iMatt said:


> The snail theory resembles a story, or part of one, by Jorge Luis Borges, which I remember all too vaguely. In it, the narrator argues that the universe was created five minutes ago, including all apparent "evidence" of the past and all of our memories.
> 
> A snap for an omnipotent creator, really.


Sounds like some creationist explanation for fossils - God put them there to test our faith. Have you seen this museum in the Bible belt that has people running around contemporaneous with dinosaurs?
http://www.moeh.org/main/about.htm
Very slick, great production values, very "scientific" looking. Total Nutbar-ville when you look at the details.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

How about the theory of intelligent falling?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Jim, someone should tell Newton that ""Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," according to Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

I never knew that I was a "close-minded gravitist" until I read that - I guess I'll have to accept the label, though. 

The sad thing is that nutbars like this are getting attention from the Bush-ites as if their lunacy made some kind of sense.

I notice that the Giant Snail theory is neck in neck with creationism in the poll - that's encouraging.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> A 1990 Gallup poll of 1236 adult Americans show percentages of belief in the paranormal that are alarming:
> 
> Astrology	52%
> ESP	46%
> ...


 

and



> "A recent Gallup poll found that nearly half of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form, with a mere 13 percent saying God played no part in the process of human development."--news item
> 
> "Americans are three times as likely to believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus (83 percent) as in evolution (28 percent)." --news item
> 
> "Can a people that believes more fervently in the Virgin Birth than in evolution still be called an Enlightened nation?" --Gary Wills


...indeed a pertinent question.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Disturbing. Go to any mainstream bookstore. The "new age" section is significantly larger than the philosophy section.

Next time I'm at a bookstore, I'll have to check the comparative sizes of the history and religion sections. And the science section.


----------



## highapostle (Apr 21, 2004)

Some more food for though - I recall reading somewhere that the percentage of people who believe in God (85% or so) is the same percentage as those who read the horoscopes in the paper.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

highapostle said:


> Some more food for though - I recall reading somewhere that the percentage of people who believe in God (85% or so) is the same percentage as those who read the horoscopes in the paper.


But... it's not necessarily the exact same people, although there would certainly be considerable overlap.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Nancy Reagan used a personal astrologer to assist with the President's scheduling.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

CubaMark said:


> BlueMax wrote:
> ....I'm... I'm speechless. (Well, temporarily).
> 
> Ok... managed to refill my lungs with air.
> ...


You just hate me because I am soooo very right about the living hell that is Cuba. Truth hurts, doesn't it?  

I bet it really bugged you when several others spoke up and agreed with me about how repressed and depressed the place was according to what they'd seen. It's shockingly easy to see how Fidels grand experiment in social engineering has failed so terribly...and a whole generation of Cubans have paid a heavy price for this. Those who haven't already escaped, that is.

And my "unsupportable facts" are actually right there for all to see. As you very well know from tough experience, Mark. 

It's sad when some otherwise intelligent people let their preconcieved ideologies get in the way of seeing these things as they really are. Same thing happened with the old Soviet Union. And with pre-Thatcher socialist Britain. Among others.

Right up till the final end of those failed experiments, there were some very intelligent people claiming...rather loudly...that "But it's a _BETTER WAY!!" and...."the people don't WANT a change!! They're actually HAPPY living this way!!_ 

There there Mark. Don't fret. It'll be all over soon enough, water will find it's own level, and then you can relax.

Take a happy pill and have a nice nap. That's a good lad.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> You just hate me because I am soooo very right about the living hell that is Cuba. Truth hurts, doesn't it?


Uh, I didn't see any reference to Cuba in CubaMark's post. I don't know why you think bringing up old differences will affect the outcome of this discussion.

I also take exception to the "take a happy pill" crack. There are no happy pills. There are, however, drugs that alleviate the symptoms of mood disorders. Do you have any smart-ass comments about chemotherapy? Or a joke or two on arthritis medication, perhaps?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No...but I have a few real corkers about viagra and hair loss. Wanna hear them?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

That makes a lot of sense. Which means it's way past my bedtime.

Good night all.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

lpkmckenna said:


> Disturbing. Go to any mainstream bookstore. The "new age" section is significantly larger than the philosophy section.
> 
> Next time I'm at a bookstore, I'll have to check the comparative sizes of the history and religion sections. And the science section.


Apart from relative size of the New Age and Science sections (usually lumped in with Nature), it irks me that so many smaller stores (i.e. Coles in malls) tend to put Science, Nature, and New Age on the same rack, or right next to each other.

Still, not as far gone as south of the border; I was in Mississippi a few weeks ago and bookstores didn't have Religion sections--they had Christianity sections. And there was a separate *aisle* called Bibles. The Science section was tucked behind the bargain rack.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

lpkmckenna, I agree with your comment pertaining to MacNutt's insensitivity re those who need medication to help their mental state ("I also take exception to the "take a happy pill" crack. There are no happy pills. There are, however, drugs that alleviate the symptoms of mood disorders.") All this week, I am volunteering to assess illiterate adults who also have emotional problems and are being medicated to help them control these problems. If you saw how much these adults want to learn to read, and how they would love to have the emotional stability that many of us take for granted, I don't think that even MacNutt would make light of needing such medication. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Would you rather I suggested you take a "sad pill"??  

Lighten up Dr. G. 

soooooo serious.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacNutt, spend 10 minutes around the people I am assessing these days and you would not talk about "happy" or "sad" pills this lightly. Many of these people are hanging on by a thread to make something of their lives and to be self-sufficient. People with genuine emotional problems do not need those with sound mental health mocking the use of such medication.

"soooooo serious"? Yes, sometimes I feel the need to be serious when I believe in the cause or see how some people use comments in an insensitive manner.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

amen to that.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> MacNutt, spend 10 minutes around the people I am assessing these days and you would not talk about "happy" or "sad" pills this lightly. Many of these people are hanging on by a thread to make something of their lives and to be self-sufficient. People with genuine emotional problems do not need those with sound mental health mocking the use of such medication.
> 
> "soooooo serious"? Yes, sometimes I feel the need to be serious when I believe in the cause or see how some people use comments in an insensitive manner.


Here's a theory to bring the thread back on track, maybe. People of a right-wing political orientation often subscribe, consciously or otherwise, to something called "social Darwinism" which essentially says that "The weak perish, and a damn good thing, too. The strong, however, survive to breed." This way of thinking leads to a certain callousness and lack of sympathy for the sick and helpless. Left-wing people tend to find this attitude abhorrent.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Actually, "social darwinism" is a straw-man. While it had a very limited degree of acceptance in the late 1800s, it's been dead ever since. There have been no recent advocates for social darwinism. (No, the Nazis were not social darwinists.)

The basic reason social darwinism died is the results didn't match their predictions. The weak do not die off under capitalism. Capitalism is the only social system capable of the manufacture of drugs for medical conditions (insulin, lithium), aids for diabilities (eye glasses, wheelchairs), and the growth of comforts (air conditioning, home insulation, central heating) needed by the "weak."

Under capitalism, the "weak" benefit from the applied intelligence and science of the "strong." The success of capitalism is the failure of social darwinism.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And the failure of socialism was a direct result of capitalist darwinism. 

I just knew it all tied together somehow..


----------



## Vinnie Cappuccino (Aug 20, 2003)

This really made me laugh, Yabba dabba doo!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> And the failure of socialism was a direct result of capitalist darwinism.


It was? How?

The Soviet world would have collasped whether or not the West stood against them. Its economy was sagging under its own obsolescence.

However, has "socialism" really failed? The scale of government economic control is unfathomable. As an example, in the pharmaceutical industry, the state provides funds for research, controls approval for marketing, prohibits direct advertising to consumers, regulates prices, provides funds for users of lesser means, and controls the patent system.

Really, "socialized capitalism" is the system we now live under. Karl Marx has been swept away, but Ayn Rand isn't exactly leading the day, either.


----------



## Gerbill (Jul 1, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> And the failure of socialism was a direct result of capitalist darwinism.
> 
> I just knew it all tied together somehow..


Socialism is alive and well in various countries. Maybe you're confusing it with communism - a common error.

So, you seem to have highjacked this thread to vent your usual stuff - how about getting back on topic by sharing your opinion on the subject of the poll?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

Are we still in Kansas? From this week's issue of Science, Vol 309, Issue 5738, 1163 , 19 August 2005


> EVOLUTION:
> Kansas Prepares New Standards
> 
> Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Where were all of the dinosaurs on Noah's ark???


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well this is where *I* come from 



















Hello cousins........


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I was born in Gotham Hospital in New York City.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

I was born long long ago...in a galaxy far, far away....

And I just came here to raise hell.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I was born in Gotham Hospital in New York City.


Holy Health Centre, Batman!


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Gerbill said:


> Socialism is alive and well in various countries. Maybe you're confusing it with communism - a common error.


As which countries might those be? Last I checked, private ownership is a legal right everywhere except communist nations, and I haven't yet heard of any nations with economic equality anywhere.

This "common error" was caused by Marx's use of the two terms as near-synonyms. Marx did not believe that "social democrats" were true socialists. He called them "utopian socialists," and accused them of being the lapdogs of capitalism.

The fact that the Soviets called their nation "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" contributed also.

Before Marx, communism refered to any system of common ownership, like the first-century Christians, or some aboriginal groups, or any farming commune. Socialism was generally a more industrial concept, and most early socialists were admitted advocates of dictatorship. Comte de Saint-Simon is the best example here, as his socialism was a quasi-religious/quasi-scientific autocracy, for the purpose of equality. He called it "the New Christianity."

"Socialism" is a pretty vague term now. It generally means little more than "anti-capitalism." Socialists cannot seem to agree on private property, trade liberalization, or basic liberal ideas like free speech. The NDP cannot seem to figure out if they should turn themselves into the Green party, the Labour party, or go back to the ideas of the CCF.



Gerbill said:


> So, you seem to have highjacked this thread to vent your usual stuff - how about getting back on topic by sharing your opinion on the subject of the poll?


Uh, you brought up social Darwinism. That derailed the thread.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Holy Health Centre, Batman!" My mother told me that this was the same hospital where Babe Ruth died about a month earlier than when I was born. Sadly, the hospital no longer exists in Manhattan.


----------



## sinjin (Jul 12, 2003)

Looks like <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/19/pastafarianism_flyin.html">Pastafarianism is gaining steam</a>. Sadly, the SPAMists (Spaghetti & Pulsar Activating Meatballs) have broken off from the FSMists (Flying Spaghetti Monster), claiming they have the One True Letter to the Kansas School Board and so are embarking on a jihad to prove it. 

This could get messy.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

lpkmckenna said:


> As which countries might those be? Last I checked, private ownership is a legal right everywhere except communist nations, and I haven't yet heard of any nations with economic equality anywhere.
> 
> This "common error" was caused by Marx's use of the two terms as near-synonyms. Marx did not believe that "social democrats" were true socialists. He called them "utopian socialists," and accused them of being the lapdogs of capitalism.
> 
> ...


A pretty good definition. One that defines the modern world, to some respect. 

Now, about religions;

Personally...I am an active member of the Frisbeetyrian Church!  

We believe that your soul is actually a plastic disc...and that when you die, It goes up on the roof and you have to get a long aluminium ladder to get it down...


----------



## Rob777 (Dec 17, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> Now, about religions;
> 
> Personally...I am an active member of the Frisbeetyrian Church!
> 
> We believe that your soul is actually a plastic disc...and that when you die, It goes up on the roof and you have to get a long aluminium ladder to get it down...


Now that is a religion I can believe in! I am giving up my Atheist ways and joining this church. Where do we meet? Out in the yard?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

We meet in a public park. Every second saturday during the summer months. Rather sporadically during the winter. (some of the TRUE BELIVERS are snowboarding during this season).

Frisbeetyrianism is a rapidly growing faith. One of the fastest growing religions in North America! 

Want to join up?? (bring a dog. Preferably a border collie or a Jack Russell terrier.)

Also....You will need a plastic disc that can be hurled at random. And a pair of shorts.

And you have to _BELIEVE!!_. You have to have _FAITH!!_ 

You might also need a long aluminum ladder. Just in case......


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> And you have to _BELIEVE!!_. You have to have _FAITH!!_



lol


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

A good strong hurling arm also helps. It means you have "faith" in frisbeetyrianism.

The blessed amongst us can REALLY fling! The rest of the followers can line up behind the best hurlers. And wait their turn.

It's a true faith. Based on a plastic disc. Anyone can join into this religion. All you have to do is show up...

But a dog helps. Bring a Jack Russell. And a long aluminum ladder.

Just to show that you are a "true believer".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"But a dog helps. Bring a Jack Russell. And a long aluminum ladder." No jumping doxies!!!! I know of a few people who bring their doxies to the Reformed Church of Frisbeetyrianism in Pie Plate, Ontario.


----------



## Glipt (Aug 7, 2003)

Where does our conscience come from? It serves no purpose for natural selection. While there are terrible things that happen in the world, there are things consistently condmned in all societies. Murder is universally condemned. Taking advantage of children and the weak is condemned. Those who commit these acts, most people hope will be brought to justice. Natural selection would have us take advantage of weaker ones.

Where does our natural desire to see justice done come from? Look at the entertainment industry. While they are of course not the benchmark to be morally guided by, what are the most popular shows on TV? We watch cops catch the bad guys, we watch lawyers put them in jail, we watch doctors save lives and we watch fireman and paramedics rescue people. How popular would Law and Order be if every week the bad guys got away? (I know they do sometimes for realism but we usually hear a 'Guilty' vertict 9:55 Wednesday nights). Oh and we like to laugh too. How did humor evolve?

How come languge suddenly appears in many complex forms? Yes I believe language does evolve, but it should start simple and then get more complex. In recent centuries it actually seems to be devolving. ie. Vietnamese and Turkish have dumped their original more complex scripts in favour of simpler Roman caracters. Greek and Hebrew are far more expressive and complex languages than English.

Granted, religion has turned many off of God by such things as claiming he 'takes' people to heaven by means of violent deaths, accidents, ect. Its involvement in politics. Hitler, who used evolutionary teachings in schools to wrongly show that Jews decended from animals to desenitize people to the unjust treatment of them, died a good Catholic. He was never excommunicated and may not have come to power in the first place without the help of Franz Von Pappen (who was aquitted of charges at the Nuremburg trials) and the Catholic church (who wanted anything but more godless communists in Europe). It's no wonder many question the Bible and the existence of God.

Carl Sagan was quoted in an earlier post from his book Cosmos (which I thoroughly enjoyed) as being a pretty staunch evolutionist (the 'life from no life' kind). This was an accurate conclusion that I drew from this book as well. His fiction work Contact exposed a change in his character however, the final chapter being entitled 'The artists signature'. Not that he now believd in God, but that he had to admit 'Something' was resposible for the wonders in the universe that he had spent many years observing.

Many feel this way too. The existence of a personal God who cares and to whom we may be accountable too is an uncomfortable thought for many people. The term evolution is a perfectly acceptable description of the biological world. Does it mean that a species can change? Certainly. Look at the variety in humans. Anyone who would suggest however that humans from a different race and part of the world are inferior (and there are, hopefully none on ehMac) would be branded a nazi. Does it mean an animal species can grow wings over long periods of time? Some feel that certain bones and fossils prove that this happened. Can a species completely change onto another one? There are many intelligent people who belive so. There are also many intelligent people who believe in limits to change. Why for example is it apparantly so easy to spot missing links (species in the middle of radical cahange) in extremely old fossils but not in real life currently?

Arguments between the 2 theories of the origin of life arise from the extreme left wing views of some in both camps.

(1) That all matter and life arose completely from nowhere and completely by chance leaving us totally morally unnacountable.

(2) That the Allmighty created everything exactly as it is now in just 6 days. Leaving us morally accountable and in fear of an angry Allmighty who might just burn us forever in hell if we step out of line.

To many thinking people both are unacceptable. As more evidence is gathered we all end up altering our views. For example the original thought of a static universe seemed to suit both arguments. That the universe had always been roughly as it is was fine for evolutionists (who ironically have a problem with the beilief that God has always existed) and creationists could claim "See the Allmighty just made it as it is". When Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is expanding it didn't take long to run the clock backward and realize the universe had to have a beginning. Great for creationists but that beginning appears to be a heck of a lot longer than 6000+change years ago. But at least it began.

This is an important question which many choose to not think a whole lot about. While it appears most believe in the existence of a supreme being, most choose to stop there and many end up adopting a quasi evolutionary veiw when their research begins at this piont to turn to a question of religion. If there is no God, we're OK living as we please. But if there is a God then are we in some way obligated to seek more information about him? This is currently very unpopular in scientific circles.


----------



## MissGulch (Jul 20, 2005)

I was born on the wagon of a traveling show. My mama used to dance for the money they'd throw. The wagon was in Maimodes Hospital, Borough Park, Brooklyn. 

Canadian, eh? Not really. Some may argue that Brooklyn isn't the *real* America either. Yikes! What does it make me?


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

Glipt said:


> Natural selection would have us take advantage of weaker ones.


There are many examples in the animal world where this is not the case.



Glipt said:


> Where does our conscience come from? [...] Where does our natural desire to see justice done come from? [...] How did humor evolve?


Our conscience is our learned moral beliefs. But you seem to be asking where morality evolved. Morality is a requirement of our free will. Animals do not have free will, so they do not require morality. So what you really need to be asking is: where did our free will come from?

Free will is an evolutionary result, just like swimming, or walking, or flying.



Glipt said:


> The existence of a personal God who cares and to whom we may be accountable too is an uncomfortable thought for many people.


I am not an atheist because the idea of a "personal God who holds me accountable" makes me uncomfortable. Nobody disbelieves in God because they are afraid of being judged and being sent to hell. I stopped believing in God because I realized the churches, the bible, and the various prophets didn't know right from wrong. If I had to be good to avoid hell, I wasn't going to learn how from those people.



Glipt said:


> Arguments between the 2 theories of the origin of life arise from the extreme left wing views of some in both camps.
> 
> (1) That all matter and life arose completely from nowhere and completely by chance leaving us totally morally unnacountable.
> 
> (2) That the Allmighty created everything exactly as it is now in just 6 days. Leaving us morally accountable and in fear of an angry Allmighty who might just burn us forever in hell if we step out of line.


The existence of God and the existence of morality are two separate and distinct issues. The belief in one does not require the other.



Glipt said:


> This is an important question which many choose to not think a whole lot about. While it appears most believe in the existence of a supreme being, most choose to stop there and many end up adopting a quasi evolutionary veiw when their research begins at this piont to turn to a question of religion. If there is no God, we're OK living as we please. But if there is a God then are we in some way obligated to seek more information about him? This is currently very unpopular in scientific circles.


Scientists do not talk about God because they cannot prove anything. It is also outside their purview. We don't need scientists talking about God anymore than we need engineers talking about neurology. It has nothing to do with being "unpopular."

And again, you link the issue of God and morality. We are obligated to be morally good whether or not we are in danger of hell. You are making it sound like hell is the cause of morality.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Morality is a requirement of our free will. Animals do not have free will, so they do not require morality.


Still trying to differentiate yourself from your great ape cousins??
A number of animals are self aware, and have a clear sense of "fair play".

You've no more "free will" ....or less than they do.

You are a product of evolution and your genes and you react to the world in a way dictated by a combination of your built in capabilities and learned responses....just as other animals do.

The sooner we see humans as but one species WITHIN the framwork of all living species and environments, the sooner we might treasure what we are rapidly destroying in our hubris. 

Morality is no absolute, it changes with the mores of the particular society and is better left to discussions metaphysical or sociological...... than biological.

You're a product of the planet and life no more nor less than other species - enjoy it - it's wondrous - and save some room for the rest of our fellow travellers. The lifeboat is getting crowded, and smelly.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Still trying to differentiate yourself from your great ape cousins??


I admit, some of my former girlfriends were harder to differentiate than others.

But what is wrong with any differentiation? Fish swim, birds fly, penguins waddle, snakes slither. Gorillas are gentle, chimps are aggressive, and humans are rational. Denying human traits like reason or free will is no more a scientific requirement than denying birds can fly.



MacDoc said:


> A number of animals are self aware, and have a clear sense of "fair play".


Perhaps, but self-awareness and fair-play are not free will. And "fair-play" implies the idea of "fairness" as an objective principle. It's amazing how quickly those who would deny moral objectivity nonetheless feel the need to advocate moral absolutes regardless.



MacDoc said:


> You are a product of evolution and your genes and you react to the world in a way dictated by a combination of your built in capabilities and learned responses....just as other animals do.


So if I break into your home and murder your family, my actions were merely "dictated by a combination of your built in capabilities and learned responses."



MacDoc said:


> The sooner we see humans as but one species WITHIN the framwork of all living species and environments, the sooner we might treasure what we are rapidly destroying in our hubris.


Many animal species long before us destroyed their environments and themselves, so that is not a purely human trait. Also, the idea of free will is fully complementary to living within the framework of all living species and environments. (Well, maybe not all species - I swat flies and wasps without much regret, and I have no apologies for the ant-traps in the basement.)



MacDoc said:


> Morality is no absolute, it changes with the mores of the particular society and is better left to discussions metaphysical or sociological...... than biological.


I didn't claim it was a biological discussion. Morality is the purview of moral philosophy. Free will is the purview of metaphysics, but its application can be found is every human endeavor. Because free will is a product of our conciousness, it is often analyzed clinically by psychologists and psychiatrists. 

After birth, the brain is still developing, and our capacity for self-determined action grows with us. Thus, we allow much latitude to babies and children for their actions. But childhood is often the hardest part of life, as the self-determined action grows faster than the knowledge of right and wrong. Teasing, bullying, cheating, lying, and stealing are an ever-present risk for kids. 

Like any other mental process, it can be upset by disease. Those with severe mental illness often lose control of their thoughts and behaviour, and we hold them unaccountable for their actions. Direct injury or degeneration in the brain can also impair one's freewill. No one holds Grandpa responsible if he becomes more crusty and cranky as he gets older.

To hold no one accountable, by denying free will, reduces us all to babies and psychopaths.

If morality "changes with the mores of the particular society," does that mean no society is better than any other? Does that mean a liberal democracy and a military dictatorship are morally equivalent? Any why should enlightened individuals, like you and I, fight to maintain our liberal values against the cesspool of reactionary ideologies and religious fanaticism - if no social system is better than any other?

For that matter, why do we need a Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How can we dare impose our western delusions of gender and racial equality, intellectual freedom, and participatory government on the peaceful societies of Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Mississippi?



MacDoc said:


> You're a product of the planet and life no more nor less than other species - enjoy it - it's wondrous - and save some room for the rest of our fellow travellers. The lifeboat is getting crowded, and smelly.


I'm a product of the planet; I never claimed not to be.

The earth is no lifeboat, and the stinky inhabitants of the Brazilian interior resent your Eurocentric belief in the absolutes of stinkiness. What's smelly to you might be perfume to them.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Free will is not a "human trait" - it's a high falutin' term for making a choice and animals do it just as well as humans - sometimes better and they are both driven by a combination of innate ability and learned responses...and some choices CAN have serious consequences.....like breaking into a house ...or a hiberating bear's den.

You have to define a set of parameters of success and failure to determine a "better" society and that will REALLY depend on viewpoint. If I take a Gaian viewpoint much of our society sucks such as our "heroic life saving" efforts.
If you define success as sustainable, mostly peaceable society then we suck at it and the Papuan New Guinea societies have much to crow about. They've managed for about 40,000 years tho not without some "gruesome from our viewpoint" cultural practices 

In most advanced species there will be cultural changes that occur that are sometimes embodied into the commonality of a community and sometimes rejected.
One of the great disappointments in the study of our near confreres is in the loss of cultures in the great apes as there are so few left the diversity of cultures has been wiped out.

One of our strengths as a species is adaptability and tool use as well as language.
Lots of brain power and a real built in curiosity.....explore..don't accept the status quo- which likely is part and parcel of our societal frictions as much as it is part of success as a technical species.

I'd say one innate trait for **** sapiens is questioning and overturning authority with some regularity.....and the tendency to form gangs and deal with conflict violently 

Bonobos have a MUCH better method.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Bonobos have a MUCH better method.


I'm not too inclined to rub genitals with the guy who just cut me off.



MacDoc said:


> You have to define a set of parameters of success and failure to determine a "better" society and that will REALLY depend on viewpoint.


A more complete answer will have to wait until tomorrow. However, in my post I did make reference to liberal democracy, mental health, gender and racial equality, and intellectual freedom, fairness, accountability, science, and reason. That should sound vaguely familiar as "a set of parameters." 



MacDoc said:


> If I take a Gaian viewpoint much of our society sucks such as our "heroic life saving" efforts.


I can't say I know what a "Gaian" viewpoint is, but I suspect a stroll thru the new age section of the library will yield much the same. Unless you can suggest a credible "Gaian" thinker that I should look up. But I also suspect I won't want to, since I have great admiration for the "heroic life-saving efforts" they apparently deride.



MacDoc said:


> Free will is not a "human trait" - it's a high falutin' term for making a choice and animals do it just as well as humans - sometimes better


So if I were to call it "choice" instead of "free will" you'd be ok with that? Even if I meant the same thing? And you think animals makes choices? Ok, I buy that, an least among the higher mammals. Do you really think mice, or mosquitos, or toads, or flatworms make choices?

In my previous post, I linked high intelligence and free will together. The latter is not possible without the former. Also, I linked free will with developmental psychology and psychological health. Hence the young, the old, and the ill many have less freedom of the will, depending on many factors.

So to defend the idea of "choice" among animals, you are going to have to suggest that animals are of "high intelligence," or say my linking is untrue.

In reality, free will is a unique trait among humans because high intelligence is unique among humans. It is absurd to believe otherwise.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

All of you rise up and follow the Frisbeetyerian faith!! 

It is an easy religion...one that dosen't require any real sacrafices! You can still drink and smoke dope (actually recommended) and fornicate with sleazy women, if you'd like...

And it's growing FAST!!  

Take a look at any large flattish greenspace in your local area during the warmer months....

Do you see people from all walks of life gathering there? With a dog or two? While wearing looose informal summer garb and hurling a plastic disc? For _HOURS_ on end?? 

They are HAPPY! They are FREE. They are FRISBEETYRIANS!

Feel free to join into the congregation....

  

(BTW...bring a dog. And, if you bring a long aluminum ladder...you might actually be elected as a Priest.)


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Note: we Frisbeetyrians call them "_HIGH PRIESTS_" for a reason....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"They are HAPPY! They are FREE. They are FRISBEETYRIANS!" I hear that there is some divisive schism brewing over the views of some pertaining to allowing men to attain the level of Highest Priestess, in that the title of High Priest is given to every male, and frolf (i.e., golf played with a frisbee). Then there was the incident of Melvin Luther trying to use a staple gun to put his Ninety-Five Theses to the steel door of the Wittenbergdorf Goodman Church.

"The times they are a changin' ...."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> In reality, free will is a unique trait among humans because high intelligence is unique among humans.


Interesting phrase "unique among humans". Completely nonsensical.

•••

Babies are "humans" - do they have a unique "free will" that say a baby chimp does not.

No - of course not.

As with evolution traits like high level tool use and language/communication form a spectrum over time and within species.

You're grasping at straws in denying **** sapiens position WITHIN the spectrum - not "above" whatever that may be.

Gaian is just a short form ( I notice how dismissive you are of something you patently know nothing about ) for the ecology of the planet as a whole - or the life mix of the planet as a whole.

It puts humans in perspective as one species amongst many and one that is very destructive to the whole.

I dare say a chimp in the forest has a far better survival intelligence than you or I dropped in without our customary tools. We'd starve or get eaten by something and then we could talk about getting dropped in with the dolphins say a few hundred miles at sea.

We have a set of abilities endowed and honed by evolution and enhanced and preserved by culture so do other higher order mammals and who is to judge which are "better".

Doplphins clearly have more "advanced" senses in many aspects and the big brain to go with that and there are many taks great apes and even monkeys are better equipped to do - like quickly identifying ripe fruit on a tree and snagging it.

Hubris ..........get out of your humancentric viewpoint and look at the entire wonderous spectrum that is life, survival ability both innate and learned and your clear relationship with fellow species. Chimps can sign, make jokes, murder with intent, show a full range of emotions and they share 99% of our DNA.

We are just one species in a number of human species and related great ape species.
It's a shame people can't climb down off the "we are oh so special" pedestal.
The Buddhists are likely closest - they inform my relationship to the rest of life - the "discriminations" rest only in our own minds.

The sense of common ground with all life bringing increased complexity to "life" in the face of entrophy should, in a sustainable, world be taught from birth and kept in clear view throughout our brief existence.

"Walk Softly, Leave A Small Footprint".........it's high time we did.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Some of the questions to which the Buddha remained silent are as following: 

Is the universe eternal?
Is it not eternal?
Is the universe finite?
Is it infinite?


The Nature of the Buddha is one Light of the World --

"Understood are the things to be understood, 
Cultivated are the things to be cultivated, 
Eradicated are the things to be eradicated, 
Therefore Brahmin, I am the Buddha."(Sutta Nipata)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I have to respond to this post, simply to offer a rational alternative to this example of pervasive irrationalism.



Glipt said:


> Where does our conscience come from? It serves no purpose for natural selection.


Of course it serves a purpose in natural selection. It is adaptive for complex social animals to be able to engage in mutually beneficial relationships, and to do so they need to be able to trust each other. Given that it is often advantageous to the individual to betray the tribe, neurological systems that mitigate against these impulses are necessary to have a functional society. That's why we have guilt. By all measurements we are able to make, so do other social mammals (dogs, apes, dolphins, elephants, etc.). Having a 'conscience' is simply an adaptive trait for social animals. 

But it's not the only way of doing it. Ants, bees, termites, etc. manage to build complex, efficient societies without needing complex brains. This is because their ancestors discovered the advantages of social living long before they had evolved complex brains, whereas our ancestors were very complex animals long before they were social, so our societies have to accommodate our complexity.



> Natural selection would have us take advantage of weaker ones.


Only if the weaker ones don't share a significant genetic relationship with you. Kin selection is a very powerful factor in population ecology.



> How come languge suddenly appears in many complex forms?


What makes you think it did? I'm not a linguist or cultural anthropologist, but I have never heard of any evidence that our ancestors simply started speaking in complex sentences one day. Every theory of language evolution I've heard of postulates that language evolved slowly from simple vocalizations necessary for primitive socialization into the complex languages of modern humans. Written language is quite recent.



> The existence of a personal God who cares and to whom we may be accountable too is an uncomfortable thought for many people.


And a magical sky-daddy who will make everything right eventually is very comforting for many more. I'm not quite sure why you think our comfort/discomfort with an idea has any relevance to its validity.



> Can a species completely change onto another one?


Yes. There are numerous examples of speciation that have been well documented within recent history.



> There are many intelligent people who belive so. There are also many intelligent people who believe in limits to change.


This has nothing to do with belief. It is an empirical fact.



> Why for example is it apparantly so easy to spot missing links (species in the middle of radical cahange) in extremely old fossils but not in real life currently?


Because observing the linkages between ancestral and descendant species require the existence of the descendent. For extant species, descendant species generally don't yet exist, so you can't see any relationship with them.

It's easy to see the relationship between a parent and a child, but if someone doesn't have children, you can't see that relationship.



> That all matter and life arose completely from nowhere and completely by chance leaving us totally morally unnacountable.


Except to ourselves and to each other. And to whom else does our accountability really matter?



> As more evidence is gathered we all end up altering our views.


One would hope. However, some people seem to think that their favourite religion has a patent on the TRUTH(tm), and all evidence has to be interpreted in the context of their magic book or their imaginary friend will be very angry.



> But if there is a God then are we in some way obligated to seek more information about him? This is currently very unpopular in scientific circles.


Because science is logically constrained to exclude supernatural explanations from its theories. All scientific theories must be falsifiable by empirical observations. Theories about Gods, demons, invisible space pixies or Santa Clause cannot be falsified by observations of nature, and therefore cannot be considered by science.

On of the things that is infuriating about 'Intelligent Design' theory is that it makes no falsifiable predictions (this is actually not strictly true: one branch of ID predicts that many biological structures will be 'irreducibly complex' and inaccessible to Darwinian evolution. These predictions have been falsified and thus the theory has been proved incorrect. Sadly, this does not inhibit some very intellectually dishonest people from promoting it and obfuscating the issue).

Cheers


----------



## Melonie (Feb 10, 2005)

Entirely agree with your considered post, Bryanc.

I thank you for putting into words what I only wish I could.

Mel


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MacDoc said:


> I dare say a chimp in the forest has a far better survival intelligence than you or I dropped in without our customary tools. We'd starve or get eaten by something and then we could talk about getting dropped in with the dolphins say a few hundred miles at sea.


Interesting... how about putting a chimp or a Dolphin in the middle of New York city or better, in the middle of the arctic tundra, and see how their survical intelligence could manage.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I think that's MacDoc's point. We measure intelligence by standards that make us look most intelligent.

Dropping a human out in the middle of the ocean is perhaps not such a great example of dolphins being more intelligent, because the human's failure to survive in that context wouldn't be a failure of 'intelligence' per se. However, if we provided a human and a dolphin with the same sonar data and required both to assemble an accurate model of a complex 3D environment, a dolphin would be able to do it with out relying on a lot of computers and would be able to do it faster. This is clearly an example of the dolphin being more 'intelligent' than the human. You could argue that this isn't 'intelligence' because the dolphin is just using a lot of sophisticated neuro-physiological adaptations its got for underwater navigation, but then, what is 'intelligence'?

Cheers


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Babies are "humans" - do they have a unique "free will" that say a baby chimp does not. No - of course not.


I guess you didn't read anything I post before you criticize it.

"After birth, the brain is still developing, and our capacity for self-determined action grows with us. Thus, we allow much latitude to babies and children for their actions."



MacDoc said:


> As with evolution traits like high level tool use and language/communication form a spectrum over time and within species.
> 
> You're grasping at straws in denying **** sapiens position WITHIN the spectrum - not "above" whatever that may be.


I'm not denying any such thing. We are "great apes." But, due to our high intelligence, we are far greater than the other apes.



MacDoc said:


> Gaian is just a short form ( I notice how dismissive you are of something you patently know nothing about ) for the ecology of the planet as a whole - or the life mix of the planet as a whole.
> 
> It puts humans in perspective as one species amongst many and one that is very destructive to the whole.


Once again, you criticize without understanding what I said. I don't know what a Gaian viewpoint is because no one knows. Among ecologists who use the term, they cannot agree if it means:

a. the global eco-sphere;
b. the global eco-sphere viewed metaphorically as an organism;
c. the global eco-sphere viewed literally as an organism; or
d. the entire planet being viewed literally as an organism.

Gaia-ism is an attempt to raise the scientific principles of ecology to a moral and spiritual system of philosophy. Hence its placement in the "new age" section.



MacDoc said:


> I dare say a chimp in the forest has a far better survival intelligence than you or I dropped in without our customary tools. We'd starve or get eaten by something and then we could talk about getting dropped in with the dolphins say a few hundred miles at sea.
> 
> We have a set of abilities endowed and honed by evolution and enhanced and preserved by culture so do other higher order mammals and who is to judge which are "better".


A human, raised in poverty by the most inept parents, will learn extensive number of words and facts, learn how to add and subtract, and likely how to drive a motor vehicle. I dare say a chimp, raised and educated by the best animal psychologists, can barely manage learning the alphabet, counting to 10, and riding a tricycle.

As for survivability, humans live in every corner of the globe, and have even pushed beyond it. Unlike our limited-minded cousins, we can adapt to almost any environment. We don't have to wait for evolution to grant "a set of abilities endowed and honed" thru thousands of years.



MacDoc said:


> Hubris ..........get out of your humancentric viewpoint and look at the entire wonderous spectrum that is life, survival ability both innate and learned and your clear relationship with fellow species. Chimps can sign, make jokes, murder with intent, show a full range of emotions and they share 99% of our DNA.


I can't stop thinking like a human any more than I can stop listening or seeing or tasting like a human. I have no idea how an apple tastes or looks to a chimp, so it is impossible to imagine what he thinks about it. And neither can you.

And how can you tell me to "get out of my humanocentric viewpoint.?" If I do not have free will, how can I choose to do anything? Aren't my beliefs a result of evolution, cultural conditioning, and psychological molding?



MacDoc said:


> We are just one species in a number of human species and related great ape species.


There are other human species? Where can I meet one?



MacDoc said:


> It's a shame people can't climb down off the "we are oh so special" pedestal.
> The Buddhists are likely closest - they inform my relationship to the rest of life - the "discriminations" rest only in our own minds.
> 
> The sense of common ground with all life bringing increased complexity to "life" in the face of entrophy should, in a sustainable, world be taught from birth and kept in clear view throughout our brief existence.


Your pseudo-Buddhism aside, I still have no idea what you plan to teach babies from birth. But if that baby could talk, he would probably ask you to use that intelligence to find some food, shelter, warmth, and safety. And if you could climb down off that "we are oh not so special" pedestal, surgery for his congenital heart defect might save him from being thrown off the lifeboat. You can't explain the Gaia hypothesis to a newborn, after all.


----------



## lpkmckenna (Jul 4, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> Also....You will need a plastic disc that can be hurled at random. And a pair of shorts.


I'm afraid I cannot join. I don't like being told how to dress.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

As a committed Frisbeetyrian, you don't have to wear shorts. Or anything at all, for that matter.

But I should advise you that long flowing saffron robes will prevent you from safely ascending the "aluminum ladder of greater knowledge" in order to retrieve your immortal soul (plastic flying disc) from the roof.

In the Frisbeetyrian religion, our "High Priests" generally wear shorts.


----------

