Yet another stupid evolution 'debate'

[kahljorn]

"You have to explain why you disagree. Insulting your opponent, while fun, is not a point of discussion in and of itself"

This thread is a great example of this philosophy at work, huh? Go read through the evolution thread, or any of those other threads where you insulted me for no reason. Seriously please read through the evolution thread(the one about politics in school). Kevin, if you want a good example read through that thread.
I admit that first time we argued I kind of fucked with your philosophy a bit, preechr, but that was only because I thought you made stupid points. Is it so bad to disagree with you and expect you to make a better point beyond tough love? "Let's leave things the same and wait till people grow balls!". What was that thread called anyway? I'd like to read through it again.

"The pattern I have shown is that of making a point, having it ignored, then making it again, and again, and again"

Just because you're making a point doesn't make it valid nor intelligent, nor does it make it worthy of being accepted as the truth. Also, just because we understand your point doesn't mean we agree with it. Fuck man I make points that I think are points all the damned time and people ignore them. You've ignored my points tons of times(evolution thread). Do you see me whining about it or taking your approach?
Also, If anybody doesn't ignore your points it's ME. I argue EVERY POINT YOU BRING UP. That's my NATURE IN AN ARGUMENT. So don't fucking pull this, "My points are ignored" bullshit, because I always respond to everything I possibly can in anybody's posts.

"They never went anywhere. I've gotten further talking to my dog. "

That's because you vagina out whenever somebody disagrees with you or doesn't see something the way you see it, so you repeat yourself OVER AND OVER trying to force them to accept your point "again, and again, and again". Try moving on to your next point instead. You're going to have to learn in life that nobody is going to agree with everything you say, and you're just going to have to get over it and continue.
Fuck man it's not that hard to discredit what someone is saying to you if it's stupid, you probably put more value on what I say than I feel it's worth.

I know I said I wouldn't insult you but I demanded that in trade of quality posts and no more complaining, which I notice you just did.

P.S. Myths of rich and poor.

[Preechr]

I really hate breaking my own rules...

Anyways... I don't ask you to agree with every point I make. I surely would never treat you with the same false courtesy, and if you did me that way, I'd start ignoring you even quicker than talking to you made me do.

Go back and read through our previous arguments. The one thing you never do is acknowledge my points. You pick at the fringes, ignoring the main thrust of the argument. Kevin does the same thing. This is not a court of law, where you can cast enough doubt on the prosecutors case to acquit OJ. You actually have to address directly the points of your opponent.

Yours is a fine example: The evolution thread. I asked why there is not in existence a website that can clearly and concisely show me in pictures and text... maybe a flash movie or two if you wanna get fancy... the proof behind evolution. Show me the evidence, or admit to a reliance on faith and that evolution from a common species is just another religious belief. You quote yourself for me where you ever addressed that directly.

You beat around the bush quite well. That's exactly what makes talking to you so infuriating. If we are to discuss Philosophy, Sociology, Religion, Politics, News AND et cetera in this forum, you will have to adopt a more efficient form of expressing your dissent. Please don't take that as an insult, because all of this is also directed at none other than the very moderator for this esteemed corner of the internet.

In short, I make a point and you counter that point directly with a... care to guess? COUNTERPOINT. I should be able to rebut your argument effectively enough, and then WE MOVE ON. That's the part that's so difficult for you guys. I set out to explain economics, and never got past the first little bit because you guys could not move along onto more than the basics.

I do not win arguments, and neither do you. Logic wins arguments. I have told you before that arguing is a process of agreement. Agreeing to disagree is for pussies. Well, not entirely I suppose... I acknowledge that Max and I will probably never see eye to eye on humanity, and I choose not to hound him on his flawed perception of reality because I accept the fact that he is unconvinceable and that to do so would make me Vince, as haranguing him incessantly would draw defense from other members regardless of their affinity for him and eventually make me an outcast, probably causing future distrust of all preachers among the group of you, just as you all now think different of both Catholics and Samurai.

You, however, have no substantive basis in your arguments. You react to new information from your gut without any sort of need to research things further. Your intutition serves you well, generally, but I can't help imagine how much more interesting you might be with a few actual facts on your side. Pretty much the same with Kevin, but with him, he just thinks that everything he's learned so far is alll there is to learn.

From now on, I will try to help you learn better methods of argument for your own benefit. To do so, I will begin to ignore anything you post that is not a direct question focused on a point previously made. I may take the time to point out the pointlessness of some of your responses, just to help you learn what not to do, but I think something a bit more Socratic might help us both get through all the unaddressed material a bit quicker.

There's a lot of ground to cover, so I suggest you start a thread to talk about which whatever it is you feel you are so right about so I can get to the business of proving you wrong.

[ziggytrix]

You actually have to address directly the points of your opponent.

No you don't. It'd be great debate if people did, but this is an internet forum, not a debate club.



I asked why there is not in existence a website that can clearly and concisely show me in pictures and text... maybe a flash movie or two if you wanna get fancy... the proof behind evolution.


It's not that simple. Unlike other sciences such as physics, origin theories are not provable thru direct experimentation. The events have already occured and all we are left with are the handful of pieces to a puzzle that weren't lost long before mammals even existed. It's a theory backed by mountains of evidence, any of which requires a working knowledge of the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, or paleontology, for starters. I could point you to thousands of studies, research projects, and whatnot that support evolution form common origin, if I had the time or inclination to dig through Thompson indexes for a few hours for the benefit of someone who doesn't even seem genuinely interested in the research if it can't be summed up in a 3 minute flash presentation.

I believe I've given this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) before, and I cannot recall your response if you had one, but this is about as close to what you're asking for that I know of. Maybe you ignored it because it lacked pictures?

[Preechr]

I believe I've given this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) before, and I cannot recall your response if you had one, but this is about as close to what you're asking for that I know of. Maybe you ignored it because it lacked pictures?

Yes, you have... and I've not commented on it. I was talking to Kahl when I said that, and I didn't mean to imply that nobody had addressed my question directly. That being said, I would still argue with you that the concise representation you've provided still is eaving me lacking satisfaction, at least in a complete sense.

On it's own, I might be willing to stretch that far... BUT.

It's been my experience so far that things that cannot be explained concisely (by someone other than me) are generally to complicated to be real.

[kahljorn]

" the proof behind evolution."

"There is no proof in this, that's where this argument comes from. He thinks the schools teach that it's the ab solute truth..."

" Like I said, I didn't say that proved anything. If it proved anything, it wouldn't be called a theory. "

"I realize it doesn't "Prove" anything because if it did it wouldn't be a theory anymore."

See, now here's the hilarious thing. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. You couldn't understand that. I didn't ignore that point you made, I addressed it like 5 times and you glossed over it to pick on the fringes, as you say .
My entire point was about addressing the fact that it's not a FACT but a theory and we can't necessarily present the information as per your request because it's a THEORY and we're trying to RESEARCH it to discover if it is or isn't true. THATS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. If we didn't investigate theories the whole of scientific knowledge would be NOTHING. Does that point make sense? Because I think it makes perfect sense.

Address that, since I addressed yours. You can say I bushed around the issue with that statement, but I answered it completely honestly without any sort of agenda or blind belief behind it, JUST THE FACTS. If I said I cou ld prove it I'd be lying.
Add in the fact that it was about what they teach in science class rooms and a very large portion of science is the pursual of theories in trying to prove or disprove them, and you have why I was on topic debating a point and you were being a pointless asshole with an agenda against evolution, or me, or whatever it was you were doing.
I admit I used the word proof in one of my statements, mostly because you guys were throwing around the word proof like nothing. I should've used the word evidence. Evidence is a great word for science. We have evidence of evolution. Thus we investigate, like some kind of scientific detectives who are searching for the truth in the only true way to search for truth.

I practically said the same exact thing ziggy just said in my post like three or four times. Your issue is obviously with either comprehension or some kind of personal problem. I'm not sure which, but I'll try to be more clear. Am I not always necessarily clear guys?

If you want I can explain to you the reasoning behind the above. I don't mind explaining why the scientific system was built this way, but I can tell that it was so we can obtain a more complete truth.


"Show me the evidence, or admit to a reliance on faith and that evolution from a common species is just another religious belief."

I thought I should respond to this for good measure. A) How many people are questioning their religion's validity by attempting to find evidence and whatever else scientists do B) Do they actively seek out material evidence of god's existence C) How many religous people call their religion a theory, how many would claim it was "True" D) How exactly would you prove god's existence, is it even possible?
Those are just some general questions that I feel are applicable, especially to the evolution threads actual topic.

[Preechr]

That's why I picked that example.

You did not answer my question.

You defined evolution as a theory MANY, MANY times.

I, too, used the words proof and evidence interchangeably.

I could rephrase the question now:

"Why can't the evidence that led the finest minds in science to the theory that all life evolved from one common form be clearly and concisely portrayed so a skeptic could follow along and satisfy his doubts?"

If we didn't investigate theories the whole of scientific knowledge would be NOTHING.

[ziggytrix]

ANSWER THE QUESTION!


Magic elves, motherfucker. Magic elves did it all while you weren't looking. That concise enough for you? Flash presentation to follow.

[Preechr]

Don't get me wrong, zig. I have not been arguing evolution per se as much as objecting to a few aspects of the belief, just as I can quibble with Christians on whether or not Jesus was literally the son of God or disagree with environmentalists on their particualr dogmatic beliefs.

If this is to go on, it would probably be best if our mod would move these last few posts back into the pertitnent thread...

Personally, I have no problems at all with the concept of a species (or genus or whatever... I get confused) modifying over time through random mutation or selection based in specialization. That's obviously factual and real. That is not at all the same thing as all forms of life evolving from one common ancestor.

Common Descent is about as believeable to me as is Adam and Eve. That being said, since I am talking about my personal beliefs, I should add that I really don't care enough about the subject directly to do much more research into it than watching a movie. I believe God created the universe and everything in it for a purpose, and I believe Common Descent has been enshrined in Science as a counterweight to "religious" belief... effectively laying the groundwork for the opinion opposite of mine: that nothing has meaning or purpose.

I generally only object to evolution arguments where the differences between micro and macro evolution are not respected or where anyone that might be skeptical is labeled a Jesus-freak Luddite.

[ziggytrix]

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

I agree with everything this man said here.

also, kevin, feel free to split this with a subject like yet another stupid evolution 'debate'

[Emu]

What thread was this in before?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Exxon.

[kahljorn]

Why should I address your point? Your point had nothing to do with the thread, which means it's NOT A POINT. My point is that it's fine to teach it in a science classroom because it's scientific theory. Your point is that we can't prove it to you. I don't care if I can prove it to you, I care that it's a scientific theory and as such deserved place in a scientific classroom. You can't "Win" a debate, or prove someone wrong, if you're not even talking about the right subject.

Submit to me some evidence that god created the world. Maybe a recipt or something like that, or a building permit. Personally I don't believe a damn thing, so while evolution seems like a good theory to me I wouldn't be surprised if some magnificent god built all of it, and quite frankly I wouldn't care because it changes nothing in my life.

""Why can't the evidence that led the finest minds in science to the theory that all life evolved from one common form be clearly and concisely portrayed so a skeptic could follow along and satisfy his doubts?" "

Evolution for dummies! (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0028642260/sr=8-1/qid=1146685372/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-9638513-4610444?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[Preechr]

Yes. Evolution is a theory. Good Job.

So, we're done here then, right?

[Big Papa Goat]

Intelligent Design is not a theory
now we're done

[kahljorn]

Yea, I guess I should've explained that in one line instead of putting it at the end of every post, chronologically.

[derrida]

Common Descent is about as believeable to me as is Adam and Eve. That being said, since I am talking about my personal beliefs, I should add that I really don't care enough about the subject directly to do much more research into it than watching a movie. I believe God created the universe and everything in it for a purpose, and I believe Common Descent has been enshrined in Science as a counterweight to "religious" belief... effectively laying the groundwork for the opinion opposite of mine: that nothing has meaning or purpose.


Why does the notion of common descent strike you as so intuitively wrong?

Why are members of an unsavory class of professional athiests and culture warriors representative, to you, of the scientific community as a whole?

How does common ancestry negate divine purpose?

[Preechr]

It's not as intuitively wrong as it is highly less preferable to me.

I don't think of the scientific community like that. I can, however, look back at the history of science and see that scientific thinkers are generally so focused on their branch of the discipline that they tend to be easily led into trusting other specialists within their general profession a bit too often for me to simply trust "the scientific community" without a bit of skepticism.

I also recognize that the funding of scientific studies mostly always eminates from a governmental source, which always results in a confrontation between the search for truth and the struggle for power. All of the most important scientific discoveries have had to in their time fight for acceptance against contrary predominant beliefs. I suppose those predominant beliefs were generally supported so well by something other than their basis in truth. I propose that the facade of truth had been purchased in exchange for the funding provided by those in search of political power.

And it's not that Common Descent necessarily negates divine intention, but it's to late in the evening to work on this more.

I'll check back in tomorrow.

[kahljorn]

"I also recognize that the funding of scientific studies mostly always eminates from a governmental source, which always results in a confrontation between the search for truth and the struggle for power. "

I find that statement ironic considering our talks about the government and economy.

And to respond to your post: I suggest to take everything skeptically. Skepticism is a good habit, especially scientifically. The less objective and more inclined towards predisposition you are the more likely you are to have tainted results. However, if you are skeptic of science why not of religion? Shouldn't you be skeptical about all belief systems, or is it just that you have a predisposition of some sort?
Personally I'm pretty skeptical, I make observations but don't really believe them. I can still get the general idea of the theory in question, though, even without believing. Then I discuss things in way of observation from as many relevant points as possible. I guess what I'm getting to here is that from an objective viewpoint, the major difference between evolution and divine intention is that one has evidence supporting it- physical, measurable evidence.
Personally I don't see how that evidence even contradicts with 'divine intention' at all. You said you think the scientific community is against the beliefs of religion, like it's an atheistic attack, but I believe it's the other way around. As far as I know people were never burned as heretics for saying the earth wasn't square. I think it seems more plausible that some part of religion developed it's beliefs explicitley to contradict science; these beliefs that contradict it aren't even held by every believer.
Even science has had it's mishaps. I agree with you entirely on that, but do you let that restrain you from further scientific research, a response based solely on fear that can have no progressive motion to it?

Please, let's discuss intelligent design. I know next to nothing about it because nobody ever discusses it. Please tell me any information, the basics; when the world started, how it started, why it started, where, etc. This way we can actually discuss them from a relative, skeptical angle.
One thing I have heard is that the world started in 4,000 bc. This is strange to me because many cultures were, historically, around at that time. An example would be Egypt which if you read, in the bible, are actually real people, religously.

[pjalne]

Unlike other sciences such as physics, origin theories are not provable thru direct experimentation. The events have already occured and all we are left with are the handful of pieces to a puzzle that weren't lost long before mammals even existed.

True, but the evolutionary theory is still falsifiable and testable. Scientists have long claimed that there must have been a fish with amphibian qualities at a certain point in history. This creature must have had a primitive wrist and certain other qualities that cohere with the already established evolutionary charts. And last month they found it, and it was exactly the right age. On the other hand, if we found a feathered hippo, that would mean a big heap of our accumulated knowledge had to be thrown out.

Kali, ID's claim is that things in nature are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved unguided. The main advocate of this "irreducible complexity" is Michael Behe, who was a witness at the Dover trial. Here, he among other things claimed that science could never explain how the blood clotting cascade could have evolved. When he then was presented with a stack of books and papers documenting this exact process, he admitted to not having read a single one of them, but added that whatever they said they had to be wrong. Any other claim ID makes is a negative one, pointing out holes in the evolutionary chart. The irredicible complexity argument is one from ignorance and thus invalid, the fallacy of the negative claims is that pointing out unexplored areas in evolutionary theory does not mean credit should automatically fall on ID theory. Well, as Goat pointed out, it's not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It's more of a notion.

The designer posited by ID is not, according to the guys themselves, necessarily the Christian god. Many IDers accept the old earth, but pretty much every single one of them is Christian, and for some reason Noah's flood is used to explain just about every geological occurence that discredits the bible. Like the Grand Canyon.

Basically, creationism felt threatened by scientific progress, was unequipped to take on the battle, and had to evolve. It does not actually have scientific traits, but its camoflage keeps it alive.

[pjalne]

You defined evolution as a theory MANY, MANY times.

The question is, have you by now understood what "theory" means in a scientific context?

[kahljorn]

Thanks pjalne that's pretty much what I figured.

I've actually read that Micheal behe thing because Preechr posted it and the first thing that came to mind was, "This guy doesn't understand the basic concepts of evolution".

"the fallacy of the negative claims is that pointing out unexplored areas in evolutionary theory does not mean credit should automatically fall on ID theory. "

I hate that. It's so hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks that, just because we haven't discovered every piece of knowledge in the world, the theory must be wrong. People like that are living in ignorance of the human situation, and the human condition. I mean, don't they understand that we are actually pretty ignorant compared to how much knowledge is actually out there? Why do they think we should be omniscient and instantly be able to present them with all the information they want without any form of investigation? Honestly, it just blows my mind that people are that unreasonable and ignorant.

I hate people who don't understand their situation, especially not the world situation. How can you be ignorant of simple things like that? It's the most obvious thing in the world. Luckily science ignores it and instead continues to accumulate evidence.

It really does seem to me like creationists are more afraid of their beliefs being proven wrong than finding the truth, which to me disqualifies their opinion in a scientific sense. If you think in terms of a jury, somebody who has a prejudice like that would be removed from the jury.
I wonder if evolution was actually developed explicitley to contradict the ideas of religion, though. I doubt it for some reason, I remember part of what tipped off the existance of it was actually an observation of two different situations and finding some "Common factor".


So how is evolution a sociological thing, preechr? I remember you saying that and finding it to be kind of interesting, especially with how richard dawkins felt about evolution and memeotics.

[kahljorn]

"effectively laying the groundwork for the opinion opposite of mine: that nothing has meaning or purpose. "

Wow man reading through what you say your philosophy in life is so dead. The only thing that gives life meaning is having a God? Have you ever read Neitzche?
How does evolution give you that opinion? personally, evolution gives me the idea that life has a ton of purpose, and evolution actually works well with every single spiritual belief I've ever studied. Every single piece of spiritually, even the bible, tells the importance of evolving. Evolving spiritually, mentally, intelligently and even physically. To me that is a huge purpose, and it gives life alot of meaning. The attempt to build something beautiful, rather than relying on outside "Powers" to fix things for you. You know, personal responsibility for the way the world works instead of blaming it all or relying on god. You talk about people doing that with the government all the time, and yet when it comes to this your philosophy is so drastically different?
Why is it that you don't apply your philosophies to everything? I thought that was the point of philosophy?

"Why can't the evidence that led the finest minds in science to the theory that all life evolved from one common form be clearly and concisely portrayed so a skeptic could follow along and satisfy his doubts?"

I think I should address this again. There's more than one scientist working on evolution, some of them may even have different opinions on how it works, or just some other specific functioning of it. If you study ANY science there's ALWAYS going to be more than one book available on the subject, and they will all differ slightly.
Not only that but evolution is a vast subject. It's like asking why isn't there one book for every piece of medical information? Do you know how large a book like that would be? It'd be gigantic. Same with philosophy and damn near every other field of study.
Also, many sciences only care to document their studies and observations, because that's what's important. They might throw in opinions and hypothesis, but in the end the only scientifically valid portion of it is the observances and studies.

Those are all reasons why you don't see a centralized, "Bible of evolution". Even the books of the bible were originally seperated, and I think it took them a couple hundred years at least before they were all compiled into one volume.

However, I'm sure somebody out there has compiled a book with alot of the pertinent information on evolution. Does anybody know of such a book? I think ziggy reccomended a site to you with alot of information on it. In all honesty though I don't think you'll be satisfied with anything we give you, and I doubt you'll even read anything we give you, so what does it matter.
Arguing beliefs is pointless. I don't believe in creationism nor evolution, especially when it comes down to debate. In this argument, we discuss evidence, and you discuss how that evidence isn't enough. You're the one who said in debates finding flaws in the other persons argument isn't how you win. I'm all for aruing ideas, concepts, functions, consequences and whatever other REAL things we can argue(creationism can be debated in those terms). To an extant I'll even argue unreal things, but only if they serve an actual function in the world.

[Preechr]

Damn. Ok.

First off, yes, pjalne, I understand what a theory is. I will pray to Jesus this very night in thanks for him sending me kahljorn so I might see the light of scientific method.

I will also pray for kahl's soul since he stopped trying to goad me into discussion with insults and started acting reasonable, but I will make sure to include conditions in there that he burn in Hell if he's just changed tactics for some evil reason.

God I hope somebody thinks I'm being serious with that...

Kahl, in plain and simple English: I fully accept that people and things evolve. It's difficult for me to accept that everything evolved from one common ancestor. Do you see the difference between these two things?

My opinions in this debate actually extend from my personal philosophy rather than from any investment I might have in the concepts of creationism or common descent. I referenced Behe for you to show that there are actual people in existence that have at least a somewhat logical, if ultimately unfounded method for objection to common descent... contrary to your presumption that the only folks that don't drink Darwin's Kool-Aid blindly are inbred hicks from the same trailer park in Mississippi.

Rather than going on and on, providing you with limitless distractions, I think I'll avoid the muddy waters in which we've spent most our time together and cut this short here.

[kahljorn]

"It's difficult for me to accept that everything evolved from one common ancestor."

Why?
In some ways I can imagine life arising in more than one place. Is your objection to it because things are too complex? Because in reality if you look at things at a molecular or biological level everything is pretty much composed of the same parts, and not too complex. It's when you look at the big picture that it gets complicated. All life processes within every being pretty much functions off of the same fundamental biological proceses using, pretty much, the same materials for sustanance and maintanence.

Seriously I just don't understand your objection, and you haven't provided any.

"My opinions in this debate actually extend from my personal philosophy"

What are your personal philosophies? Can we discuss those instead?

"contrary to your presumption that the only folks that don't drink Darwin's Kool-Aid blindly are inbred hicks from the same trailer park in Mississippi."

I never said that. I think anybody can see the holes in the evolutionary theory, and that's partly why it's still a theory. They are attempting to fill those holes in. I see those holes, they are pretty obvious. I'm not in a trailor park in mississipi.

You still pussied out of our conversation, despite me being nice and cordial to you and even explaining the fundamentals of science and some basic concepts of the universe. You still haven't even shared your real objections to it. You don't have any logical reasons. It just, "Doesn't seem right". If that's all, then why did you even start an argument with me about it when I wasn't even talking about if evolution is true or false? if you're going to start an argument at least have some logical reason based in information.

You ragged on ME for using intuition without knowledge, so what the fuck is this? Do you purposely apply your own arguments to yourself? Why is it that everything you've said has contradicted yourself in some way or another?

You said you'd set out to prove me wrong if I was nice, and now you're backing out. That's about all I need to know about you, really, just don't confont me in the future unless you have a good reason and are planning on sticking to your guns.

[Big Papa Goat]

EDIT: kahljorn posted above me while I was writing this, and pretty much raised the same points, you may as well not read this one and just respond to his

lol Darwin's kool aid.

Please don't stop preechr :(
I'm rather interested in hearing about what your precise problem is with evolution from a common ancestor. And don't tell me that it jsut plain requires faith, or that it's all really just weird, or that there's no evidence behind it, for I won't accept such nonsense from you ;(

What philosophical problem do you have with evolution from a common ancestor that is distinct from philosophical problems one can have against evolution as such. I just don't get why you can't make that leap of faith from evolution within to evolution between species. Species are just populations that can reproduce and make fertile offspring. So basically, if evolution happens on one population that causes the males in that population to grow bigger dicks, then that can quite literally cause speciation between other populations with females that haven't also evolved along those lines. Mechanical barrier to reproduction, it's a thing. So do you think that evolution can happen, and organisms and populations can mutate and show different phenotypic characteristics, just as long as those characteristics aren't such that would change reproduction? What exactly is it about an organism that is immune to mutation through evolution, and why? That question should be rather difficult for you I think, if you accept the notion that some things about organisms can mutate, but set other things out of bounds. I mean, what to you, makes a species a species, start there. (or a genus or whatever, I know that kind of thoroughly insignificant concept can be pretty confusing)

So ya, basically I really don't see the difference between the two types of evolution. Please try to type slowly and clearly, because bio-magicians put me under the spell of darwinian sorcery when I was young, so my ability to perceive reality clearly is rather clouded by the magic circle against reason they've entrapped me in.

[ziggytrix]

for me the difference is simply one of scale. specifically, scale of time.

100 years is a long time. 1000 years is a really long time. 10000 years is nigh inconceivable for me. logically, i can understand it, but emotionally it is quite alien. so 4.5 billion years (the scientifically accepted age of the Earth) is right out.

it is less logically satisfying, but quite emotionally acceptable to think some clever diety created everything within the past 10000 years, but gave it all a very convincing false history.

[kahljorn]

PJALNE SAYS:
True, but the evolutionary theory is still falsifiable and testable. Scientists have long claimed that there must have been a fish with amphibian qualities at a certain point in history. This creature must have had a primitive wrist and certain other qualities that cohere with the already established evolutionary charts. And last month they found it, and it was exactly the right age.

How do you feel about that, preechr?

While we're talking about that, how do you feel about dinosaurs with feathers? Or any of the other transitional fossils that have been uncovered?

P.S. the part that I feel is important about this is that they actually PREDICTED the age and qualities that the creature would have. If evolution is wrong, how is it that they have this evolutionary chart of what transitional creatures should be where at what time, and it's accurate? They have to be doing something correctly, because they are capable of predicting the evolutionary sequence. Is it coincidence? because that's a damn big coincidence. That's like guessing a complicated math question, on more than one occasion.
What I'm implying here is that their evolutionary chart they use to make predictions has been proved accurate on more than one occasion. Also, every creationist who has ever argued against evolution has said, "Where's this information/creature" and they PROVIDED IT based on their chart predictions.

[Supafly345]

I really hate these threads where two people just bathe in their own "oh god I kick so much ass" posts, then disguise it as an argument. Make sure to use spell check and proper grammar, or else someone might think your argument isnt' sound!

[Preechr]

Kahl, I am not avoiding your arguments. I am trying to respond to you as briefly as possible in order to avoid this thing spiraling off into idiocy and pointlessness again. I'm trying my best not to "big picture" you. I have to work today, though, and I won't be able to play till tonight. As for pjalne's example of interspecies evolution, please remember in the last thread that I specifically begged for proof like that. I'd love to see the link.

BPG: I'm glad you liked that. Mockers tend to take me way too seriously. I will do my level best to explain to you why the difference is important because the good Lord Jesus knows that's the only point of discussion in this argument that interests me.

Ziggy, I am not a creationist. I am not a Christian. I have been told my beliefs are closest to Deism, but I lost interest in figuring out to whose beliefs my own conform a long time ago. To me, it's logically satisfying and pretty damn obvious that some clever diety created everything with a big bang at a scientifically proveable point in time about 4.5 billion years ago.

SF345: Who, me? Ok.

[pjalne]

Preechr, I don't know how this discussion started and what you said that riled people up or vice versa. You say speciation (or common descent, I don't remember) is an area you're uncomfortable with, which is a personal thing and not anything you have to answer to anyone about. If, however, you have suggested ID or any related quasi-science should be treated as science and taught in schools, that's invading science with personal preference, which is bullshit. Science is about the objective world, and should not be halted by religion, politics or subjective views. Like I said, I have no idea how this thing originated, and if this is a personal thing you're not interested in defending or explaining on the internet, I see no reason why anyone should ask you to.

By the way, here's one of the articles available about that amphibian fish:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406100543.htm

There's a link to the original press release at the bottom. Curiously, none of them note that the back fourth or third of the animal wasn't found.

[ziggytrix]

To me, it's logically satisfying and pretty damn obvious that some clever diety created everything with a big bang at a scientifically proveable point in time about 4.5 billion years ago.


So you have no problem with the notion that all the matter in the universe was contained in a singularity at the Big Bang (which is estimated to be 13.7, not 4.5, billion years ago). But somehow we got a planet full of all these different species... well... how, if not thru macroevolution?




I am so suave. Watch me tell off these nerds.

Supafly, stick to drawing pretty pictures, OK? If anyone on this board has a habit of posting like they think they kick so much ass, you certainly aren't one to be calling them on it.



Preechr, I don't know how this discussion started and what you said that riled people up or vice versa.

Pj, his remarks that riled me were in Scru's "Politics in School" thread, and this one in particular bugs me: "The main reason I hate this debate is that evolutionists generally refuse to admit that this is a debate of opinions and ultimately one of sociology rather than science." (emphasis mine)

Apparently geology, biology, and chemistry are all soft-science branches of sociology? :confused

[Big Papa Goat]

I think in this particular thread the argument got foisted onto preechr though, notwithstanding his outrageous statements in previous threads.

But ya, I guess if your view is about evolution as a sociological construct, (omg that sounds so wretched I could barely type it) then I guess what I'd like to hear is why you think that. This stuff about how the pursuit of power is interwoven with the pursuit of truth doesn't actually sound entirely crazy to me, one can see how ideologies of history such as marx's used 'evolutionary' ideas to describe how human beings could obtain power over their own nature and the rest of nature by 'becoming' something other than human beings, and such. (it's all gnosticism :eek)
Alright, maybe that Marx example won't make a lot of sense to most people, hopefully I'm making a bit of sense to you though, preechr. In any case, such a system as Marx's isn't exactly like biological evolution, and since you've already said you can accept evolution within a species, I suppose such 'evolutionary' systems aren't a problem for you as such. Alright, so I'm done trying to guess at why you think evolution is a social construct, but I'm interested in hearing about it, if you'd be willing to discuss this aspect of your views further. Not a bunch of jazz about skepticism and the theroy of evolution as such, but rather the reasons you think evolution is a social construct, what social forces are constructing it, for what sociological reasons and so on. Because frankly, I'm rather mystified about why you think it's a social construct.

[kahljorn]

We've talked about the fact that they've found interspecies fossils a few times. Maybe I just didn't enunciate it clearly enough for you when I said that they attempt to find fossils to make a link between now and back then.

If you visit the site that ziggy posted it has more than a few examples of interspecies fossils. MORE THAN A FEW. Along with many other connections between species, including how they can estimate which species should be where on the common descent list, how they are related, what they lead to and how accurate it is. So if i were you I'd consider clicking that link.

On that page they have an example of a whale with legs, the connection between mammal and reptilian jaw/ears, I think they mention the old Reptile-bird guy as well. Like I said, someone posts links that could satisfy you and you don't even click them to find out.

Ziggy's link to transitional species (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates)

What I want to know is how do you feel that they are capable of predicting so many aspects of this? If you read that entire link you'll get a fairly large list of predictions they have made that were accurate, and even predictions that would prove evolution wrong. I don't know if you know this but generally with mathematics if you're "Guessing' numbers your answer is probably going to be wrong. I think the same could be said with this, they are obviously doing something right if they can estimate as much as they have.

Um, okay, so if god created the universe from one, "Singularity" than what's so absurd about god creating life from one "Singularity"?

What happened was we were talking about how evolution should be in science classrooms because it's a part of science, and him and another guy started calling it a belief(which means it shouldn't be in science classrooms, or that creationism should also be in a class room) so we started comparing the two "Beliefs". So far we've inserted evidence of evolution on many levels, and they have inserted no evidence that God is the creator of the world(not that evolution says God didn't create the world). For some reason, to me, evidence implies that it is less of a belief, especially since evidence implies that it's proveable.
Preechr then challenged me to a duel.


There was something he said about how the pursuit of scientific truth is skewed by the governments search for power. Maybe that's how he thinks it's sociological?

[Supafly345]

I am so suave. Watch me tell off these nerds.

Supafly, stick to drawing pretty pictures, OK? If anyone on this board has a habit of posting like they think they kick so much ass, you certainly aren't one to be calling them on it.Yes, that's exactly why I chose this of all threads to post my views on "eat THIS" debates.

[kahljorn]

I don't think this is a kick who's ass thing. Now that we are finding what he actually wants we are getting somewhere.

Is there no communication on this forum? Have we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

[Preechr]

Alright... It's 5 May and Friday, so I'm gonna give this a two beer long effort at explanation. Kahljorn, please excuse me if I don't answer all of your many questions just yet. In an effort to satisfy Supa and keep more than just you and me in this discussion, unlike the last time and every other "debate" we've held, I'm going to try to sum up how we got here and clear up what misconceptions you and these other guys have about my point of view on this.

*cracks first beer*

Please note, before I get started, that going back and reading through that earlier thread to make sure what exactly we did and did not argue would take at least another beer or two, so I'm gonna wing it on memory...

When a previous evolution thread started, I began to follow it for a page or two, noting that the difference between evolution within a species and common descent completely ignored. The thread involved those that support ID being taught in school systems next to "Darwinism," an expression which I tend to equate with common descent, not evolution in general.

Since then, it's been assumed I am a disciple of the ID movement, a Christian luddite that believes the world is only 100 or so years old, a troll and a person that believes all scientists are Godless athiests that are going to Hell just as soon as lightning picks them off. I have also screwed up, wading into unfamiliar waters as I am, when I confused genus and species (and rather than figure out the difference as it relates to my thoughts I've just learned to use the term "common descent") and when I misread ziggy's post to mean the big bang happened 4.5 billion years ago since that's when he said life began rather than when the universe got started up... Well, I'm very sure I've screwed up way more than that, but I never intended to make more than that first point, which brings me to my biggest mistake in this whole mess: trying to argue point for point with kahljorn.

No offense intended, kahl. You are as aggravating as you are bright. I take full responsibility for letting our discussions get so far off track, though you were wrong about the definition of "ignorant." It simply means you do not know something. We all qualify.

Anyhoo... *cracks second beer*

Ziggy, I will definitely move on later to try my best to explain how common descent need not be the only theory. To do so, I will need to do the discussion justice and have reference material at hand, as other than the occasional book or article, it has been a while since I've been in school and the names of periods and my terminology is no longer accessible by memory alone. Ok? It's supposed to rain all day Sunday. I'll try to tackle it then.

Pjalne, it is personal to a point, and though I really respect your respect for that I have no problem at all responding to goat's questions on the sociological effects and or causes of common descent... mostly because I find it fascinating.

Goat, to start out I would ask you to think up a few historical points at which science flopped common belief systems upon their heads... a few examples:

The world is actually round.

The Sun is the center of our solar system.

Matter is just another form of energy.

...stuff like that.

Almost always, these revelations are met with tremendous criticism. Tradition is not easily cast aside, generally. However, we live in the beginnings of an age of contrast to all the history of what's happened before, at least among the general population. We are more educated and "modern." Thanks to medical technology, we live longer lives in general, so on the whole we are more mature. Educated people are much more likely to be skeptical of tradition, just as mature thinkers are much more likely to allow new ideas to influence their thoughts.

Economics and politics are both scientific disciplines, though admittedly bastard cousins of physics, chemistry and biology. The softer "Social Sciences" in our modern era have been easily corrupted by guys like Marx (I appreciate you using that example) to such effect that socialist economics and politics still thrive today. As I said before, governments and science have always had an uncomfortable marriage, as successful politicians long ago realized the importance of scientific funding just as scientists accepted that their experiments didn't exactly fit into a successful business plan, generally and historically speaking.

At the risk of starting yet another shitstorm, I would offer "global warming" as an example of the corruption of real science by politics. Rather than allowing a tangent to usurp the thread, I will restrict my example to the political reaction to the data collected: the Kyoto protocol, which was a bunch of crap. Hell, let's add in CARB, too...

I am offering evidence to the idea that science CAN in fact be proven to have been corrupted in the past for political reasons. Politics is the art of aquiring power from people, and the easiest way to do so is feeding a need the people have.

I have, by the way, just finished that second beer.

So, I will now try to end this installation in an effort to get to the business of lighting charcoal...

One of the most powerful needs people have is that of self-destruction. We love to do the things that are worst for us. That is the human condition. I do not have time at this point to expound further on why I believe common descent to fall into this catagory, but I hope that you can extrapolate where I'm going.

Please remember, I am coming at this from a point of view that our prescence here is intentional rather than random chance and thus meaningless. I understand fully that common descent only explains HOW and the WHY could still be intentional, but I still feel that the concept allows way to many inroads to immorality. Hopefully, these two beers of insight have helped just a little to that end and enticed to wait for a bit more while I indulge myself in the spirit of the holiday.

Vamos tomah, Amigos!

[ziggytrix]

Still sounds to me like you're arguing from an emotional distate to common descent rather than any sort of logical one. The fact that you bring morality into it is especially telling.

I do anxiously await your presentaition of an alternative to common descent that would hold up to scientific inquiry if it weren't for this vast socio-political conspiracy to which you've alluded.

[kahljorn]

"I take full responsibility for letting our discussions get so far off track, though you were wrong about the definition of "ignorant." It simply means you do not know something. We all qualify. "

I don't remember where I said ignorant but I will say the following. Ignorant is an adjective, adjectives are used to describe relation or modify a noun. So if I said you are ignorant of evolution, it would mean you don't know anything about evolution.

"I am offering evidence to the idea that science CAN in fact be proven to have been corrupted in the past for political reasons."

Granted. I'm not sure in what sense you mean that, so please explain further. How is evolution being corrupted for political reasons? Are they politically lying to us about the fossils they probably have on display somewhere depicting the fish with a wrist and the whale with legs?

Politics will use anything to get ahead, that's why in our discussions of government I said I don't like the governments purpose being the aquisition of power.

[Chojin]

I don't mean to rain on anybody's conspiracy parade, but the guy behind all of them is the one that believes Jesus created everything on earth with a magic wand.

[Preechr]

I do not.

[kahljorn]

MoRE!

[Preechr]

Politics will use anything to get ahead, that's why in our discussions of government I said I don't like the governments purpose being the aquisition of power.

Yet you disagreed with me that the goal of any governmental effort is the gain of power, that any effort of many men over one or any man over another is an exertion based in transition of power. How do you still fail to see that government is our gun to our head?

[kahljorn]

"How do you still fail to see that government is our gun to our head?"

I do see that, and that's exactly why I don't support philosophies that want to put more bullets in the gun.

"Yet you disagreed with me that the goal of any governmental effort is the gain of power, that any effort of many men over one or any man over another is an exertion based in transition of power."

I didn't disagree that that was the current goal of government (hence why I kept calling it "Present"), I disagreed that any idealized form of government shouldn't be interested in the aquisition of power. There may be some inate power there, but the primary purpose should be delegation of power, not outright aquisition and collection of it through any corrupt means.
When you do that, you get corrupt science, religion, economics and whatever else.
If you were just saying that the government is corrupt than I just misunderstood you the whole time and I agree with you. I just had this idea in mind that you were discussing your personal feelings of how government should be ran, especially when you started talking about how business and government should be seperate entities, because our current government is nothing like that at all.

Basically what I was saying is that the strive for power/money is the leading cause of corruption.

[Preechr]

Ok... I think I'm following you.

What I am doing is describing the nature of government and politics, just as the nature of fire is inherently destructive. Fire seeks oxygen. Government seeks power. Trees produce oxygen just as individual people are the source of power in politics. If trees could control fire, I'm sure they'd find it in their best interest to do so.

Government is a very powerful though extremely valuable tool. Just as any tool, we need to understand it's nature fully in order to be able to use it safely. Government is the one entity where a civilized society invests the ability to punish or even kill a fellow citizen. Government is our mechanism for removing the rights of one of us, sometimes even the right to live. We use it as a tool to maintain our civilized state.

In our American form of government, this is all that the executive and legislative branches do. The executive branch fufills the law, actually stripping power from it's citizens, and the legislature decide when doing so is Ok. The third branch, the courts, is the arbitrator. Even it does not delegate power. It is charged with deciding when an existing or previous arrangement involving one or more of the branches or citizens is not fair according to our system of law, based in the Constitution. If anything, the courts redistribute power.

The acquisition of power is not necessarily corrupt. In order to "delegate" it, you first must have aquired it from somewhere, right?

Let's say you run a manufacturing company. The product you design, build and sell is very useful, but also very dangerous. Imagine a wood chipper. You know you can't very well restrict your sales to only those that are smart and careful enough to never fall in or otherwise hurt, maim or kill themselves or someone else with it, but what you CAN do is construct your machine in such a way as to make it as safe to use as possible without restricting it's intended function.

That's how the American system of government was constructed. We had hoped to avoid corrupt useage of government by assigning as many people possible (all of us) to the task of making sure government is only ever safely used for all our benefit. When we arrest a criminal, that is done for the benefit of the criminal as well as the rest of us, even if he doesn't agree. It is better for our society to arrest criminals, and the criminal is a part of society.

When the legislative branch passes a law, it is Ok'ing the taking of power from at least one person with the understanding that doing so is for the benefit of society. A measure that allocates tax money for the purpose of building a bridge in Alaska involves money taken in taxes from all of us, so we have all effectively lost the power to do with that money whatever we might have done, right? The legislature passes a law criminalizing rape, and we all lose the power to legally rape somebody. The Amber Alert strips from us the power to listen to whatever we want on the radio, albeit for just a minute or two and for a purpose most of us support.

We The People, the intended watchdogs of government, have fallen down on the job. Just as ancient kingdoms were corrupted when the absolute power of the king was influenced by those with power and or money, resulting in the unfair abrogation of rights within the peasantry, we have allowed mob rule to creep into our system of government disguised as "Democracy."

Corruption happens in many ways. A large enough group of people with a lot of time on their hands has an equivalent influential power over government as one Jack Abramoff has with a pocketful of cash. Either of these corruptive forces can manipulate our government in order to unfairly strip rights and power from another group of people. The courts were meant to stop mob rule in that regard. The "mob" is a representation of those with more time/money taking advantage of government's unique ability in order to abridge the rights of even one individual with less time/money to defend her rights. It was the job of "We The People" to protect the courts from the corrupting influence of being over-lawyered, and we failed.

It was also the duty of "We The People" to protect the legislative function from the corruptive influence of those that would seek to take the right of someone to spend his time/money as she sees fit, but we all became that influence in some regard... as well of it's victims. Max supports government that strips the rights everyone to accumulate more than just the bare necessities of life. Kevin supports a more focused government that only strips part of the power to spend one's money away from those with the most of it, in order for it to be given to those that cannot or will not provide for themselves. Conservative Christians would use the government to remove the rights of others to do as they choose with their time. A pregnant woman might wish to make her life easier (improve her remaining future time) by aborting her baby, for instance, but the Christian bloc says no, for the betterment of society at large.

Finally, "We The People" were meant to protect the executive branch from the corruptive influence of sadists. This branch is the gun of government. The President heads the portion of our government assigned to hurt and kill people in order to protect our society. When you follow our laws, you do so with the president's gun to your head. Mostly, we are so comfortable with that that we hardly ever even notice, much like a religious person is happy to live a life based in fear of the threat of fire and brimstone.

The reward we should seek for a properly maintained government is a life with as much individual power as possible, yet "We The People" have become our government's corruptive force, choosing instead a life as oppressed and threatened as possible. We have put ourselves in jail, happy that everyone else is in here with us. Kevin got his wish along with the rest of the mob, and the rich are taxed moreso than the rest of us, but the rich bastards in the Tobacco Lobby used the influence of their distilled time: their money, to get laws passed to unfairly restrict Kevin from smoking pot. We are not all equally free. The glass is more than half empty. We are equally miserable and repressed.

[kahljorn]

"the nature of fire is inherently destructive"

Personally I consider the attributions of fire to be expansive, heat, dry, s ustanance etc. That's mostly from a philosophical angle, though. Water is sometimes considered destructive, but I think that has less to do with actual water and more to do with dialectics.
Don't forget, without fire the trees wouldn't even be alive in the first place. There'd be no life on earth.

"In order to "delegate" it, you first must have aquired it from somewhere, right? "

Yes, but there's still a difference between aquiring power and delegating power. The Government can still aquire power, even if it's purpose is to delegate it. The difference is that rather than accumulating power, it would be distributed in one form or another. Our system is actually sort of based on this idea. Like you said, there's more than once branch of Government, each with the supposed ability to put "Checks" on another or control some aspect of our country. Hence, delegation of power.
I personally believe the accumulation of power is the big problem. Not even the raw aquisition of it, just accumulation. Where one person, or one small group of people, can have more control over the government than anybody else, or any branch of government. That's pretty what's going on in our government now. If that power was properly distributed, there wouldn't be a problem like that.

"A measure that allocates tax money for the purpose of building a bridge in Alaska involves money taken in taxes from all of us, so we have all effectively lost the power to do with that money whatever we might have done, right?"

Right, but that's an example of delegation of power. Redistribution of power, or "money". Hence my example that money is power, which I felt is a very good example for our government and nearly any other government. Power is represented by money.

"The legislature passes a law criminalizing rape, and we all lose the power to legally rape somebody."

But does the legislative branch gain the power to rape somebody? Again, another example of delegation of power.

"It was the job of "We The People" to protect the courts from the corrupting influence of being over-lawyered"

In the end you can say that about any government, but it's not really that simple. A corrupt government can do many things to control people, and in this age of psychologists and sociologists the maintanance of certain social consciousnesses are much easier to control. Not that I'm implying there's some conspiracy to control people's brains, but everything has an effect, and I think the people in 'Power' realize that.
Hence my quote in your signature. Obviously if america was more educated on the grand scale, and educated properly(to be able to think right, for example) then we'd have less of a chance of running into this type of problem.

I'm basically saying that the aquisition and, more specifically, accumulation of power has caused one body of government to accumulate more power(economically, socially, politically etc.) than they should necessarily have, even by the inherent rules of our government. If one group of people has more power than they were meant to have, the entire functioning of the government ceases because that one piece becomes THE essential government. However, if that power were properly delegated than there would be no problems.
The Governments nature being ascribed by Delegation is not only exemplary of process but also of it's inherent bodily functions that maintains it's actual healthy existance. It's exactly like the human body, everything needs to be distributed to the right place otherwise the body dies, or becomes diseased. "Delegation" is intrinsically appropriate.

Like you said Government should restrict bad human nature and I agree with that. Government in and of itself doesn't really create any problems, unless you consider the position of being in 'Power' corruptive of human nature itself.

P.S. What did you think of those transitional fossils fossils?

[ziggytrix]

preechr, plese cut the pathetic fallacies :(

fire doesn't seek out oxygen. fire is a combustive chemical reaction between oxygen and a fuel.

likewise government and poplitics have no wills of their own. government and politics are actions taken by people. people may have egos, but the concept of government does not. your claims to the contrary seem extremely irrational.

and what exactly does ANY of this have to do with evolution or science?

[kahljorn]

I think this ties into the sociological thing about science. Either that or we are just rehashing an old argument.

[Preechr]

I'm mostly just rambling. It doesn't take much to distract me from discussing evolution.

...and fire does so have a soul!

[kahljorn]

I like to see the sun(son) one of the greatest examples of fire, as such I think the sun has a "Soul". IN fact, I think the sun is an epitemy of the soul, especially if you consider universal bodies as myriad embodiments of celestial evolution beyond intelligent, spirit/soul containing life.
Human-kinds greatest endeavor would be to become it's own universe, capable of producing life, but that's looking a little too far into the future, I suppose!

There's some psuedo-scientificcally derived ideas that could actually support that idea, but mostly it's just spiritual cyclical momentum casting the universe into further replication of itself for whatever reason. I don't really understand the universes purpose, maybe it thinks it can evolve into something better? In the end, though, what more can God become? I think god is sort of like a cancer, obsessed with his own impotence, frustrated with his divinity.

(maybe don't even read this?)Only the material essence of a god, though. Not the "true god" per se. You know, the gnostically supreme god, nothingness, bliss... Epitemy of the universe, primordial state. What thefuck ever. It doesn't care, or does it, what made it decide to create life/universe? I guess that's just it's(zero) one's nature to become two, and continue to triad-which is the begining of the universe, nothing exists before three AM I RIGHT ZERO ONE AND TWO YOU BITCHES???. I can't really contribute more on that topic yet, I don't know enough about it.

I seriously don't understand God's purpose. What more can he become, what more can he create, what will creating human beings who evolve to another state do? Absolutely fucking nothing. Every form of spirituality comes to a dead end, which brings in anti-gnostic questions of, "Why the fall, why earth, why life, why spirit, why anything"?
Then you start to think that oblivion would be true bliss, which is exactly the fucking idea of every form of spirituality known to man. Nirvana, "Bliss", union with god. All examples of oblivion. Bliss itself is absence of body, mind and intelligence, and exactly the word hindus use to explain chaos or 'nothingness', the primordial state of existence.
Fuck that just brings up the entire idea of "Ignorance is bliss" and how it is appropriate in describing the wonder of suffering, ie Earth.

I'm kind of faded, so excuse the tirade. If somebody responds to this I'll be happy for years.

[ziggytrix]

I like to see the sun(son) one of the greatest examples of fire, as such I think the sun has a "Soul". IN fact, I think the sun is an epitemy of the soul, especially if you consider universal bodies as myriad embodiments of celestial evolution beyond intelligent, spirit/soul containing life.


The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
where hydrogen is built into helium
at a temperature of millions of degrees

The Sun is hot
The Sun is not
a place where we could live
but here on earth there'd be no life without the light it gives

We need it's light
We need it's heat
We need it's energy

Without the sun
Without a doubt
There'd be no you and me

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
where hydrogen is built into helium
at a temperature of millions of degrees

The sun is hot

It is so hot that everything on it is a gas
Iron
Copper
Aluminum
and many others

The sun is large

If the sun were hollow a million earths could fit inside
and yet the sun is only a middle-sized star

The sun is far away

About 93 million miles away!
and that's why it looks so small

And even when it's out of sight
the sun shines night and day

The sun gives heat
The sun gives light
The sunlight that we see
The sunlight comes from our own sun's atomic energy

Scientists have found that the sun is a huge atom-smashing machine
The heat and light of the sun come from the nuclear reactions of
Hydrogen
Carbon
Nitrogen
and Helium

The sun is a mass of incandescent gas
A gigantic nuclear furnace
where hydrogen is built into helium
at a temperature of millions of degrees

[kahljorn]

What if the sun farted?

[Preechr]

Everything in the universe would eventually smell it.

[Preechr]

preechr, plese cut the pathetic fallacies :(

fire doesn't seek out oxygen. fire is a combustive chemical reaction between oxygen and a fuel.

likewise government and poplitics have no wills of their own. government and politics are actions taken by people. people may have egos, but the concept of government does not. your claims to the contrary seem extremely irrational.

and what exactly does ANY of this have to do with evolution or science?

We already sorted out that first bit for you, so let me address the rest of my fallacies for you now.

Government and politics do not have minds of their own. They are inanimate devices... Tools. Just as I can bend iron to make scissors, I can bend ideas to make a government and political change. Ideas and theories are bent, twisted, sharpened and fastened together in such a way as to make a an extremely complex mechanism that has limitations and specialized purposes just like any pair of scissors or jet engine.

The purpose of scissors is to cut stuff, maybe stab an eye out.

Government is a tool civilized folk use to keep their societies working in their favor. Some folks believe what's best for all is best for each of us, but other folks would rather take a stricter view and do their best to win undue influence by limiting the actions of others. This clash of intentions gave birth to the tool of politics.

Just like scissors, these tools are designed specifically for an intended purpose. Government is designed to restrict liberty. That's about as destructive a thing you can do to a person, and we all support it to some degree. That makes it potentially the most terrible human force on the planet. We should be extremely careful when we use this tool.

There. We agree, right?

So I'm no longer irrational in your view?

...and this has very little to do with the evolution debate. It's tangential, but generally related. Pretty soon I'm gonna start souting that religion and science are two sides to the same coin. It might make better sense then.

[kahljorn]

You could consider any two things two sides of the same coin if you bend and constrict logic enough. WE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE SAAME COIN PREECHR. THE SAME COIN BROTHER!

Science is about physical reality, religion is about supernatural reality. It doesn't really matter if they are the same coin, though. That doesn't mean religion should be in science classrooms, it doesn't change the validity of scientific findings and it doesn't change anything about evolution.
You know that science isn't ONLY just theories that contradict religion, right? it's also measurements and observations of nature. Do you think things like, say, understanding what humidity is contradicts religion? What about temperature? How about understanding how rain works? You know. Stuff like that. Do you think that's all bad stuff? Do you think any of that knowledge is corrupted by politics?

Religion didn't make airplanes possible, or cars or trains. Religion didn't make television. Religion didn't invent the clothes you're wearing, the computer you're using and the house you're living inside of. You can say they are similar because they are both a mass of various ideas, but that doesn't really change the fact that science contributes to the understanding of physical reality, and religion does not(if it does, not nearly in the same scope).
I think alot of religion, and think it has some really practical uses and the body of information presented by it is great if you can use it properly. Same with science, sure. Great. This has been fantastic.

This seriously is a stupid topic to discuss. I don't care if they are the same coin religion still doesn't have the scientific method which allows science to discover usable "Facts" to contribute to our lives.

Seriously can we discuss some practical things? I mean, the government talk was great which you still have yet to respond to. Same with the evolution talk which you still have yet to respond to. This is really turning out to be a bummer, preechr- despite how nice we are being to eachother. We've actually had more involving conversations when we were cursing at eachother.

[kahljorn]

"Government and politics do not have minds of their own. They are inanimate devices"

This statement could be easily argued in psychological and sociological terms.


I thought i should ask in a different post so i k now you'll see it:

SO WHAT DID YOU THINK ABOUT THOSE INTERMEDIATE SPECIES FOSSILS AND ALL THE OTHER INFORMATION SHOWING TRANSITIONAL INFORMATION

[Preechr]

Religion is Why something happens. Science is how it happens.

[kahljorn]

Yea well some of us have been expressing that concept when we said, "Evolution and religion can work together", "They don't necessarily contradict eachother". It doesn't really prove or disprove God. It just supplies some people with a notion against it. That's not us, and it's certainly not a part of science. Science currently has no theory against nor for God, so rest assured little buddy at this current venture no scientific figure is being corrupted to try to assassinate whatever it is that drives you.

Does religion disprove science? That's another question we could ask. Then we arrive at the fact that there's no real conflict, by eithers standard, and you're creating this non-existent issue from a neurotic perception.
Why are we having this conversation? I understand the how but not the why. Another why question, why can't you respond to any of the information, some of it which you yourself requested? Is your argument exhausted; in suspense because you feel it baulks your beliefs and related arguments?

This argument is boring and ridiculous. I feel like our exchange has pretty much solidified my original picture of you as a congested douchebag. I've lost faith in you, preechr brother!

[Preechr]

I'm just really depressed by that. Every time you lose faith in me, another small part of my heart dies. I'm serial.

You spend so much time reading between the lines, kahl. It's too bad you're not very good at it. See, even though we disagree on something, you have to assume each of us THINKS our positions make sense. When you try to read between the lines of my comments, you invariably assume some nonsensical conclusion that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

Try building on what I have actually said rather than building another straw man from nonsense you can easily defeat. I think you'll find that much more fulfilling. Then, you might not feel so depressed and upset.

I have limited time with which to post. I know sometimes you think I'm ignoring you, but generally I'm just working. I drive about 20 hours per week, and I work an additional 40 on average. I am remodeling my house, and I have a pretty big lawn to take care of. That last bit's been hindered some since I found out this past Saturday that somebody decided to liberate my lawnmowers and pretty much everything else I used to keep in my shed.

I've got a lot going on, but I always try to make some time for you, kahl. I would have loved to have spent this time talking about evolution or politics, but instead I've had to explain logical discussion to you. Our little talks are going to have a bit more structure, as I told you before, and I won't be rewarding your flailing rants with additional topicry. When you calm down, we'll continue.

[Preechr]

Well, I had figured on you responding before lunchtime because it's not like you to pout... Maybe you actually have a life too?

Since somebody else brought it up, I'll try to show how your straw man argument that I simply must believe that the goal of science is to disprove God's existence is false. I will do that by agreeing with you and becoming your straw man...

Personally, I believe that much of our own existence is wrapped up in a competitive struggle with God. The ultimate end to all our endeavors is the defeat of God, and one of our endeavors is science. Now, I need to point out that I am speaking in general terms. I need to do that because I can already hear you arguing that YOU are not struggling to defeat God and neither is a good friend of yours so I must totally be like wrong and a big stinky poopoo head. Then, you'd be all "neener neener" for three pages.

While there are certainly some scientists that actively work to disprove God, just as some non-scientists do, they are not the majority and don't define the path for the scientific community. What I said was that I believe the concept of Common Descent, right or wrong, is easily used as a backbone for a belief system based in the idea that our lives are meaningless, morality is pointless and we are no better than bugs because it's only random chance that we aren't.

Because of that, I PREFER to believe in something else, or more to the point: disbelieve that. It's a very easy thing to do. I don't expect to convince you of anything. I am just trying to satisfy whatever curiosity you guys might have.

Lunchtime's over... Back to work!

[kahljorn]

What I said was that I believe the concept of Common Descent, right or wrong, is easily used as a backbone for a belief system based in the idea that our lives are meaningless, morality is pointless and we are no better than bugs because it's only random chance that we aren't.

I PREFER to believe in something else, or more to the point: disbelieve that. It's a very easy thing to do.
What you were responding to:
Is your argument exhausted; in suspense because you feel it baulks your beliefs and related arguments?

Okay.

"I drive about 20 hours per week, and I work an additional 40 on average."

Quit logging on to tell me what you've been doing that kept you from responding and actually respond. Think, if you combined all that time together you could've posted lengthy articles in response to everyone. Pithyness is good on message board, I've heard. Apparantly it works well for busy people, too.

You've taken time to go completely off-topic to argue your beliefs, which is fine, but your beliefs don't matter in science- not even in government or economy. The beliefs of scientists don't even really matter. There is no belief, really. So can you put your beliefs aside, and examine the evidence as it is, in terms of science and evolution? Remember my detective analogy? Well, pretend you're a detective. And you're trying to solve a "Crime". Now, there's some "Evidence" that contradicts an "Alibi". What do you do?
This works for this conversation, the following, and just about all of the other conversations we have had:
I would have loved to have spent this time talking about evolution or politics, but instead I've had to explain logical discussion to you.

Your basis of reality rests entirely on beliefs, to the point of allowing it to interfere with your capacity to analyze nature and reality outside of it. It's sad that the only reason you disagree with common descent is because some people use it to fuel their belief against your belief. That's certainly a solid foundation for logical decision making.
Another thing: Beliefs are illogical, you tart. Have you ever looked up the word logical? Especially in context of this entire argument. Why do you involve your personal beliefs into a logical discussion? I know we asked for it, but all the same, please try not to label it logical. It's atriciously retarded of you.

If you base your entire position in every argument based on your beliefs, it's somewhat commendable but absolutely retarded of you. People like you fuck up the world because they believe stupid shit will help, but since it is sometimes formed to be the opposite of reality it's not exactly going to work out properly. I assume you've heard of this retarded thing called GIGO, but i think it's appropriate here, "Garbage In Garbage Out".
Look, you've even implied here that science and religion are on opposite sides of the coin. I've implied that religion supplies more of a spiritual message(supernatural), with certain sociological systems of morality and purity, while science supplies knowledge on the "natural" and physical aspects of reality. You can't include ridiculously supernatural shit when talking about the physical. By your own admission they explain different sides of reality.
Common descent argues nothing against morality. That's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. This is where you're wrong about how it's a sociological thing(which religion also is in this respect).
First off, let me clarify, nearly any concept can be considered "Sociological" just by analyzing the effects it has on society and culture. Which means, in this sense, religion has been VERY influential, especially when you consider the aspect of morality(which you mentioned). It is entirely possible that it may have guided us from being ravenous, retarded animals by supplying us with purpose and a system to keep us from being self-destructive.
Now on to the topic of evolution and sociology. Obviously you've never even heard of Richard Dawkins, who we've discussed before on this board. He says that cultures themselves can evolve, via "memes". Morals are considered a very large portion of culture, and society, because it allows it to be self-maintained without killing itself, which would be considered counter-productive as it would keep it from 'evolving'. Your body does it too, it's kind of like an "Immune system" of sorts to keep your body from getting diseased. That observation of morals is based on obvious sociological effects that can be seen by anybody. Don't you agree that morals themselves are a function to keep us running as a healthy organism, and without some system of control we would just be ravenous animals?
No purpose? Obviously if our culture can evolve, which is something we have a direct influence on since we are a part of it, then morals, and purpose, are still present concepts. You just see too many fields as contradicting eachother, instead of seeing that they are just describing different aspects. Sociology and evolution are not the same study. In some senses, they may overlap. Just like chemistry and biology aren't the same science, but they overlap.

I hope that has been interesting. I understand that I suggested religion has some physical effects, but that's through it's media of humanity, as science's sociological effect was through the human media. I've supplied you with reasons why your stance between the two is pointless in any logical sense. I seriously consider this argument over, but if you want to continue I can keep going.

One thing I'd like to ask you is if you agree that society itself has evolved?

If you really fear belief systems developing against your belief system, my previous observation of you as a paranoid neurotic was appropriate.
Sometimes I can't tell how hard you're playing the strawman. You're an enigma wrapped in a fruitloop.

[Preechr]

That was one of your best posts! Good Job!

I will respond to it a little later, but I just wanted to let you know I really appreciate all of your efforts there. In my response, I will, of course, argue with you, as you are as mistaken as ever about what I'm thinking, but that's a separate thing from praising you for responding on point and without all the bile.

[kahljorn]

So when is this exchange coming now that you've been satisfied by my level of logical argument or whatever madness you're working by.

[Preechr]

It's on the way.

Don't worry.

[kahljorn]

You dirty liar.

[kahljorn]

So... preechr, what happened here exactly? One might think that by now, over a month later, you'd have responded.

[Preechr]

I'm still thinking up new witty remarks and dazzling logical arguments.

Your posts are very important to us. Please hold on, and a response will be right in front of you.

[Immortal Goat]

Well, you've gone this long without any dazzling logical arguments. Why start now?

[Preechr]

Good one.

You start holding your breath too.

Dazzle is imminent.

[kahljorn]

I like how you try to act like none of us expected you to pussy out of this argument while depositing nothing of interest. You act like I wasn't expecting this, and yet the entire point of this thread is that you're a stupid asshole who has nothing to say.

[Preechr]

You are probably right.

[kahljorn]

I'm always right, that's the other point of this thread.

[Preechr]

Ok then. I accept that.

Now, tell me what to think as far as evolution from a common origin goes, and I will tell you that I believe that from now on.

[Preechr]

You say we and everything else evolved from space worms, I'm shouting that from the hilltops from now on, Ok?

[kahljorn]

I never said that, and I would never even insenuate that I know what started life. I'm not really stupid enough to make stupid assumptions unless it's relatively clear that I'm making assumptions. I at least try to follow the laws of the world, how the hell could I know what started life? I wasn't there! (lol same ol pattern eh preechr you never change)
Stupid creationists with your assumptious nature.

If you want arguments for common origin read the link ziggy posted in this thread(good thing I have a crystal clear memory, huh) there was all types of information about it. Have you read it yet? I doubt it.

I'd really like to see you respond to that post you said you'd respond to.

[Preechr]

My memory seems to think I was most interested in responding to the questions regarding the sociological effects of common descent vs. whatever it is you want to call not-common-descent.

Personally, I believe there is a negative ethical or moral effect to believing that nothing but blind luck made us so far superior to anything else in the world. I prefer a not-common-descent pathway, and I am skeptical of common descent... probably unreasonably so... because I so much prefer the moral and ethical path inferred by intentional existence.

As I said before, I fully understand the argument that common descent could be intentional as well. What I am attempting to do here, by explaining my beliefs to you in this manner, is to allow you the room to consider my beliefs in this regard as religious or even mystical ones. That should help you. I honestly have very little desire at this point to continue explaining to you what I have already said. There's probably not much more I can add, and even less motivation on my part to find it for you.

Currently, I am just a bit more interested in economic and political stuff. Let's just leave this as it is: You whupped my ass. I am wrong, you are right, and I am willing to say that I accept on it's face whatever it is you propose I should believe on this subject.

[kahljorn]

"I believe there is a negative ethical or moral effect to believing that nothing but blind luck made us so far superior to anything else in the world"

Uh, okay it's not like we had any direct control over how we were made or anything. It's just kind of "luck" that god "Happened" to "Make" "Us".
You don't like evolution because it doesn't let you feel superior to anything else in the world?

What is the negative ethical and moral effect? Please describe it, because I've never heard of a serial killer who tried to devolve people or something.

"I so much prefer the moral and ethical path inferred by intentional existence. "

What? How is it moral and ethical? The bible gives a moral and ethical code, TRUE, but it's not like the entire existence is moral and ethical. God didn't create the animals to not eat eachother. He didn't create us to not kill and steal from eachother. There was a tree of good and evil. We ate it. Stuff happened.

'We were intentionally created with the ability to be immoral and unethical! Yet it's superior to this science that suggests (to you, and only you) that life might be immoral and unethical!'

This makes no sense, preechr, if we can be immoral and unethical because of some science, then god intentionally made it so we could be immoral and unethical, thus existence is not moral or ethical because god did not intentionally create it to be moral or ethical and if he did there would be no problems of things being immoral or unethical.
GOD INTENTIONALLY CREATED THE UNIVERSE/US WITH THE ABILITY TO BE IMMORAL AND UNETHICAL< THAT MUCH IS OBVIOUS BY THE FACT THAT WE ARE IMMORAL A ND UNETHICAL.
Are you saying that something happened without God's intent? Because I thought that was impossible from a religous angle.

Sorry if I repeated myself a few times I just thought that was something important.

"I am willing to say that I accept on it's face whatever it is you propose I should believe on this subject."

I don't want you to believe jackshit, like I mentioned earlier in this thread BELIEF IS ILLOGICAL. I'd rather you use your brain and be a decent human being than believe whatever I tell you.


Religion has been just an immoral and unethical as science has ever been especially in a sociological sense, and don't try to deny it.
Now tell me how it has an immoral and unethical sociological effect, because I can guarantee you it has nothing to do with evolution itself.

I thought I should throw this in at the end:
Are the scientists who work on evolution immoral?
If i believe in evolution will I instantly become an unethical rapist?
Does everyone who believes evolution co nstantly act unethical and immoral?
Has the world changed much since evolution came around? Has it caused alot of people to act immoral?
"Hey man why should I be nice to you man I evolved from a worm!" Have you heard that recently?

I seriously don't see how it causes people to be unethical, I can see you're saying that potentially because people aren't sucking god's cock they might do something naughty(because never in the history of man has anything immoral or unethical happened until evolution came around) and it might trigger some rave of immorality.
The thing I think you're angling at most is that people will give up on living life well. I don't see that happening. Whether we believe god created us, or we came from worms, we still live in this world and if we want to survive amicably then we have to perform certain things. If evolution becomes a fact police officers and the government won't disappear off of the face of the planet. Practically nothing would happen. I mean, we still have life to live.

Regardless of if god created us or not, we still have the same problems to face and the same society to develop in the same way. Nothing will change. We still have responsibility for what happens around us, if anything we have MORE of a responsibility because we are the ones who are actually in charge of making things happen. We can't rely on God anymore, WE have to make things better. Pretty much the same way it is now, huh? I haven't seen God coming down to deliver us morality recently, all of it comes from the heart of humanity. [existentialist]

You're paranoid. And sorry that's scattered I'm in a rush and such.

[Immortal Goat]

Well, Preechr would say that people have been more immoral since the theory of evolution came around, because in his view, believing in evolution IS immoral. We're supposed to be good little Christians and never question anything that disputes the bible, because the Lord Almighty knows that nothing immoral has EVER happened in the name of God.

[kahljorn]

Yea i know, I was thinking of posting something about how some religous people are constantly immoral, and I can think of a few examples in which the immoral actions were actually derived from the religion. For example, priests touching little boys. Why? Frustration because they can't have sex, which is a religous rule.

I didn't because I knew his argument would be, "But that's the people not the religion!" Then I would say something like, "Well that's th e people not the science!"

[Immortal Goat]

lol, preemptive strike.

[Preechr]

Jesus H. Christ.

I am not a Christian.

I have been in exactly four churches, in fact, since I turned 18, once apiece. I can just about promise you that any problems either of you might have with orgainized religion in general or Christianity in specific, mine are more numerous and better thought out.

This could well be the ninth time we've rounded back to the beginning of this stupid little cycle.

Why do I talk to you at all?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You enjoy typing.

[Big Papa Goat]

The problem with evolution, and I don't know if I mentioned this here or not, is that it obliterates the question of why humans exist and replaces it with how humans came to exist. Evolution makes humans a contingent phenomenon, rather than a neccesary substance, that is to say it makes us an event that depended on contingent historical circumstances, rather than a thing with a neccesary and unchangable nature.

The significance of this is that if we are contingent, and not neccesary, then why should our actions be neccesarily one way, and not the other? We are the way we are because of contingent circumstances, so we could just as easily been some other way, so how can we have a neccesary morality? Morality is what is good for humans, but t humans aren't neccesarily any paticular way, because humans aren't actually neccesary. We could have happened to be some other way, or not happened at all (we could have all been aborted by evolution, at least then we wouldn't have to suffer our existence in these shitty mortal coils am I right fellas) if things just worked out a bit differently. There was no reason we are the way we are, so there can be no reason we should do things in any particular way. Basically what I'm saying is that evolution doesn't provide for 'the heart of humanity'.

[Immortal Goat]

Personally, I think the world would have been better off if humanity hadn't evolved. You can't argue that we are "neccesary" without getting into what we are "neccesary" for. Why does the earth need us? What have we done, other than pilliage it continuously? Sure, we've had environmental protection, but only from the actions of humans, not animals.

So, answer me this. If your argument is that evolution can't be correct because it gets rid of the "neccesity" of humanity, then what is it that makes us a "neccesary" addition to the world's species?

Oh, and Preechr, if you aren't Christian, you aren't making it all that clear. Where, exactly, do you get your creation mythology from, then?

[ziggytrix]

He believes in The Force.

[Big Papa Goat]

I'm not saying it can't be correct, I'm saying that is a philosophical problem. If humans aren't neccesary, then human morality can't be neccesary either, that's what I'm saying. And I'm not saying that humans are neccesary, I'm saying that we aren't neccesary because we are the product of evolution. You actually seem to understand the argument I'm making pretty well, but you don't seem to have any notion of it's significance. I mean,
Personally, I think the world would have been better off if humanity hadn't evolved.
this is a remarkably terrible thing to say. How can you justify any human morality if you don't even think that human existence has any value? And if you do think human existence has value, then why do you think it would better if we didn't exist? Wait, I'm curious, are you against the death penalty by any chance? Or against the Iraq war? I'm curious about how you come up with reasons to treat other people with dignity or respect other peoples' right to live.

[ziggytrix]

One can dispassionately believe that humanity has had a negative impact on the planet, and yet still selfishly be glad we're here.

Frankly though, I think it's still a little early in the game to make that assessment. Ask again in about 5000 years.

[kahljorn]

No offense and I'm sure you guys don't believe what you're saying completely but you guys are fucking stupid. Regardless of if there's God or evolution our actions still have an effect and THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT-- CAUSE AND EFFECT. How can you guys forget simple shit like that? If you want a functioning society you have to behave in a certain manner. the fucking end. I'll still address what you say but regardless of if there's a god or evolution if everyone in the world acted like a fucking dick nothing would work.

"then why should our actions be neccesarily one way, and not the other? "

Because if you kill everyone in the world everyone in the world will be dead and there will be no society and really our functioning would diminish. maybe that answer is only obvious to me because I'm absolutely insane or something but to me it seems like reality and all I really care about is reality because if it's unrealistic and has nothing to do with reality than it will never effect me and why should I care, right?

"There was no reason we are the way we are"

Just because we don't necessarily understand it doesn't mean there's no reason, there's obviously some distinction between reptiles and mammals that we obviously share which makes us "Higher" than reptiles. Most of it has to do with community and a social enviroment, and I'm willing to bet it's that very same structure that brought us about through whatever manner of "luck". It's just like "odds" when you're gambling, some games have high chances to win and high pay off, and there's good reasons for it(Some games intrinisically have better odds of winning, I'm saying some species, in some circumstances, intrinsically have a higher chance of survival and are thus SUPERIOR). There's good reasons why we, and our ancestors, survived. You guys may think it's an unintelligent system, but the very meaning of the word intelligent has to do with being able to adapt to situations.
Evolution is also a process of survival or whatever you want to call it. I know you guys think that's unlucky or meaningless but when it comes down to REALITY(yet again) that's the only way it could've worked out unless there's a magical god to pick what would work best where.

"Basically what I'm saying is that evolution doesn't provide for 'the heart of humanity'."

Who cares if evolution provides it? you're acting like evolution is God now, EVOLUTION DOESNT HAVE FEELINGS, it didn't pick it's best friends to make the "top of the food chain". HUMANS PROVIDE IT. That's the point, and I'd dare to say it's also the point of Richard Dawkins memetics. That's why I said, "From the heart of humanity" and not, "From the heart of evolution". BECAUSE IT FUCKING COMES FROM HUMANITY NOT EVOLUTION. Humanity may be the effect of evolution, but evolution and humans aren't the same thing. I'm sure I don't need to explain that statement.

And also obviously evolution favors socially motivated species because mammals are generally considered the most sophisticated and complex systems(there's entire sciences like sociology and psychology dedicated to just that singular aspect of mammals), with a better chance of survival than many other creatures. Mammals have the most complex brains and most complex psychology, which means they are MORE INTELLIGENT. I just wanted to throw that last statement out, it really has no value except at face.

"I am not a Christian."

Sorry, what are you? and regardless of if you're christian the point that religion has caused pedophilian rapists(which is IMMORAL) is still valid.

"If humans aren't neccesary, then human morality can't be neccesary either, that's what I'm saying."

Another issue of reality? Regardless of the "Truth" of that statement, human morality is necessary to humans(and obviously human society).

PS I just went wine testing.

[ziggytrix]

No offense and I'm sure you guys don't believe what you're saying completely but you guys are fucking stupid.

None taken, cockbreath!

[kahljorn]

I wasn't really talking to you, my savage cuntley.

[Immortal Goat]

Big Papa Goat, how can you possibly argue that humans have not had a completely negative, detrimental impact on this planet? I justify human morality by my belief that, even though we've fucked the world, we're already here, so we should prevent as much further damage as we can. We have evolved our sense of morality, and we can't go back from that, so we must deal with it.

EDIT: I hope I'm not in the "stupid" catagory, because I completely agree with Kahl here.

[kahljorn]

I was really just arguing versus the notion more than anything. I find it preposterous that people can forget that they are alive and living in this world when they pass judgement.
Just because people are talking about philosophy or belief systems or whatever we all have to suddenly develop our own psuedo-realities that we imagine with our assholes and completely disregard our own situation.
I don't really understand that processing of logic.

I can understand how ideas can be destructive and all but usually that's just due to shattering preconceived notions of reality.

[Preechr]

After four freakin pages, this actually finally went somewhere.

[Big Papa Goat]

In case I was misunderstood earlier, I do believe in evolution, (see the rest of this thread, I think I was in it at some points) I was just trying to illuminate for some of you the problems that some people have with the idea.
I mean, look at Immortal Goat here, I'm not sure if it has anything to do with his belief in evolution or not, but he can't even justify the existence of human beings. Seriously, I don't know if you meant something different from what I thought you did IG, but that's pretty bad.
So ya, I dunno, I think I might be getting at what Preechr wanted to talk about, but these moral problems are just disturbing things that have to be dealt with, not excuses to ignore biological facts.

Also

"Basically what I'm saying is that evolution doesn't provide for 'the heart of humanity'."

Who cares if evolution provides it?



I haven't seen God coming down to deliver us morality recently, all of it comes from the heart of humanity

That's what I was talking about there.

[Immortal Goat]

My point is that human existence doesn't NEED to be justified. What does it matter? If you found out that humanity evolved from a worm or suddenly popped into being, would it change the way you life your everyday life? I should hope not.

We exist. Period. The how and the why aren't even important. It's the "what do we do now?" that's important. I could care less who believes in evolution and who believes in creationism. There is a place for both in this world, and neither should intrude on the other's territory.

[kahljorn]

"That's what I was talking about there."

I know what you were referring to I just wasn't sure why you'd think that evolution would provide morals for the human social system, the point of my statement is that morals were created by human beings. I mean, certainly it could be argued that evolution caused morals but I wouldn't make that argument.

"We exist. Period. "

I agree with what you're saying I don't understand how people allow themselves to become so disillusioned by a thought process that they forget they are alive or something.