First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Discussion of theories on Evolution
68814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 2/27/09

crunchypibb wrote:

Your sarcasm sucks, just to let it out there.


Why thank you, it was certainly placed there for your amusement (the part about you being reasonable wasn't sarcastic though; nice to meet a religious person who can actually participate in a discussion about religion vs. science - although for obvious reasons we don't agree).


crunchypibb wrote:

First off, religion solves different questions more effectively than science does and vice versa. Like science may be able to identify metaphysical things like love and conciousness but the field itself does not explain exactly how they function. Second, don't mix all the religions in a melting pot when you are talking about specifics, because I will agree with you that some out there are a little sketchy but some actually know what they're talking about. We'll just refer to christianity from here.

Now of course the christian religion does give specifics on how certain events occurred like how the earth was made, it makes specifics in morals and ethics. The reason why christians are so provoked by specific scientific discoveries is because some of them are really extreme ideas that challenge their their bringing ups in general, like the earth was round. Besides, if you were just anybody back then you would oppose the idea and skepticize it until you can't anymore.


Actually I don't have anything particular against religion since it serves a purpose (in an evolutionary context); it provides people with a feeling of hope, purpose and safety as well as give the reasons for morals and ethics - in this aspect science is sorely lacking (although science does actually provide purpose, morals and ethics this answer doesn't seem very gratifying since "eat, survive and reproduce" isn't exactly what people expect). On the other hand religion often seems to become a hindrance; people taking more care of themselves and their relationship with "God" instead of how they treat their fellow men. Whenever religion stands in way of reason I simply cannot accept it; which I consider to be the case when discussing evolution. It's either the information from some random old book or the several times verified information carefully produced by science, which is nothing more than an extension of logic.

When I said that religion didn't provide answers I was obviously wrong; what I meant to say was that religion doesn't give any logical reasons for those answers... an extention of the answer that should come naturally.

...oh, and yeah, if I were just anybody back then I'd probably react like everybody else... the case is I'm not "just anybody back there". Not that this is of comparison to the time where religion was generally accepted but I've actually been raised in a Christian family and a lot of my bedtime stories came from an illustrated bible. I considered them nice stories but often pointed out the logical flaws and improbabilities (which most likely annoyed my mother )


crunchypibb wrote:

I'm pretty sure most christians you have in mind won't agree to any points that are opposed to them at all and don't even give a second thought on it. On the thought on evolution and all the intellectual (the ones who actually think) christians take on it is that evolution isn't so bad of an idea to accept for creatures and plants, but for humans it's a different story. Not that because we humans consider ourselves above all animals and don't consider ourselves one like most people would defend but because humans have one thing that's given exclusively to them, the soul. And because evolution doesn't have that in the equation we don't fully embrace it.


I've always been wondering about that thing, "the SOUL"! Can you explain to me what it is? Where to find it? How to detect it? To me it's nothing more than a neat trick to avoid explaining what you do not understand. Like explaining everything you see in your everyday life with "it's magic!". The only way that we possible separate ourselves from other living things is that we consider ourselves special (by being given a soul or whatever). I understand the argument that Christians might have a hard time following the logics of science since it undermines some of their principles; this however does not make Christianity right in any way...


crunchypibb wrote:

Also take a look at my other posts that were meant for Cuddlebuns, I don't feel like repeating myself on further reasons for skepticizing the idea. Of course my questions before may have been of the contrary but i just asked those just to see how the responded would react. A debate's not a debate without conflict, eh?

Back to science and religion, you know the miracles that happened in the bible right? Now you know the one where Jesus was walking with a crowd and some ill-afflicted woman touched Jesus's clothing and she was healed right? How does science explain that? How does it explain anything about the relics today that continue to function in a similar way? It doesn't, it only explains things that are measurable to man.


I read all of your posts to Cuddlebuns before making my first post, since I prefer to know the contents of a thread before debating them; furthermore I just re-read them just to be sure. All I got was you claiming Adam and Eve being the origin of mankind (which was refuted - even by a biblical argument), then there's the whole evolution from apes argument where you've got problems counting (which I feel I refuted with my first post where I stated that it would be impossible for us to get a continuum of samples which forces us to use logic to connect the dots... just like if you look at a your computer screen, blink and then assume that it's still the same screen when you look at it again. Faulty? It might be. Probable? I'd say so!)

You must be referring to the case of the woman who has been bleeding for 12 years and who is cured after touching the "fringes of his garment"? There's several probable explanations to this: It never happened, it was a hoax, coincidence (unlikely), placebo effect, she changed something in her way of living after meeting Jesus or she might have been cured by touching some clothes (etc). Even if science cannot measure the supposed direct influence of a relic it should still be able to prove a statistically significant difference from the placebo effect when making measurements on the people who have been influenced by the aura. This could be done by making a replica of the relic and comparing how many of the people visiting the fake gets cured (or whatever it's supposed to do) in comparison to the "real" relic. This has actually been done in several cases but no significant difference has been detected. The reason why you then still hear about the miracles (!) that happens is because people only focuse on the changes (nobody's interested in a story like: "I went there and I didn't feel any different afterwards")
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/27/09 , edited 2/27/09

Phasespace wrote:
Actually I don't have anything particular against religion since it serves a purpose (in an evolutionary context); it provides people with a feeling of hope, purpose and safety as well as give the reasons for morals and ethics - in this aspect science is sorely lacking (although science does actually provide purpose, morals and ethics this answer doesn't seem very gratifying since "eat, survive and reproduce" isn't exactly what people expect). On the other hand religion often seems to become a hindrance; people taking more care of themselves and their relationship with "God" instead of how they treat their fellow men. Whenever religion stands in way of reason I simply cannot accept it; which I consider to be the case when discussing evolution. It's either the information from some random old book or the several times verified information carefully produced by science, which is nothing more than an extension of logic.



-Well if they ain't treating their fellow men right then they would be breaking a fundamental moral rule that even an athiest, Immanuel Kant (catagorical imparative), obviously need to uphold: Love your neighbor as yourself. Breaking that for the most part means they aren't following their religion in the first place.
-The Christian Bible itself is taken for granted by many outsiders so your logic is understandable. As a Christian we believe every word in the bible to be absolutely true and true to one another (the later is of a different subject of matter and has to do with the many denomenations). How we christians interpret the bible in relation to empirical evidence is where the conflict is. Of course it's easy for us christians to interpret the seven day creation into seven periods of creation, and I may or may not have told you that we christians, the smarter of us, believe to evolution to an extent but only really question on how to fit the biblical account of the creation of man into the anthropologic view and vice versa.


When I said that religion didn't provide answers I was obviously wrong; what I meant to say was that religion doesn't give any logical reasons for those answers... an extention of the answer that should come naturally.

-Well for the christian religion we do see a lot of what we consider "end results", the conclusion in scientific method, but to understand how they work and why is something theologians have been philosophizing for years. That is they have "mental experiments" and figure it out from there. Simply performing the said tasks will not always help us understand why we're doing it, so to understand it you do a different type of research that is of a different method than science (looking it up in context, pairing together two ideas from different sections of the bible, etc).
-So then the real question is, how does this spiritual concept we accept as absolutely true match up with this material concept that we have found through science (which only measures material things). Is there a different way that we need to interpret the scripture or are we looking at the empirical evidence in the wrong light?


...oh, and yeah, if I were just anybody back then I'd probably react like everybody else... the case is I'm not "just anybody back there". Not that this is of comparison to the time where religion was generally accepted but I've actually been raised in a Christian family and a lot of my bedtime stories came from an illustrated bible. I considered them nice stories but often pointed out the logical flaws and improbabilities (which most likely annoyed my mother)

-Well there are a lot of christian sects out there that have contradictory doctrines on the scripture..... but that's a different subject matter that we could discuss later for fun. =)


I've always been wondering about that thing, "the SOUL"! Can you explain to me what it is? Where to find it? How to detect it? To me it's nothing more than a neat trick to avoid explaining what you do not understand. Like explaining everything you see in your everyday life with "it's magic!". The only way that we possible separate ourselves from other living things is that we consider ourselves special (by being given a soul or whatever). I understand the argument that Christians might have a hard time following the logics of science since it undermines some of their principles; this however does not make Christianity right in any way...

-From what I know the soul seems to be only identified in the bible and never really explained. We only sparsely know what may be some attributes for how it functions but mostly the things that can happen to it. You might want to think vice versa for this blue highlighed part. The world may not be what we know it to be through our perception or the five senses after all, and that idea is something to consider (it's one of my favorite philosophical topics to talk about actually).


I read all of your posts to Cuddlebuns before making my first post, since I prefer to know the contents of a thread before debating them; furthermore I just re-read them just to be sure. All I got was you claiming Adam and Eve being the origin of mankind (which was refuted - even by a biblical argument), then there's the whole evolution from apes argument where you've got problems counting (which I feel I refuted with my first post where I stated that it would be impossible for us to get a continuum of samples which forces us to use logic to connect the dots... just like if you look at a your computer screen, blink and then assume that it's still the same screen when you look at it again. Faulty? It might be. Probable? I'd say so!)

@blue, really? I'm open to hear how, seriously. And that last part, it's just a proposition, what's wrong with asking it? Socrates himself would question his "teachers" (the person he's debating with rather) on every detail to make sure that they knew exactly what they were talking about. I merely asked Cuddles those questions to see his exact view on evolution.


You must be referring to the case of the woman who has been bleeding for 12 years and who is cured after touching the "fringes of his garment"? There's several probable explanations to this: It never happened, it was a hoax, coincidence (unlikely), placebo effect, she changed something in her way of living after meeting Jesus or she might have been cured by touching some clothes (etc). Even if science cannot measure the supposed direct influence of a relic it should still be able to prove a statistically significant difference from the placebo effect when making measurements on the people who have been influenced by the aura. This could be done by making a replica of the relic and comparing how many of the people visiting the fake gets cured (or whatever it's supposed to do) in comparison to the "real" relic. This has actually been done in several cases but no significant difference has been detected. The reason why you then still hear about the miracles (!) that happens is because people only focuse on the changes (nobody's interested in a story like: "I went there and I didn't feel any different afterwards")

-Well you probably heard of "you shall not test the Lord" and the direction of the experiments were probably set so that it would be geared towards the wanted outcome, science can be corrupt that way after all. This can be said any experiment but also consider the fact that perhaps the conditions were not set correctly. And Jesus did say, "your faith has healed you" refering to that it was not the clothes themselves that did the trick. The answer that I would give to my own question concerning the relics and considering your answer is that, relics are not exactly "magical items" and the intent of use determines the effects that we see. Faith in the relic is a determinant as well, which is true because Jesus said "your faith" and not "I" has healed you.
-So the people may not have had as much faith needed in the relic in order for it to work and the intent was to expose the relic, not heal, so it didn't do what we wanted it to do. To sum it up, we need a good measure of faith in the relic to make it work and must use it for good intentions.
68814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Denmark
Offline
Posted 2/27/09
After reading your last post I can't help but feeling you're seriously underestimating me. I am fully aware of the limitations of science, relativism, the basic postulates behind beliefs (scientific/religious/etc) and that religious scripts can be interpreted in several ways (although this often seems like an excuse to me). I am in fact not atheistic, I'm agnostic thus accepting that there is no certainty although I see science as a much more probable option - if for nothing else, then it's ability to predict the future accurately.


crunchypibb wrote:

-The Christian Bible itself is taken for granted by many outsiders so your logic is understandable. As a Christian we believe every word in the bible to be absolutely true and true to one another (the later is of a different subject of matter and has to do with the many denomenations). How we christians interpret the bible in relation to empirical evidence is where the conflict is. Of course it's easy for us christians to interpret the seven day creation into seven periods of creation, and I may or may not have told you that we christians, the smarter of us, believe to evolution to an extent but only really question on how to fit the biblical account of the creation of man into the anthropologic view and vice versa.


The approach of science and Christianity might seem similar in the way that theories are adjusted to fit reality and yet they're vastly different. Christianity operates with two realities and the only purpose of theory is to make them fit each other by altering interpretations while the only purpose of science is to understand the world so that we might be able to explain our surroundings (also with time dependency). This leads to two different outcomes: Christianity provides new arguments that the scriptures are correct although it doesn't seem like it when you read them while science leads to scientific advances. Of cause either might be correct but to me it's not really hard to discern which one is the most useful/necessary.


@blue, really? I'm open to hear how, seriously. And that last part, it's just a proposition, what's wrong with asking it? Socrates himself would question his "teachers" (the person he's debating with rather) on every detail to make sure that they knew exactly what they were talking about. I merely asked Cuddles those questions to see his exact view on evolution.


You're gonna get disappointed 'cause I was just referring to "Cuddles" argument about Cain's wife .
Nothing's wrong asking it (wondering is, almost, always a good thing) but the questions you're asking about evolution are flawed since you can always just ask "well, what comes in between THOSE two stages" and since the amount of information is limited and evolution runs in discreet steps you'll never get a continuum of data. What you do have however is a lot of humanlike creatures from different ages so that you can follow most of the evolutionary process. Furthermore you have genetics studies that verifies most of the evolutionary theories... (you should have a look at it since it's both informative about the original humans and our relations to the monkeys.

...oh yeah, and please don't lecture me about Socrates; it's just too cliché... no need to mention some persons name when the theory is valid enough in itself (then it's just to prove you know the names of some commonly known guys).



-Well you probably heard of "you shall not test the Lord" and the direction of the experiments were probably set so that it would be geared towards the wanted outcome, science can be corrupt that way after all. This can be said any experiment but also consider the fact that perhaps the conditions were not set correctly. And Jesus did say, "your faith has healed you" refering to that it was not the clothes themselves that did the trick. The answer that I would give to my own question concerning the relics and considering your answer is that, relics are not exactly "magical items" and the intent of use determines the effects that we see. Faith in the relic is a determinant as well, which is true because Jesus said "your faith" and not "I" has healed you.
-So the people may not have had as much faith needed in the relic in order for it to work and the intent was to expose the relic, not heal, so it didn't do what we wanted it to do. To sum it up, we need a good measure of faith in the relic to make it work and must use it for good intentions.


A fundemental thing in science is naturally to be aware of the option that your experimental setup or your logical assertions are correct but since the effects of relics have been tested several times I'd say that the results should be rigorous (unless what you're saying is that the relics function in such a way that it cannot be tested by religion which would be very convenient indeed).
(in my proposed test I did of cause assume that there were both people of faith and people without it and that they didn't know themselves which relic they were to visit... or even that there existed a control group at all. I this way they should retain their faith in the relic.)

Btw. I think you should change your picture... confusing when girls are guys (and the opposite)

Since this post from you seemed significantly more enlightened than the previous ones I will allow myself to mention such aspects as necessity and usefullness. The scientific theories are indeed useful (I assume you accept this) and have no necessities for divine intervention... thus as a simpleton I ask; why insist it's there? What purpose does it hold?

As a finishing statement I'd like to say that I accept Christians who realize that Christianity is in fact not certainty (nothing really is), just as I despise supporters of the scientific methods who do not realize that you can't prove the scientific results with absolute certainty (in fact logic can't prove anything only falsify but that's for another discussion). Think that's all fer me this time around...

(sorry if this post contained a lot of spelling mistakes and had missing words etc but I'm really tired atm... been up for too long + I donated blood today)
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 2/28/09 , edited 2/28/09

Phasespace wrote:

After reading your last post I can't help but feeling you're seriously underestimating me. I am fully aware of the limitations of science, relativism, the basic postulates behind beliefs (scientific/religious/etc) and that religious scripts can be interpreted in several ways (although this often seems like an excuse to me). I am in fact not atheistic, I'm agnostic thus accepting that there is no certainty although I see science as a much more probable option - if for nothing else, then it's ability to predict the future accurately.


I understand if I'm intimadating if that's what you mean :D! But even if you feel like you're being underestimated or you know the other person is underestimating you, there are ways to reverse that but I won't tell you ....


The approach of science and Christianity might seem similar in the way that theories are adjusted to fit reality and yet they're vastly different. Christianity operates with two realities and the only purpose of theory is to make them fit each other by altering interpretations while the only purpose of science is to understand the world so that we might be able to explain our surroundings (also with time dependency). This leads to two different outcomes: Christianity provides new arguments that the scriptures are correct although it doesn't seem like it when you read them while science leads to scientific advances. Of cause either might be correct but to me it's not really hard to discern which one is the most useful/necessary.


@blue, give me some examples.
Science is useful for human advancement concerning utility. Religion in general is useful for human advancement in morals and way of life in general. They're both good for something but the former is more apparently useful than the other because we are aware that we use it every second of our lives. The latter is underestimated simply because people already have instilled values for themselves that have been working for them and anything else that is challenged against it is seen as something to skepticize.


You're gonna get disappointed 'cause I was just referring to "Cuddles" argument about Cain's wife .
--------------------
...oh yeah, and please don't lecture me about Socrates; it's just too cliché... no need to mention some persons name when the theory is valid enough in itself (then it's just to prove you know the names of some commonly known guys).

Well, no need to go over that again.....

Well I didn't know you already knew about socrates already! Sheesh.
@blue, are you completely sure about that xD? Perhaps Socrates method at the time was useful but his theory of philosophizing could get trumped by someone else in the future, much like how we often prefer Einstein's theory of gravity/force over Newton's.


A fundemental thing in science is naturally to be aware of the option that your experimental setup or your logical assertions are correct but since the effects of relics have been tested several times I'd say that the results should be rigorous (unless what you're saying is that the relics function in such a way that it cannot be tested by religion which would be very convenient indeed).
(in my proposed test I did of cause assume that there were both people of faith and people without it and that they didn't know themselves which relic they were to visit... or even that there existed a control group at all. I this way they should retain their faith in the relic.)


-Even if it's rigorously done that doesn't make it accurate. Here's an explaination if you like (just to warn you ahead of time if you already know what I was talking about :D).
-Like if I wanted to prove that heavier objects do indeed fall faster than lighter objects (as the ancients Greeks proposed) I could always use a heavy object with little air resistance, like a brick, and a light object with high air resistance, like a feather. If I do this several times and not take into account air resistance and somehow always having a heavy object with little air resistance and a light object with high air resistance then does that make my hypothesis about falling objects valid?
(explaination done)
-And like I said before, what possibly had made the relics not work was because the primary intentions were to expose it, not actually to perform general miracles like it was probably intended in the experimentors' minds.


Btw. I think you should change your picture... confusing when girls are guys (and the opposite)

NO. And because of that I'm going to change my picture into something more extreme that would attract a guy's attention. Hehehe.
Go Kagami from Lucky Star!


Since this post from you seemed significantly more enlightened than the previous ones I will allow myself to mention such aspects as necessity and usefullness. The scientific theories are indeed useful (I assume you accept this) and have no necessities for divine intervention... thus as a simpleton I ask; why insist it's there? What purpose does it hold?

I actually don't understand what you're talking about but the direction of this post is wonderful. I would love to respond but what are the questions refering "it" to?


As a finishing statement I'd like to say that I accept Christians who realize that Christianity is in fact not certainty (nothing really is), just as I despise supporters of the scientific methods who do not realize that you can't prove the scientific results with absolute certainty (in fact logic can't prove anything only falsify but that's for another discussion). Think that's all fer me this time around...

I agree with you except I would like to say the interpretations of Christianity are usually wrong. And more specifically, by our means of knowledge we can't prove or disprove God's existance, and it's easy to see why too. I mean, we have some high number of denominations after all.

Btw, my status footnote is better than yours =p =D , and you probably wouldn't to guess where I got it from. And when you do you'll probably ask youself why.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/7/09 , edited 3/7/09

crunchypibb wrote:

Your sarcasm sucks, just to let it out there.

First off, religion solves different questions more effectively than science does and vice versa. Like science may be able to identify metaphysical things like love and conciousness but the field itself does not explain exactly how they function. Second, don't mix all the religions in a melting pot when you are talking about specifics, because I will agree with you that some out there are a little sketchy but some actually know what they're talking about. We'll just refer to christianity from here.

Now of course the christian religion does give specifics on how certain events occurred like how the earth was made, it makes specifics in morals and ethics. The reason why christians are so provoked by specific scientific discoveries is because some of them are really extreme ideas that challenge their their bringing ups in general, like the earth was round. Besides, if you were just anybody back then you would oppose the idea and skepticize it until you can't anymore.

I'm pretty sure most christians you have in mind won't agree to any points that are opposed to them at all and don't even give a second thought on it. On the thought on evolution and all the intellectual (the ones who actually think) christians take on it is that evolution isn't so bad of an idea to accept for creatures and plants, but for humans it's a different story. Not that because we humans consider ourselves above all animals and don't consider ourselves one like most people would defend but because humans have one thing that's given exclusively to them, the soul. And because evolution doesn't have that in the equation we don't fully embrace it.

Also take a look at my other posts that were meant for Cuddlebuns, I don't feel like repeating myself on further reasons for skepticizing the idea. Of course my questions before may have been of the contrary but i just asked those just to see how the responded would react. A debate's not a debate without conflict, eh?

Back to science and religion, you know the miracles that happened in the bible right? Now you know the one where Jesus was walking with a crowd and some ill-afflicted woman touched Jesus's clothing and she was healed right? How does science explain that? How does it explain anything about the relics today that continue to function in a similar way? It doesn't, it only explains things that are measurable to man.



First off, religion solves different questions more effectively than science does and vice versa. Like science may be able to identify metaphysical things like love and conciousness but the field itself does not explain exactly how they function. Second, don't mix all the religions in a melting pot when you are talking about specifics, because I will agree with you that some out there are a little sketchy but some actually know what they're talking about. We'll just refer to christianity from here.


Science does explain how things function, it explains that love is an addiction to oxytocin in the brain, which is very simmilar to a cocaine addiction chemical wise.


I'm pretty sure most christians you have in mind won't agree to any points that are opposed to them at all and don't even give a second thought on it. On the thought on evolution and all the intellectual (the ones who actually think) christians take on it is that evolution isn't so bad of an idea to accept for creatures and plants, but for humans it's a different story. Not that because we humans consider ourselves above all animals and don't consider ourselves one like most people would defend but because humans have one thing that's given exclusively to them, the soul. And because evolution doesn't have that in the equation we don't fully embrace it.


Lemme show you the hole in that logic, Humans = Animals, human beings are animals, a human is a form of animal life. ok, and since is it an form of animal life that uses cells as its structure, it is capable of evolutions, and in fact has evolved before, human beings have been evolving for the last 2.2 million years ever since the first breed of human (homo habilis) appeared on earth about 2.2 million years ago when homo habilis evolved from Australopithecus. So yes humans are animals, and have been evolving for the last 2.2 million years. Humans do not have souls, humans have 400 trillion chemical synapse in their brains that give them a higer intelligence that other animals, and also gives them a consious mind, when they die those 400 trillion synapse stop functioning and that intelligence dispapears and that consiousness disapears into nothingness, there is no such thing as a soul. Just a consious mind and a higer intelligence than the other animals on earth.


Back to science and religion, you know the miracles that happened in the bible right? Now you know the one where Jesus was walking with a crowd and some ill-afflicted woman touched Jesus's clothing and she was healed right? How does science explain that? How does it explain anything about the relics today that continue to function in a similar way? It doesn't, it only explains things that are measurable to man.


Well those "magical" things you speak of never happened, the bible is not 100% true you know, stop believing everything your told to just because your told to, use your own mind for 30 seconds and use some logic, if you do that, your going to see just how stupid believing in god and religion actually is. Science will only better mankind, religion will only make mankind go backwards. Religion is the cause of thousands of wars that killed millions of people. all using some imaginary man as an excuse, stupid an pointless.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/10/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GEh1u5fF4M&feature=related
Posted 3/10/09 , edited 3/10/09

FlavorAmazing wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


FlavorAmazing wrote:

So what are the moral, social, and philosophical ramifications of evolution?
Why should anyone but biologists care?


You should care because if it wasn't for evolution you would have the intelligence of a rock. Evolution gave you massive brain power, now fucking use it.


Try harder


Because it's interesting, and fascinating. People can believe in it in a similar way to religion, I suppose. Religious views clash, that causes problems etc. Same thing really, but people who believe in evolution often offend those who believe in religion by trying to explain that one has factual evidence and one doesn't. That what causes the whole moral thing, should we tell people their beliefs are wrong? Do we have the right? Do we have proof? etc.

And other people care because it interests them, and they believe in it, as opposed to believing in religion. That's like saying "Why should anyone but priests care about christianity?" Assuming I read your comment properly.
18663 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/10/09

FlavorAmazing wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


FlavorAmazing wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


FlavorAmazing wrote:

So what are the moral, social, and philosophical ramifications of evolution?
Why should anyone but biologists care?


You should care because if it wasn't for evolution you would have the intelligence of a rock. Evolution gave you massive brain power, now fucking use it.


Try harder


Every one is entitled to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege I guess.


Are you being ironic?
Sorry, but your attempts at humor make you look really dumb.

Such facts like evolution should be common knowledge for everyone, not just Scientest. The fact that you think its better for people to be delusional about are family rutes and where we came from scares me.

(you know learning about the past could save are future.)

5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 3/10/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

(you know learning about the past could save are future.)



"Learning from the past only teaches us that we never learn from our past." I forgot who said that (Google has failed me yet again) but they must have been pretty smart.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 3/12/09 , edited 3/12/09

Allhailodin wrote:
Science does explain how things function, it explains that love is an addiction to oxytocin in the brain, which is very simmilar to a cocaine addiction chemical wise.


Amen, I agree to that. If I gave off some implication that I'm against science, sorry. I'm all for it, it's just that there are some things that are flawed in both subjects, whether it's how it's represented or used, and I'm just pointing them out.


Lemme show you the hole in that logic, Humans = Animals, human beings are animals, a human is a form of animal life. ok, and since is it an form of animal life that uses cells as its structure, it is capable of evolutions, and in fact has evolved before, human beings have been evolving for the last 2.2 million years ever since the first breed of human (homo habilis) appeared on earth about 2.2 million years ago when homo habilis evolved from Australopithecus. So yes humans are animals, and have been evolving for the last 2.2 million years. Humans do not have souls, humans have 400 trillion chemical synapse in their brains that give them a higer intelligence that other animals, and also gives them a consious mind, when they die those 400 trillion synapse stop functioning and that intelligence dispapears and that consiousness disapears into nothingness, there is no such thing as a soul. Just a consious mind and a higer intelligence than the other animals on earth.


You know I am taking anthropology and I've got nothing against it. The question I was posing was that if we have a soul, and assuming animals and plants don't, how does the concept fit in with evolution. Of course if you say that a soul doesn't exist it would be easy to agree with your arguement but there is a bigger difference between our cousin primates and us other than higher intelligence. But if you have no belief in any religion whatsoever there is no point in explaining what it is to you because it would be irrelevant to your logic. Btw, the mind =/= soul from what I've learned.


Well those "magical" things you speak of never happened, the bible is not 100% true you know, stop believing everything your told to just because your told to, use your own mind for 30 seconds and use some logic, if you do that, your going to see just how stupid believing in god and religion actually is. Science will only better mankind, religion will only make mankind go backwards. Religion is the cause of thousands of wars that killed millions of people. all using some imaginary man as an excuse, stupid an pointless.


-First off, don't look at magic and God's miracles as if they were the same thing. They may be the same on the surface but how they are executed and the intended uses are quite different. It's almost like comparing matrimonial sex and statutory rape, if that helps put things in perspective. Just be glad I didn't even quote the Bible yet.
-Well, if you hate religion then what would say about philosophy? They're both about a way of life and how to look at it except one doesn't neccessarily need a god/s.
-You make it sound like religion is the major reason why people went/go to war. Other than the Crusades I can't think of anything else. If you're refering to people executing war in God's/Allah's/Buddah's/FlyingSpaghettiMonster's name thats different, for all I care people could start a war in Lewis Black's name.
I'm not saying science overall is bad, I love it actually because I can bash people like you internationally through a folding box.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/12/09

crunchypibb wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
Science does explain how things function, it explains that love is an addiction to oxytocin in the brain, which is very simmilar to a cocaine addiction chemical wise.


Amen, I agree to that. If I gave off some implication that I'm against science, sorry. I'm all for it, it's just that there are some things that are flawed in both subjects, whether it's how it's represented or used, and I'm just pointing them out.


Lemme show you the hole in that logic, Humans = Animals, human beings are animals, a human is a form of animal life. ok, and since is it an form of animal life that uses cells as its structure, it is capable of evolutions, and in fact has evolved before, human beings have been evolving for the last 2.2 million years ever since the first breed of human (homo habilis) appeared on earth about 2.2 million years ago when homo habilis evolved from Australopithecus. So yes humans are animals, and have been evolving for the last 2.2 million years. Humans do not have souls, humans have 400 trillion chemical synapse in their brains that give them a higer intelligence that other animals, and also gives them a consious mind, when they die those 400 trillion synapse stop functioning and that intelligence dispapears and that consiousness disapears into nothingness, there is no such thing as a soul. Just a consious mind and a higer intelligence than the other animals on earth.


You know I am taking anthropology and I've got nothing against it. The question I was posing was that if we have a soul, and assuming animals and plants don't, how does the concept fit in with evolution. Of course if you say that a soul doesn't exist it would be easy to agree with your arguement but there is a bigger difference between our cousin primates and us other than higher intelligence. But if you have no belief in any religion whatsoever there is no point in explaining what it is to you because it would be irrelevant to your logic. Btw, the mind =/= soul from what I've learned.


Well those "magical" things you speak of never happened, the bible is not 100% true you know, stop believing everything your told to just because your told to, use your own mind for 30 seconds and use some logic, if you do that, your going to see just how stupid believing in god and religion actually is. Science will only better mankind, religion will only make mankind go backwards. Religion is the cause of thousands of wars that killed millions of people. all using some imaginary man as an excuse, stupid an pointless.


-First off, don't look at magic and God's miracles as if they were the same thing. They may be the same on the surface but how they are executed and the intended uses are quite different. It's almost like comparing matrimonial sex and statutory rape, if that helps put things in perspective. Just be glad I didn't even quote the Bible yet.
-Well, if you hate religion then what would say about philosophy? They're both about a way of life and how to look at it except one doesn't neccessarily need a god/s.
-You make it sound like religion is the major reason why people went/go to war. Other than the Crusades I can't think of anything else. If you're refering to people executing war in God's/Allah's/Buddah's/FlyingSpaghettiMonster's name thats different, for all I care people could start a war in Lewis Black's name.
I'm not saying science overall is bad, I love it actually because I can bash people like you internationally through a folding box.



You know I am taking anthropology and I've got nothing against it. The question I was posing was that if we have a soul, and assuming animals and plants don't, how does the concept fit in with evolution. Of course if you say that a soul doesn't exist it would be easy to agree with your arguement but there is a bigger difference between our cousin primates and us other than higher intelligence. But if you have no belief in any religion whatsoever there is no point in explaining what it is to you because it would be irrelevant to your logic. Btw, the mind =/= soul from what I've learned.


So if we have souls now does that mean homo-erectus (cave man) had souls as well, did Australopithecines have souls (the genus the human genus evolved from) have them too, did we have souls all the way back to when we were still in the trees ? At what point in evolution did we "gain" this soul ? If you say Australopithecines or caveman didn't have souls, then when did we gain them ?



-First off, don't look at magic and God's miracles as if they were the same thing. They may be the same on the surface but how they are executed and the intended uses are quite different. It's almost like comparing matrimonial sex and statutory rape, if that helps put things in perspective. Just be glad I didn't even quote the Bible yet.
-Well, if you hate religion then what would say about philosophy? They're both about a way of life and how to look at it except one doesn't neccessarily need a god/s.
-You make it sound like religion is the major reason why people went/go to war. Other than the Crusades I can't think of anything else. If you're refering to people executing war in God's/Allah's/Buddah's/FlyingSpaghettiMonster's name thats different, for all I care people could start a war in Lewis Black's name.
I'm not saying science overall is bad, I love it actually because I can bash people like you internationally through a folding box.


God's miracles = magic because god's miracles can't happen in reality, magic does the impossible so to speak, and btw if god work's miracles for us, does it work them for all the other intelligent life spread across the universe, don't say there is none, because there is. So does this god work miracles for all the 100+ other intelligent races in the universe ? Just a though, I mean why only us ?

I don't go into to philosophy or any of that crap. So i know nothing about it, as for war, lots of "holy wars" have been fought justified by some invisible man somewhere in the universe. Which makes 0 sense to me, but what do i know ? And your right I could care less it a war started in anybodys name. And science is good, without it things like the internet and even simple radio transmitters would be impossible, so cell phones wouldnt exist, science has made this world a much better place, which i have yet to see religion do anything to advance mankind.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 3/13/09 , edited 3/13/09

Allhailodin wrote:
So if we have souls now does that mean homo-erectus (cave man) had souls as well, did Australopithecines have souls (the genus the human genus evolved from) have them too, did we have souls all the way back to when we were still in the trees ? At what point in evolution did we "gain" this soul ? If you say Australopithecines or caveman didn't have souls, then when did we gain them ?


-That's one of the things we're not exactly sure about. If we, christians, did have an answer to that then we'd have an official answer to the human aspect of evolution. Like science, you have to wait for the results after the professions look at what they've got with critical analysis. So from the christian view I've sadly got no answer.


God's miracles = magic because god's miracles can't happen in reality, magic does the impossible so to speak, and btw if god work's miracles for us, does it work them for all the other intelligent life spread across the universe, don't say there is none, because there is. So does this god work miracles for all the 100+ other intelligent races in the universe ? Just a though, I mean why only us ?


-First off, you sort of disregarded what I said about God's miracles and magic. It's like you're catagorizing marital sex and statutory rape as the same thing. Just look back at what I said. Yes, God's miracles can happen in real life but it can't be easily replicated like most things in science.
-And that thing where you talked about God being responsible for other intelligent life in the universe, who knows. The only things we christians know are what He has in store for humans who take faith in him.


I don't go into to philosophy or any of that crap. So i know nothing about it, as for war, lots of "holy wars" have been fought justified by some invisible man somewhere in the universe. Which makes 0 sense to me, but what do i know ? And your right I could care less it a war started in anybodys name. And science is good, without it things like the internet and even simple radio transmitters would be impossible, so cell phones wouldnt exist, science has made this world a much better place, which i have yet to see religion do anything to advance mankind.


-Calling philosophy crap? Okay, I wouldn't mind debating with an athiestic person if they had a strong foot in Kant. But if you have no standings other than yourself I'm only speaking on behalf of the christian community and your isolated-population-of-one community. I mean, what do you believe in?
-What holy wars are you refering to? Point them out. Besides, why can't people fight for what they believe in? People do it all the time, it's just rarely nowaday for it to turn into a full scale blood shedding war.
-Again you have disregarded the things I said. I love science, I'll make it clear to you if it wasn't before because obviously you had no idea how to translate that sarcastic remark. But science is not perfect and just like religion it can be used for an improper agenda. Did you know that "scientists" in the pre-WWII convinced women to be stay at home mothers and during WWII convinced them to be part of the working force and then immediately post-WWII once again convinced women to be stay at home mothers? That was science for you. And those commercials with the stupid graphs, again that's science used for an improper agenda; those graphs don't help the consumers they help the sellers. Btw I'm still having fun bashing you internationally with folding box.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/13/09 , edited 3/13/09

crunchypibb wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:
So if we have souls now does that mean homo-erectus (cave man) had souls as well, did Australopithecines have souls (the genus the human genus evolved from) have them too, did we have souls all the way back to when we were still in the trees ? At what point in evolution did we "gain" this soul ? If you say Australopithecines or caveman didn't have souls, then when did we gain them ?


-That's one of the things we're not exactly sure about. If we, christians, did have an answer to that then we'd have an official answer to the human aspect of evolution. Like science, you have to wait for the results after the professions look at what they've got with critical analysis. So from the christian view I've sadly got no answer.


God's miracles = magic because god's miracles can't happen in reality, magic does the impossible so to speak, and btw if god work's miracles for us, does it work them for all the other intelligent life spread across the universe, don't say there is none, because there is. So does this god work miracles for all the 100+ other intelligent races in the universe ? Just a though, I mean why only us ?


-First off, you sort of disregarded what I said about God's miracles and magic. It's like you're catagorizing marital sex and statutory rape as the same thing. Just look back at what I said. Yes, God's miracles can happen in real life but it can't be easily replicated like most things in science.
-And that thing where you talked about God being responsible for other intelligent life in the universe, who knows. The only things we christians know are what He has in store for humans who take faith in him.


I don't go into to philosophy or any of that crap. So i know nothing about it, as for war, lots of "holy wars" have been fought justified by some invisible man somewhere in the universe. Which makes 0 sense to me, but what do i know ? And your right I could care less it a war started in anybodys name. And science is good, without it things like the internet and even simple radio transmitters would be impossible, so cell phones wouldnt exist, science has made this world a much better place, which i have yet to see religion do anything to advance mankind.


-Calling philosophy crap? Okay, I wouldn't mind debating with an athiestic person if they had a strong foot in Kant. But if you have no standings other than yourself I'm only speaking on behalf of the christian community and your isolated-population-of-one community. I mean, what do you believe in?
-What holy wars are you refering to? Point them out. Besides, why can't people fight for what they believe in? People do it all the time, it's just rarely nowaday for it to turn into a full scale blood shedding war.
-Again you have disregarded the things I said. I love science, I'll make it clear to you if it wasn't before because obviously you had no idea how to translate that sarcastic remark. But science is not perfect and just like religion it can be used for an improper agenda. Did you know that "scientists" in the pre-WWII convinced women to be stay at home mothers and during WWII convinced them to be part of the working force and then immediately post-WWII once again convinced women to be stay at home mothers? That was science for you. And those commercials with the stupid graphs, again that's science used for an improper agenda; those graphs don't help the consumers they help the sellers. Btw I'm still having fun bashing you internationally with folding box.



-That's one of the things we're not exactly sure about. If we, christians, did have an answer to that then we'd have an official answer to the human aspect of evolution. Like science, you have to wait for the results after the professions look at what they've got with critical analysis. So from the christian view I've sadly got no answer.


So if you do not have an answer, how can you say with 100% certainty that this soul does in fact exist. What proof do you have to the existance of this soul ? Show me this proof you have. I mean we are not the only intelligent animal on earth, we are just the most intelligent animal at the moment, other animals will evolve and gain intelligence as time goes on, chimps are doing that right now, chimps are fucking smart. Not as smart as us, but their on their way. Give em time and they will discover fire just like we did, they'll begin to make stone tools and invent a barter system just like we did. So what about all these other intelligent animals ?


-First off, you sort of disregarded what I said about God's miracles and magic. It's like you're catagorizing marital sex and statutory rape as the same thing. Just look back at what I said. Yes, God's miracles can happen in real life but it can't be easily replicated like most things in science.
-And that thing where you talked about God being responsible for other intelligent life in the universe, who knows. The only things we christians know are what He has in store for humans who take faith in him.


Marital sex and statutory rape are essentially the same thing, they are both an act of sex, 1 is willing and the other is not, but they are both in fact an act of sex, so yes you could say that they are the same thing. And lots of these miracles i hear about are nothing more then people who got lucky once. Getting hit by a train and surviving is not a "miracle" that person is just damn lucky. Probally won't be so lucky a second time around. Barely pulling through from a deadly infectious disease isn't a "miracle" its a healthy immune system and good medical science at work. Lots of these so called miracles just luck or good sciences and a good immune system or many other things that god had nothing to do with.

It's possible that this "Faith" you have is actually just genetic code, its possible that a belief in god is genetic in some people, but it can be overridden with logic. That's what i remember hearing from someone a while ago. Dunno if it's true but its more than possible. As for having faith in this god, it doesn't matter in the end, you can believe in whatever the fuck you want, but in the end it's not going to matter, death is absolute and unavoidable, nothing you ever believed in will make any difference once you die. Your just gonna rot in the ground like the rest of us.


-Calling philosophy crap? Okay, I wouldn't mind debating with an athiestic person if they had a strong foot in Kant. But if you have no standings other than yourself I'm only speaking on behalf of the christian community and your isolated-population-of-one community. I mean, what do you believe in?
-What holy wars are you refering to? Point them out. Besides, why can't people fight for what they believe in? People do it all the time, it's just rarely nowaday for it to turn into a full scale blood shedding war.
-Again you have disregarded the things I said. I love science, I'll make it clear to you if it wasn't before because obviously you had no idea how to translate that sarcastic remark. But science is not perfect and just like religion it can be used for an improper agenda. Did you know that "scientists" in the pre-WWII convinced women to be stay at home mothers and during WWII convinced them to be part of the working force and then immediately post-WWII once again convinced women to be stay at home mothers? That was science for you. And those commercials with the stupid graphs, again that's science used for an improper agenda; those graphs don't help the consumers they help the sellers. Btw I'm still having fun bashing you internationally with folding box.


I don't "believe" in anything really, I don't care for morals one way or another. Things like murder or abortions or those things mean nothing to me, I simply believe that were all human capable of any action/s, so why should one action be right and another action be wrong ? All actions are equal, no one action is any better or any worse than another. That's how i generally see things.

People can fight for what they believe in, in some wars both sides are fighting for what they believe in, while in others people are forced to fight for something regardless of if they believe in it or not.

Whats wrong with convincing them to be stay at home mothers ? Kids get taken better care of that way. And yeah those graphs are pretty retarded. And "bashing" only works if you manage to piss me off, I am by no means pissed off.
4557 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 3/13/09

Allhailodin wrote:
So if you do not have an answer, how can you say with 100% certainty that this soul does in fact exist. What proof do you have to the existance of this soul ? Show me this proof you have. I mean we are not the only intelligent animal on earth, we are just the most intelligent animal at the moment, other animals will evolve and gain intelligence as time goes on, chimps are doing that right now, chimps are fucking smart. Not as smart as us, but their on their way. Give em time and they will discover fire just like we did, they'll begin to make stone tools and invent a barter system just like we did. So what about all these other intelligent animals ?


-If you really wanted to hear my answer on how humans have a soul and how it relates to evolution, it would take time to explain and I don't feel like doing that because you're going to break it down anyways like it was some misproven fact. But we can build up to it with the question you just posed.
-Honestly I'm not sure if animals have souls too if that's one thing you're asking. But highly developed minds does not equal to soul; that's in fact one misconcept I used to believe in. There are actually three parts to the human: mind, body, soul. They all do different things but one affects the other, that's all you need to know at this point and if you need proof on how just think about how the mind and the body and how the interact with each other. If you really want to know what the soul actually does I can't give you the whole picture from my knowledge. All I know is that it matters in death and if you actually believe in a religion, mind you just about any, knowing that if the mind and body die and if the god/s promises the afterlife then there must be one other aspect of the human, the soul.
-Chimp evolution intelligence wise would take ages before they're even caveman like. Maccaques are a pretty intelligent bunch because they can copy actions that humans do and pass it on to their generation and create a culture, but it will take ages for any other primate to start making stuff like cave-art on their own, like millions of years at this point or if we're lucky several hundred thousand years from now.


Marital sex and statutory rape are essentially the same thing, they are both an act of sex, 1 is willing and the other is not, but they are both in fact an act of sex, so yes you could say that they are the same thing. And lots of these miracles i hear about are nothing more then people who got lucky once. Getting hit by a train and surviving is not a "miracle" that person is just damn lucky. Probally won't be so lucky a second time around. Barely pulling through from a deadly infectious disease isn't a "miracle" its a healthy immune system and good medical science at work. Lots of these so called miracles just luck or good sciences and a good immune system or many other things that god had nothing to do with.


-About the sex, that part is obvious. I'm not sure if you read that part clearly because part of your rebuttal was the point I was trying to make for you. Why do you think they are catagorized differently?
-Miracles don't have to be big and flashy like they were portrayed in the bible. Jesus performed many miracles but only a few stood out becaues they were big. Actually seeing why some things are considered miracles like medical miracles are hard to see from one view or one time frame. You have to understand what lead up to it that made it a miracle. Plus there are supernatural things out there that are considered miracles of God but sometimes may not be because there might have been some other spirits involved instead. But most people don't think about that. Plus I don't think "true randomness" actually exists. Even if we can't figure out why something happened there usually is some sort of reason, from empirical (science) and spiritual standpoints.


It's possible that this "Faith" you have is actually just genetic code, its possible that a belief in god is genetic in some people, but it can be overridden with logic. That's what i remember hearing from someone a while ago. Dunno if it's true but its more than possible. As for having faith in this god, it doesn't matter in the end, you can believe in whatever the fuck you want, but in the end it's not going to matter, death is absolute and unavoidable, nothing you ever believed in will make any difference once you die. Your just gonna rot in the ground like the rest of us.


-Faith as a genetic code, that's far fetched. But the amount of tendency to have trust or faith in anything, that's possible.


I don't "believe" in anything really, I don't care for morals one way or another. Things like murder or abortions or those things mean nothing to me, I simply believe that were all human capable of any action/s, so why should one action be right and another action be wrong ? All actions are equal, no one action is any better or any worse than another. That's how i generally see things.


:x You're 19? If what you're saying is true then what stops you from doing stuff that makes you feel guilty? Plus it's technically wrong to say you don't believe in anything unless you've never heard or even thought of the concept like when you're an infant. I mean you just stated right there in that quote what you thought was right. If you think it's right then you believe in it..............
-If you don't care for morals then what stops you specifically from raping the girl/boy you really like or just shooting the person you hate. I'm really quite curious.


Whats wrong with convincing them to be stay at home mothers ? Kids get taken better care of that way. And yeah those graphs are pretty retarded. And "bashing" only works if you manage to piss me off, I am by no means pissed off.


You missed the point about the stay at home mothers. Well I do suppose we have different definations of bashing but whatever.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/13/09

crunchypibb wrote:

-If you really wanted to hear my answer on how humans have a soul and how it relates to evolution, it would take time to explain and I don't feel like doing that because you're going to break it down anyways like it was some misproven fact. But we can build up to it with the question you just posed.
-Honestly I'm not sure if animals have souls too if that's one thing you're asking. But highly developed minds does not equal to soul; that's in fact one misconcept I used to believe in. There are actually three parts to the human: mind, body, soul. They all do different things but one affects the other, that's all you need to know at this point and if you need proof on how just think about how the mind and the body and how the interact with each other. If you really want to know what the soul actually does I can't give you the whole picture from my knowledge. All I know is that it matters in death and if you actually believe in a religion, mind you just about any, knowing that if the mind and body die and if the god/s promises the afterlife then there must be one other aspect of the human, the soul.
-Chimp evolution intelligence wise would take ages before they're even caveman like. Maccaques are a pretty intelligent bunch because they can copy actions that humans do and pass it on to their generation and create a culture, but it will take ages for any other primate to start making stuff like cave-art on their own, like millions of years at this point or if we're lucky several hundred thousand years from now.


Nah, about your soul/evolution explanation, I'd like to hear that, I'm curious about how your going to explain it.


:x You're 19? If what you're saying is true then what stops you from doing stuff that makes you feel guilty? Plus it's technically wrong to say you don't believe in anything unless you've never heard or even thought of the concept like when you're an infant. I mean you just stated right there in that quote what you thought was right. If you think it's right then you believe in it..............
-If you don't care for morals then what stops you specifically from raping the girl/boy you really like or just shooting the person you hate. I'm


Things that make me feel guilty eh, not many things make that happen, and even if i feel guilty it's not going to stop me from doing it again, and eventually it no longer makes me feel guilty. That's how you solve that problem. Just keep doing it till you don't feel guilty about it anymore.

Well the only thing that would stop me from raping the girl or boy I like is my utter lack of interest in sex and the law, I have absolutely no desire to have sex and even less desire to go to jail. But i'm also not a social person, and i rarely interact with people, execpt online, so i don't have a girl or boy I like, thus I also don't have anyone i truly "hate" there are people i don't like because their annoying, but that's not worthy of killing them.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.