Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 9, 2011 17:56:16 GMT -5
The idea of natural selection of a lumber yard & offspring made me chuckle. But, you are correct. For some reason many people are unable to understand the difference between things happening slowly with natural selection over millions of years & a lumber yard exploding into a house overnight
My boss always uses the argument of putting a bunch of watch parts in the ocean. No matter how long you wait, the parts will never become a watch. I told him that if those watch parts were the prey of some predators (giving us natural selection) & could have little watch part babies (passing on the genes of the watch parts), then maybe someday they would make a watch. But, otherwise his analogy completely fails.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 20:23:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 18:01:25 GMT -5
What i find interesting is how people can look at the fact that 1500 cultures reference for the most part DIFFERENT dogma, and still consistently insist that theirs is the one true God/religion... I think that is irrational.
I'm agnostic. I don't think you can know. I'm not anti-god, and i don't think god is incompatible with science and evolution and even the big band... I am not a big fan of organized religion... and tenet which exists primarily, it seems, to damn, and control and exert power...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 9, 2011 18:08:02 GMT -5
It isn't random that we look for cause & effect, it is another result of natural selection. Survival back in the day was very much based on the ability to learn cause & effect. If I hear rustling in the bushes, it might be a predator. If I eat this food, it makes me sick. Etc. Those who were better at learning & making cause & effect connections, were better at surviving & passing on their genes. So, humans as a group became very good at this skill.
The only problem is that in a lot of ways we are to good at it - when I did a certain chant it started to rain, therefore there must be a rain god. The last 2 times I wore my red shirt, we won the game, therefore it must be a lucky shirt. When I prayed for X,Y,Z, it came true, therefore there must be a god. Whenever I see a person paying with foodstamps, they are buying junk food, therefore all people on welfare waste their money on unhealthy crap.
We even became really good at rationalizing when these things didn't work, meaning once we make a connection it is really hard to convince us that we are wrong - it didn't rain this time I did the chant, the gods must be angry at us. We didn't win when I won my shirt, must have been an off day because it usually works. God didn't answer my pray this time, well god works in mysterious ways & must have a different path for me. Well, that person bought very healthy food with their foodstamps, but they are the exception that proves the rule.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 9, 2011 18:50:35 GMT -5
I agree, but most mammals (and in fact most animals altogether) are at least as good at these things as we are, if not better. What caused us to rise so far above them in terms of reasoning, the ability to think in the abstract, create art, science, math, etc.?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 20:23:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2011 18:53:59 GMT -5
Other animals can create art and build structures that adhere to scientific and mathematical constants... We are aided by a combination of positive features... there is also the fact that mutation is a significant aspect of evolution... ... haven't you watched X-men?
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 10, 2011 1:01:46 GMT -5
I forgot to ask you this before...who are you praying to? I thought you were an atheist?
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Mar 10, 2011 2:34:34 GMT -5
I already answered that question. Prayer is not contingent upon there being a recipient anyway.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 10, 2011 10:05:04 GMT -5
Oh no, it's the dreaded "God of the Gaps" argument. Because we don't know something, then it can only be explained with God! What I find silly is how God can be used like a wild card. Need an Ace? Just insert God! Need a 2 of diamonds? God will suffice. God is a great way to explain something without actually needing facts, proof, or evidence. Satan and demons are also wonderful stand-ins for actual knowledge. It reminds me of the story of the French town threatened to be overrun by a glacier. The local church sent a troupe of priests to the glacier's edge to mumble some prayers, wave some incense around, and hammer a big crucifix into the ice. They thought the glacier was possessed by demons. LOL! Oh no, it's the "I don't have an answer," so I'll try to work my around the question argument. I always find it funny that atheist put all their faith in science and when something can't be explained, they argue "there are things we just don't know yet." Of course they know there positively is no God. I don't think science is evil, and I think God gave us minds to understand the world. In 100 years, some of the things you swear are true because science says its true, will be proven wrong. So I guess not believing in God would be the first thing you wrongly believed. You'll find out the truth one way or another, I really hope it's before you die. I already told another poster, God can come down and reveal Himself to you in a burning bush and you'd convince yourself that you have schizophrenia. Every scientific explanation you can give (I probably actually know a lot of them), gives me more proof that God exist. You simply choose to look at the same proof and see it differently. As far as God being used as a wild card, that's exactly what science does when they use the explanation of "We just don't understand everything yet."
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 10, 2011 10:39:32 GMT -5
It's too bad those of faith can't admit they don't have an answer, but they are as dogmatic as any atheist in their belief in having the absolute truth.
That's because science is honest enough to admit when it doesn't know something, unlike religion, which claims to have all the answers.
I happen to be more of an agnostic. Could there be a god of some kind? Sure. However, all the ridiculous superstition, dogma, and rubbish concerning talking snakes, virgin births, and burning bushes is a load of mythological make-believe. Sorry, that's my opinion and it isn't changing. I can speculate on the existence of a god until the fat lady sings, but there is no way I will ever believe that Noah crammed 3 million animals into a 400 foot ark or that wearing blended fabrics deserves the death sentence.
It's no coincidence that the number of so-called divine miracles is inversely proportional to our scientific understanding.
Yes, that is very true. But science has actually been proven right on a great many things. Religion has yet to be proven right on anything, and it has had 6,000 years of recorded history to do so. Thus far, it has failed abysmally. Given that, I will place my chips on science before religion without hesitation.
You don't know if I'm wrong any more than I know if I'm right. Faith is just a fancy word for guessing.
See what I mean about believers proclaiming to have The Truth?
If God had a desire to prove His existence to me, His omniscience would ensure that he would choose the right method to convince me. I doubt God, should such an entity exist, would be foolish enough to use a burning bush if He knew I wouldn't believe it.
There is no proof. If there was proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What you see as proof I see as a spurious correlation or a logical fallacy. In that, you are correct - we do see the "proof" differently. "
Not at all. When someone says they don't know, it actually means they don't know. In other words, they are offering no explanation and no definitive answers. However, when someone says it's God, they are telling you what it is. They are giving you an answer even though there is no proof of its veracity. Thousands of perfectly natural and explainable events have been attributed to God over the centuries as the "one and only reasonable explanation" only to be proved wrong. My story about the priests and the glacier illustrate this fact.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 10:49:59 GMT -5
Replace "God" with "global warming" and you have the entire "climate change" hoax described in a single sentence. Good job! Seems simple enough to me: Creation = Evolution God = Mother Earth Prophet = Darwin High Priest = Al Gore 7 Deadly Sins = 7 Deadly Sins (they're just different- failure to recycle, smoking, eating meat, and as you can see already- they even have hypocrisy) Sacrement = Child Sacrifice (Abortion) End Times / Apocalypse / Second Coming = Climate destruction
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 10, 2011 10:55:46 GMT -5
Evolution has nothing to do with climate change. No one is saying that evolution is causing polar ice caps to melt or greenhouse gases. Thus, while climate change might be the new religion to some, there is no real correlation between that and evolution.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 10:56:05 GMT -5
What's interesting is that everything the modern athiest or agnostic believes, and the consequence for the culture is described in the first chapter of Romans and in the second letter to Timothy the third chapter. This, even as the battle described by the prophet Ezekiel in the 38th chapter lines up...You'd almost have to be blind (or blinded) to miss it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 10:58:00 GMT -5
Evolution has nothing to do with climate change. No one is saying that evolution is causing polar ice caps to melt or greenhouse gases. Thus, while climate change might be the new religion to some, there is no real correlation between that and evolution. I don't know very many people who aren't taken in by the climate change hoax, and interestingly enough these same people's "Creation Myth" is evolution. Maybe not everyone that believes in evolution also buys the climate change myth- but you can't deny there's a significant correlation.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 10, 2011 11:41:28 GMT -5
Different random mutations in different environments will lead to different results. Our ancestors had some mutations that lead to bigger brains/better ability to reason/use tools/etc & that helped us survive better so the genes carried on. An eagles ancestors had some mutations that lead to incredible eyesight, which helped them to become better hunters, so those with great eyesight had more offspring & the gene carried on. Maybe their were some very smart eagles along the way, but that mutation must not have helped them survive better in their environment, so the genes didn't get carried on. Sharks had ancestors that had random mutations that led to an incredible sense of smell & massive teeth, which helped them survive, so those genes carried on. There may have been mutations leading to smarter sharks, but since they have almost no predators & use their other senses to hunt, then this obviously wasn't important to their survival.
It all has to do with chance & what helps with that specie's survival. Our ancestors fared better as their brains got bigger & they got better at logic, so they were more likely to pass on their genes.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Mar 10, 2011 12:06:53 GMT -5
There is a correlation - conservatives & religious people are less likely to accept evolution & more likely to believe climate change is a hoax. What I take from that is that conservatives & religious people have less faith in science than others. There is pretty much a consensus amongst scientists in the fields that evolution is a fact & climate change is real. Could they be wrong, perhaps. But, I will take a scientific consensus over my own opinion when I have not done the research or have significant knowledge in those areas. To assume that I know more than people who spend their lives working in these fields is extremely arrogant. Time did some interesting articles on the phenomenon of people not accepting scientific consensus on some of these subjects. www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2057979,00.html "Maybe because we're not actually so rational after all, as research is increasingly showing. Emotions and values — not always fully conscious — play an enormous role in how we process information and make choices. We are beset by cognitive biases that throw what would be sound decision-making off-balance. " "Group identification also plays a major role in how we make decisions — and that's another way facts can get filtered. Declining belief in climate science has been, for the most part in America, a conservative phenomenon. On the surface, that's curious: you could expect Republicans to be skeptical of economic solutions to climate change like a carbon tax, since higher taxes tend to be a Democratic policy, but scientific information ought to be non-partisan. Politicians never debate the physics of space travel after all, even if they argue fiercely over the costs and priorities associated with it. That, however, is the power of group thinking; for most conservative Americans, the very idea of climate science has been poisoned by ideologues who seek to advance their economic arguments by denying scientific fact. No additional data — new findings about CO2 feedback loops or better modeling of ice sheet loss — is likely to change their mind. " ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/08/why-dismissing-climate-skeptics%e2%80%94even-when-theyre-wrong%e2%80%94is-a-bad-idea/"He notes that while the vast majority of climate studies come from the rational fields of physical science and economics, where the case that the climate is warming and that humans are the main drivers has been essentially clinched. But scientific consensus in no way equals a social consensus—if it did, then we wouldn't see polls that show a majority of Americans are skeptical of evolution. We wouldn't live in a country where more than half the population believes they are being helped by a guardian angel. It's not unusual—when scientific evidence and value systems collide, value systems often win out." www.eenews.net/assets/2011/03/07/document_cw_01.pdfWhat I get from all this is that people are extremely fascinating on how their little brains work. Michael Shermer has several interesting books on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 10, 2011 12:24:14 GMT -5
That's a half true statement and typical of the intellectual dishonesty that pervades the anthropogenic global warming argument.
No one doubts that the climate changes, as it has throughout the history of the planet. The doubt is in the reason for that change, which is hardly "clinched" as this author seems to wish.
This is akin to the pro-illegal alien camp constantly confusing the terms "immigrant" and "illegal immigrant"...
Guess what? You're not fooling anyone!
|
|
formerexpat
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:09:05 GMT -5
Posts: 4,079
|
Post by formerexpat on Mar 10, 2011 23:09:29 GMT -5
Why does one believe in God but not Santa? Why do we believe it's cute when a child has an imaginary friend but are so sure in our belief of God? Just because I've read about Santa in a book doesn't mean I believe in him. Awesome, thanks for the information! I'm not too familiar with Judaism or Lilith. So it appears the first relationship of man kind ended in a divorce / separation? How ironic for the religious crowd, no? Can I see support for this claim? I have faith in science but no faith in the politification [yes, I made up the word] of global warming, or climate change as they are now calling it. The headlines have been around in one form or another for over 110 years. And just as much as I believe in mean reversion when it comes to LT market returns, I believe in the sun and other natural causes will largely control LT temperatures and CO2 levels on the Earth. Time also did interesting articles in the late 70's predicting the next ice age. I'm unimpressed with journalists and scientists today that determine the conclusion before hypothesis. The debate is hardly settled and there is no consensus. Even if you were to use majority, just 26% attribute global warming to human activity: www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=1d688937-54b7-48f4-a4be-d6979dada5df&k=65311I wouldn't consider the 52 scientists that worked on the IPCC report as consensus. I'd expect more scientists to continue to come out as skeptics now that the scientific fraud has been exposed via climate gate. [/size]
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 23:19:51 GMT -5
The IPCC report is a complete fraud. Nothing was sacred in the production of that report- they even corrupted the peer review process.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 10, 2011 23:33:03 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Mar 11, 2011 1:24:19 GMT -5
What is the ipcc report and this above , what does it pertain too? QWhy can't you put your own interpetation on it and just a few paragraphs as we are supposed to do here, and if of interest then poster can go to it, if not just scroll down , move on, unless that rule has been changed. If so then sorry I brought it up and will start posting articles in their entirety, I guess I missed that change. If so forgive if I am out of line rgarding your post.
|
|