[Rat]

The_Monkey - You can't say it doesn't make sense though.

And not necesarrily. Man may not be as good as God, but it still doesn't mean God doesn't sin. It just means that man sins more than God does, and so God is still better than man.

Just thought I might mention: Without solid, proven evidence, I will not believe God exists outside people's imagination. If he exists, then why did my dog die at 4 years old, and why did the planes hit the Twin Towers? Isn't he s'posed to prevent those sort of things?

I will, however, take part in discussions about him as if he is real.

[MoleculeMan]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
Just thought I might mention: Without solid, proven evidence, I will not believe God exists outside people's imagination. If he exists, then why did my dog die at 4 years old, and why did the planes hit the Twin Towers? Isn't he s'posed to prevent those sort of things?

---

I think of god like a watchmaker, alla Einstien. He created things, and is watching it work. I am not very religious, even though my dad's a pastor, but i DO think that there is something out there. I dunno who they are. So i suppose i am agnostic. There is just something about the whole "why do bad things happen to good people" that piss me off. To argue it from a religious point of view, what would the point of life be if god made everything peachy keen? How would he "test his faithful" if he doesn't atleast have the potential for sin. The one idea that comes out of Christianity for me is everyone gets thiers in the end. Sorry for the rambling!

jake

[edible snowman]

didn't the pope confirm the theory of evolution or something? i thought i heard that, and that the majority of christians didn't even know.

[Frost]

I started reading this thread and got lost around the place where Steven spoke about God creating Earth and not collapsing his layers and such... Craig's talk of specular humanist scientists, etc... just too much for my little head.

I wonder if one day a humonguous can of Lysol will appear from the dark void of the universe and disinfect this blue marble...

Persistence is futile.

frost--
I live in a giant bucket.

[Rat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frost:

I wonder if one day a humonguous can of Lysol will appear from the dark void of the universe and disinfect this blue marble...

---

We can only hope...maybe it'd take all the idiots who are afraid of smart people away with it...?

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Rat ]

[Lunatique]

Rat- be thankful for stupid people. If they didn't exist, we'd be nothing special in comparison.

[Rat]

Problem is, we're hated with stupid people around. Wait - with stupid people gone, there'd be the less smart smart people...it's a perpetual cycle where no one can possibly win. Oh shit, I give up.

[the_monkey]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:

Just thought I might mention: Without solid, proven evidence, I will not believe God exists outside people's imagination.

---

well, im sorry my friend. there is no hard, proven evidence that God does exist. there are however, signs pointing the way. signs such as my dad (who was a former alcholic, wife beater, and terrible father) completly changing his life around, because he realized that there was something more to what can be seen, felt, heard, tasted and smelled.

i apologize if im starting to sound too preachy.

[Anthony]

OK, simple points:

-Evolution doesn't contradict religion on the whole

-only religious sticklers consider Creation to be Adam and Eve as opposed to a general creation of existence

-Even if God is simply creation itself, its still God(and creation must exist in a pure state for anything to exist at all)

-There's no reason to think God would interfere with our lives on Earth.

-If you accept the idea of spirit and creation, then just as it seems possible for there to be life on other planets, it seems quite possible for there to be spirits of every kind imaginable. Hail Zeus ;]

[Bungee]

Holy crap, this is some deep sh*t for this place!

Loving it!

I'm an Anthropology major and a Director of the Charles Darwin Foundation Canada (funding for research and activities in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador), yet I can barely remember what I had for lunch yesterday, let alone what my anscestors were like 10,000 years ago!

This has been some fun reading!

[wayfinder_at_work]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat:
And not necesarrily. Man may not be as good as God, but it still doesn't mean God doesn't sin. It just means that man sins more than God does, and so God is still better than man.

Just thought I might mention: Without solid, proven evidence, I will not believe God exists outside people's imagination. If he exists, then why did my dog die at 4 years old, and why did the planes hit the Twin Towers? Isn't he s'posed to prevent those sort of things?

I will, however, take part in discussions about him as if he is real.

---

if you had actually thought your arguments through, you would not have written any of this.

[wayfinder_at_work]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_monkey:

not exactly, according to the second law of thermodynamics, something cannot beget something as powerfull or more powerful than itself, right?

if God created man, then man is not as good as God himself, no? man is sinful, but God is not.

(at least, thats according to my understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. i could be off.)

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: the_monkey ]

---

powerful does not equal good (if think we ALL know that one)
sinful does not equal energetically lower (so laws of thermodynamics cannot apply in the way you think they could)

[Rat]

Can you now leave me alone? My mind works in twisted ways most people here would never understand. I can find the loophole/flaw in nearly everything, even if it is complete bullshit.

Steven - the original topic (if I remember correctly) was the question of how much armor to wear while presenting the speech on evolution to those of lesser intelligence. I'm not entirely sure how the thermodynamics thing came to be discussed.

[Coaster]

Just to tell you, I did present the speech today.

It went quite well, but at the end {everybody} was telling me they didn't understand what I had said. I'm starting to hate jokes about being smart.

I got full marks for it though, and its a long weekend with no homework so I'm in too good of a mood for anyone critising my speech.

I didn't need any armour.
~Jeff

[Rat]

Coaster - I did you a favor and didn't tell, though I was about to.

[Impaler]

Wayfinder is highly underrated.

From what little thought I've given it, the whole entropy theory is inherently flawed. I mean, if a key point of evolution is to do something more efficiently (e.g. use less energy to accomplish the same job), then entropy is being upheld.

Plus, I think Stahlberg hit the nail on the head in saying that thermodynamics couldn't even possibly apply to sentient objects, much less the process of reproduction.

The Scope's Monkey Trial is a good read on the subject. It's basically the zygote of this type of relgion v. science debate.

Hm.

*deep thought*

[Dr.Squirley]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Impaler:


Plus, I think Stahlberg hit the nail on the head in saying that thermodynamics couldn't even possibly apply to sentient objects, much less the process of reproduction.

---

Quite right, but an interesting concept none the less, eh?

[Steven Stahlberg]

Wayfinder_at_work, precisely: the whole idea of entropy came from a relation of heat (thermal energy flow) and temperature. It wasn't meant to apply to macro objects, and even less to people and sentience and abstract concepts such as morality.

And not to DNA and evolution either, to go back to the original topic - if you make that connection then a whole bunch of phenomena are equally impossible according to The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, such as photosynthesis for instance. In fact our very existence here on earth would be impossible with that kind of interpretation of the 2nd law, the 10,000 chemicals in our bodies would immediately do what they're always striving to do, that is, oxidize - we'd all burn up.

And if the fundamentalists believe as Craig mentions, that it's all an elaborate trick by God to test us (a Godly lie, in fact, a notion which I find totally offensive), then they want to have their cake and eat it too - if one theory is incorrect then all theories are suspect, and we shouldn't put much stock in those darn Laws either.

[kantide]

quote:

---

Originally posted by edraket:
I advise you all to read Joseph Campbell.

---

I haven't read any of his books but I've seen most of his videos. Good stuff, very interesting.

[edible snowman]

certainly we're less happy now than when we lived in shithole serfdoms with a life expectancy of about 25 or 30 years. if you measure it like that, you have to take into account that the definition of happiness changed with the invention of home entertainment systems.

[Steven Stahlberg]

Evolution works very slowly, you wouldn't notice it's effects in recorded history. Yes people were shorter in ancient times, but mainly because of malnutrition.

In any case, we won't be seeing any more effects of evolution on us. We've evolved to a point where evolution can't touch it anymore. We are officially unlinked from Darwinism, a rogue species loose inside Gaia, unlinking other species around us left and right - all our domesticated animals, for instance, will never again be affected by natural selection. The same goes for all the species we have exterminated. In fact you could think of us as the nemesis of evolution.

[Snorkles]

ok- i havent read all the replies, so I dont know if anyone has already said what I�m going to say but here goes: The way I see it, evolution is nothing. Mankind hasn�t developed anything the time it has had on earth. Maybe biological and stuff, but filosophical:No.The main goal in every mans life is to achieve happiness, and you have the same chance of acheiving happiness in your life now, as you would have had if you lived in the 80�s or the year 1451. Maybe we have De-evoluted, or complicated things too much, maybe its harder to acheive happiness now than it was in the dawn of man. I think we should either build a big Love Factory where everybody fucks all the time, or we should just construct a big A-bomb and end humanity.

[spooge demon]

And now for the deterministic hour�

I think the distinction between artificial and natural is meaningless. We are a product of this ecosystem. We might alter it, on purpose or not, (beavers screw up rivers with dams, we build parking lots or maybe, bigger dams) and a new equilibrium will be reached, but don�t evaluate that new equilibrium with sentimental eyes. If we destroy life on the planet, does it really matter to anyone or anything? Would the planet be better off with or without the dusting of self replicating DNA that occupies a razor thin layer here? I just don�t think it matters to anyone but us. It is hard to overcome the idea that life is objectively �good,� radioactively glowing rocks �bad.� The idea of good or bad only has meaning in relation to our interests.

And the time scales make any damage we do easily repairable with no intervention at all. Even isotopes with extremely long half-lives will eventually decay and life will probably begin again.

You might think this is a little gloomy and makes activity pointless. It�s not! It is just on a more realistic footing now. It matters to me a whole lot what goes on here, it is just I have no illusions about it mattering to anyone but me/us.

I hope eventually humans will become adult enough to not have to invent surrogate parents to give their life structure. Can�t get out of bed without the idea that God has a plan for you? Why do you need to feel that special? Your life is not pointless, it is yours, do something with it.

The idea of complexity is a relative one. We marvel at the complexity of the universe, what an incredible thing it is. But that perception could be saying that out brains are, relatively speaking, simple.

Steven, there are several places in the Bible where God tests people in a variety of shady ways as I am sure you know.

I am sorry if I offend anyone with these thoughts. They are just ideas, I don�t take them that seriously, and don�t often think about them.

[wayfinder]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Stahlberg:
Evolution works very slowly, you wouldn't notice it's effects in recorded history. Yes people were shorter in ancient times, but mainly because of malnutrition.

In any case, we won't be seeing any more effects of evolution on us. We've evolved to a point where evolution can't touch it anymore. We are officially unlinked from Darwinism, a rogue species loose inside Gaia, unlinking other species around us left and right - all our domesticated animals, for instance, will never again be affected by natural selection. The same goes for all the species we have exterminated. In fact you could think of us as the nemesis of evolution.

---

I do think evolution can touch us, although not in that special way that makes our tummies feel all funny anymore. in the long term, it looks to me, mankind is on its way to the "hive mind", where the species acts as an organism - the ascent to the "next level", so to speak. this sounds awfully like i'm quite the nutcase, but i assure you that i most probably ain't it's not going to happen soon, but i think the tendencies are there to be observed. people like myself (and possibly most of you guys) will not be very fit for such a life, but evolution doesn't reward individuality much right now, it seems. we'll talk again in 10000 years. contrary to popular belief, though, resistance isn't entirely futile

[Steven Stahlberg]

Spooge Demon - yes so far we haven't done too much damage to the earth, but with the ever accelerating advances of technology, where will it end?
(Some say the Singularity is coming, others say no.)
(I'm not saying 'artificial' is bad, just that we can disregard evolution as a factor from now on.)

I do know that nanotech and AI advances have a serious potential to totally change the face of this planet (imagine if a self-replicating nano-machine got loose, that converts rock into sludge or something)... even to colonize other planets and, 'convert' them too.

I do believe the human race (or what comes after us) will colonize this galaxy in a relatively short time, exploding across it like mildew on a sandwich in stop-frame filming. (It's the Fermi Paradox - you can figure out how quickly an intelligent species can move to a new star, grow enough to be able to send out a new colony ship, and so on. Even if you set the speeds to well below light-speed, the distance between habitable systems very large, and the timeframes of growth to many hundreds of years, the timespan you end up with is only a tiny little fraction of the time this galaxy has been habitable. The paradox is, how come no other species has spread throughout the galaxy already, when there are so many other places life may have started?)
Some smart people say the only way a civilization can grow is to use more and more energy, so it will eventually use up all energy in a star system, then move on. We could be talking the total annihilation of the galaxy, star system by star system...
This is the perspective I was looking at evolution from - traditional 'survival of the fittest' has no effect on us anymore, from now on we write our own destiny - sort of.

Wayfinder, a hive mind, well that could happen too, it wouldn't exclude colonization and exploitation at the levels I mentioned above.

[klaivu]

Human evolution is mainly cultural evolution now. Ideas, beliefs and customs form a 'ecosystem' of their own, in which the stronger eats the weaker.

[Rat]

With global warming and all that, humans will eventually have to adapt/evolve to be able to handle the heat. There will also be higher water levels, less snow in the north/south poles, so humans will have to get adapt to either living in a very small area together, or possibly living under water.

I'm not talking about the next fifty - a hundred years. I'm saying a millenium or more.

So basically, everything can evolve. If we were forced to live underwater, we'd eventually develop say...webbed feet and hands.

I don't know whether you'd classify this as "evolution" or "adaptation." I personally think it's a cross between the two.

[Snorkles]

Evoulution will not matter in the future. Some day we will have the power to travel in time, mix with memories and brains,build robots that are exactly like humans. Existence will not be as clear and understandable as it has been. I think we are evoluting into nothingness.

[Lapjos]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coaster:
Just to tell you, I did present the speech today.

It went quite well, but at the end {everybody} was telling me they didn't understand what I had said. I'm starting to hate jokes about being smart.

I got full marks for it though, and its a long weekend with no homework so I'm in too good of a mood for anyone critising my speech.

I didn't need any armour.
~Jeff

---

Hehe, I had to do the same today but instead of Darwin's theory I had to present G.B. Shaws theory on Creative Evolution and how his views are taken up in Pygmalion. The result was the same. Nobody did understand. Speeches won't do with this complex subject.

[Rat]

Why don't people use understandable subjects like their pet anymore?
(that's actually what I did my speech on)