Dammit, that was sexy....Evolution, if only because I've been taught to think for myself and primarily from empirical data.
Lexi - everything you describe as being "perfect" is simply an example of "survival of the fittest".
Dammit, that was sexy....Evolution, if only because I've been taught to think for myself and primarily from empirical data.
Lexi - everything you describe as being "perfect" is simply an example of "survival of the fittest".
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye





One of the interesting misconceptions I see permeating many of these postings is the idea that humans exist at the pinacle of evolution. The old idea that evolution looks like a pyramid, with everything trying to be us. As much as we try to create god in our own image and place ourselves at the center of the universe, evil forces keep rearing their ugly heads and showing us that we're not as special as we want to be. And doesn't that just cause us to have a collective little tantrum. The truth is that the pattern of evolution is more like a candelabra. Everything is at the top of its evolution, for now.
Evolution is not about achieving a subjective qualitative level, but rather about adapting to the environment in which a species finds itself. The individuals with something that works just a little better live to reproduce disproportionately to those individuals that lack that particular characteristic. A great example of that is the moth that Madcap referenced. As England became more polluted and everything grew more dingy, the dominant lighter variant was at a disadvantage. They got eaten by birds that could easily pick them off the dirty tree bark. Those very few moths with a darker coloration had a selecive advantage. They were better camoflauged in the dirtier new order. They didn't become bird food so quickly and lived to reproduce. A very good representation of natural selection in action. Adaptation in response to a changed environment.
There is no pinacle of evolution. There's only what fits, what fits better, and what doesn't fit. As impressed with ourselves as we get, there are bacteria that live in toxic heat vents at the bottom of the ocean in a place where we would find ourselves ill suited and, quickly, dead. In that place, being a bacteria works better.
In the end, a body is just a gene's way of making more genes. And genes don't care what form that body takes.
Also, as much as I love science fiction, there is, unfortunately, no biological mechanism available that will allow any of us to evolve into gods or energy beings. Again, fitting into the enviornment is really the only goal. Actually, it's not even so much a goal as an effect. Nothing trys to fit. It's just that forms that fit better are better represented in subsequent generations.
As to the assertions that we're the only animals that feel emotion. I would suggest that anyone who believes that has been severely deprived of the opportunity to live with the other inhabitants of this planet.
As to the assertion that we're the only one's with souls (yeah, I know, off topic):
You knew I was going to stick in a few lifted quotes here, someplace, didn't you?"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to heaven, very, very few persons."
--James Thurber
"You think dogs will not be in heaven? I tell you, they will be there long before any of us."
--Robert Louis Stevenson
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."
--Unknown
If there is a heaven, it's certain our animals are to be there.
--Pam Brown
"The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's."
--Mark Twain
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
I told ya I was just rambling. LOLOriginally Posted by MojoJojo link=board=1;threadid=11146;start=msg143728#msg143 728 date=1090775721
Well, "survival of the fittest" is kind of misleading, too. It's actually "Survival of the best suited to it's environment."
Yup....which is something I've always liked about that statement."survival of the fittest" is kind of misleading
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye
When I consider the miracle of conception or how all the myriad entities on Earth and perhaps throughout the universe work together like a well oiled machine I have to believe there is some intelligence behind it. Not sure if it is a personal God or just a guiding hand but I have a hard time believing its just a pure accident.
FBR
Once again I have embraced my addiction and have put off the moral dilemma to another day.



In the grand scheme, scientists know exaclty nothing. They have maybe one piece of a puzzle containing billions of pieces. The amount they ubderstand is so minute, it equals nothing.





Possibly, but the amount of crap people can make up simply because they'd like something to believe in is, pretty much, infinite.
"He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!"
But on a more serious note:First, you say they know exactly nothing, but then they have maybe one piece, which is already more than exactly nothing.In the grand scheme, scientists know exaclty nothing. They have maybe one piece of a puzzle containing billions of pieces. The amount they ubderstand is so minute, it equals nothing.
Second, your statement about "the amount they ubderstand" has absolutely no scientific basis.
Third, it astonishes me that people feel that it is more "reasonable" to believe that some all powerful something or other sprinkled pixy dust on the universe to magically create life, rather than considering the various theories regarding the creation of life.
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye
Ryan~Originally Posted by RYAN link=board=1;threadid=11146;start=msg143838#msg143 838 date=1090793056
First let me say that i respect your opinion. It's as valid as mine is.
But...
Let me also say that you should actually read up before you say scientists know exactly nothing. As far as now much scientists don't know, all you need do is ask a scientist. They will be the first to admit how much they don't know. But what they DO know is pretty mindblowing, and a hell of a lot more mindblowing than mystical stuff ever was. Try reading up on Quantum theory, you might like it. A lot of what you say (minus the reincarnation stuff) is validated by Quantum. Other dimensions, time, souls, maybe even god. Superstring theory is another one you might like. If thgere's any evidence of God to be found, superstring is likely where it's at.
If a scientist has a theory, carries out experiments to test the theory, and the experiments go to prove the theory, it's generally an indication that the scientist "knows something."
If the scientist then makes a prediction and the results bear out the prediction, that would be further indication that the scientist "knows something."
As Ryan and the rest of us type into our computers, and our actions become digital impulses that are calculated by thumbnail-size chips carrying out millions of other calculations, and are then transmitted through the air, copper wires, fiber optic wires, to each other's computer where that same process goes into reverse, it's all because scientists "know something."
When we fire up the car engine and explosions of fossil fuels propel us along on our wheels and we crank the electronics to pick out minuscule signals in the airwaves, and pick up our cell phones to answer a call, it's because scientists "know something."
The difference between trying to understand something and accepting on faith what seems right is huge. It's the difference between trying to find out what's really happening and accepting whatever seems right at the moment.
It's getting dark. Excuse me while I go flick the light switch, which sends out a little feather to tickle the faerie's ass inside the light bulb to make her glow.![]()
Oh come on nowOriginally Posted by RYAN link=board=1;threadid=11146;start=msg143838#msg143 838 date=1090793056
. Granted, there is sooo much out there that is considered "unknown" and probably will not be "known" anytime in the near future, but how far have we come in the past 100, 50, 10 even 5 years? Proven hypotheses become theories, which breed new hypotheses, which may or may not become theories (and so on and so forth). Until one of the first theories (such as, "when ogg no drink water, ogg no feel good") is eventually proven false, than we are truly advancing our knowledge - at a dramatic pace I might add.
On another note, I just read "Angels and Demons" by Dan Brown. Absolutely an excellent book. It deals with the struggle and conflict of religion and science. I highly recommend reading this book! (it's fiction btw). EDITED TO ADD: It also involves the discussion of the view that the advancement of science further separates man from the belief of gods or a god. Quite on the contrary. As we grow to learn more of our world and the universe we live in, the complexity yet harmony of life will further prove the existence of a higher power or being. A perfect scientific understanding of the universe, IMHO, will lead to a perfect understanding of God.
Oh, and JZ, well said!
Thats whay I am saying.Originally Posted by FBR link=board=1;threadid=11146;start=msg143826#msg143 826 date=1090790879
![]()
Maybe there is a god, i don't know. i wish i did.
Madcap is a lot nicer than I am.First let me say that i respect your opinion. It's as valid as mine is.
Now come on....if we knew the answer to this, can you imagine the chaos that would ensue? Not to mention losing a great topic to discuss in a room full of drunkerds! I always like bringing up religion and politics during happy hourMaybe there is a god, i don't know. i wish i did.![]()
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye
Hey, we like to respect others, at least i do.
Yes, sir. I respect every single person here and every single opinion. Honest.Hey, we like to respect others, at least i do.
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye



That's it, im just expressing my opinion, and I respect everyone else's. I do not believe in the bible creation, but I do beleive there is some higher force, or higher sea of knowledge to make this whole thing work. Who knows the truth. I just don't agree with scientists trying to pass some shit off as fact when it isn't.
Scientists don't ever try to pass shit off as fact when it isn't. Scientists (at least the credible ones) pass shit off as theories if it is something that cannot be proven. Scientists are more skeptical of scientific theory than anyone else.
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye
Ryan, that's all well and good, but when you spout off an emotional, unreasoned statement like "scientists know exactly nothing," as you sit at your computer in your lighted house with your picture retained by a scanner or digital camera staring back at you - the computer, lights, house, scanner, camera, all developed by scientists - then you can surely expect your respected opinion to be returned to you.Originally Posted by RYAN link=board=1;threadid=11146;start=msg144184#msg144 184 date=1090858584



I was referring to the field of human origin, NOT electronics and electricity.
I was simply stating that the amount (percentage wise) that scientists know about creation, the planet and the universe is so small that it actually equals nothing. Just stating a fact.
I am quite aware of our amazing technological breakthroughs in the electronics world in the past 15 years. I was more talking about the topic of the thread, not scanners and fax machinesa and pagers. Of course humans know about the history of these things becasue we created them. Humankind, the moon, sun, and universe on the other hand remain as much of a mystery as they did for millenia. Man knows no more when sitting out at night lookin up at the stars about our creation than he did doing the same 10,000 years ago. My guess is that in another 10,000 years we will not know any more. Becasue although we may have theroys, how will we ever know how we ended up on this little planet spinning around the sun, in the middle of space, amongst trillions of other palnets, moons, stars and suns. The earth is literally like 1 grain of sand amongst all of the grains of sand on earth. The earth would be like 1 cell of a human body that contained 80 trillion cells.
Our brains simply don't have the mathmatical capacity to see how immensly big our whole plane of existence really is.





Ryan, for once I agree with you. We don't know shit about where the fuck we are, or how the fuck we got here. We are a tiny little dot in a fucking macrocosm. To limit our understanding to a book written around 3,000 years ago about human existence would be like a human cell limiting its beliefs to a book written by the oldest cell in the human body....
I am going against the grain here and saying that scientists have come a long way obviously, but in the grand scheme of things, we don't know shit. We can't even prove what happens to a human "soul" when the body dies....
Only the brains that believe that something equals "exactly nothing" and then says it's a fact.Our brains simply don't have the mathmatical capacity to see how immensly big our whole plane of existence really is.
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye





Scientists are reaching as far as they can go, and they do know that their understanding is incredibly limited. Ryan is actually right in theory; his ideas just aren't well-expressed.Originally Posted by MojoJojo link=board=1;threadid=11146;start=msg145216#msg145 216 date=1091003252
I disagree. They have a clear understanding of their limitations, and strive continuously (and achieve) at discovering more and reaching farther.
"The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind."
-Humphrey Bogart
"Sir, if you were my husband, I would poison your drink."
-Lady Astor to Winston Churchill
"Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it."
-His reply
"If God had intended us to drink beer, He would have given us stomachs."
-David Daye
Bookmarks