Evolution And My Job

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305003740' post='2239537']
Are you [i]really [/i]serious?
[/quote]
Okay, since you took my bait it is over. Since you're new on this site I was taking the opportunity to practice the art of trolling. You were fabulous. Thank you.

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305000259' post='2239503']
xSilverPhinx, I get the feeling that you've recently read [i]The Greatest Show on Earth[/i] (based on your choice of examples). Allow me to refute Dawkins and all those evolution people for you:

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/evolution-treeofevil.jpg[/IMG]

[/quote]
Yeah, I hate Uniformitarianism. People shouldn't worship uniforms.

[xSilverPhinx]

Dam.

If there were a bunch of 'me's in an environment full of trolls I think the 'me's would die out soon

Donald Trump's hair? Did he really will it to grow back just as the giraffe in my avatar didn't know when to stop reaching for the trees? Nevermind...I really don't want to know.

I like Dawkins. He's cool.

Edited May 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305006996' post='2239554']
Dam.

If there were a bunch of 'me's in an environment full of trolls I think the 'me's would die out soon [/quote]
Trolling is addictive. Winchester got me into it. Thanks for playing and being cool.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305006996' post='2239554']Donald Trump's hair? Did he really will it to grow back just as the giraffe in my avatar didn't know when to stop reaching for the trees? Nevermind...I really don't want to know. [/quote]
I hope that argument wasn't too low a blow. I was going out with guns blazing.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305006996' post='2239554']I like Dawkins. He's cool.[/quote]
He's participated in rallies against teh Church and teh Pope which are not based on reason imo. Made him seem more like a extremist to me. That whole "arrest the Pope" thing for example. The sex abuse scandal is awful but many people have distorted it and focused on the Church in a fanatical way.
As a popularizer of biology I like Dawkins. [i]The God Delusion[/i] has some serious flaws and is overrated imo, but I thought [i]The Ancestor's Tale[/i] was pretty amesome and [i]The Greatest Show on Earth[/i] is cool for what it is. (Even [i]The Selfish Gene[/i] is largely a work of popularization based upon Williams' theories; although I don't mean to diminish Dawkins as a scientist I merely mean to say that my appreciation of him is limited to this level as these are the things I've read.) Anyway, he's a mixed bag and I think he's probably overrated. I'd take Carl Sagan over Dawkins any day.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]Trolling is addictive. Winchester got me into it. Thanks for playing and being cool.[/quote]

I guess I ought to look out for Winchester then

To be honest for a while there I really was wondering if you were a satirical imitator of creationists since it can be difficult to tell the satire apart from the real thing. That in itself is an artform, IMO.

[quote]I hope that argument wasn't too low a blow. I was going out with guns blazing. [/quote]

Nah, I think Trump must be frustrated that the versions creationists often use doesn't work in real life

[quote]He's participated in rallies against teh Church and teh Pope which are not based on reason imo. Made him seem more like a extremist to me. That whole "arrest the Pope" thing for example. The sex abuse scandal is awful but many people have distorted it and focused on the Church in a fanatical way.
As a popularizer of biology I like Dawkins. [i]The God Delusion[/i] has some serious flaws and is overrated imo, but I thought [i]The Ancestor's Tale[/i] was pretty amesome and [i]The Greatest Show on Earth[/i] is cool for what it is. (Even [i]The Selfish Gene[/i] is largely a work of popularization based upon Williams' theories; although I don't mean to diminish Dawkins as a scientist I merely mean to say that my appreciation of him is limited to this level as these are the things I've read.) Anyway, he's a mixed bag and I think he's probably overrated. I'd take Carl Sagan over Dawkins any day. [/quote]

His modus operandi is a bit aggressive. I think he's trying to accomplish change and that his intentions are actually good, though he uses the more aggressive path to that which may not be as effective as he would like. He himself said that in some instances, such as calling indoctrination "child abuse" were a little extreme and fallacious, but he does that to draw people's attention to the issue. Again, negative attention might not be the best way to reach long term change.
I think he focuses too heavily on the religion aspect itself, when the main problem as I identify it has more to do with how people think (critical thinking and awareness makes people more immune to the loads of rubbish that we take in on a daily basis in all forms) and not what they choose to believe. Between having smart theists who have beliefs they find reasonable and actually are reasonable and stupid atheists who take in whatever trash comes their way it's better to have the former.
As for the scandal and attempted cover-up, I think that to an extent Dawkins is right though it is unreasonable to expect or want the Pope to be arrested as if he had perpetuated the act himself, it's the criminals that should've been arrested and tried by secular authorities - but he should be held proportionally accountable if he knew about what was going on and failed to do the decent thing. The outrage is justified, but it should be proportional.

(maybe a topic for another thread, for now this one is getting dangerously close to being hijacked)

A Sagan fan too? You have good taste

Edited May 10, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Laudate_Dominum]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Troll-Face-problem.jpg[/IMG]

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1304997269' post='2239461']
It has been subjected to tests for the last 150 years, and hasn't been falsified yet.
[/quote]

!!! I just got my favorite proof of the Catholic Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111!!!!!!!

"It has been subjected to tests for the last 2000 years, and hasn't been falsified yet."

FTW!!!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1305020951' post='2239587']
[img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/Troll-Face-problem.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

Sigh.

Looks like Winchester's made a troll out of you...



[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305052538' post='2239710']
!!! I just got my favorite proof of the Catholic Church!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! !111111111111!!!!! !!

"It has been subjected to tests for the last 2000 years, and hasn't been falsified yet."

FTW!!!



[/quote]


Well if a theory hasn't been falsified doesn't automatically make it [i]proved[/i].

Back to the drawing board!

[xSilverPhinx]

Back to the parts I didn't comment on:

[quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1304895745' post='2238836']
[font="Arial Narrow"][size="3"]Additionally a hypothetical could be, lets say that like Men in Black, our world is just a spec in the world of a different living being. Lets say that that particular living being, everyday eats a meal and discards the uneaten portions like the rest of the people in our world. Now lets say that the discarded portions bread bacteria [as does in our world] and that creates a form of life that gives rise to other forms of life. That is a form of intelligence that gives rise to a lessor form of intelligence too.[/quote]

See this is where your definition of intelligence confuses me, because I had always seen the theistic and deistic notion of intelligence as something that was purposefully and consciously designed with the intent to create our universe. If you're going to broaden the it to that level, then I can't disagree with you, though I wouldn't use the word "intelligence" and certainly wouldn't use it to point toward there being some god out there.

Another hypothetical: the Matrix, with us living in a simulation. That would be intelligent design because there's an intent and the conscious purpose to create a universe, even if it's all just software.

[quote]I'm not saying that there is scientific evidence to say, "this for sure is what it is", hell no...I'm sorry dust...heck no. However, we only have 1% of the picture so what do we know? Not only do scientists not have a clue as to how great white sharkes breed, but even archeologists barely have discovered 1% of all discoveries. Just a few years ago they discovered a city larger then los angelas in south america. It virtualy went unnoticed. Same goes for this subject.[/quote]

Because all the evidence points to us all having a common ancestor. That's what it it, it all points in that direction with no data having emerged yet which would seriously put that into doubt. But yes, one day something could turn up but so far it has not.

[quote]He is a senior fellow but don't get lost in that. Not only does the discovery institutue not represent all of intelligent design [it has strayed from it's original intent to be honest] but Dr. Berlinski, unlike many of the fellows there, refuses to theorize about the origins of life but also refers to his relationship with them as, "[font="Arial"]warm but distant. It's the same attitude that I display in public toward my ex-wives."[sup] This is because he is agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life. He is a true agnostic.[/sup][/font]

Well I disagree with you, he's opposing Darwin's Theory. Surely Darwin's Theory as Darwin understood it, had nothing to do with the origins of life but rather what came after, despite what he named his book. However those who have furthered the theory put that in the situation of the origins of life. He's saying that mathmatically speaking, if we calculate the odds of a single cell organism developing as a result of evolution, it's impossible.
[/size][/font][font="Arial Narrow"][size="3"]Well I disagree with you, I think that the theory relies heavily upon the fossil record and Eugenie Scott conceded this point to him in one of their debates.

Natural Selection is the most widely accepted and is considered to be the most varified of all forms. If that has limitations, I don't think that the other forms of evolution are going to further the discussion, when they run into the same problems.[/size][/font][/quote][font="Arial Narrow"][size="3"]

Have you read his book? Because usually the title does say a lot and if he's mixing the theory of evolution with the facts and hypotheses of abiogenesis, then that is suspicious from a scientific point of view. The facts and hypotheses of abiogenesis are still being pieced together and tested, and we don't even know how it happened so how can he say for sure that it's "impossible" (argument from ignorance and incredibility)? And why does he group the two into one?

Besides, there are so many other alternatives which could be taken into account and tested.
[/size][/font]

[sixpence]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305059006' post='2239776']


Well if a theory hasn't been falsified doesn't automatically make it [i]proved[/i].

Back to the drawing board!
[/quote]

lol..... science.... you do not PROVE anything.... science aint like that

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305059006' post='2239776']
Well if a theory hasn't been falsified doesn't automatically make it [i]proved[/i].

Back to the drawing board!
[/quote]

*grins* I was just poking fun at the logic "It's old so it must be true" being used on a Catholic board.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305215207' post='2240487']
*grins* I was just poking fun at the logic "It's old so it must be true" being used on a Catholic board.
[/quote]

And I would suggest to people who use that line of thinking to convert to Vedic Hinduism then since it is truer.

Edited May 12, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305217021' post='2240500']
And I would suggest to people who use that line of thinking to convert to Vedic Hinduism then since it is truer.
[/quote]

*grins* well played.

So do you think Hinduism is a single religion? They certainly have an interesting philosophy towards other religions . . . kindof a borg mentality: "All your religion are belong to us."

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305307485' post='2240911']
*grins* well played.

So do you think Hinduism is a single religion? They certainly have an interesting philosophy towards other religions . . . kind of a borg mentality: "All your religion are belong to us."
[/quote]

You know even after having lived in India for 3 years, I don't know that much about the particulars of Hinduism. They worship literally thousands of gods which are in turn all manifestations of one god, so for one it's easy to confuse Hinduism as being a polytheistic religion when in fact they really like plurality.

And speaking of plurality, it was my impression that as a label, Hinduism is much broader than Christianity, and is unified by a set of beliefs that accompany traditions rather than doctrines. There are temples dedicated to a certain manifestation of the one god Vishnu but there aren't any official churches along the lines of the Vatican. I don't know if I would call it a religion...and if it is, then yes, I think it would be one religion, though would that operates on slightly different grounds.

I think they certainly have a head start, having written down their philosophies [i]way[/i] before the Jews wrote the Torah but I don't see it as one religion having spawned all the others in their totality. Of course, there are influences (even within Christianity such as Zoroastrianism) but I credit some philosophies with human beings and our minds rather than a religion. Our minds evolved, religions were bound to evolve and supernatural thinking in turn was bound to be organized into religions or philosophies as an almost universal occurrence.

It may look like hindsight bias but I think that religion is an inevitable byproduct of the human mind.

For instance, early humans such as cro magnons buried their dead in ways that would highly suggest they believed in the afterlife. Some archeo anthropologists believe that even cave paintings were a way they tried to communicate with what was behind the wall or beyond matter, as if the wall was a curtain that separated the natural would from the supernatural. Add in the knowledge of one's inevitable death (so far it isn't clear how other highly intelligent species such as chimps and dolphins perceive death) and the natural desire not to die and the fact that we as conscious beings are only limited to our experience of consciousness. In other words, it can be really difficult to imagine the experience of being non conscious for a conscious mind. We're also pattern-seeking animals, and sometimes that can lead to erroneous conclusions and attribute an effect to a false cause such as in primitive superstitious behavior like thinking that an animal sacrifice will bring about rain etc and thus form beliefs about the world that can be wrong.

Anyways, there are a few more arguments in favour of this.

So, because of this, some religious concepts are going to overlap. In Hindusim, they also believe in the 'ultimate reality', which they call [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman"]Brahman[/url].

[quote]In Hinduism, [b]Brahman[/b] is the one supreme, universal Spirit that is the origin and support of the phenomenal universe.[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman#cite_note-0"] [/url][/sup]Brahman is sometimes referred to as the Absolute or Godhead which is the Divine Ground of the primordial Being Hiranyagarha and all subsequent Creation. Brahman is conceived as personal (with qualities), impersonal (without qualities) and supreme depending on the philosophical school.[/quote]

Does it sound familiar in anyway?

Edited May 13, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305314175' post='2240966']
You know even after having lived in India for 3 years, I don't know that much about the particulars of Hinduism. They worship literally thousands of gods which are in turn all manifestations of one god, so for one it's easy to confuse Hinduism as being a polytheistic religion when in fact they really like plurality.

. . .

And speaking of plurality, it was my impression that as a label, Hinduism is much broader than Christianity, and is unified by a set of beliefs that accompany traditions rather than doctrines. There are temples dedicated to a certain manifestation of the one god Vishnu but there aren't any official churches along the lines of the Vatican. I don't know if I would call it a religion...and if it is, then yes, I think it would be one religion, though would that operates on slightly different grounds.

. . .

Anyways, there are a few more arguments in favour of this.

So, because of this, some religious concepts are going to overlap. In Hindusim, they also believe in the 'ultimate reality', which they call [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman"]Brahman[/url].

Does it sound familiar in anyway?
[/quote]

Strictly speaking, I believe the number is 330 Million gods . . . they probably figured everyone has their own personal god . . . before the population of people exceeded that of the gods.

As for a practical reason for Hinduism, they manage to avoid the Peter Principle. [url="http://dilbert.com/fast/1995-02-05/"]No pointy haired bosses![/url]

Yes, the Christian/Jewish response to others having similar beliefs is that God can work through false ideas to bring about His truth . . . but it's much faster if you just start off with true ideas.