Evolution soapbox....

[CPL CHUD]

I miss some of the religious and theological discussions we used to have on here before the board got a face lift, so I thought I'd get on my soapbox for a bit with some of my contentions against Creationism.

"Why isn't evolution considered a law of science? If it hold so much weight why would it remain a theory?"

It hasn't been proven as law because it hasn't been proven from every angle mathematically. To fundamentalists it will never be proven because the bible says differently and that's the end of the matter for them. They watch the Flinstones like it's a documentary.

"Where are our monkey ancestors?"

Most believe our closest living relative to be the bonobo monkey, not the chimp. Our actual closest relative died millions of years ago, so of course we wouldn't have the exact same genetic structure. Plus if we did (have 100% the same genetics), we'd be chimps ourselves.

All evolution proves is that we, in fact, share the same lineage as monkeys. The fact that there are genes, we pass them, there are mutations, and the strata are layered in increasing levels of complexity should be enough to at least compel most to believe there is something to the theory worth serious investigation.

"Evolution doesn't explain love, love is an immaterial thing, therefore God made it be."

Love evolved as a survival mechanism in species (mainly mammal) to protect their offspring and propegate their species. There have been many studies demonstrating the exact chemicals and hormones triggered by the brain in response to feeling loved. It's not a complete mystery and it doesn't come from immaterial forces.

Morality exists because we born into a community. As mammals we live depending on one another, and in society we depend on laws and moral code to protect our self interests, protect the ones we love, and to promote our species as a whole to survive into the next generation (passing the seed). Morality is not dependent on religion, or supernatural watchmen. Even a group of wolves operates as a pack to promote the survival of their species, to help each other out; share the kill. Helping others, even those you do not know, promotes emotional health and stability. These things are built into most of us genetically. At our very core is the need to survive, then the need to see our loved ones survive. If it was the other way around, and our genetics did not influence us to surivive, to work together, to protect the young, our partners, our kind, it's unlikely we would have survived as a race.

Morality is not based on dogmatic superstition but rather reason. We reason that to be accepted into an community, and to not lead a miserable life, we must be productive. We must not take human life (from our tribe). We must not be unloyal to our family, to our loved ones, to those that are productive and give something back to us. None of this requires otherworldly influence.

"Why can't we teach Creationism in school? It's a theory too!"

Most Christians, even the Pope, give credence to evolution. This country is primarily run by Christians who hold office. The problem with teaching Creationism is that it is not a scientificaly held belief, it is a religious one, and to keep a seperation between the church and state it is not taught in most schools. It's not some crazy conspiracy being propagated by atheists. Plus among most credited U.S. scientists (many of whom are Christians) only a very, very small percent of them actually believe in Creationism. By my last check it was a little under 1%.

"Something as complex as organic life must have been created by some sort of higher form of intelligence."

Many scientists consider nature to have been built by a blind watchmaker, especialy conscerning biological functions. It has been demonstrated that out of pure randomness complex functions can be formed over long stretches of time without bending the rules of mathematics. There are several bboks I know of that demonstrate this. Randomness and unpredictable particle movements are actually an accepted function of physics as well, so even excluding nature we find a world underlined in "chaos".

Science is not set up to answer why we exist, if there is even a reason. Maybe there isn't a grand reason. Maybe it is just to pass on our genetics. Who knows, because the answers could be endless, or it could sum up to absolutely nothing. I can live with that.

Albert Einstein: "From the standpoint of daily life . . . there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men - above all for those upon whose smiles and well-being our own happiness depends."

Thomas Jefferson: "Fix Reason firmly in her seat . . . . Question with boldness even the existence of a God . . . . Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you."

[swivel]

Evolution is an observable FACT.

Natural Selection is one of the theories (the strongest one) that posits how evolution occurred.

God is another theory used to explain how evolution occurred. It just doesn't have any evidence going for it at the moment.

Let's stop the bad habit of confusing "Evolution" with "Natural Selection". Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, was a proponent of Evolution many years before Darwin was even born. And since Darwin came up with the theory of Natural Selection (co-credited), it would requre time travel to make one of these equal the other.

Evolution is an observable fact because we can look at the fossil record and see that organisms have gradual modifications, that most organisms are now extinct (99.99% of them) and that new ones have taken their place. These organisms follow a direct line of complexity from the simplest (and oldest) to the most complex (and most recent). No violation of this order has ever been found. Ever. So, we can observe that organisms started off as very simple things and have added complexity over billions (BILLIONS) of years. This is evolution. It is a fact. The theories attempt to explain how this happened.

Please, do your part to end the insanity of confusing evolution with natural selection. Please remember this lesson, and try to tell a dozen people each week. And have them spread the news as well. I beg you.

[alizardsbet]

i love how people always try to picture god or the creator or whatever you want to think was the hand behind your creation and inconsequential existence to be a biennial, intelligent, higher being. perhaps our almighty creator is nothing more but a leech bug that came into some good luck at the time, had a terrible tummy ache, and crapped out the universe. that's one way to look at creation or evolution. i could also to soothe aggravated nerves say that you could look at the process of evolution, that seems to naturally lead from one creature to the next, as the end product of a tireless artist constantly seeking to refine his work. look at bugs bunny and compare that to the many types of finches there are in the world. either way something gave way to give us life... and more than likely is no longer here as a result of our coming to be. its been vogue for the last millennia or so to say there is only One, and surely there was originally the one... but sense time immemorable there have been others that have worn the roll.

However those are all just lovely theories to explain existence, crude, inexperienced perspectives of the true meaning of life. science is just another cult, it has its rituals, its holy men, its heretics, and fanatics, and the blind followers who put all their hope and dreams in it. it was produced by humans the same way as the older, "more traditional" forms of explaining the classics of "why?" and "how?" of that "what" we perceive in our senses. some radical creature of the time stepped away from the norm, and into something yet unknown and has sense then been trying through countless successors to rationalize it. yet at the time of the birth of that idea of a creator we were stepping away from base animals living in the present frame of time flow. when religion was usurped we were then stepping out of the world of everything existing in harmony "as one" into the break down and microscopic world of utter isolation and chaos. who knows where we will be when we take the next step.

science has a lot of sweet answers that seem to explain everything one could ask. perhaps our existence isn't to promote life, and the furthering of our existence, perhaps in the random world we seem to exist we are the by product of one reaction begetting another that is like wise distributing that initial force. the force then to me seems not life, and likewise same genes (that's just the wrapping of the initial thing, becuz aren't we all different minutely?) but that likewise search, store, "to question endlessly" impulse in ALL of us. the simple want to understand is what binds us as a species together. and i am sure it is similar in other species and even inanimate objects, i can't prove it however at the moment.

so to put it politely... i do not think evolution should be taught in schools. i love science. biology, physics, chemistry fascinates me to no end, as does mythology, and history but i refuse to believe that the laws that govern our small pitiful galaxy dictate the rest of the greater existence we can not yet attain. i read an article out there somewhere that stated just this, the laws of gravity that we follow on our planet, "the what goes up must come down" thing, is looking to be untrue in other far far away solar systems. how neat is that? i mean look at our pitiful understanding of time, yet look at the huge effects it has on everything even ideas... which are thought of as immaterialist. so no, evolution is still a theory... and it is one that the science field, due to the fact it is increasingly becoming harder to prove on the finer pts so considering the possibility of a flaw, scientists are distancing themselves from the nifty little theory that some crack pot came up with a century ago. so in less we are willing to teach a broader perspective in schools it should be excluded expect where history is concerned. which is sad.

however here is an interesting question that goes against the grain of love and evolution: so force begets force right? in a perfect world, one that the natural laws of gravity or a deceleration rate exist, an object in motion will stay in motion. however the only way this was proven was some man or another after him sat under an apple tree, while in a bath tub, clacking together wood balls and watching their reaction. why? becuz obviously back then people were bored. are we so bored today that we can make the same leap and bounds our great ancestors seem to have? so if motion even in this flawed existence begets another likewise if somewhat haphazardly lesser reaction, then something had to have put the initial big bang into motion, what was bigger than the big bang? and why? sadly i think it no longer exists.

just being argumenative for the hell of it

[swivel]

alizardsbet, you are setting us back 100 years. Please use the phrase "Natural Selection" every time you say "Evolution". See my post above.

[CPL CHUD]

It also kind of bugs me when people say that gravity is a law of science. It isn't. It's still a theory because it hasn't been proven from every angle mathematicaly.

[swivel]

It also kind of bugs me when people say that gravity is a law of science. It isn't. It's still a theory because it hasn't been proven from every angle mathematicaly.

It doesn't require mathematics to move an idea from theory to law. The laws of symmetry and conservation didn't require mathematical proof to deserve the term.

A law is something which is pretty wrapped-up. It becomes a tool that you can use without worrying about it. The reason gravity is still a theory is because we know almost nothing about gravity. What causes gravity? We know there is a correlation between mass and gravity, but how does mass exert a force over infinite distance? Does it exert this force instantaneously? Is there a particle, a graviton, which transmits this force? Has the force been constant over time?

Gravity is one of the great mysteries in science right now. It could be that dark matter doesn't exist, and the reason we see spiral galaxies holding together is because the force of gravity tapers off with distance.

And that is the greatest irony! If you really want to prove that a god exists, you would do MUCH, MUCH better to point to gravity and say "That's Impossible!" than point to Life, the eye, the brain, or humans and say the same thing. We know billions of times more about life, biology, and evolution than we know about gravity. We have the former pretty much figured out, while the latter is a baffling mystery.

So the point you bring up is even more poignant than it seems on the surface.

[I am Legend]

i know this guy at work who claims that God took him to the outskirts of the universe and then back down to the smallest levels there are and then back to here. he says gravity as it is taught is fiction, along with just about every other scientific notion you can think of.

he says i am a nutcase because i dont believe in god though.

website here:
http://www.jeffeco.com (http://www.jeffeco.com/x.htm)

[swivel]

i know this guy at work who claims that God took him to the outskirts of the universe and then back down to the smallest levels there are and then back to here. he says gravity as it is taught is fiction, along with just about every other scientific notion you can think of.

he says i am a nutcase because i dont believe in god though.

website here:
http://www.jeffeco.com (http://www.jeffeco.com/x.htm)

Jefferson is a fucking idiot. He says that gravity is always attractive, but I do not think that has been proven. Inflationary theory and recent findings which suggest that the expansion of the universe is HASTENING dispute what seems to be the central pillar of his made-up bullshit philosophy.

Classic case of a coward who wants to think for himself, but can not let go of the dogma he was brainwashed with as an impressionable child. If he ever took the time to study the history of the Bible, and how a large collection of manuscripts was randomly put together and horribly translated, he wouldn't treat some dusty old (and stolen) stories with almighty weight.

Religion is one epistemology. It claims to have all truths from the get-go. It has no proof but old words, and contrary to popular belief, it IS able to be disproven.

Science is another epistemology. It does not claim to have all truths, only the currently-accepted ones which best describe observable reality. It welcomes change and constantly updates itself as improvements are discovered.

One is an oppressive system of hatred and immorality, the other is an enlightened journey towards discovery down a path of wonder. Problem is, most people hang these descriptions on the wrong epistemology.

[swivel]

Jefferson is a barking-mad fucking moron. He claims that Down's Syndrome is caused by cats when Down's Syndrome has a .50 genetic correlation, which means it can not be environmental.

I think he is confusing schizophrenia, which has been linked to cat shit, with something that is clearly genetic in nature. If you have ever seen a family with a down syndrome child, you can look at the parents and TELL that they should never have bred. Look especially for the very straight line of the back of their skull from the crown all the way to their neck. Cat shit doesn't do that to you.

I am Legend, next time you see your friend at work, please punch him in the nose for me.

[CPL CHUD]

I think the reason why religious fanatics fall flat on their face when trying to prove biblical "truth" via science is because they skip the scientific method. They start with the way they see reality to actually be and never let anything that may point otherwise outmode their theory. It's like if I decided one day that unicorns were real and then started lumping bullshit arm chair musings on top of the "truth" I declared while ignoring everything else that may challenge my claim or call it a test from God.

A law is something which is pretty wrapped-up. It becomes a tool that you can use without worrying about it. Thank you for broadening the definition of scientific law. The reason I say that it has to be proven mathematically is because it seems to get across just how much work it goes into proving a law of science and how hard it is to out mode.

I think the fact that evolution has lasted such a long time without being dismissed and outmoded should such speak volumes about its revelance.

[swivel]

I think the fact that Natrual Selection has lasted such a long time without being dismissed and outmoded should such speak volumes about its revelance.

No doubt. Especially with millions and millions of thinkers trying to find a fatal flaw in Natural Selection for religious reasons. 150 years and stronger than it ever has been. In that time, we have seen relativity replace Newtonian mechanics. We have seen Quantum Mechanics supplant classical physics. We have seen all of Freud's work go in the trash, followed by the work of Watson and Skinner, which also went into the trash. We have discovered that "cosmic clouds" are really galaxies. That the universe is expanding. That black holes exist. We have realized that the Earth's crust is floating on magma, and constantly shifting. We have learned that there are organisms called "extremophiles" that live in impossibly harsh environments, and now we are learning that there is AS MUCH biomass of these "extremophiles" as there is of EVERYTHING ELSE! It is becoming clear that WE are the extremophiles, not them, as we eek out a harsh existence in caustic O2 while bathed with cosmic radiation and battered by harsh weather.

I can't think of a single field of science which hasn't been overturned at LEAST once in 150 years. Even biology is not immune, as the turn of the century saw a HUGE mistake in thinking as biologists rejected Natural Selection for a brief period. They thought that a mixing of traits would result in generic homogeneity, making selection impossible. If only they had known of Mendel's work (done around Darwin's time), they would have known that inherited traits are digital, not analog. That mixed traits pop back into existence after skipping generations. So, the only field which has remained the same in 150 years had to come BACK to the correct theory after a brief absence.

All of this proves something very simple: The problems that people have with Natural Selection have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE. They are philosophical, spiritual, and egotistical. And that is no way to guide an epistemology if TRUTH is your intended destination.

[brokenandtwisted]

I'm not a huge fan of the theory of evolution but this gave me a chuckle...

We have genes similar to that of the donkey up to 80 per cent...

Ten points for evolution. :)

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fline/fl1811/18110780.htm

[swivel]

I'm not a huge fan of the theory of evolution but this gave me a chuckle...



Ten points for evolution. :)

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/fline/fl1811/18110780.htm

That's ok... Reality isn't a popularity contest. Things are the way they are whether you want them to be or not. ;)

[brokenandtwisted]

That's ok... Reality isn't a popularity contest. Things are the way they are whether you want them to be or not. ;)

Blah likely not...the whole 'this is this', 'this is that' is completely moronic and the argument over existence is totally redundant. There's no way in proving where that little lifeform came from that we 'evolved' from, and there's no proof of God. So, logically...arguing the point is idiocy.

[swivel]

Blah likely not...the whole 'this is this', 'this is that' is completely moronic and the argument over existence is totally redundant. There's no way in proving where that little lifeform came from that we 'evolved' from, and there's no proof of God. So, logically...arguing the point is idiocy.

Arguing the point is not idiocy, pretending that the argument is ever over, IS.

There is no evidence for God. There is mounds and mounds of evidence for evolution. We can say with complete certainty that the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam does not exist. 100% certain. That deity is able to be disproved.

Meanwhile, evolution is an observable fact. We can see by the fossil record that organisms have changed over time. And if you do not believe the fossil records (which is the true idiocy), then you can look at the evolution of species during our own lifetime. A married couple has been going to the Galapogos for over 30 years and has cataloged the changes in the finches over that time. Corn today is not the same corn of our ancestors. There are even famous cases, like the black moths of the British industrial revolution.

So:

We have witnessed evolution firsthand.

And:

No God seems to be willing to present itself to the masses.


Case closed. For everyone except the lunatics who think that the morons of 2,000 years ago had the barest concept of reality when they didn't know the germ theory of disease, that the Earth was moving through space, that DNA is the building block of life, that our Sun was not eternal, that the Earth is filled with molten magma and iron rather than caves full of demons, that the heart merely circulated blood rather than it being created in the liver over and over again. These were immoral fuck-ups that promoted slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide, the abuse of women, and illiteracy... and anyone in their right mind thinks that we should consult their dusty books to learn about reality, or morality? Idiocy.


And the moron who speaks of relativism does so from the platform of absolutism, and makes a mockery of both concepts. There IS a knowable reality, even if we can only ever hope to approximate it with our feeble brains. This approximation requires that we replace bad ideas with better ones, and that we keep doing this forever. If a better theory for how evolution occurred presents itself tomorrow, I will abandon Natural Selection in a heartbeat. This epistemology is superior to the fucking retards that will cling to their dusty tomes no matter the evidence presented.

[brokenandtwisted]

Oh I fully understand the argument...I find evolution fascinating, as with Creationism; and I'm well aware that evolution is far more concrete than gods staring down on us from the heavens. I just don't see the point in arguing something when we do not know the 'root'...I need everything to be 100% or I don't buy it.

I'm a little bias though and I believe in string theories rather than either.

[swivel]

Oh I fully understand the argument...I find evolution fascinating, as with Creationism; and I'm well aware that evolution is far more concrete than gods staring down on us from the heavens. I just don't see the point in arguing something when we do not know the 'root'...I need everything to be 100% or I don't buy it.

I'm a little bias though and I believe in string theories rather than either.

Then you will be happy to learn that string theory has zero evidence going for it. Exactly zero. It has never made a testable claim and has as strong a foundation as the Greek Gods. It was recently called out at a physics conference and is mostly seen as a dangerous drain on the global pool of bright thinkers. String theory is bunk.

And evolution is 100%. It is observable fact. It is the methods of evolution that are debated, not whether or not it happened (or IS happening). There is no doubt of evolution by anyone with even a casual understanding of it. Organisms change over time. Simple as that. Natural Selection posits three things:

1. Organisms pass on their traits to subsequent generations.
2. Organisms differ in their collection of these traits.
3. Some of these collections of differences make some organisms better at passing their traits on than other organisms.

We now know that traits are stored in the form of DNA and that this is passed on to our offspring. So, (1) is a given.

We know that all organisms vary, even identical twins suffer from mutations, so (2) is also a given.

(3) simply requires a bit of thought, logic, and observation. And this was the contribution of Darwin. If an organism mutates the protein-coding section of DNA which gives red-blood cells their flattened ovoid shape, and creates something more akin to a saddle, this heterozygous advantage makes it hard for the Plasmodium parasites to invade and multiply within. However, it also shortens the lifespan of the organism with the mutation. But, since the lifespan still goes beyond prime fertility, the cost is outweighed by the benefit. This is why malarial regions coincide with this mutation, and non-malarial ones do not. There are very few mysteries of biology not neatly explained in such a manner. No other theory explains a single one.


People reject Natural Selection because of societal pressure and brainwashing, not because of the merits of any evidence or argument. Nothing could be more shameful than blind obedience. It is the sadness of seeing a slave be kind and generous to the asshole who threatens with a lash.

I desire another proclamation, that hereby all brains can be emancipated from the horrors of group-think and superstition and employ reason and reason alone as their guide. And as the destinations of so many brains are destined to be unique, we use reason again to decide which of us has climbed higher up the slope that approximates the objective reality upon which we all feebly scramble.

And let the mantra of the weak of brain, who refuse to employ reason, simply be: "I don't know" and nothing more. We slow our ascent by having to wade through their apathetic corpses.

[brokenandtwisted]

Then you will be happy to learn that string theory has zero evidence going for it. Exactly zero. It has never made a testable claim and has as strong a foundation as the Greek Gods. It was recently called out at a physics conference and is mostly seen as a dangerous drain on the global pool of bright thinkers. String theory is bunk.

I know. It's fundamental physics but it has a lot more going for it.

It is the methods of evolution that are debated, not whether or not it happened (or IS happening). There is no doubt of evolution by anyone with even a casual understanding of it. Organisms change over time. Simple as that. Natural Selection posits three things:

1. Organisms pass on their traits to subsequent generations.
2. Organisms differ in their collection of these traits.
3. Some of these collections of differences make some organisms better at passing their traits on than other organisms.

We now know that traits are stored in the form of DNA and that this is passed on to our offspring. So, (1) is a given.

We know that all organisms vary, even identical twins suffer from mutations, so (2) is also a given.

(3) simply requires a bit of thought, logic, and observation. And this was the contribution of Darwin. If an organism mutates the protein-coding section of DNA which gives red-blood cells their flattened ovoid shape, and creates something more akin to a saddle, this heterozygous advantage makes it hard for the Plasmodium parasites to invade and multiply within. However, it also shortens the lifespan of the organism with the mutation. But, since the lifespan still goes beyond prime fertility, the cost is outweighed by the benefit. This is why malarial regions coincide with this mutation, and non-malarial ones do not. There are very few mysteries of biology not neatly explained in such a manner. No other theory explains a single one.


People reject Natural Selection because of societal pressure and brainwashing, not because of the merits of any evidence or argument. Nothing could be more shameful than blind obedience. It is the sadness of seeing a slave be kind and generous to the asshole who threatens with a lash.

I desire another proclamation, that hereby all brains can be emancipated from the horrors of group-think and superstition and employ reason and reason alone as their guide. And as the destinations of so many brains are destined to be unique, we use reason again to decide which of us has climbed higher up the slope that approximates the objective reality upon which we all feebly scramble.

And let the mantra of the weak of brain, who refuse to employ reason, simply be: "I don't know" and nothing more. We slow our ascent by having to wade through their apathetic corpses.

Nothing to argue against this because it's true ^. If someone one day discovers where that one cell originated from and how it came into existence, I'll accept the theory. Until then I'm indifferent to either theory...as I refuse to shoot one thing down and accept the other...

[alizardsbet]

All I really can do to argue for the spiritually inclined is to promote that maybe the ancients of yesterday were a tad off, and your fanatics are war fodder without a cause. Maybe the idols we have erected are skewed with an idealism that can not exist. However I am not entirely certain that some omnipresent being didn’t do what has been told throughout several cultures, just not what the retelling of the legend through the ages has it going on as. But it doesn’t hurt to be strait with the otherworld just in case either. So continuing the detrimental set back of man kind…

Yes now-a-days we can explain the chemical reaction to why and maybe how society came to form and be but that is not the initial action that made people put together cities, form laws that don’t make any sense and elect people to enforce them (which I might point out could be considered a genetic flaw, becuz what species out there goes: “Hey you! Protect me! I am more important that you.” And the idiot does? Oh wait, maybe there is something to be said about letting morons go on breeding) Let’s be practical, it was the fear of the vengeful spirit in some ether world that held together the society, and it is still that fear of the boogie man (an unperceived threat) that keeps many citizens in check today. Perhaps you can describe the chemical reactions necessary to occur to explain these manifestations that waft through our brains. however just becuz we can explain the components essential to see color does not mean the idea of mauve, salmon and other nefarious shades of pink don’t exist outside our brains. Most ideas, concepts originate outside the brain chemistry, and our progress of reason is the direct result of external stimulation. Whether you like it or not “god” (oh boy) had a direct effect, or if you like “the idea” (my word an incorporeal object!) had a tangible, visible effect. Be it only a poor fevered man who had the misfortune of having Hermes whisper in his ear that got him ranting on the side of the forest trail, life as we knew it then changed… and for the better. In that instance, man saw something for himself and was truly inspired, and so has been seeking ever sense to become that which he most covets. :P

What is an idea? Does it not have weight? It doesn’t use physical evidence to prove it exists, it exists within the boundaries of theorized reality. Ideas are one of the most powerful things (physical or not) known to man, and he is in awe of and worships this thing he can not see, nor touch, nor act upon and is simply its tool. In your scientologist way of thinking, and to make another jab at this whole chemical/hormonal thing, in their way of thinking memories have physical wait. Theoretically, this is what they believe, I don’t know the specifics of how it goes about attaining weight, how much it is, but this thing that is (I think) not actually carried within you, but suspended somehow, actually has significant effects on you, the persons around you, and my way of thinking if given enough time to incubate, breed, morph through the ages will effect the environment and then tangibly physical evidence. So my argument to continuing on the idea of a creator, gods, demons, hell, spirits… these things are real, becuz they exist in our mind. This is why science is so vehemently protested against among your religious fanatics… and rightly so… its murder in their way of thinking, killing off the idea for the mere lack of evidence to behold. Except of course your Muslim culture(s) who actually promotes the teaching of science, as they were some of the first alchemists around.

So whether or not you like the idea of something not real effecting you, it already is, and will continue to do so as long as that idea yet exists. Even those that do not practice the traditions of age old, they know about them, they carry within them the dormant seeds of possible resurgence. It will continue on.

However I am not entirely sure of this, and write this as much for the humor of it as for the fact that I truly wish to learn more. How is science different from religion? Both seek to explain life. One seeks to prove that through physical evidence, the other is the direct lack of proof; that is the creed of faith, it would be blasphemous otherwise in that sense. What is physical proof? Bah! Science seeks the absolute, that that can not be broken down. Religion promotes that that can not be destroyed. Science seeks the small and finite. Religion seeks the all and infinite. Both seek the answer of one, that’s what they are after if you want to put it in matters of math. What is awareness? What is consciousness? What are the chemical reactions for abstract thinking? Is it possible to be moved by something not acting on one’s environment, rather something completely alien to physical reality?

[CPL CHUD]

I know. It's fundamental physics but it has a lot more going for it.

I don't think so. It's an amusing mathematical armchair philosophy game, but without any solid evidence it's quickly outmoded. If we are to consider string theory to have something going for it we must also other things that have the same amount of evidence and probability of existing, like ghosts.

[CPL CHUD]

However I am not entirely certain that some omnipresent being didn’t do what has been told throughout several cultures, just not what the retelling of the legend through the ages has it going on as. But it doesn’t hurt to be strait with the otherworld just in case either. So continuing the detrimental set back of man kind…Although no one can tell if an omniscent being was speaking to these prophets, you can surely poke holes in their fables and stories about how an intelligent God acts, or supposedly acted. The pillars of absolute "truth" these men fabricated, on top of the discoveries in science throughout history, proves that these self important apostles were certainly wrong about a great many things. So you if you were under the impression that these guys were communicating to a being from a different world you'd have to come to the conclusion that this being was wrong or very, very dumb and short sighted. Neither options paint a pretty picture for God.

And I feel that these religions have created enough damage to society over the ages to totally debunk them for the pursuit of truth via reason, evidence, and understanding.


Yes now-a-days we can explain the chemical reaction to why and maybe how society came to form and be but that is not the initial action that made people put together cities, form laws that don’t make any sense and elect people to enforce them (which I might point out could be considered a genetic flaw, becuz what species out there goes: “Hey you! Protect me! I am more important that you.” And the idiot does? Oh wait, maybe there is something to be said about letting morons go on breeding) Let’s be practical, it was the fear of the vengeful spirit in some ether world that held together the society, and it is still that fear of the boogie man (an unperceived threat) that keeps many citizens in check today.

I think it's simpler than that. Groups of animals often ban together in the same way humans do. It's survivalistic, it's encoded in our mammal biology, and it makes sense that we'd rely on one another to provide a safer enviroment for our species. A deity or false God is not needed.

[swivel]

alizardsbet, your post would have more merit if it weren't for a glaring fact:

Chimps, gorillas, wild dogs, bonobos, dolphin, and hundreds of other species all act within a shared moral code, have many of the same ethical tendencies that we have, and none of them have religion.

As a matter of fact, I am certain that religion makes people behave WORSE, not better. Most wars and conflicts have been in the name of religion. And even the pretend secular atrocities of communism, fascism, and nazism were nothing more than their own faiths, with god-heads, mystical legends, and the blessings of the Catholic and protestant churches. The best people I know are at worst agnostic and usually atheistic. While some estimate that the minority of young boys in Ireland were NOT molested by their priests.

I am looking forward to some evidence of how religion makes people behave better than they would otherwise. As far as I can tell, good people don't need an excuse to be good, and neither do bad people. But ONLY with religion do we find good people doing bad things. By that I mean, a person thinks they are doing a moral work by blowing themselves and innocent children up. By burning witches. By torturing apostates. By killing abortion doctors. By keeping vegetables on life-support. By opposing life-saving condoms. By promoting slavery. By keeping women in submission. By creating a sexually repressed culture that lashes out with pedophilia, the maiming of genitals of both sexes, and the guilt of masturbation. All of these evil fucks are actually good and decent people that are choosing to abide by very careful moral strictures. Unfortunately, those moral guidelines are twisted and demented. So we have good people doing bad works.

Only with religion.

[alizardsbet]

Huh… prove to me that animals don’t believe in god, or something of the like. Yes they group together, and also travel great distances to perform these rituals that further life, strange practices that we still aren’t exactly sure what the heck has gotten into their screwy little heads. Leopards kill for sport, dolphins will maul sharks, chimps will turn murdering and will brutally kill a lone male for no real reason, bees will eat all their food if not raided and starve during winter. Dolphins, the supposedly intelligent species, will kidnap juveniles that wander off from their parents and repeatedly molest the poor underage pets. Trees tend to grow in dense groups called forests, and they also seem to be of the same species. So do the mini organisms that build coral reefs. Is this coincidental? Certainly. I would also like to point out that society structure is similar to the animal single family units, but nothing in the animal kingdom has a large group of multi-family units working together and co-existing, quite the opposite in fact they fight and bicker constantly. I am not disagreeing with the fact that these things happen in nature, we are as humans apart of nature, I am arguing the fact that as animals had we not been introduced the concept of something all powerful things could have turned out very differently.

Just because an ameba will sit in the same area and breed rapidly, and over a period of time will break down something in what seems a concerted effort means they knowingly do so for the benefit of their own kind. That is what I am pointing out the difference between animal base interactions, and the conscious choice of society that man lives in. They really are two different kinds of environment. Animals as you say, due to their brain structuring, upbringing and preoccupation with survival have no choice but to do what they have always done, with only slight variations over a large period of time. Man has no such handicaps. Man has a choice to act independently of natures mechanisms or can based on his observations try something else. In that we are unique… and ruefully I shall state that is something god gave man, free choice.

Animals I think have more sense than even the simplest human being. They don’t really care, or worse they already know.

But you bring up the question as to whether religion is morally sound, and I ask what really is? There are many reasons human beings, and animals go to war, mostly it is just a differing opinion of right. I do not refute that many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion, grant it if people were to follow the idea of religion without corruption I doubt there would be a lot less violence, but we live in an imperfect world, and nothing exists on the principles of ethics alone. As for giving you a hard proof example, I don’t think I can. Anything in a large number over a certain period of time becomes destructive. Yes I can, the buddists, name one thing a buddist did that was bad? Yoga promotes oneness with mind and body, which is a health kick. Moderation in all things is a Christian idea. Jewish people frown on desecrating the temple of the body, have some self respect people. Some eastern temples supposedly have a method for extending the life by many centuries, but it is a very hard thing to do concerning discipline and fasting, and eating pine cones. Your ancient time philosophers were the ones that set the creed “to do no harm” in medicine… which might not have come from any one belief of a god, but philosophers are a cult in their own right. Life is about borrowing and modifying to suite your own purposes.

There are many practices that have been done in the science field, if only to advance our understanding of a thing/topic that are questionable. At one point we had to desecrate the holiness of the human body to know what the contents and limitations of it was, and do not think that they just used human carcasses to do this. Fireworks were originally a thing of beauty and pleasure, but someone got to tinkering with them and turned them into something destructive. Medicine is as often times used to cure and help as it is to kill and deform. Some of your extremists organizations use science to further their right over others. Practioners, doctors, scientists commit strange experiments and break laws because they are just so damn thirsty for another bit of that so addictive drug called knowledge. Doctors, and lawyers, and priests have to make a vow, a promise, sign a contract that they will practice their profession with integretity, and sound moral judgement, what does a scientist give to assure the public he will not kill us all? Science uses its knowledge to further its own agenda, and destroy anything that compromises its principles, and that includes ethical boundaries. Religion in that sense seeks to preserve that, or try, if failing at it on many stand points.

[CPL CHUD]

I think the only agenda science has is the pursuit of knowledge and in that pursuit I think that religion has no business guiding the hand of ethnics; only our understanding of the real world and not metaphysical philosophy should do that. A moral sphere should be formed out of what we know to be real not wish to be real. If anything I've always seen religion as hindering knowledge by depositing "absolute truths" into gaps of understanding, it puts periods where there should be question marks.

And Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

[swivel]

And Buddhism is not a religion, it's a philosophy.

Was a philosophy. It has been bastardized and distorted by many who now worship at the altar of immaterialism. Don't forget that Buddhists have a violent and militant history as well. Whether it is the 16th century Buddhists who militarized and opposed the secular unification of Japan, or the Vietnamese Buddhists who were a terror, to the Buddhists today that have raged on in Burma or those that oppose the Tamil freedom fighters.

Look up the Ikko Ikki if you are interested in the 15th century militant Buddhists, or check out:

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

For Bernard Faure's take on Buddhism and violence. I once presented this paper to a friend of mine who pretended to be Buddhist and was always going on about how peaceful they are. Sometimes he would yell at me very loudly to try and convince me of just how peaceful Buddhists are, and how wonderful a Buddhist he was.

Only in comparison to the other superstitious bands of marauding freaks...

[CPL CHUD]

Thanks for the link. I learn something new every day from this place.