Is belief in a god just self-delusion?

[tony1]

*Originally posted by zion
Surprisingly and excitedly not here is used to bring a positive approach and outlook to the attitudes of scientific aspects,theories...etc*

My perspective exactly!

Scientific theories are good, NOT!

*Originally posted by tiassa
But if I take horsesh-t, roll it in batter, and deep-fry it, is that candy-coating?*

OK, so your life has been recycled, deep-fried horsesh-t pretty much from day one.
Who's hasn't?

The point is, how long do you want to maintain the same old deep fryer?

*first there is no hell, and then the bit about the whales being crispy critters, and reminding people that you'll be looking down from heaven while they're being punished*

No hell?
All this is about your dream of a suitably unpleasant hell being dashed before your very eyes?
You're bummed out because you were hoping that all the people who mistreated you were going to burn forever?

And you're bummed out about whales?

*I have to stress to you that absolutely no part of the composite history related to me over the years makes any sense whatsoever.*

You seemed to have left out the obvious.
You yourself are very down on Christianity, so maybe she really hated you so much that she wanted to make sure that you were tortured by the most horrible system on the face of the earth, your own conscience.

So far, you've been mulling this over for decades, with no resolution in sight.
What's your plan?
To die a miserable, ulcerated, bitter wretch?

*I'm wondering if I'm dragging the topic off-center.*

Nah, it's pretty much focused on you, where it should be.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tony1,

***Jesus showed compassion in different ways.
The various onlookers viewed his compassion in varuious different ways.***

O.K., then. How is your demonstration of compassion being viewed? How about "showing" it in different ways so that some people might actually feel that God* is reaching out to them in a compassionate manner?

 

[blonde_cupid]

Here are a couple of different examples of the compassion of Jesus:

Matthew 11:28-30

28 "Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for yourselves.
30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."

John 8:4-11

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
How is your demonstration of compassion being viewed?*

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
(John 10:31, KJV).

Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him,...
(John 5:18, KJV).

*How about "showing" it in different ways so that some people might actually feel that God* is reaching out to them in a compassionate manner? *

Aside from the fact that you aren't very clear on who this God with the asterisk stuck to the side of his head is, the perception isn't dependent on what I'm doing.

This is what Jesus was doing just before the Jews tried to kill him...

Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
(John 5:14, KJV).

Notice the "sin no more" and the "lest a worse thing come unto thee?"
You should see Taken fly off the handle when I describe what some of those worse things might be.

This is what was happening just before they wanted to stone him...

There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
(John 10:19-21, KJV).

Jesus couldn't do anything about that, so what do you expect me to do?

*30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.*

That's a good one.
You should have seen the rampage Taken went on the last time I quoted that.

 

[bdmart]

Avatar
Thanks for your view, I thought there was only one view on this.
Very interesting but I just don't see how a person good believe
this with this kind of reasoning.

 

[blonde_cupid]

*** *How about "showing" it in different ways so that some people might actually feel that God* is reaching out to them in a compassionate manner? *

Aside from the fact that you aren't very clear on who this God with the asterisk stuck to the side of his head is, the perception isn't dependent on what I'm doing.***

tony1,

God* is whoever or whatever your higher power might be. In that way, it should be most clear to you who this God* is.

If you haven't got the message by now that the perception is dependent upon what you're doing, then I don't think that I can help you. But, I'll continue to try... As you continue to evangelize, if you can't bring yourself to be more Christ-like by demonstrating a more reasonable, balanced and compassionate Lord, then your approach will remain ineffective for your stated goal.

 

[Tiassa]

You seemed to have left out the obvious.
You yourself are very down on Christianity, so maybe she really hated you so much that she wanted to make sure that you were tortured by the most horrible system on the face of the earth, your own conscience.

If it's so obvious, why does anyone need to bring it up?

The only disturbing thing about that possibility is its degree of possibility. It is within the demonstrable capacities of modern Christianity; I've always thought the Christian moralists were just whining because they weren't getting laid. Why not take that jealousy a step further and make it proactive?

The only real problem with your proposal is that Christianity has nothing to do with a person's conscience. Religion is a drug against it in the modern function. Where once it explained morality to stupid people, the reasons for morality are demonstrably clear in an educated population. (An interesting side note is to consider the Christian interference in public education; if you blur the lines of objectivity, you can undermine the objective morality of a functional society, and incite the people to return to a subjective, superstitious morality, e.g. religious morality.)

Take you, for instance. You're unconscionable, Tony1.

So far, you've been mulling this over for decades, with no resolution in sight.
What's your plan?
To die a miserable, ulcerated, bitter wretch?

I'd hoped for a cometary cocaine bender, but the stuff's just not worth the money, and, frankly, cokeheads make me want to live just to annoy their sinus-dripping, twitchy asses. In the meantime, I figure if it comes down to it, I can make it into a movie-of-the-week and at least get some cash out of the deal. Other than that, it only generally comes up when the family needs to bury another something related to it.

Trust me on this one, Tony1: don't try to grasp this one. It's goofy enough for us normal people; I don't expect your sacrificed intellect can even begin to understand such issues. After all, you've never shown the capacity before. It would be best, then, if you just kept your mouth closed and put your head back up your ass, where it seems to spend the most time anyway.

Remember, you don't have much of a leg to stand on; you've shot most of it off.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Avatar
In the begining there was simple cell life.

How do you know this?

When fish came out of sea evolution now devided-
sea living forms and ground living forms.

Why aren't fish still comming out of the sea now?
Has the process of 'evolution ' come to a halt?

...while the simplest[bacterias and stuff] and less complex of these both could still mate[on see and ground], most complex life forms on "ground level" and sea at that time couldn't.

What was the process that made some cells complex and other simple, only you said earlier that they were relatively very close

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[John Como]

Really good stuff, Tiassa, although - as you probably suspect - it's wasted on ignorant & static mindsets. I totally agree with everything, including your observation about unsatisfying sex life (even involuntary abstinence) of Christian moralists. However, I think this dilemma, often accompanied by atrocious behaviour, is a worldwide problem and not confined to moralists, Christian or otherwise. Keep up the good work, Tiassa. Perhaps not appropriate in a scienceForum, but I'm gonna say it anyway: I like you very much. Peace and goodwill.

 

[Tiassa]

O, the Microorganism

Why aren't fish still comming out of the sea now?
Has the process of 'evolution ' come to a halt?

Wisdom.

I can still hear Uncle Shelby's little chick: ... and I will not hatch!

Nature is not extraneous. For many of the fishies, such an evolution is unnecessary. For others, evolution is too slow. Think of it like that: it's raining out; why haven't you evolved a wingflap behind your ears to act as a hood or umbrella? If evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental. Can you conceive of the difference between adapting in response to the weather and adapting in response to the climate?

What was the process that made some cells complex and other simple, only you said earlier that they were relatively very close

We know a bit about radiation; imagine being monocellular, in the top layers of water, being bombarded by sunlight. Perhaps a thousand generations down the line--a matter of days?--the only organisms left in the colony will be those who have responsively adapted by thickening their cellular walls. Some of that thickening will be too dense, and those will sink too low into the water to survive, save for a few. And then those few will reproduce and maybe an exceptionally small number of the offspring will survive, the adaptation of a heavier cell wall being a new and recessive trait. By proxy of natural selection, that recessive trait will become dominant. Of the original cells, perhaps ten thousand or a million generations down the line, you'll see a structural change, say, two monocellular organisms functioning symbiotically. I once caught a PBS special on the Himalaya alluvial; they're pulling some incredible calcium structures from the strata out there. Genius design of calcium designed to protect the organism inside and, in some cases, to achieve a degree of sedimentary buoyancy. Whatever circumstances occurred in the region necessitated some fascinating adaptions. http://www.geo.cornell.edu/geology/research/derry/publications/Neoproterozoic92.pdf is a study I looked up after seeing that show, and unfortunately for the present purposes, there are no neon signs there making a nice declaration that's relevant (it is, after all, geology and not biology). I'll leave it to your consideration to determine whether or not there's anything you might learn in there, or if it's not worth your time.
Let's put it this way: the article is beyond me unless I'm sitting with four or five other volumes at hand; I'm not that much of a geologist--but if you're going to examine the evolutionary evidence in that region, for instance, you actually need to know this material. Like comparative studies: I cannot recall ever having heard of a study which marks the major evolutionary trends in relation to life cataclysms on the planet. But to examine the evolutionary evidence at, say, the Himalaya alluvial, calls several scientific disciplines into play: biology, chemistry, geology, physics ....

Honestly, I'd say that if you set out to gather all that data, you'll find that the reason the fishes aren't hopping out of the oceans on a daily basis is that they don't need to, and thus aren't motivated as such.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Avatar]

good answer tiassa

and one more about the fishes.
why do you think tht they walked out of water in a couple of years
evolution is an millions and millions of years long process.
and if you observe only some 500 years of evolution[historycal records] you can't get the picture of all evolution. changes happen wery slow.
evolution is happening all around us and even inside us, only we do not "stand high enough" to see the process in whole.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: O, the Microorganism

Originally posted by tiassa
For many of the fishies, such an evolution is unnecessary.

Why?

Think of it like that: it's raining out; why haven't you evolved a wingflap behind your ears to act as a hood or umbrella?

Probably cause I don’t need them.

If evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.

Are you dead sure or is it just theory??

Perhaps a thousand generations down the line--a matter of days?--the only organisms left in the colony will be those who have responsively adapted by thickening their cellular walls.

Perhaps!
Perhaps not!

Of the original cells, perhaps ten thousand or a million generations down the line, you'll see a structural change, say, two monocellular organisms functioning symbiotically.

Ten thousand or a million, you don’t sound too sure to me.

I'll leave it to your consideration to determine whether or not there's anything you might learn in there, or if it's not worth your time.

Couldn’t open site.

Honestly, I'd say that if you set out to gather all that data, you'll find that the reason the fishes aren't hopping out of the oceans on a daily basis is that they don't need to, and thus aren't motivated as such.

Why not?
There’s certainly more danger in the oceans, than there was, isn’t there?

Could you tell me if this is a theory to you, a fact or is it something you feel to be correct?
Just curious.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Re: good answer tiassa

Originally posted by Avatar
...and one more about the fishes.
why do you think tht they walked out of water in a couple of years
evolution is an millions and millions of years long process.

Either you have seen with your own eyes one species evolve into another, or there is some serious proof available out there.
Whichever of the two scenarios it happens to be, please post.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Stryder]

From what I remember there is a particular type of fish that can drag itself onto and off of the shoreline, they can use their fins as kind of flipping legs. (flipping as in action)

It's also known that Octopii can also move themselves from Rock pools back into the ocean, and Crabs and other crustations can clamber around.

Not to forget Turtles having the ability to get onto land to lay their eggs. In doing so the tide doesn't sweep their offspring away, and certain beachs have become the renound Turtle Maternity wards.

All these creatures prove that something can come from water to land, in fact there is even an island where particular Crabs no longer live in water, they climb trees.

The process of evolution hasn't come to a halt in fact moving from the sea to the English London Underground (the Tube or some would perceive a metro) there are new species of Rodents and flies, that exist nowhere else on the planet. This is very try of small enclosed cave communities where the eco-system isn't so diverse as the planets surface.

Even the depths of the deepest seas hold this trait, where certain fish can't swim to the surface or they would exploded through de-pressuring. (This causes their low level communities.)

You will find that species that have short life spans evolve far quicker than those with larger lifespans, Thus new species of Rodents and insects and even that of Cats and Dogs.

I could mention again the way a world can create life without need of a "God" to overview it, just through Trial and Error.

My explaination of replicating cells was written up in the following thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/t5134/s/thread.html

 

[Xelios]

About the fishes, evolution progression through certain paths to increase an organism's chances of survival. If a fish started growing legs and walking around on the beach today it would probably be eaten by one of the many predators that have already evolved to life on the dry part of the world. It would be in the fish's best interest to remain in the sea. Before this was not the case because the land was largely unoccupied and fishes would have less predators on land than in the sea.

One theory anyway.

 

[bdmart]

Pretty smart fish I would say, I wonder what their theory is on us?

 

[tony1]

*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
If you haven't got the message by now that the perception is dependent upon what you're doing, then I don't think that I can help you.*

And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
(John 10:20,21, KJV).

Opposite perceptions for the same thing.
How is the perception dependent on the percept?

*As you continue to evangelize, if you can't bring yourself to be more Christ-like by demonstrating a more reasonable, balanced and compassionate Lord, then your approach will remain ineffective for your stated goal. *

That's why there is more than one of us.

*Originally posted by tiassa
It's goofy enough for us normal people*

I think I see your problem.
You think "us" belongs with "normal."
Realistically, you mean "you" and "them."

*Originally posted by Avatar
changes happen wery slow.*

According to Haldane's dilemma they'd have to happen very fast.
You're saying "very slow," so you're contradicting Haldane, who knew a lot more about everything than you do.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Before this was not the case because the land was largely unoccupied and fishes would have less predators on land than in the sea.*

So, at what point did fish evolve suntanning lotion?
If you don't think that's necessary, just pull a fish out of water, and OBSERVE how quickly it dries out, compared to land animals who can stay out in the sun for 15 or 20 minutes or even longer without drying out.

*One theory anyway.*

And a poor one.

 

[Tiassa]

... and thanks for all the fish

For many of the fishies, such an evolution is unnecessary.

Why?

Think of it like that: it's raining out; why haven't you evolved a wingflap behind your ears to act as a hood or umbrella?

Probably cause I don’t need them.

On the one hand, I think it's interesting how you split a paragraph up; I don't understand why you did that. It just took you twice as much effort to have the same effect.

There are two roads to take here; I shall explore them both.

First, I would ask the question, Why don't you need a wingflap?

And then I can look at your answer and smile gently and ask you why the fishies needed to evolve?

Thus concludes the first road. It's a little long and windy on the one hand, and a little scant on the other. But that's the problem: regardless of which notion I choose to apply, it doesn't really matter because I don't expect you to follow A) shorter, straighter, more generalized approach that leaves itself wide open to digression based on wordplay, or B) a longer, fuller argument because the majority of your posts indicate that you won't. So we can look at the second road.

For the second road, I would simply look at one of the sentences you chose not to address: Can you conceive of the difference between adapting in response to the weather and adapting in response to the climate?

Look, it's a little like the idea of programming code; a specific programming code, though. The one in your brain. Tell me, Jan, are you incapable of learning by yourself? Are you incapable of assimilating and accommodating information? Are you incapable of perceiving and prioritizing data? I don't think so, but I'll wait on your answers.

The reason I ask this is because what seems to be at stake in the general picture is a fundamental difference of perspective that pertains to how we view the code of our genetic programming.

* For a Creationist, genetic code seems to validate the idea of a Master Designer to write all of this wonderful code. It didn't just evolve by itself, right?

* For an Evolutionist, genetic code seems to validate the idea of the evolving species because, in respect to the point above, Who says the code had to be written in the start?

What? Code that writes itself? Yeah, code that writes itself. What? It's unheard of, this code that writes itself! Not at all. You learn don't you? Do you need a programmer to put new information into your head? (I might as well point out here that I live in the United States of America and damn it, man, most of our people do need a programmer to put new information into their heads: a television or radio programmer. ) Sure, my dad could tell me all about boating safety when I was six, but he wasn't sitting there programming the balance functions into my head the first time I worked the deck in rough seas. (If you live on the Atlantic, think nothing of the phrase rough seas; our swells are your ripples, and so forth.) Sure, my dad could yell at me to keep one hand to the boat, but he could not yell at me about how to react to each new wave, each incoming piece of data relevant to balance, even with a physical model of another person balancing in front of me, is still an internalized data acquisition and correlation. Result? Even after a five years away from my dad's sailboats, I could still scamper around on the deck in heavy weather when necessary.

Now, who says the whole living string of DNA had to be written at once? Each adaptation, each accretion in its own time, perhaps "bundled" evolutions of necessary combinations, such as your next point drives home:

If evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.

Are you dead sure or is it just theory??

On this one, I'm as sure as I can be without kicking God in the jewels. Take, for instance, the fishies. What happens if you evolve into a mammal too quickly? Imagine the simplest mutation: lungs instead of gills. Now I've seen fish in bad water actually come to the surface and suck air in their mouths; it's really weird and kind of scary. How many birth defects over how many fishy generations before a combination is struck upon which accommodates the lungs with one of those cutesy blowholes? Dolphins! There's a reason dolphins are the smartest mammals: they've been around awhile and they seem to be simply awaiting technological changes which presently they have no need of: why evolve digits when these flipper thingies swim so well? In other words, they've had plenty of time to reflect. I'm quite convinced that no matter how happy the scientists were after they began communicating with dolphins, the dolphins were happier: At last! It's a start! But yeah, if a whole species of fish developed their lungs without their blowhole, they might not be a species anymore except in loving memory, and would never be able to evolve far enough to say, "Woo-hoo! Mammalia!" I mean, perch give live birth, but you don't hear them getting all high and mighty about it, do you? But to get back to the point: if a physiological trait is not suited for its environment won't last. What happens if the fish sprout digits too early? Crap! Can't ... swim ... must ... get ... away ...! And then the smaller ones that aren't noticed by the predators are the only ones left, adequately adapted for the time being. So they have time to figure out what those digits are good for. Oh, hey ... I can't swim as well, but I can bounce along the bottom and knock these tasty little things up into the water so I can eat them. Shallow water? Oh, hey, a gill in the top of my head! After a given period, lungs will develop. Perhaps it's a negative mutation at first as many die because it's not an ideal adaptation for the environment. But eventually, something will cause them to get out of the water. What happens, though, if none of the digit-sprouters are small enough to go unnoticed by predators, and those that are only live because they're too sickly to be of any worth, until the species is gone? I'm quite sure that if evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental. It's possible to evolve out of the living endeavor entirely. Sure, we helped a few species along, but in the end, you'll notice how few aquatic species, even among those that stir the seafloor, have jointed digits like fingers. The surviving species had better things to do than twiddle their thumbs in the mud waiting for the next meal to pop up by accident. They ... well ... ate the twiddlers? See what happens if you try to accelerate evolution?

Perhaps!
Perhaps not!

We might note that some of the smaller twiddlers did eventually get out of the water; perhaps to not get eaten. As a part of a new food chain, perhaps something about them--that fishy smell?--made them unappetizing to anything else on the planet: Ugh. Smells toxic. (I still reject sushi. On land, I suppose the li'l twiddlers would be a bit warmer than sushi, but come on ....)

Of course it's perhaps. But have you seen some of the creatures they're tacking onto the human descendancy? Some of them have bones the size of rice grains.

Do you realize that insofar as plausibility is concerned, Steven Brust's "Jenoine" (species/race/possible gods) make a better explanation of spontaneous humanity than the Bible? And the really cool thing is that we never do actually have to write the whole thing to superstition unless we accidentally lose the planet somewhere. Why? Because unless comets, aliens, God Itself, or human idiocy destroys us or the planet, we have all the time in the world to look around and figure it out for real instead of merely speculating and then hiding our heads in prayerful shame. I mean, eventually the planet has to vomit its whole self out all over again, so there's that--the clock is ticking for solving the riddle of human origins, but in that case you ought to root for science. Sure, cosmology doesn't envision a contracting Universe, but since you're pushing for a divine creation, why should you trust the scientists on that? You can always hope for a finite, elastic Universe because then you get to see the whole thing all over again. But backwards. Fast forward the eating and bathroom parts, though. They're creepy.

Ten thousand or a million, you don’t sound too sure to me.

On the one hand, I'm not a tremendous scientist. To the other, don't underestimate ten thousand cells in the wild. Life is a pretty cool event. But we never get all of the record: some of it's flat gone, churned and spat back upon the earth. Spat back to be the earth. I highly doubt we're going to find the first nest of life in the line that became humanity. Whether from a single spark in the soup or diverse sources, I doubt we'll find any remains of the original living organisms on this planet.

Couldn’t open site.

My bad ... it's a .pdf. http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...oterozoic92.pdf+SR+C+Explosion+elsevier&hl=en[/url] should, hopefully, work, but the point of it is that I have to be able to take these sorts of ideas--these entire papers--into mind as a single, fluid consideration with its myriad implications before I can even begin to understand the precise relationships between environment, stimulus, response, and development. On the one hand, I'm thinking of knowledge on such a scale that our Nobel Prize winners might pale in comparison, so I'm hardly ashamed to point out that such a task is well beyond my lifetime. Hey, maybe I should check into mind uploading, eh? Incidentally, the typesetting on that Google page is difficult in a few places at least, and its riddled with markers from the search I used to dredge it back up. But I'm not recommending a full reading unless you're really into that sort of thing; I'm just trying to point out that such data is essential to determining, if I might quote you, What was the process that made some cells complex and other simple, only you said earlier that they were relatively very close

Well ... imagine layers of microorganisms in the water, and the sunlight is doing its UV best. The ones at the top are exposed to more sunlight, and are prone to more damage from radiation. This radiation damage might include structural adaptations in the short term and, with time, the dominant characteristic; these are reactions to prolonged consistent stimulus, like the hardening of calluses on your fingers. The radiation damage might also include actual genetic damage, inciting a different-than-original gene code being passed on by proxy of the reprogramming. Perhaps the water temperature rises due to geological activity; this, too, changes the organisms needs in response to the environment. It appears that bacteria might be able survive interplanetary travel and atmospheric entry and impact (and, by that, the original cataclysm that sent it on its way.) Sure, they're not doing anything for the next little while. More substantial, actually, is the recent claimed discovery of microorganisms in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. What could possibly support a biosystem up there? We'll find out, one way or the other, eventually. But the genetic diversity comes when the mutations occur in response to either environmental demands or actual interference. After many generations, the top layers of the cells exposed to sunlight might eventually bear a different genetic code than the lower ones. Both genetic diversity and symbiosis. (Is it possible that the waste of one organism might be toxic to the other, or even that one might consume the other, so symbiosis is just my preferred result of the pairing.) What are all the factors that affect the development of an organism? Well, I might as well be God if I can tell you that.

Honestly, I'd say that if you set out to gather all that data, you'll find that the reason the fishes aren't hopping out of the oceans on a daily basis is that they don't need to, and thus aren't motivated as such.

Why not?
There’s certainly more danger in the oceans, than there was, isn’t there?

The more serious answer is Yes, I would think so.

But, to the other, think again of the dolphins. Now, if they're really so smart and if, as some environmentalists say, we are poisoning the oceans--their home--will they eventually get smart enough to evolve out of the water? Well, then they're actually stuck with us, and that probably wouldn't be the palatable option.

But look at how basic some of those organisms are. Look at the food chain. It's pretty fierce down there, sure, and that's part of why some of the creatures can't evolve quickly: economy. Part of evolution is the seeming caprice of the living environment. Self-realizaton is a serious undertaking, especially if you're not in Hollywood Hills. In order for that development to occur, you will need some help from the environment. How did farming come about? I mean, specifically: imagine you're that human being or previous model thereof that actually puts that one and one together. Think of the difference between sitting atop a rock and watching carefully for predators while hunting for your very existence, and having five minutes to sit on a rock just to look at the damn rock. What luxury! Seriously, and without jest. That's a huge difference. Whenever I see a really old skull, or even the university castings thereof, I actually think of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Can you imagine being the first creature to look at the stars and just think on it for a bit? Now, what's it like in the oceans? These organisms don't appear to have achieved the capacity to reflect on such issues as the self. Well, the dolphins, at least, and I have this shaky notion that sharks are really, really tired all the time, so of course they're vicious hunters; they don't have any time to kill because they're on the go. So it's entirely possible they're self-aware and just sulky.

Could you tell me if this is a theory to you, a fact or is it something you feel to be correct?
Just curious.

Well, existence is technically a theory, but that's only because other people insist it to be so often enough that I've accepted and made peace with the presupposition that reality cannot be confirmed in any thorough manner. More to the issue, it's a theory. And a pretty good one at that. I already know where gods come from, more or less. Since religion started before people could write things down, well there goes that evidence, too. So even those that believe it's all the same God eventually run out of space. So, yes, I know where gods come from; I'm a little more attuned to reality, though, than the mythicist Christian God can manage. Most of 'em, in fact.

Show me any theory as sound as evolution that undertakes the issue of human origin. Say what you want about what you think isn't there, but the simple fact is that they're still working on it, and judging by the size of the Universe around us, what more do you want? If the Yuban's not good enough, go for the Taster's Choice.

No religion seems to be working that hard on developing its knowledge in the same way. How many new revelations about God really get any credibility these days? There are a few, though, that seem to go about it differently, recognize different preuppositions, and achieve different goals.

Their aquatic natural enemies are sharks and killer whales; these they attempt to outswim, using complex evasive strategy, or batter to death, acting in a group. If one of their number is injured or sick they make every effort to rescue it, holding it above the water for air. Play behavior is highly developed in the bottlenose from infancy through old age, and in this connection it displays considerable tool-making, tool-using, and manipulative ability; for example, a dolphin has been observed to kill a fish, strip its skeleton, and use the bones, held in the mouth, to pry another fish out of a crevice. Sex play is frequent and is initiated by any individual toward any other, without regard to size, age, sex, relationship, or even species; approaches to human beings and to turtles are common. ( http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/49883CharacteristicsandSpecies.html )

thanx,
Tiasa

 

[tony1]

Re: ... and thanks for all the fish

*Originally posted by tiassa
Who says the code had to be written in the start?*

Using a computer as an analogy, it so dashedly difficult to get a computer to do anything if it has no code in it.

*What? Code that writes itself? Yeah, code that writes itself. What? It's unheard of, this code that writes itself! Not at all. You learn don't you? Do you need a programmer to put new information into your head?*

Thinks of it as Excel.
You have a spreadsheet, and you have Visual Basic for Applications in the background.
This is far too complex for most people to grasp, but I'll give it a try anyway.

The "code" you are talking about, tiassa, is the new data that goes onto the spreadsheet.
The real code, the DNA, is like the VBA in the background.

It doesn't matter what you enter on the spreadsheet, the VBA code behind the scenes isn't going to change in the least.
However, new data can be programmed onto the spreadsheet externally, by the user or some other program, and internally by the VBA code running in the background.

Thus the spreadsheet appears to "evolve" but isn't evolving, merely changing.
What would have to change to create true evolution would be for the VBA code to change, but it won't change unless the Programmer programs it to.

*Now, who says the whole living string of DNA had to be written at once?*

Everyone who looks at incomplete DNA and realizes that the possessor thereof is dead.

*Dolphins! There's a reason dolphins are the smartest mammals: they've been around awhile and they seem to be simply awaiting technological changes which presently they have no need of: why evolve digits when these flipper thingies swim so well?*

tiassas! why evolve the ability to think when rationalization works so well?
I see your point, but it may still be invalid.

*And then the smaller ones that aren't noticed by the predators are the only ones left, adequately adapted for the time being.*

Aaah, the ToE's primary assumption is unusually stupid and/or blind predators.
Riiiight.

*Oh, hey, a gill in the top of my head!*

Oh that's what that is!!
I thought at first that it might have been a brain, but given what you're posting here, I thought, "Nooo, it just can't be."

*After a given period, lungs will develop.*

Where "given period" is an evolutionary term meaning, "too short to actually work, but very, very looong, so as to create the impression that evolution can happen if one emphasizes the words 'long time' and 'slow'."

*I'm quite sure that if evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.*

That's correct.
If evolutionary changes occurred quickly, then the first casualty would be the ToE, since these quick changes have not been observed.
Therefore the changes must have been slow since quick ones were not observed.

tiassa, you need to change your name to Dilbert.

*We might note that some of the smaller twiddlers did eventually get out of the water; perhaps to not get eaten.*

Luckily, those twiddlers had fingers.
You know, to open the bottles of suntan lotion they'd need to keep from drying out in the sun in two minutes.
Or, haven't you seen what happens to fish when they're out of the water?

*that probably wouldn't be the palatable option.*

What?
I hear dolphin meat is very tasty.

*I already know where gods come from, more or less.*

Let's go with less; it's far more realistic in your case.

*I'm a little more attuned to reality, though, than the mythicist Christian God can manage.*

HA HA HA!
You're too funny, "more attuned to reality than God."
You're one of the reasons God will be laughing.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

 

[Tiassa]

It does have its merits

Who says the code had to be written in the start?*

Using a computer as an analogy, it so dashedly difficult to get a computer to do anything if it has no code in it.

And?

*What? Code that writes itself? Yeah, code that writes itself. What? It's unheard of, this code that writes itself! Not at all. You learn don't you? Do you need a programmer to put new information into your head?*

Thinks of it as Excel.
You have a spreadsheet, and you have Visual Basic for Applications in the background.
This is far too complex for most people to grasp, but I'll give it a try anyway.

The "code" you are talking about, tiassa, is the new data that goes onto the spreadsheet.
The real code, the DNA, is like the VBA in the background.

It doesn't matter what you enter on the spreadsheet, the VBA code behind the scenes isn't going to change in the least.
However, new data can be programmed onto the spreadsheet externally, by the user or some other program, and internally by the VBA code running in the background.

Thus the spreadsheet appears to "evolve" but isn't evolving, merely changing.
What would have to change to create true evolution would be for the VBA code to change, but it won't change unless the Programmer programs it to.

And?

*Now, who says the whole living string of DNA had to be written at once?*

Everyone who looks at incomplete DNA and realizes that the possessor thereof is dead.

What does that have to do with anything?

*Dolphins! There's a reason dolphins are the smartest mammals: they've been around awhile and they seem to be simply awaiting technological changes which presently they have no need of: why evolve digits when these flipper thingies swim so well?*

tiassas! why evolve the ability to think when rationalization works so well?
I see your point, but it may still be invalid.

Your point being?

*And then the smaller ones that aren't noticed by the predators are the only ones left, adequately adapted for the time being.*

Aaah, the ToE's primary assumption is unusually stupid and/or blind predators.
Riiiight.

Hmmm ...

An Effervescing Elephant
with tiny eyes and great big trunk
once whispered to the tiny ear
the ear of one inferior
that by next June he'd die, oh yeah!
because the tiger would roam.
The little one said: "Oh my goodness I must stay at home!
and every time I hear a growl
I'll know the tiger's on the prowl
and I'll be really safe, you know
the elephant he told me so."
Everyone was nervy, oh yeah!
and the message was spread
to zebra, mongoose, and the dirty hippopotamus
who wallowed in the mud and chewed
his spicy hippo-plankton food
and tended to ignore the word
preferring to survey a herd
of stupid water bison, oh yeah!
And all the jungle took fright,
and ran around for all the day and the night
but all in vain, because, you see,
the tiger came and said: "Who me?!
You know, I wouldn't hurt not one of you.
I'd much prefer something to chew
and you're all to scant." oh yeah!
He ate the Elephant. (Effervescing Elephant, Syd Barrett)

Easy enough?

*Oh, hey, a gill in the top of my head!*

Oh that's what that is!!
I thought at first that it might have been a brain, but given what you're posting here, I thought, "Nooo, it just can't be."

I'm sure that had a point?

*After a given period, lungs will develop.*

Where "given period" is an evolutionary term meaning, "too short to actually work, but very, very looong, so as to create the impression that evolution can happen if one emphasizes the words 'long time' and 'slow'."

Thank you for reinforcing my point. I'm sure that if you go back and read the context of the citation you chose, you'd think differently about your response.

*I'm quite sure that if evolutionary changes occur too quickly, they are detrimental.*

That's correct.
If evolutionary changes occurred quickly, then the first casualty would be the ToE, since these quick changes have not been observed.
Therefore the changes must have been slow since quick ones were not observed.

Wow ... I thought you almost had a point for a minute. Then you pushed it, and blew it.

Luckily, those twiddlers had fingers.
You know, to open the bottles of suntan lotion they'd need to keep from drying out in the sun in two minutes.
Or, haven't you seen what happens to fish when they're out of the water?

And maybe by the time they get out of the water, they're not fish anymore?

*that probably wouldn't be the palatable option.*

What?
I hear dolphin meat is very tasty.

Well, I prefer a deliberate joke to that crap you call debating. I admit, your way is really easy. You don't even have to think, it seems.

*I already know where gods come from, more or less.*

Let's go with less; it's far more realistic in your case.

I know more about where gods come from than you do. So there.

*I'm a little more attuned to reality, though, than the mythicist Christian God can manage.*

HA HA HA!
You're too funny, "more attuned to reality than God."
You're one of the reasons God will be laughing.

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

What? You can't do better than what we already expect? Get a new act. It's not like we couldn't see that one coming from a mile away, Einstein.

--Tiassa