There is no embarrassment in being ignorant; I'm ignorant about many, many things. There is only embarrassment in preferring ignorance over knowledge.
Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
There is no embarrassment in being ignorant; I'm ignorant about many, many things. There is only embarrassment in preferring ignorance over knowledge.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
This isn't always true.
Example: You're stuck in traffic with your buddies when suddenly you're confronted with the question; Is that a fart or a turd workin it's way down? Eventually the truth will smack you in the *** but the least embarrassing course of action is to hold it and remain ignorant for as long as possible(hopefully at least until you get out of the car)
Sometimes knowledge stinks
I disagree. With knowledge that it's a fart, you can just let it rip in a controlled and silent manner, then accuse one of your friends of having done it. If you're really dramatic and you do it before it is smelled, then you've pre-empted your victim, who won't be able to mount a convincing case. Knowledge wins out in this case.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
If you know it's a fart then you aren't confronted w/ the question. If you don't know, if you are truly ignorant to the nature of the beast, the only way to know truth is to push it out. It's better to remain ignorant than to find out the sloppy way.
The comfort of releasing the fart outweighs the inconvenience of confronting the question. You have to also take into account that without the knowledge, you might risk it anyway, and end up with a shart. We've all been in that situation. I'm afraid I have to side with OB on this one.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's hard to be comfortable sitting in a mess. Regardless neither comfort nor convenience were what was being considered, embarrassment was.
Ps totally awesome debate. Discussing bowel movements with Siro>Than discussing evolution w/CJ
DutchJazzer
Banned
i mean survival of the fitest right
evolution.
so why should i not show i am the fittest.
why should i not starting kicking in weak. they should die right!
aren't the "weak" a scourge on the species as a whole
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
All right, Trout. This message directed toward you in an effort to hopefully let you see my mindset all them years ago when you made this thread. Look at this post.
(bold is emphasis)
Now, hopefully in your Bio. Anthro. class, you pretty early on during the evolution section of the course quickly dissected the fallacy of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). What that class won't tell you is no matter how many times you tell people that "survival of the fittest" is a totally improper and strawman argument against evolution (among many other bad arguments), people will constantly bring it up over and over and over again. Probably in this thread more than once. It's as useful as talking to a brick wall. This is the expectation of any thread on this particular topic on this, and many other boards, and generally elicits frustration.
(bold is emphasis)
Now, hopefully in your Bio. Anthro. class, you pretty early on during the evolution section of the course quickly dissected the fallacy of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). What that class won't tell you is no matter how many times you tell people that "survival of the fittest" is a totally improper and strawman argument against evolution (among many other bad arguments), people will constantly bring it up over and over and over again. Probably in this thread more than once. It's as useful as talking to a brick wall. This is the expectation of any thread on this particular topic on this, and many other boards, and generally elicits frustration.
Red
Well-Known Member
If evolution were valid, and if it applied to humans.
What value would faith have from an evolutionary standpoint? What value does faith play in survival?
We are self conscious animals. We reflect upon ourselves. We address the universe at large.
Enough to ask, who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?
Evolution provides no comfort to conscious beings, no narrative but survival of the fittest.
Faith provides comfort by providing meaning to life, and meaning provides a greater will to live. Faith serves the interest of survival. (Or does it? Religious wars might demonstrate quite the opposite).
A greater will to live is of value from an evolutionary sense. When the life is self conscious and addresses the universe at large.
It's conceivable that self conscious life requires meaning to be lived healthfully.
It seems all cultures interpret reality, they can't just let it go, lol.
Always seeking meaning, enveloping reality with unseen meaning. So called primitive people's assign to shamans the task of bridging this realm with a higher realm, a realm that can influence this realm for good or bad. The shaman is an intermediary and that higher realm is both prior to birth and after death.
We separate the higher faiths from these primitive beliefs. But both imprint meaning on creation, seek meaning in life, give hints of purpose behind this realm. Are we just fooling ourselves, in order to make life more palatable? A more palatable life has survival value for any living thing. Is God an invention? At least a God that loves, that says this love gives meaning to your life, your kind? An invention of self conscious beings in need of meaning to carry on in a realm we don't truly understand?
Live the Golden Rule and all is well. You will not be extinguished. You will live forever. Reducing anxiety is probably of evolutionary value. Soothing existential angst is probably of evolutionary value. Whatever aids survival of the species has evolutionary value.
Does a chipmunk ask "who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?"
Does any other form of life experience existential angst? And what does existential angst do if not invent soothing solutions to that angst. Like inventing Gods. Like making morality something handed down from a higher power. And are not moral codes of evolutionary value, of survival value, for self conscious social beings?
(It matters not, but for the record, I do believe there is an intelligence behind creation. It sure ain't mine, lol. Like most everyone else, I call that intelligence God. This is the Ground of Being, the Alpha and Omega of existence. All manifest creation emerges from the Ground of Being we call God, and to that Ground of Being all returns. Alpha and Omega. For me, "In the beginning" does not just denote a moment in time. It denotes that which underlies all of manifest creation at all times. In the beginning exists at all times. It is the precondition of manifest creation. Beneath all of the manifest universe, that which is the beginning sustains it's manifest creation. Can I know God? I can believe, if I choose, that that which we know as Love is the Nature of God, and to the extent I love, I fulfill the will of my creator. In other words, I choose to seek meaning. I do not believe I am just kidding myself.
Yet, mine are the words of a "modern" man. A man raised in a faith who left that faith. What scripture is it that fortells of a time, and I paraphrase, when "your young men will cry out for God and not find him"? I am a modern, full of existential angst. Confused by science even as I embrace it's method. Cast adrift in a modern world. I don't look for God in the Bible. It isn't easy being a "modern man".
Not easy at all. I cannot know if the meaning I find matters one iota. I do not pretend for one moment to enjoy being a modern. It has exacted a great price.)
What value would faith have from an evolutionary standpoint? What value does faith play in survival?
We are self conscious animals. We reflect upon ourselves. We address the universe at large.
Enough to ask, who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?
Evolution provides no comfort to conscious beings, no narrative but survival of the fittest.
Faith provides comfort by providing meaning to life, and meaning provides a greater will to live. Faith serves the interest of survival. (Or does it? Religious wars might demonstrate quite the opposite).
A greater will to live is of value from an evolutionary sense. When the life is self conscious and addresses the universe at large.
It's conceivable that self conscious life requires meaning to be lived healthfully.
It seems all cultures interpret reality, they can't just let it go, lol.
Always seeking meaning, enveloping reality with unseen meaning. So called primitive people's assign to shamans the task of bridging this realm with a higher realm, a realm that can influence this realm for good or bad. The shaman is an intermediary and that higher realm is both prior to birth and after death.
We separate the higher faiths from these primitive beliefs. But both imprint meaning on creation, seek meaning in life, give hints of purpose behind this realm. Are we just fooling ourselves, in order to make life more palatable? A more palatable life has survival value for any living thing. Is God an invention? At least a God that loves, that says this love gives meaning to your life, your kind? An invention of self conscious beings in need of meaning to carry on in a realm we don't truly understand?
Live the Golden Rule and all is well. You will not be extinguished. You will live forever. Reducing anxiety is probably of evolutionary value. Soothing existential angst is probably of evolutionary value. Whatever aids survival of the species has evolutionary value.
Does a chipmunk ask "who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?"
Does any other form of life experience existential angst? And what does existential angst do if not invent soothing solutions to that angst. Like inventing Gods. Like making morality something handed down from a higher power. And are not moral codes of evolutionary value, of survival value, for self conscious social beings?
(It matters not, but for the record, I do believe there is an intelligence behind creation. It sure ain't mine, lol. Like most everyone else, I call that intelligence God. This is the Ground of Being, the Alpha and Omega of existence. All manifest creation emerges from the Ground of Being we call God, and to that Ground of Being all returns. Alpha and Omega. For me, "In the beginning" does not just denote a moment in time. It denotes that which underlies all of manifest creation at all times. In the beginning exists at all times. It is the precondition of manifest creation. Beneath all of the manifest universe, that which is the beginning sustains it's manifest creation. Can I know God? I can believe, if I choose, that that which we know as Love is the Nature of God, and to the extent I love, I fulfill the will of my creator. In other words, I choose to seek meaning. I do not believe I am just kidding myself.
Yet, mine are the words of a "modern" man. A man raised in a faith who left that faith. What scripture is it that fortells of a time, and I paraphrase, when "your young men will cry out for God and not find him"? I am a modern, full of existential angst. Confused by science even as I embrace it's method. Cast adrift in a modern world. I don't look for God in the Bible. It isn't easy being a "modern man".
Not easy at all. I cannot know if the meaning I find matters one iota. I do not pretend for one moment to enjoy being a modern. It has exacted a great price.)
Last edited:
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
What has happened to Darwin’s long-accepted idea regarding the “survival of the fittest?” This he called “natural selection.” That is, he believed that nature “selected” the fittest living things to survive. As these “fit” ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may indeed survive, this does not explain how they arrived. One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does not explain how he got to be a lion. And all of his offspring will still be lions, not something else.
In Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. .*.*. One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another .*.*. This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, .*.*. It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."
In Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. .*.*. One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another .*.*. This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, .*.*. It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."
DutchJazzer
Banned
darwin was a godhating r*****.
edited cant afford an infraction
dont know if i am allowed to call him the r word.
edited cant afford an infraction
dont know if i am allowed to call him the r word.
MVP
Well-Known Member
So wrong. Like calling Hitler jew loving.
DutchJazzer
Banned
au contrair.
he was a devoit religious guy, he did not truly understand his religion.
then his daughter/son died at age of 4(forgot if was a son or daughter).
he pleaded to god to save his child, but "god" did not.
so he swore revenge.
he ignored religious text. and started this whole science vs religion debate.
if he was smart he would have noticed they are not incompatible!
MVP
Well-Known Member
I don't see any revenge or hate in his description of his quotes. And Annie was 9 year old when she died.
Darwin wrote at the time, "Our only consolation is that she passed a short, though joyous life." For three years he had deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality. This opened a new vision of tragically circumstantial nature. His faith in Christianity had already dwindled away and he had stopped going to church. He wrote out his memories of Annie, but no longer believed in an afterlife or in salvation.
"In 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind"
"Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, & I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the novelty of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian."
DutchJazzer
Banned
MVP
Well-Known Member
Here is very good example that Darwin never was at war against religion:
In 1880 there was a huge controversy when the atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected as a member of parliament and then prevented from taking his seat in the House of Commons. In response, the secularist Edward Aveling toured the country leading protests. In October of that year Aveling wanted to dedicate his book on Darwin and his Works to Darwin and asked him for permission. Darwin declined, writing that "though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."
In 1880 there was a huge controversy when the atheist Charles Bradlaugh was elected as a member of parliament and then prevented from taking his seat in the House of Commons. In response, the secularist Edward Aveling toured the country leading protests. In October of that year Aveling wanted to dedicate his book on Darwin and his Works to Darwin and asked him for permission. Darwin declined, writing that "though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."
DutchJazzer
Banned
MVP
Well-Known Member
And you lived with Darwin so you must know better.
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Historian Wells tells of evolutionary teaching as follows: “Prevalent people .*.*. believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. .*.*. So it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.”
Evolution provided “Christendom” with self-justification for waging brutal war. The book Evolution and Christians attributes the tragedy of the first world war in 1914 and later the evil excesses of Nazism to Darwinian teaching. In the same way, evolution must accept its share of responsibility for the rise of Communism. Karl Marx is said to have rejoiced at reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, which he described as giving “the death blow” to God. He also said: “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis for the class struggle in history.”
To this day, Communistic nations pursue their goal of world domination on the basis of the evolutionary teaching of “survival of the fittest.” Other nations join the fight for survival and the result is the massive armaments race of this nuclear age. The life of all humankind is in jeopardy.
How does this affect your own life? It can be quite damaging for you personally to get caught up in the evolution theory. If evolution were true, life would become purposeless and meaningless. It would be just the “rat race” of struggling to survive, and with only death as the final outcome. Believing in the “survival of the fittest,” the evolutionist has no incentive to love his fellowman, to live a decent moral life or to behave differently from brute beasts. Evolution is entirely negative in its effect on mankind. It cannot give a satisfactory answer to any of the questions about life.
Phillip Johnson, a professor of criminal law at the University of California at Berkeley in the United States, has long been fascinated by the way biologists defend the theory of evolution. They seem so defensive and dogmatic on the subject that Johnson set about finding out “what the vulnerable points were they’re trying to protect.” The result of his research is a book, Darwin on Trial, that The Sacramento Bee describes as “a lawyer’s examination, bit by bit, of the logic of and evidence behind the theory of evolution.” The newspaper summarizes: “Darwin flunks.” Johnson claims he found many scholars, including biologists, who are afraid to speak out publicly against evolution. “One of the things I’ve learned from this experience,” he told the San Francisco Chronicle, “is that to establish an intellectual orthodoxy and keep it beyond criticism, you don’t need concentration camps and secret police. All you have to do is say that people will laugh at you and you’ll lose your prestige. This has an enormous effect in academic life.”