05 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXYour knowledge of this topic is woefully inadiquate . Your logic is very shakey . You say you're to tired to start insulting , when you yourself began the insults in this thread .
When it comes to evolution, it all comes down to random chance - so how does accident produce an ecosystem in perfect balance, and if it does, why should man endevour to interfere with the course of time by trying to save a species?
I'm pointing to proof in the instinct of animals which accident will never be able to imprint, which random chance will never ...[text shortened]... u claimed I have no understanding of human motivation - you arrogant ass! How do you know this?
Specificly - Why should man attempt to save a species ? This has been explained . (I will do so again as you appear to be quite stupid .) Because it is of benefit to him now . There may be a predator which is beneficial in killing pests that would be usefull to restore the population of . Not to "interfere with the course of time" , but to benefit us now . Do you understand ? Take your time . Move your lips if it helps .
Your second paragraph is a hoot as well . Let's throw out the part about assertions you can not prove about how instinct is or is not imprinted or reenforced . Once again you say "why survival is necessary is still not answered in evolution ". You are right , it is not , because this is simply a moronic question . Survival is not a "necessary" thing (like a heart , a liver , or in your case a frontal lobe) ; it is a state of being . If you are infering by "survival being necessary " - that TOE does not take into acount a higher cause or purpose for life - than you're absolutely right ! TOE does not assume a higher cause , which is precisely what this arguement is about . There does not have to be one for the TOE to work .
As to the personal - I spoke from opinion about you and was quite clear about that . You spoke as if from fact about me , which makes you an arrogant assumptive little turd .
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowYou thrive on assumptions...
Your knowledge of this topic is woefully inadiquate . Your logic is very shakey . You say you're to tired to start insulting , when you yourself began the insults in this thread .
Specificly - Why should man attempt to save a species ? This has been explained . (I will do so again as you appear to be quite stupid .) Because it is of benefit to him now ...[text shortened]... that . You spoke as if from fact about me , which makes you an arrogant assumptive little turd .
Survival, a state of being? I admit that it is a very real instinct, but unfortunately, a universe of random chance that abides by the laws of thermodynamics still needs "something" to tell these biological bundles to survive, because it is going against the law that all things degenerate to simpler, less complex, cooler state. What compells an amoeba to develop into a higher, better and more complex state?(take your time, I've stated this as simply as possible, but it may require a little thinking, not the programmed response you've defecated over my thread).
05 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXWell you're a fiesty little guy aren't you? Good for you, give 'em hell. However, while you are doing that it might be a good idea to stay clear of science as you sound a bit foolish when discussing it and before long all your credibility will be gone and you will lose even your ability to be annoying.
You thrive on assumptions...
Survival, a state of being? I admit that it is a very real instinct, but unfortunately, a universe of random chance that abides by the laws of thermodynamics still needs "something" to tell these biological bundles to survive, because it is going against the law that all things degenerate to simpler, less complex, cooler state. ...[text shortened]... it may require a little thinking, not the programmed response you've defecated over my thread).
As to your assertions regarding what I assume is the second law of thermodynamics...
First, lets quote the law so that everybody knows what we are talking about:
"All processes manifest a tendency toward decay and disintegration, with a net increase in what is called the entropy, or state of randomness or disorder, of the system."
Ok, well that is pretty clear.
Now for information as to why TOE does not violate said law I will direct you to:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noway.htm#14
which states:
All processes do not exhibit a tendency towards decay and disintegration. It is only the overall entropy (disorder) of the universe which increases. "This means that some parts of a system may indeed become more orderly and complex so long as this increase in order is balanced by an equal or greater decrease in order elsewhere. This, of course, is exactly what living things do -- as they grow and evolve they use enormous amounts of energy (usually in the form of food), producing a thermodynamic balance in the system as a whole. The second law no more forbids evolution than it forbids a tiny seed from growing into a larger, more complex tree. Both processes require energy to proceed, and both are in perfect accordance with the laws of thermodynamics." 12 There are many examples on earth in which entropy decreases and order increases:
The formation of snowflakes.
Formation of salt crystals.
Seeds becoming plants.
Eggs becoming Chickens.
Evolution of species of life is one more example. Evolution of plant and animal species on earth was and is made possible by the rise in entropy in the sun. That is, the heat and illumination from the sun makes life on earth possible; it makes it possible for seeds to grow into trees, and for simple organisms to evolve into more complex species. But the sun can only accomplish this by gradually running down. Billions of years from now, the sun's entropy will win out and the sun will fail.
END QUOTE
There, that should keep you busy for a while.
TheSkipper
05 Oct 05
2 edits
Originally posted by RatXYou posted the following:
Originally posted by David Cr@p
Heaven forfend that your ego should be shattered to discover there is no higher purpose to your existence. Why can't it simply be a matter of enjoying your reality, and maybe reproduce along the way? Why try to attach some deeper significance to it all? For all you know, you might be a meat animal on an abandoned farm cuse this post for being long and a little scattered - I'm tired from a thru-the-night shift...
...if chance and time somehow got us here, man is no more than matter, all emotions, desires, temptation, love, hate - our very consciousness can be broken down to bio-chemistry. We are no more than a complex lump of matter that exists by accident and has one purpose: survival (I'll come back to this one).
But, of course, my question to you was this: If it is a fact that our psychologies are reducible to physical states of various complexities, why does it follow that our beliefs and desires, loves and joys, are less important? What reason is there for thinking that the purpose of a life can only be survival, if evolutionary theory is true? You haven't answered these questions, merely asserted that there can be no meaning if we are purely physical creatures, and that there can be no purpose if we are the result of evolutionary processes. That is precisely the point at issue, and your reiterating your position doesn't make your position any more plausible.
Even if my love for my wife was a result of various biochemical processes, that doesn't change the importance my love for her has with regards to my deliberations about how I ought to treat her. I still want to spend my life with her, to grow old with her, and to be the best husband I can be. Whether my love for my wife results from Divine Inspiration, Free Choice, or bio-chemical processes is simply irrelevant to the issue. That something was caused, whether by God or by chance, has no analytical entailments as to its importance or value.
My life, just like yours, was the result of causal factors. Whether those causal factors were influenced by God or by random mutation and natural selection seems irrelevant to the question of the purpose of my life. Suppose that, unbeknownst to you, you were grown in a test tube and genetically designed by a scientist to have certain characteristics. Would this mean that the purpose of your life is parasitic upon the whims of the scientist that made you? Of course not. You have the ability to determine what purpose your life has, and you exercise this ability when you deliberate about what is valuable, what you ought to do, what person you ought to be, and how you ought to live. You can, through the choices you make, live a life of integrity and compassion. You can inform your own life with purpose and meaning. There is simply no reason to think that a purpose of a life can only come from outside of that life.
And RatX, please leave off with the insults, lest you continue sounding like a petulant child.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXOriginally posted by RatX
You don't have the slightest grasp of context.
In relation to creating life, why would a god be as wasteful and weak and useless as to use a process of random chance to create life? Why can't he get it right the first time? Why use millions of years and billions of deaths?
Oh, quality of life? Where does this come in? Who made you judge of what ...[text shortened]...
I'll take the tip on no1 and see if I can build up 😉 Currently too tired to start insulting.[/b]
You don't have the slightest grasp of context.
No, I was looking at your statement from a different perspective. I don't see why evolution would be considered to be 'death-riddled' compared to intelligent design.
Originally posted by RatX
In relation to creating life, why would a god be as wasteful and weak and useless as to use a process of random chance to create life? Why can't he get it right the first time? Why use millions of years and billions of deaths?
Why not be wasteful? Who's to say whether a god would even care about wastefulness? The christian alternative tells us that a god created a bunch of people, the majority of which will be eternally tormented. Is that somehow less 'wasteful' than the evolution process?
Why not use billions of years? I don't see the problem with this.
Originally posted by RatX
Oh, quality of life? Where does this come in? Who made you judge of what the goal and purpose of existence is?
That was a response to your question. Nice try though.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by RatXIt is a pity that you are so sensitive to criticism. If only you understood how weak you really are intellectually, you could actually make some progress.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again... Your jumping to conclusions is astounding - just shows your closed-minded bigotted view.
I accepted evolution because I was taught it was Science. I dropped it when I discovered it wasn't. I don't prefer to have one god - I was convinced of this on multiple levels - not using selective evidence. I decided to research it all ...[text shortened]... because it lacks evidence, it doesn't make sense, it is not science and is a laughable theory.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by bbarrBbarr, I appreciate your perspective and I see you've put plenty of thought behind it. You're right that all these things are real, but when it comes to their value, I don't want to be living under false assumptions - in that I want to know that I choose my love, I sustain it by will. If I were to discover that my wife is a droid (pre-programmed to love), it would be earth-shattering to me, because I'll realise that she's not loving me for who I am, she never chose to love me and she doesn't have a choice in it. However, if I know that we are created beings, with a free will, made up of mind, body and soul, then her love would mean so much more because she chooses to love me above anyone else and sustains that love every day with choice (despite me often being an ass and not deserving her).
You posted the following:
[b]...if chance and time somehow got us here, man is no more than matter, all emotions, desires, temptation, love, hate - our very consciousness can be broken down to bio-chemistry. We are no more than a complex lump of matter that exists by accident and has one purpose: survival (I'll come back to this one).
But, of course ...[text shortened]...
And RatX, please leave off with the insults, lest you continue sounding like a petulant child.[/b]
This is where I struggle to accept the theory of evolution. Being a theory of origins, if I were to accept this, it would mean the very foundation of my world-view. But let me make it clear, I am not saying that I don't accept evolution because it leaves me with some dreary conclusions about life and purpose - I don't accept evolution because I have a theory and faith in something that gives me more answers and purpose in life.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by telerionThere's a line between criticism and insult - and I do hand out both. This, my friend, is not criticism - it is a poor attempt at insult.
It is a pity that you are so sensitive to criticism. If only you understood how weak you really are intellectually, you could actually make some progress.
06 Oct 05
Originally posted by TheSkipperAll processes do not exhibit a tendency towards decay and disintegration. It is only the overall entropy (disorder) of the universe which increases.
Well you're a fiesty little guy aren't you? Good for you, give 'em hell. However, while you are doing that it might be a good idea to stay clear of science as you sound a bit foolish when discussing it and before long all your credibility will be gone and you will lose even your ability to be annoying.
As to your assertions regarding what I assume ...[text shortened]... d the sun will fail.
END QUOTE
There, that should keep you busy for a while.
TheSkipper
True - very sound science... However, the only way for something to become more complex, bigger and better, is through a highly controlled and intellligent process. Just take your own work for example - the only way you make anything succeed is through hard work and intelligence. Through random chance and energy, this doesn't happen - it's missing the vital ingredient of intelligence and design. How does order come from chaos? Not by uncontrolled influx of energy - that results in further chaos and breakdown.
