ughaibu Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Cwes99_03: In post 173 you wrote, ". . . when coupled with the idea that evolution occurs (which it, IMHO, does not) explains why. . . ", this is the crux of the matter. On this question opinions are irrelevant, evolution is a fact and you are basing your position on denial of a fact. I have enough experience of arguing with people who deny facts to realise the futility of the undertaking, so I'm not going to do so here. Your education is primarily your own responsibility, on this thread you have been provided with plenty of resources, whether you use them or dont, is up to you. One thing you might want to think about; you know that environments change and you know that environments kill organisms, and you know that despite this there are living organisms. CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The only public part of your position is that you hate certain people for thinking differently than you, and you discriminate against all people who you believe to be like them. To further show this in accord with my earlier response to you, I will show again how you are wrong with the following quote.Yep...did that. In every instance you come up short. It gets criminal when you and your ilk set about to get your twisted moral logic incorporated into the law, which is part of this whole business of denying evolution and prohibiting stem cell research etc.. :doh: Addendum:United States ConstitutionAmendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,... http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt I am apolitical. If you know what this means then you immediately realize you have lumped me into the wrong crowd again. If you do not, I shall show you. Apolitical means having nothing to do with politics. You will rarely ever see me discuss politics on this site or on any, except that I will repeatedly say that humans cannot solve their own social, political, etc problems through human means (government etc.) I have not voted for any elected official ever, nor will I do so in the future. "Man has dominated man to his injury." This is particularly true of all governments, as well as some big businesses and some "religions". Now would you like to lump me together with those "religious" people who you so vehemently oppose. Please come down off of your high horse and read the posts again. You have yet to clearly view my posts and rationally respond. Your excessive pride in man's abilities, and in your own view of the world betrays you. I am not innocent of this either, but I strive to get better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Cwes99_03: In post 173 you wrote, ". . . when coupled with the idea that evolution occurs (which it, IMHO, does not) explains why. . . ", this is the crux of the matter. On this question opinions are irrelevant, evolution is a fact and you are basing your position on denial of a fact. I have enough experience of arguing with people who deny facts to realise the futility of the undertaking, so I'm not going to do so here. Your education is primarily your own responsibility, on this thread you have been provided with plenty of resources, whether you use them or dont, is up to you. Well, in the case of evolution, as we have discussed on this thread and elsewhere on Hypography, you are most certainly over reaching to call it fact. Many members of this site have noted that nothing can be called fact today. I will allow you to call it fact for one reason only. I do believe that there can be things such as facts. These things must be proven to be so, and rational questions dealing with their factual status cannot be overlooked. So far this is all you have done. Please go back and read just my posts and note how many times you all have changed the subject on this thread. I've had no response about speciation. I have had no response about the various studies that flip flop every couple of years on Darwin's finches. I've not seen any link whatsoever to social "evolution" and biological evolution. I'm sure there are more but I don't have the time right now to look them all over.The few times I have been asked for proof of my beliefs (such as the idea that the creative days were not 24 hour periods, that the Bible contains ideas about astronomy and astrophysics that could not possibly have been known or understood at the time they were written) I have provided clear evidence for such reasoning. Some have chosen to disagree with my evidence which is their right, but none have accused me of not providing evidence.I am accusing you of not providing evidence. The articles you provided (some of which are not accessible, but you would have known that if you had looked them over) did not answer the question. I know that because I read them. I have since asked you for more specific material, a website, an article, what have you, that explains a link between the idea of genetic evolution of a species and a change in their social behaviors. One thing you might want to think about; you know that environments change and you know that environments kill organisms, and you know that despite this there are living organisms.I also know that evironments change, and environments cause organisms to thrive, and despite that some die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ughaibu Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Interactions of social evolution and biological evolution: http://irows.ucr.edu/cd/courses/181/scchp1.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Thank you. I already had the first link. Would you care to discuss what it says? I haven't had a chance to review the entire page that you sent me, but am willing to discuss what it says about speciation. Do not miss out on the links I sent you above that also discuss speciation. Most importantly do not just expect that by throwing up a website that there is an end to discussion. The website may contain bad data, or may not contain the latest data (as this website is now over 10 years old without an update, the later is probably true), however it still has the ability to bring up points for discussion which I will happily discuss with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 What do you mean by step it out far enough?Qualities pass from parent to offspring. Parents who have beneficial qualities outnumber those with detrimental qualities (after some elapsed time), hence, future generations of offspring represent, through evolution, those beneficial qualities more often than before. Contuining this, certain qualities go away completely, and other qualities increase in frequency. My point is that these [social changes, often described as linked with biological evolution] happen, not because of evolution but, because we were created (or if you prefer evolved) with abilities to make decisions and change our minds based off of reason, and thus changing our minds because we can does not mean we are evolving at all. Social evolution by those points would seem flawed and unfounded. I've already offered a hypothesis regarding this in this very thread. I'm willing to let go of that hypothesis if you propose a better one which not only describes the same things, but does so in a better way. Sorry Infinite, I must have missed it. Could you find it and remind me what that hypothesis was? The only hypothesis I remember is that someone said I must need to do more reading. Missed it? You even responded to it... :doh: Post #167:Society and everything which comes with it is inextricably tied to our biology. The way we interact with others, with the environment, and with ourselves are all emergent properties of our biological evolution, coupled with our previous experience. When certain traits are advanced through evolution, because they offered some benefit to the organism, those traits often come together across members of the group in what might be called society. As an example, if an animal is biologically more likely to be a fighter, viscious and mean, but this meanness offered an advantage, then a pack of such animals will have different social customs than another pack which has found success in symbiosis (working together for mutual benefit). As the individuals in these societies evolve, so too does the society itself, and all social parameters that come with it. Hence... Post #186:I came up with these examples in about 5 seconds... there are certainly more and better ones out there if you look (which is what Ughaibu was suggesting, and Turtle got frustrated with you for seeming to ignore the evidence available). <...> If the one asking to be shown the light is blind, they won't see it despite how brightly it is shown on them. I do not claim that you are ignoring evidence intentionally, but you are clearly ignoring evidence or not recognizing the impact it has on the statements you are making. Your blindness isn't an evolved problem with your neurobiology, but a choice you are making based on the teachings you follow. Likewise today, some can still say that they will not believe in the existence of atoms until they see them themselves. They would be wrong, but they have a right to believe so.Yep, it's their right to be wrong. It's also my right to try showing them why they are wrong, educating them toward clarity and away from self-imposed blindness in hopes of improving the knowledge (removing ignorance) of the world. Perhaps wars would stop if we could do this with enough people... at least religious wars might. :evil: Cheers. :smart: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 The only public part of your position is that you hate certain people for thinking differently than you, and you discriminate against all people who you believe to be like them. To further show this in accord with my earlier response to you, I will show again how you are wrong with the following quote. I am apolitical. If you know what this means then you immediately realize you have lumped me into the wrong crowd again. If you do not, I shall show you. Apolitical means having nothing to do with politics. You will rarely ever see me discuss politics on this site or on any, except that I will repeatedly say that humans cannot solve their own social, political, etc problems through human means (government etc.) I have not voted for any elected official ever, nor will I do so in the future. "Man has dominated man to his injury." This is particularly true of all governments, as well as some big businesses and some "religions". Now would you like to lump me together with those "religious" people who you so vehemently oppose. Please come down off of your high horse and read the posts again. You have yet to clearly view my posts and rationally respond. Your excessive pride in man's abilities, and in your own view of the world betrays you. I am not innocent of this either, but I strive to get better. Well nows, where to start.:doh: Last to first I suppose.No kidding!?:smart: Judge not...yada yada yada...You have yet to rationally write a post.You ask me to come off my high-horse because you sit a pony.Yep, one big lump. That you don't vote when you are capable is contrary to our nation's wellbeing, making you again part of the problem.You show me nothing but ignorance and blind belief. As to my public position it is virtually the same as my private opinion sans foul language. At the risk of going off topic, but as you opened the door, I'll discuss the issue of reputation as it applies to this thread. Cw said:Turtle, I have tried twice to figure out what you have against me or against religion via PM, but you have refused to answer. I don't know what has you worked up so much that you are getting so angry. Angry enough that you have now given me bad rep twice in less than 6 days for two posts on this site without much reason (you did say I was being arrogant, but did not explain why you thought so).I do not carry on discussions via PM in general, and in particular I will not engage you privately because there is nothing I have to say that I won't say in public. You employ this tactic of suggesting people draw off to the side with you so you can straighten them out consistantly here and I rebuke the tactic. You have brought the private issue of my reputation votes on your behalf into the public in an attempt to generate sympathy for your wounds, but the truth is I see that as whining and weakness and reason enough to strike more blows. For all your claimed special understanding of the bible and its having all the answers, how is it you don't understand my actions? Just as I maintain that Americans need to vote out the religious elected officials, I maintain that the reputation voting system here at the forum serves a similar function for voting against religious elitism. So in conclusion, I will cast my rep votes when, where, and how I care to. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.:evil: Tormod 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 That you don't vote when you are capable is contrary to our nation's wellbeing, making you again part of the problem. ... I do not carry on discussions via PM in general, and in particular I will not engage you privately because there is nothing I have to say that I won't say in public. You employ this tactic of suggesting people draw off to the side with you so you can straighten them out consistantly here and I rebuke the tactic. You have brought the private issue of my reputation votes on your behalf into the public in an attempt to generate sympathy for your wounds, but the truth is I see that as whining and weakness and reason enough to strike more blows. For all your claimed special understanding of the bible and its having all the answers, how is it you don't understand my actions? Just as I maintain that Americans need to vote out the religious elected officials, I maintain that the reputation voting system here at the forum serves a similar function for voting against religious elitism. So in conclusion, I will cast my rep votes when, where, and how I care to. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.:) Well this is another place where your misunderstanding allows you to show irrational behavior. I do not invite others to PM with me to "straighten them out", nor do I do so consistently. I have only once (maybe twice) in open forum invited members to discuss some things with me in PM because I believed it would be against forum rules to discuss such issues in the open forum. With you, I came to you in a PM first to try to understand what was wrong and fix any hurt feelings before they errupted in open forum. You turned away from these, instead, as you have just shown, you chose to lash out at some who you know little to nothing about.I attempted to speak privately with you because I have been taught it is better to speak with a person one on one than to show your stupidity by lashing out at others without proper reason or information. You seem to have been raised differently as you certainly have shown that you don't have proper information and without such proper information, lack reason. I'm sorry you have to treat others unkindly and see their kind acts as weakness and whining.For all your claimed special understanding of the bible and its having all the answers, how is it you don't understand my actions?Actually, I did say earlier that I expect such treatment, as Jesus said that followers of his would be mistreated for their beliefs. As far as the first comment, that not voting hurts the system: you can't have it both ways. Either you do or you don't want people to vote their conscience. If their conscience says they should live life a certain way and that way is better if everyone lives that way, then you have to learn to get along with it or move. Otherwise you should be happy that such people don't vote. So which is it? No need to answer as that is a rhetorical question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 All parties, please refrain from further personal attack. This forum is for discussion, and while viewpoints may differ, it's not necessary to attack one another's character. Cheers. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Originally Posted by iNowSociety and everything which comes with it is inextricably tied to our biology. The way we interact with others, with the environment, and with ourselves are all emergent properties of our biological evolution, coupled with our previous experience. When certain traits are advanced through evolution, because they offered some benefit to the organism, those traits often come together across members of the group in what might be called society. As an example, if an animal is biologically more likely to be a fighter, viscious and mean, but this meanness offered an advantage, then a pack of such animals will have different social customs than another pack which has found success in symbiosis (working together for mutual benefit). As the individuals in these societies evolve, so too does the society itself, and all social parameters that come with it. Ok, I failed to see how this was a hypothesis completely tied to a particular genetic trait. So, I will explore this with you. Do you believe it is possible that certain genes exist within our (human) genome that cause us to seek particular social groupings (religious creeds, political ideals, etc)? If so, then we are all predisposed to being what we are and believing what we believe. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove this, or find many others who agree. I do not deny that our genetic makeup allows for us to think about religion, politics, and other abstract ideas. I do not believe however that animals, plants, or microorganisms have such abilities (I've never seen a scientific article say that these have demonstrated a knowledge or ability to worship another being.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiked Blood Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 For all your claimed special understanding of the bible and its having all the answers, how is it you don't understand my actions? :) Its funny that most of the answers in the bible are miracles. Something we silly little humans just aren't capable of performing.. Lets ask Jesus how to deal with famine in third world countries... Jesus, an answer? Jesus: Well, if you gather up five loathes and two fishes...:hyper: This whole debate is absurd. How do you change a closed mind? With a rock would be the best bet. Both sides are so stubborn that you don't even consider the possibility that you are both wrong.:) So convinced that because you believe the opposite argument to be wrong that yours must be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 All parties, please refrain from further personal attack. This forum is for discussion, and while viewpoints may differ, it's not necessary to attack one another's character. Cheers. :cup: Yes Sir. :) I resolve to henceforth try and confine my logically justified character attacks to the rep system designed for that purpose. :eek: :) :hyper: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Both sides should be stubborn, if they truly believe what they believe. It may not be for either of us to change our minds, but it is for us to present our cases. On any debate there are at least two sides. Neither side may see the other's viewpoint, however, each side is required to debate the others points. Refusing to do so often results in the gallery siding with the opposing viewpoint.I have not denied that some will never see my viewpoint, but I honestly search for new ideas on the opposing side that I haven't heard and refuted with a counter point. While you may disagree with the effectiveness or accuracy of my counterpoint, would you deny that I am countering a point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Do you believe it is possible that certain genes exist within our (human) genome that cause us to seek particular social groupings (religious creeds, political ideals, etc)? Yes, I think that our genetic makeup predisposes us to certain groupings. If so, then we are all predisposed to being what we are and believing what we believe. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove this, or find many others who agree.That's another point that doesn't fully follow from the previous. The thing to remember is that there is no seperation of nature and nurture, and we are always a complex interplay between them both (i.e. between our genetic makeup and the aggregate of our past experience). I do not believe however that animals, plants, or microorganisms have such abilities (I've never seen a scientific article say that these have demonstrated a knowledge or ability to worship another being.)Yes, it's pretty hard to get self-reports from animals and plants, I agree. However, let me ask you this. Do you think animals ever look at the world around them and try to understand it?Do you think they stuggle to describe internally what is happening?If yes, then I'd say yes, they have such abilities. Btw, my dog TOTALLY worships me! :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Do you believe it is possible that certain genes exist within our (human) genome that cause us to seek particular social groupings (religious creeds, political ideals, etc)? If so, then we are all predisposed to being what we are and believing what we believe. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove this, or find many others who agree. That's [one] point that doesn't fully follow from the previous. The thing to remember is that there is no seperation of nature and nurture, and we are always a complex interplay between them both (i.e. between our genetic makeup and the aggregate of our past experience). See I'm of the school that nature and nurture are separate entities. Too many times I hear people say that he is an alcholic because he is genetically predisposed to it. While I don't know conclusively one way or another whether there are alcoholism genes, I certainly don't believe it is possible to say that being around an alcoholic all your life had nothing to do with your becoming an alcoholic. Do you think that there is such a thing as a passed down genetic memory, that people can access (if nothing else at least subconsciously) memories of their parent's, grandparent's, etc. lives. Is there any reasonable proof to support such an idea, as I must say I am unaware of any? Has anyone here ever cited studies of adopted children and biological parents to see if their habits are genetic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwes99_03 Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Furthermore, how do you describe a child who completely turns away from the beliefs of the parents? Is this a genetic change thus meaning it is a microevolutionary step? What about people who change religious creeds, philosophical thinking, political alignment? Have they mutated genetically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiked Blood Posted October 10, 2006 Report Share Posted October 10, 2006 Both sides should be stubborn, if they truly believe what they believe. It may not be for either of us to change our minds, but it is for us to present our cases. On any debate there are at least two sides. Neither side may see the other's viewpoint, however, each side is required to debate the others points. Refusing to do so often results in the gallery siding with the opposing viewpoint.I have not denied that some will never see my viewpoint, but I honestly search for new ideas on the opposing side that I haven't heard and refuted with a counter point. While you may disagree with the effectiveness or accuracy of my counterpoint, would you deny that I am countering a point? I know very little about evolution, so I don't know that there is anything veritable about the points being raised, or that you are in some way countering them. I do know this...I think:doh: There is motion. With motion there is change. With each moment I am different. Everything changes. Without motion and change there would be no observable universe. I do know that your religion preaches that Adam was perfect. He sinned. He underwent change. That change is passed down from generation to generation becoming greater each time. Until reaching a point where man is so imperfect and sinful that god will have to step in. I guess evolving from complete perfecton to complete imperfection. The pessimist outlook.:) Imperfection is used to group a whole set of imperfect traits that are passed down as we become more sinful. Seems to me either way you look at it, we evolve as a species. We become more or we become less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.