Politics & Stuff

[Fernando 6,585]

40 minutes ago, manpe said:

You can use google. It's still not a fact though afaik, so you may safely disregard that single sentence from my post. What about the rest of what I said about morality? Why are you ignoring this?

Major faults in transnational species? Please clarify.

So your whole argument against evolution is that scientific dating tests are not 100% accurate, who would have known. I still trust them more than.. I don't even know what we're comparing it with, since this is all we got. And no, I don't take some dates mentioned in the bible as fact. But I'm still not sure how determining something's age is relevant here. The fact that we can't reliably pinpoint something's exact age doesn't mean that millions of years of evolution didn't happen.

How evolution beats creationism? For an atheist, that is a simple question. I'm not sure if I'm gonna muster the time and energy to explain, as it's clear that we don't share the same beliefs, so it's completely pointless to run in circles. But for example, we can to this day find signs of evolution on our own bodies (f.ex. rudimentary muscles we don't need anymore). Fetuses still start growing tails in the womb for a short period of time until our genetic code stops it. If creationism were true, then I see no reason for god to have engineered us with body parts and functions we don't need. Do you? Perhaps god just works in mysterious ways, so everything unexplainable can be explained by this. What is more likely though? That they have become obsolete over a long period of time as a result of adapting to changes in environment and way of life.

I have never ever seen a creationist bring forward any studies to even semi-convincingly confirm creationism or debunk evolution, but there are far more evidence supporting the latter. By the way, I'm not trying to be aggressive towards your beliefs, though it may sound so. I'm just puzzled how people can be so confident in their beliefs based only on (blind) faith, something I so far have failed to understand.

There's many out there, just that you have not done the research...

I will give you a couple of examples besides the issue of transitional species. 

First we have Dark Energy.

This guy explains it better than me so....:

 

Second we have the Goldilocks concept. The concept that earth is just at the right place, right spot in the solar system, galaxy and universe. 

A long with the Goldilocks concept, you can add these two. If the earth's rotation was different we would have a catastrophe for humans making civilization impossible. The tilt of the rotational axis is just the right direction to allow life in the globe. 

Third there's Genetic Entropy. This shows that the human race is actually deteriorating, not evolving. 

Fourth this one is interesting, Natural selection has not explain the origin of information in DNA. 

And last is the Cambrian explosion. This is linked with a lack of transitional species. There's a lack of transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian explosion. 

Actually the case I'm making for is not much for evolution but intelligent design. That as you study more and more the universe you find order and not chaos. 

[Fernando 6,585]

57 minutes ago, Dion said:

The ideology is using logical thinking, if I assume I'm allowed to kill you, then I have to assume you are allowed to kill me. Living in society is sort of having a mutual agreement, I won't cause you harm and you won't cause me harm. Inflicting pain is not an ideology, is not a standard, is not an opinion, it's Biology. It's biologically unpleasant.

It shouldn't be subjective. It should be derived from using rationality to achieve a positive well-being to the human species. Does it look like to you that was what Hitler was doing?

Because happiness is pleasant. Again, Biology. Concern about others makes sense in an evolutionary sense if it was advantageous to survival and passing the genes along. Your understanding about evolution is flawed.

True it has some flawed but so is the origin of evolution.

Tell me can you explain how logical thinking evolve? 

And the point about biology is very true and also interesting as well. But doesn't that state that it had to be programmed into our biology? Somewhere a long the line the genetics had to be changed in order for this to happened..... 

Otherwise how do you explain the evolution from nothing....if we are to believe the big bang theory. Where matter explode, eventually giving way to water, then organism and on and on. 

[Dion 2,476]

32 minutes ago, Fernando said:

True it has some flawed but so is the origin of evolution.

Tell me can you explain how logical thinking evolve? 

And the point about biology is very true and also interesting as well. But doesn't that state that it had to be programmed into our biology? Somewhere a long the line the genetics had to be changed in order for this to happened..... 

Otherwise how do you explain the evolution from nothing....if we are to believe the big bang theory. Where matter explode, eventually giving way to water, then organism and on and on. 

I do not know how logical thinking evolved. But if I had to guess, I'd say it was similar to how other features have evolved. I mean, let's say you have a population of species X. One of these individuals from species X has a mutation that enables him to do better associations between cause and effect because of some differences in the way his brain functions. For instance, let's say he eats some berries and it causes him a major diarrhea or something. Now his brain makes a link between those two things, while the other individuals from species X cannot. From this point onwards this mutant individual already has an advantage over his peers since he'll avoid eating those berries. As evolution progressed this system became more and more complex as organisms got selected by their brain capacity, we humans just happen to be currently the apex in this regard.

Now I wouldn't know the exact mechanism which provides us with this ability. Perhaps if I'm a neurologist one day I'd be able to tell you better.

 

Concerning the origin of life that's anyone's guess, but there have been some interesting experiments. If I recall correctly, one of them was made by a scientist named Oparin.  He tried to recreate our primitive atmosphere composition and continuous electrical discharges and, after a couple weeks or months running the experiment, he found that amino acids, organic matter which compounds proteins, had been spontaneously created at the bottom. Now imagine this experiment running in a HUGE scale, the whole planet, for millions or billions of years. It might have originated the first cells and then evolution started its magic, or it might not, nobody knows for sure.

[Dion 2,476]

1 hour ago, Fernando said:

There's many out there, just that you have not done the research...

I will give you a couple of examples besides the issue of transitional species. 

First we have Dark Energy.

This guy explains it better than me so....:

 

Second we have the Goldilocks concept. The concept that earth is just at the right place, right spot in the solar system, galaxy and universe. 

A long with the Goldilocks concept, you can add these two. If the earth's rotation was different we would have a catastrophe for humans making civilization impossible. The tilt of the rotational axis is just the right direction to allow life in the globe. 

Third there's Genetic Entropy. This shows that the human race is actually deteriorating, not evolving. 

Fourth this one is interesting, Natural selection has not explain the origin of information in DNA. 

And last is the Cambrian explosion. This is linked with a lack of transitional species. There's a lack of transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian explosion. 

Actually the case I'm making for is not much for evolution but intelligent design. That as you study more and more the universe you find order and not chaos. 

The bolded part I think is a terrible concept. I get the impression it starts from the wrong place. First and foremost, life didn't have to exist, you know? Life is the exception, it looks miraculous because we ARE the exception. Look how many planets and how many places don't have any form of life, or at least none that we know of or similar to the ones we are familiar with. I don't know how to put this better but it seems everything fell in place in this particular place and time because it has. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here to observe it. Imagine if the earth's rotation had been different – well, we wouldn't exist then and as such we would never know, you see? We are only able to see the events lined up because that's the condition for our existence. And also there might be another couple of exceptions like us, because the universe is huge it is likely that it happened elsewhere in the cosmos where conditions are similar. And second, there might be other forms of life that we don't even know how to start looking for because they are not biochemical forms of life like ourselves or because they may exist in another scale of size or parameter.

[Fernando 6,585]

19 minutes ago, Dion said:

I do not know how logical thinking evolved. But if I had to guess, I'd say it was similar to how other features have evolved. I mean, let's say you have a population of species X. One of these individuals from species X has a mutation that enables him to do better associations between cause and effect because of some differences in the way his brain functions. For instance, let's say he eats some berries and it causes him a major diarrhea or something. Now his brain makes a link between those two things, while the other individuals from species X cannot. From this point onwards this mutant individual already has an advantage over his peers since he'll avoid eating those berries. As evolution progressed this system became more and more complex as organisms got selected by their brain capacity, we humans just happen to be currently the apex in this regard.

Now I wouldn't know the exact mechanism which provides us with this ability. Perhaps if I'm a neurologist one day I'd be able to tell you better.

 

Concerning the origin of life that's anyone's guess, but there have been some interesting experiments. If I recall correctly, one of them was made by a scientist named Oparin.  He tried to recreate our primitive atmosphere composition and continuous electrical discharges and, after a couple weeks or months running the experiment, he found that amino acids, organic matter which compounds proteins, had been spontaneously created at the bottom. Now imagine this experiment running in a HUGE scale, the whole planet, for millions or billions of years. It might have originated the first cells and then evolution started its magic, or it might not, nobody knows for sure.

Your first point is very good however it falls under the condition of "information". And where does information comes from? Not evolved that is, but passed on as you yourself adequately illustrated. 

The second point I think you will find that many people have now rejected that idea of a pre mordial soup. Instead they have gone into panspermia theory.... 

[Dion 2,476]

5 hours ago, Fernando said:

Your first point is very good however it falls under the condition of "information". And where does information comes from? Not evolved that is, but passed on as you yourself adequately illustrated. 

The second point I think you will find that many people have now rejected that idea of a pre mordial soup. Instead they have gone into panspermia theory.... 

I don't know. I think it makes sense. There are others similar to the primordial soup which also look decent. I don't like the panspermia theory, I think it only moves the question elsewhere to "so how did life began wherever it was before coming to earth?"

 

Btw, I don't think I get what you meant by information.

[cosmicway 1,333]

I agree about health care because we are all vulnerable to diseases.
But I have reservations. Some people complain about a 20 euro ticket to enter the hospital that was introduced one time. I said to them if you become sick and it costs you only 20 quid to get treated then we live in socialist paradise ! If you fight every day and they treat you for nose bleed, then pay the 20.

Free education is good to have but it is also by and large a fraud.
We have free education. Back in my school days I used to attend tutorial classes at the British council, for the GCE. That was normal for me because how else could I prepare for the GCE ? But every night when I returned home my school teacher of Physics was in the same bus - he was teaching in tutorial schools in the same neighbourhood as the British Council, for Greek university entry exams !
So those school pupils who wanted to enter those exams had to pay the tutorial schools and it was the same teacher as well !
So the free school was a fraud or was n't it ?
Those who did not attend the special tutorial classes had no chance. But those who did not attend were not the poor ones. It was mainly the sons of shop keepers and other trades like that who were to carry on in the family business and did not care about higher education.
So schools with logical cost is the solution. Not schools for millionaires and not so called free schools that are useless.
Btw the Greek universities -just like the ones of Uk- were not of course prepared to lower their standards, to reflect the mediocrity of the state run middle schools. The entry exam was -and is- a slaughterhouse !
 

[manpe 10,861]

7 hours ago, Fernando said:

There's many out there, just that you have not done the research...

I will give you a couple of examples besides the issue of transitional species. 

First we have Dark Energy.

This guy explains it better than me so....:

 

Second we have the Goldilocks concept. The concept that earth is just at the right place, right spot in the solar system, galaxy and universe. 

A long with the Goldilocks concept, you can add these two. If the earth's rotation was different we would have a catastrophe for humans making civilization impossible. The tilt of the rotational axis is just the right direction to allow life in the globe. 

Third there's Genetic Entropy. This shows that the human race is actually deteriorating, not evolving. 

Fourth this one is interesting, Natural selection has not explain the origin of information in DNA. 

And last is the Cambrian explosion. This is linked with a lack of transitional species. There's a lack of transitional fossils prior to the Cambrian explosion. 

Actually the case I'm making for is not much for evolution but intelligent design. That as you study more and more the universe you find order and not chaos. 

None of that comes close to convincing me of creationism/intelligent design. For every theory, you can find the other side (trying to) debunk it. There are A LOT of unanswered questions, things we don't know and in this current state cannot comprehend or have the means to find the answers. Instead of trying to explain every unexplainable thing by giving credit to god, I leave those questions open to speculation until something factual comes out. Quite simply the idea of a single deity being the creator of EVERYTHING is too far fetched for me, irrational. Science is much more rational for me, it is comprehensible and compatible with my line of thinking. I'm not gonna give more lengthy replies on this matter because it is getting off-topic and Dion already says what I think.

However, this discussion has reignited my interest in existential matters, creationist and evolution. Thank you for providing your view of the other side. I still maintain that religion has nothing to do with morality though

[CHOULO19 24,332]

So a guy just hijacked a plane to deliver a love letter to his ex-wife...

I know if you are involved in any way in the debacle, you won't find this funny, but lmfao!  

[manpe 10,861]

24 minutes ago, CHOULO19 said:

So a guy just hijacked a plane to deliver a love letter to his ex-wife...

I know if you are involved in any way in the debacle, you won't find this funny, but lmfao!  

What can I say.. you just can't trust the postal services anymore, if you want something done, do it yourself.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Just now, manpe said:

What can I say.. you just can't trust the postal services anymore, if you want something done, do it yourself.

Well we do say that all is fair in love and war....but fucking hell!

 

On a related note, I just heard that Sam Harris just called for the profiling of all divorced historians  

 

[Fernando 6,585]

11 hours ago, Dion said:

The bolded part I think is a terrible concept. I get the impression it starts from the wrong place. First and foremost, life didn't have to exist, you know? Life is the exception, it looks miraculous because we ARE the exception. Look how many planets and how many places don't have any form of life, or at least none that we know of or similar to the ones we are familiar with. I don't know how to put this better but it seems everything fell in place in this particular place and time because it has. If it hadn't we wouldn't be here to observe it. Imagine if the earth's rotation had been different – well, we wouldn't exist then and as such we would never know, you see? We are only able to see the events lined up because that's the condition for our existence. And also there might be another couple of exceptions like us, because the universe is huge it is likely that it happened elsewhere in the cosmos where conditions are similar. And second, there might be other forms of life that we don't even know how to start looking for because they are not biochemical forms of life like ourselves or because they may exist in another scale of size or parameter.

This is the same reasoning religion use. There might be a heaven or hell. There might be a creator. It's called faith. 

But let's say your observation is true, then my question is how it got there? 

You see, many scientist agree that the universe had a beginning ie big bang. A start to the universe suggest that there's must be a causal agent beyond space and time that cause the universe into being. 

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem says any universe that expands over its history must have a space time beginning (this implies there must be a creator beyond space and time that created everything). 

And only a universe that expands is able to have life. 

[Stingray 9,441]

This why Evolution doesn't make sense to me.

Those who believe in evolution it shouldn't matter to them about morale right. Morality comes from a god, in which they don't believe.

With Evolution you just live and die. No good or bad matters, because you go back to nothing.

Now if there is a god, then your accountable to him.

I already posted it, there is no link between morality and religion - quite the opposite. Your premisse that morality comes from God (or god) is simply wrong. Its not because you want it to be true, that it is true. But it is no use discussing science here, you would not accept it anyway.

Ps: please do not debate evolution with me.

Ps2: you have a weird idea about morality. Are you moral just because you want to avoid being punished in the afterlife? Atheists might be moral because they themselves think it is the right thing to do. Now what kinda motivation to be moral would be superior?

[cosmicway 1,333]

4 minutes ago, Stingray said:

I already posted it, there is no link between morality and religion - quite the opposite. Your premisse that morality comes from God (or god) is simply wrong. Its not because you want it to be true, that it is true. But it is no use discussing science here, you would not accept it anyway.

God functions as a Poincaret probability engine.
You 're here infront of a machine capable of instantly communicating with Caracas Venezuela and Honolulu further out..
If an ancient Roman soldier were to see this, what would he think ?
So God's presence is fairly obvious, if not by 100%.
It's the God of peace of course, not the God of the crackpot loonies.

[Stingray 9,441]

God functions as a Poincaret probability engine.

You 're here infront of a machine capable of instantly communicating with Caracas Venezuela and Honolulu further out..

If an ancient Roman soldier were to see this, what would he think ?

So God's presence is fairly obvious, if not by 100%.

It's the God of peace of course, not the God of the crackpot loonies.

Poincaré (not Poincaret) would turn himself in his grave tbh. Especially after he claimed:

"Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, if not to facts themselves, because, for it, to submit would be to cease to be."