I think i do believe in God

stevejazzx

bluewolf wrote:

If you tried reading it you'd see that the church is not opposed to evolution and bows to science in this regard. In other words, my argument that the catholic church is not suppressing evolution is supported :rolleyes:

The catholic church is not supressing....?
Ok, Look I don't have time for this..

bluewolf wrote:

I told you already to look up galileo and simplicius. If you're not going to read my posts and act juvenile in addition, I'm not discussing this with you anymore.

Oh i'm Juvenile, so you call Galileo a muppet and I'm junvenile that makes you an infant relatviely speaking.

bluewolf wrote:

You were last I checked

bluewolf wrote:

What I'm telling you is that anyone who wants power will get it somehow and that if they can't use religion for it, they'd have found something else. Hence my conclusion "And then we'd be back in the same boat."

And you are too, read your own words....

bluewolf wrote:

Good day.

Yes, indeed.

deevee

I was linked to this topic from another board, and I felt like speaking up. So away we go.

I don't see how this link supports your argument

"The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years."

I suppose they had hidden it pretty sneakily in the very first sentence which I guess would explain why you didn't see it.

Yes simple, it is a device that can can convince people kill one another without question.

Clearly, things like fear, patriotism and nationalism never serve this purpose.

It's a device of cultural division. It is based on flawed accounts of history thereby creating massive problems for the present day, look at Israel and Palenstine, just politics is it? Take away religon and what do you tell a suicide bomber? How could politics achieve just fanaticism that it would cause people to randomly murder women and childern, it can't, only religon can achieve by telling people that one particular sky god wants thems to carry out these atrocities. Yes the sky God wants you to kill those childern, women whatever because they're evil westererns, easterners...whatever. Absurb, in the age of sending spaceships around the universe don't you think, that we are still worshipping sky gods?

If religion has such an iron grip on the people, why aren't more people suicide bombers? Answer: Because religion doesn't have half as much to do with it as you'd like to think.

"How could politics achieve fanaticism"? Please. Let's have some foreign powers casually kill some of your friends and family and see if you feel no animosity or desperation until big bad religion enters the picture.

So are you saying that people are using religon for power at the moment?
BTW, I don't think if religon were gone that he worlds problems would be solved, never said never would. However it might set the world on course for future generations anyway for a more accepted happy even freer society.

Yes, just like the free, nigh-utopian, religion-less Stalinist Russia, correct? Because if that's not a bastion of freedom and happy happy love, I don't know what is.

Well if the religons in question are making people live by rules invented/created by man thousands years ago then yes, that description fits.

Aren't you living by rules invented by man? What makes yours superior?

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

BTW, I don't think if religon were gone that he worlds problems would be solved, never said never would. However it might set the world on course for future generations anyway for a more accepted happy even freer society.

That may be true for certain societies. "Removing" religion from conflicts such as Israel and Palenstine might have a small effect in that suicide bombers may not be so quick to sign up, but the conflict is primarily tribal and about land and mistrust between different cultures. They'll still find ways to kill the enemy that doesn't involve killing themselves. Speculating what society would be like had religion never existed is just impossible it's so ingrained. Of course religion helped define different cultures to begin, but tribalism existed long before people were killing each other for sky gods.

And I can't accept the point that Einstein was hindered in his work by 'religion'. If he had thoughts of a creator they were his own. A mind like that would not be swayed by church teachings - rather by his own observances on a level far above what any religion envisages. Maybe.

Elf Lord Chiewn

The hand of God brought me here. Sort of. Not really. I've addressed a few glaring points.

stevejazzx wrote:

The catholic church is not supressing....?
Ok, Look I don't have time for this..

Since you apparently need information in bite-sized form, here's a small article.

freemarketnews.com wrote:

VATICAN: EVOLUTION SYNC WITH BIBLE

Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

It may not make the "creationist" crowd very happy, but their attacks on evolution might have to stop. According to an article from the Australian news.com website, the Vatican has issued a statement about the Darwinian theory of evolution and its relationship to Biblical scripture.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, is quoted as saying the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution are "perfectly compatible" if the Bible is read correctly. It was a direct attack on the creationist campaigners in America.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," Poupard allegedly said at a Vatican press conference, declaring that the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator." His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail. - ST

Did that explain what bluewolf was attempting to get across? I hope so.

stevejazzx wrote:

Oh i'm Juvenile, so you call Galileo a muppet and I'm junvenile that makes you an infant relatviely speaking.

Googling Galileo and muppet is a juvenile act. Galileo irritated Simplicius by making a (probably unintentional) strawman of him, which is what bluewolf was attempting to get across in the first place. It's the response of a powerful man to a less powerful man who's just cost him power on the ticket he granted in the first place by discreditation.

I've included the relevant part of a celebrated Wikipedia article above the portion you used from the same article (implying that you ought to have read it) while neglecting to cite.

Wikipedia wrote:

Pope Urban VIII personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in the book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism. He made another request, that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter of those requests was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberate, Simplicius, the defender of the Aristotelian Geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. This fact made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book; an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defense of the Copernican theory. To add insult to injury, Galileo put the words of Pope Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicius. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the public ridicule lightly, nor the blatant bias. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to explain himself.

stevejazzx

deevee wrote:

I was linked to this topic from another board, and I felt like speaking up. So away we go.

great...bandwagon anyone?

devee wrote:

"The position of the Roman Catholic Church on the theory of evolution has changed over the last two centuries from a large period of no official mention, to a statement of neutrality in the 1950s, to a more explicit acceptance in recent years."

because they simply had to give in and accept a middle ground

devee wrote:

I suppose they had hidden it pretty sneakily in the very first sentence which I guess would explain why you didn't see it.

I prefer to base my belief on what the catholic churchs position is in relation to evolution by the catholics churhes actions not it's pr. I base it on many articles not just one.

devee wrote:

Clearly, things like fear, patriotism and nationalism never serve this purpose.

I don't know many times i have to say it but I agree that these things can cause these problems without religon but

quote wrote:

Originally Posted by The Atheist
They'd find some other excuse to kill each other?
Money, land, skin colour, basic cultural differences - take your pick.
Fear is a great motivator too.

Money skin color and cultural differences are all areas from which the human race to seem s more tolerent, although you are right to signal them, these areas are cetainly not unqestioned and seem to be improving through time, for e.g take skin color, in America one hundred years ago black people had no place in society at all and now their place is firmly established although I do accept there is a lot political motivation for such they are certainly a lot better off these days.
Religon is the one area that remains unquestioned by the majoirty of societies around the world.
Armed with religon motivators can convince childern to kill. As long as religon exists we are going to have this extremist reaction to evolution. People terrified to embrace modern ideas will intensify their religous beliefs just to reinforce it's status.
They cannot do this other areas like money, skin color because it would not be quantifiable by any means.
They can justify murder through selective intepretation of thier holy books without much (or any) condemantion from their fellow members.
There is litreally no other way to justify murder these days. Religon is essentially the last loophole for extremists whose minds have been ravaged from the perpetual hynotism and hype that has enveloped them from a small age.
Wheter the motivation is poltical or genuine human evolution, people are gradually moving away from closemindedness, take the recent acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream society as an example.
Religon is one of the few areas where the human race is moving backwards in it's thinking becoming less inquisitive, more extreme and more hopelessly dependant on flawed leaders.
Get rid of religon and you rid the world of a massive chain that has straddled ours necks and spines for countless generations. You give people no option but to look for intelligible answers to the world.
__________________

devee wrote:

If religion has such an iron grip on the people, why aren't more people suicide bombers? Answer: Because religion doesn't have half as much to do with it as you'd like to think.

I don't get you, why aren't more people suicide bombers?
Isn't the fact that we have as many as have already shows just how strong a grip religon has around these people?

devee wrote:

"How could politics achieve fanaticism"? Please. Let's have some foreign powers casually kill some of your friends and family and see if you feel no animosity or desperation until big bad religion enters the picture.

What on earth has that got to with anything, that is a sentence without contex, a generalised rabble. Tell me this are you and I more more likly to killed by religous fundamentalists or by Politicians, now unless you work for the C.I.A I think we have our answer.

devee wrote:

Yes, just like the free, nigh-utopian, religion-less Stalinist Russia, correct? Because if that's not a bastion of freedom and happy happy love, I don't know what is.

So because a dictator ruled without religon we should rule with religon?
Or is your point that it was the abscence of religon which created this era in russian histroy?

devee wrote:

Aren't you living by rules invented by man? What makes yours superior?

Mine are superior because they are open to question, scrutiny and above all else, change. Also as a little bonus the people who create don't claim that that a sky god gave it to them, which is nice.

stevejazzx

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

The hand of God brought me here. Sort of. Not really. I've addressed a few glaring points.

another one poster
bandwagon anyone...hold on deja vous.

elf lord something wrote:

Since you apparently need information in bite-sized form, here's a small article.

.....a little patronizing for a first post isn't it

elfie wrote:

Did that explain what bluewolf was attempting to get across? I hope so.
Googling Galileo and muppet is a juvenile act. Galileo irritated Simplicius by making a (probably unintentional) strawman of him, which is what bluewolf was attempting to get across in the first place. It's the response of a powerful man to a less powerful man who's just cost him power on the ticket he granted in the first place by discreditation.

Look simple fact bluewolf called galileo a muppet. Yes he said it not me, Galileo acted like a muppet. Now tell me where something like that has it's place in a serious debate.
Only after that riduclous comment did I get childish in retort as ironic sentinment, but alas it was wasted.


edit, I really, seriously this time now, don't have the time to address anymore of bluwolfs mates/clones:D

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

That may be true for certain societies. "Removing" religion from conflicts such as Israel and Palenstine might have a small effect in that suicide bombers may not be so quick to sign up, but the conflict is primarily tribal and about land and mistrust between different cultures. They'll still find ways to kill the enemy that doesn't involve killing themselves. Speculating what society would be like had religion never existed is just impossible it's so ingrained. Of course religion helped define different cultures to begin, but tribalism existed long before people were killing each other for sky gods.

And I can't accept the point that Einstein was hindered in his work by 'religion'. If he had thoughts of a creator they were his own. A mind like that would not be swayed by church teachings - rather by his own observances on a level far above what any religion envisages. Maybe.

Give me break atheist, can't you see I'm being attacked?:D
Religon is the devisive structure which has enabled this war to live.
I'll perhaps start a new thread Monday to dicuss it. (In politics of course)
For now gotta go play football with my son.

Sangre

ScumLord wrote:

I still maintain that the "God did it" explanation holds weight. The inevitability of just about everything in this universe could be a coincidence but also points to the likelihood of something planing all this out knowing that if the setup was perfect at the beginning something like us would eventually exist and God would have someone to talk to.

It only seems inevitable because you perceive it that way. If you replayed the universe a million times over I wouldn't be too confident of us arriving again in any similar way.

Its the human ego that makes us believe when we are the pinnacle of evolution, when we are anything but.

Elf Lord Chiewn

stevejazzx wrote:

.....a little patronizing for a first post isn't it

Not for someone who reads prior posts and is possessed of debate experience. Take it as you will.

wonderstevie wrote:

Look simple fact bluewolf called galileo a muppet. Yes he said it not me, Galileo acted like a muppet. Now tell me where something like that has it's place in a serious debate.

It has its place in any debate in which the term "muppet" may be defined. A muppet in this case would be someone ignorant and incompetent. You could have simply asked for a definition before jumping the gun, as it were.

I'm presuming you never saw Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?

stevie-poo wrote:

Only after that riduclous comment did I get childish in retort as ironic sentinment, but alas it was wasted.

Childish behavior in discussions such as these are typically wasted behavior.

Eh! Steve wrote:

edit, I really, seriously this time now, don't have the time to address anymore of bluwolfs mates/clones:D

Cute. If you'd like to address issues instead of ignoring arguments, making appeals to ridicule, and the like, I'll be happy to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion and move on to the rest of the board. Until then, I'll continue to respond to anything I feel like responding to as often as I consider necessary. You know, the way informal debates work?

Considering you appear to have conceded most of the points I responded to, this shouldn't take much more discourse.

Just imagine what we could accomplish in a week.

stevejazzx

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

Not for someone who reads prior posts and is possessed of debate experience. Take it as you will.

......but sadly, poor english.

blue-elf wrote:

It has its place in any debate in which the term "muppet" may be defined. A muppet in this case would be someone ignorant and incompetent. You could have simply asked for a definition before jumping the gun, as it were.

Oh I should've of asked for a definition...the term in itself is childish no matter what the definition, of course I realised it's intended meaning first time. Who uses the term muppet in a serious conversation, Guy Rithchie?

blue-elf wrote:

I'm presuming you never saw Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?

......uncanny

elflordchwin wrote:

Childish behavior in discussions such as these are typically wasted behavior.

agreed:p

person with 2 posts wrote:

Cute. If you'd like to address issues instead of ignoring arguments, making appeals to ridicule, and the like, I'll be happy to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion and move on to the rest of the board. Until then, I'll continue to respond to anything I feel like responding to as often as I consider necessary. You know, the way informal debates work?

here you go want something to read, a friend of mine writes

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm

q wrote:

Considering you appear to have conceded most of the points I responded to, this shouldn't take much more discourse.

???

q wrote:

Just imagine what we could accomplish in a week.

.....a higher post count?

stevejazzx

stevejazzx wrote:

edit, I really, seriously this time now, don't have the time to address anymore of bluwolfs mates/clones:D

He's in America. If you genuinely believe this is a troll account of mine, ask a mod to check IP.
I'm too tired to take part in this til I have a nap later.

stevejazzx

bluewolf wrote:

He's in America. If you genuinely believe this is a troll account of mine, ask a mod to check IP.
I'm too tired to take part in this til I have a nap later.

I never he said was, just refering to his and yours similarity.

Anyways

Quote of the week:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death![/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp.[/FONT]

from

http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa110498.htm

and

So, what should evolutionists and their supporters say to parents who don't want their children to become atheists and who may even hold firm to the virgin birth and the parting of the Red Sea? That it's time for them to finally let go of their quaint superstitions? That Darwinists aren't trying to push people away from religion but recognize that teaching their views does tend to have that effect? Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs.:eek: ....religon impeeding evolution?

from

http://www.slate.com/id/2124297/

Elf Lord Chiewn

stevejazzx wrote:

......but sadly, poor english.

Sorry, archaic != poor. "Possessed of" is an unusual but valid construct in Modern English.

The Man With The Large E-Peen wrote:

Oh I should've of asked for a definition...the term in itself is childish no matter what the definition, of course I realised it's intended meaning first time. Who uses the term muppet in a serious conversation, Guy Rithchie?

The term is not childish in and of itself. If you understood it to begin with, it served its purpose.

I wonder if Guy Ritchie has ever used "muppet" in a discussion about the Kabbalah. I feel a comedy sketch coming on.:D

The Anti-Muppet Brigade wrote:

here you go want something to read, a friend of mine writes

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm

Interesting read. Thanks.

Captain Obvious wrote:

.....a higher post count?

I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

Scofflaw

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

Sorry, archaic != poor. "Possessed of" is an unusual but valid construct in Modern English.

Archaic? Well, that does make me feel old! Unfortunately, it's quite common for people to find good use of English patronising.

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

The term is not childish in and of itself. If you understood it to begin with, it served its purpose.

I wonder if Guy Ritchie has ever used "muppet" in a discussion about the Kabbalah. I feel a comedy sketch coming on.:D

Involving the Spanish Inquisition, I hope?

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

Are you sure you know where you are? This is a discussion board, on the Internet. High post counts is as good as it gets!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

elf wrote:

Originally Posted by Elf Lord
I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

I present this in argument of comment about Galileo...


Quote of the week:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death![/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica]Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp[/FONT]

this in relation to religon being one of the largest poblem s of society more problematic than politics etc

Money skin color and cultural differences are all areas from which the human race to seem s more tolerent, although you are right to signal them, these areas are cetainly not unqestioned and seem to be improving through time, for e.g take skin color, in America one hundred years ago black people had no place in society at all and now their place is firmly established although I do accept there is a lot political motivation for such they are certainly a lot better off these days.
Religon is the one area that remains unquestioned by the majoirty of societies around the world.
Armed with religon motivators can convince childern to kill. As long as religon exists we are going to have this extremist reaction to evolution. People terrified to embrace modern ideas will intensify their religous beliefs just to reinforce it's status.
They cannot do this other areas like money, skin color because it would not be quantifiable by any means.
They can justify murder through selective intepretation of thier holy books without much (or any) condemantion from their fellow members.
There is litreally no other way to justify murder these days. Religon is essentially the last loophole for extremists whose minds have been ravaged from the perpetual hynotism and hype that has enveloped them from a small age.
Wheter the motivation is poltical or genuine human evolution, people are gradually moving away from closemindedness, take the recent acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream society as an example.
Religon is one of the few areas where the human race is moving backwards in it's thinking becoming less inquisitive, more extreme and more hopelessly dependant on flawed leaders.
Get rid of religon and you rid the world of a massive chain that has straddled ours necks and spines for countless generations. You give people no option but to look for intelligible answers to the world

this in relation to religon and evolution

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm


no direct reply to any of these thus far

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

Primarily I was talking about the evolution of mans curiousity about the world first i.e his ability to decipher the origins of the universe and how this would indirectly affect general evolution, religon interfered with it by proposing an explanation for the universe and forcing that idea upon millions for centuries, if that doesn't interfere with evolution then I don't know what does, if people ( don't just mean one or two outstanding scientists but rather the whole community) had of been truly questioning, investigating the origins of the universe for the last 2 thousands years don't you think we would of progreesed further by this time?

I think you're using the word evolution in a confusing and incorrect way. Evolution has no goal, it is just the ability to survive by adaption to the enviroment. It is interfered with the whole time. It is adaption to interference. Without this there is no evolution.

Religion is a highly sophisticated and obviously successful evolutionary strategy for a highly intelligent social organisms like humans. It extends the limits of kin selection to the group level, something not generally found in other animals. Members of a religion may not share genes but they share memes which may be even more potent.

An arguement for atheism is that our mental capacity and self awareness are evolving (geneically but mostly memetically) to a point where we can question the very fabric of our survival strategies. We can see the advantages of religous belief but believe that we have developed enough socially to survive without it. Of couse this won't happen overnight (it might not happen at all). It doesn't mean evolution is hindered, just the human concept of truth.

5uspect

Scofflaw wrote:

Involving the Spanish Inquisition, I hope?

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

I think you're using the word evolution in a confusing and incorrect way. Evolution has no goal, it is just the ability to survive by adaption to the enviroment. It is interfered with the whole time. It is adaption to interference. Without this there is no evolution.

Sorry, been over this earlier in thread. It is not just my belief, I have come upon it by reading Dennet, Hawkins, Darwin, Dawkins etc, all qualified to talk evolution and what impeeds it.

extract from

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm
It is harmful because the existence of this “wrong idea” seriously impedes the evolution of human intelligence. I have covered this subject of dualism exhaustively in both volumes of my book “Here We All Are.....” but I think it appropriate to briefly recapitulate before continuing this essay. I think it’s important because most of the problems arising out of religious belief are based upon religion’s fallacious perception of the dualistic nature of the universe.


Again the author far more qualified to discuss the subject than you or I, I will argue therefore I am not using the term evolution in a confusing way.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Give me break atheist, can't you see I'm being attacked?:D

Detractors do seem to be coming out of the woodwork. Hang in there!

Elf Lord Chiewn wrote:

I was going for learning, substantiating our arguments through discussion, or proving/disproving relevant points, though I suppose that would be a necessary side effect.

And I thought you were here to make friends.

5uspect

stevejazzx wrote:

Sorry, been over this earlier in thread. It is not just my belief, I have come upon it by reading Dennet, Hawkins, Darwin, Dawkins etc, all qualified to talk evolution and what impeeds it.

I've read some of these too, mostly Dawkins. I think you need to read them again, how does one impede evolution which has no goal? Isn't that just extinction? Thriving or just barely surviving is still evolution.
You are confusing progress with evolution. There is no reason for evolution to favour increased complexity, the most successful organisms are still primitive bacteria. I know I'm being pedantic here but i feel that evolution requires greater understanding especially considering the lenght of the epic creationism thread.

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

You are confusing progress with evolution. the lenght of .

elementary my dear 5uspect

evolution is progress

5uspect

Evolution is survival, progress only goes in one direction towards some idealised goal. Evolution can act in many directions, increaded complexity, reduced complexity or no change at all. How are todays animals any more progressive or advanced than the dinosaurs? The development of human intelligence shows an new evolutionary development - you may call this progress but also many deep water fish loose their vision what do you call this? It is evolution but it is not progress.

Why do you think that evolution is progress, can you show me where you read this idea exactly? Do you think we are evolutionarly destined to learn the secrets of the universe?

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Sorry, been over this earlier in thread. It is not just my belief, I have come upon it by reading Dennet, Hawkins, Darwin, Dawkins etc, all qualified to talk evolution and what impeeds it.

extract from

http://www.parascience.org/HUMANITY%20CIVILIZATION%20AND%20RELIGION.htm
It is harmful because the existence of this “wrong idea” seriously impedes the evolution of human intelligence. I have covered this subject of dualism exhaustively in both volumes of my book “Here We All Are.....” but I think it appropriate to briefly recapitulate before continuing this essay. I think it’s important because most of the problems arising out of religious belief are based upon religion’s fallacious perception of the dualistic nature of the universe.


Again the author far more qualified to discuss the subject than you or I, I will argue therefore I am not using the term evolution in a confusing way.

Hmm. Can't accept that. The evolution of human intelligence? What isn't known about that would fill several very large books, and has done so!

Impeding it? First, you'd need to find evolutionary biologists who would accept that human intelligence is still evolving (no, it isn't an open and shut case); second, you'd need them to agree what the constraints on that evolution were (ie what the selection pressure was); third, you'd need to show that religion was a selection pressure; fourth, you'd need to show that the selection pressure of religion caused the evolution of human intelligence to be steered in a direction that was generally agreed to be a bad one; fifth, you'd need to be able to show that the alternatives were better....

Well, one could go on, obviously, or one could just say that the author is probably not more qualified to discuss the question, since he has either failed to address these points, or failed to make it sufficiently clear that he is using "evolution" only in the sense of progress, and not in the sense of evolution.

In brief, the state of scientific understanding of the evolution of human intelligence is so preliminary that the author cannot possibly be using the term correctly.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Stevejazzx, I think you're confusing the words evolution and Evolution. One is the english word, meaning to adapt or advance, used in the context of "evolution of human intelligence" while the later is Darwin's theory, used in the context of "Evolution allowed the species to survive in the post-volcanic environment".

The first is a simple concept that can be applied to any valid target, while the later is a biological phenomenon using genetic variation and natural selection that results in diversification of species.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

Stevejazzx, I think you're confusing the words evolution and Evolution. One is the english word, meaning to adapt or advance, used in the context of "evolution of human intelligence" while the later is Darwin's theory, used in the context of "Evolution allowed the species to survive in the post-volcanic environment".

The first is a simple concept that can be applied to any valid target, while the later is a biological phenomenon using genetic variation and natural selection that results in diversification of species.

You're right I would say but I was never arguing evolution in on biological terms. I've tried to explain this.

Post no. 24 this thread

stevejazzx wrote:

I'm discussing evolution with a specific focus on intelligence. I am arguing the dumbing down of and controlling of societies throughout generations, I take your point however that the evolutionary process as a whole is generally unstoppable but it can be interfered with or altered, no?

I've cited examples

Stephen Hawkins wrote:

At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.

Daniel Dennet wrote:

Dennett notes that Darwin himself avoided exploring the issue of the ultimate origins of life in part to avoid upsetting his wife Emma's religious beliefs. ....?

Alexis Dolgorukii wrote:

It is harmful because the existence of this “wrong idea” seriously impedes the evolution of human intelligence. I have covered this subject of dualism exhaustively in both volumes of my book “Here We All Are.....” but I think it appropriate to briefly recapitulate before continuing this essay. I think it’s important because most of the problems arising out of religious belief are based upon religion’s fallacious perception of the dualistic nature of the universe.

So I'm not mixing anything up. I arguing the same point I was at the begining of this thread. People have come in and either a. not read the thread properly or b. thought they would give me lessons in biological evolution.

stevejazzx

5uspect wrote:

Evolution is survival, progress only goes in one direction towards some idealised goal. Evolution can act in many directions, increaded complexity, reduced complexity or no change at all. How are todays animals any more progressive or advanced than the dinosaurs? The development of human intelligence shows an new evolutionary development - you may call this progress but also many deep water fish loose their vision what do you call this? It is evolution but it is not progress.

Why do you think that evolution is progress, can you show me where you read this idea exactly? Do you think we are evolutionarly destined to learn the secrets of the universe?

Here s one of four million articles

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/index.htm

Can you show me examples of evolutuion which aren't progressive?

Anything that improves, or develops to a stage where it gets what it wants more comfortably in order to survive is progress. Progress doesn't mean to win and it also isn't tied down to just meaning 'gets better or improves, it means both these things but most importantly in this it also means to go further, develop.

Sapien

stevejazzx wrote:

People have come in and either a. not read the thread properly or b. thought they would give me lessons in biological evolution.

Perhaps you could avoid confusion by disambiguating your use of the word "evolution" by synonymous substitution. "Advancement" seems apt for the meaning you intend.

stevejazzx wrote:

Can you show me examples of evolutuion which aren't progressive?

Anything that improves, or develops to a stage where it gets what it wants more comfortably in order to survive is progress. Progress doesn't mean to win and it also isn't tied down to just meaning 'gets better or improves, it means both these things but most importantly in this it also means to go further, develop.

If you have not already, read Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", or if you haven't the time, read the Penguin short "The View from Mount Improbable", which is an excerpt from the former, dealing specifically with the eye. It describes how decadence, degeneration and disappearance of sophisticated organs and biological structures is common in evolution, and can frequently pave the way for new evolutionary opportunities. Excellent book.

stevejazzx

Sapien wrote:

Perhaps you could avoid confusion by disambiguating your use of the word "evolution" by synonymous substitution. "Advancement" seems apt for the meaning you intend.

No I will use the word evolution as it is exactly the word I want to use
and I think I have defended it's context and usuage to anyone who has read this thread.

sapien wrote:

If you have not already, read Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable", or if you haven't the time, read the Penguin short "The View from Mount Improbable", which is an excerpt from the former, dealing specifically with the eye. It describes how decadence, degeneration and disappearance of sophisticated organs and biological structures is common in evolution, and can frequently pave the way for new evolutionary opportunities. Excellent book.

I have read it, actually as it happens.
and it shows progress ultimately, not devolution.
If I have missed your point please clarify.

ScumLord

Damn it all. I only have access to the net at work so I'm a bit pressed for time. You all make very valid and logical points but I still belive it's wrong to ignore religion altogether, it's as bad as religious folks completely ignoring obvious facts. I really do think religious thinking/meditation are linked to what seperates humans from other animals I'm not on about magic and such but it seems that when people began to notice the systems in nature and the bigger picture was the same time religion poped up. There has been no Athiest civialised society in the history of the human race. Do you think Evolution went down this road?

Its only now with our ultra-stable democratic societies that we can afford such luxuries as human rights and equality.

Where did these things come from, the human has been slowly moving from a self centred animal to an enlightend compassionete person. Allot of pain and sufering may have been caused by religious people that's not unusual war and murder is common in living things, what is odd even for a social animal like us is that humans get on so well together.

At no point in the ten comandments did it ever say Kill thy neighbour for not beliving in the one true God. I actually think the ten comandemts are a pretty good set of rules for living in a large social group. Even the 1st one has it's uses one God means no arguing.

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

Dades

ScumLord wrote:

There has been no Athiest civialised society in the history of the human race. Do you think Evolution went down this road?

That reminds me of Ghandi's alleged quote when asked about western civilisation - "I think it would be an excellent idea".

ScumLord wrote:

Religion has always been about getting the best out of people, I think that's a fantastic concept just be nice and nice things will happen. It sickens me that so many people have used the concept to belittle people and hold power over others.

I always though religion has been about getting answers to questions for which we have no answer. Some talk about being nice to each other alright - albeit on pain of eternal torture if you're not.