There is no embarrassment in being ignorant; I'm ignorant about many, many things. There is only embarrassment in preferring ignorance over knowledge.
Evolution - A serious question.
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
There is no embarrassment in being ignorant; I'm ignorant about many, many things. There is only embarrassment in preferring ignorance over knowledge.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
This isn't always true.
Example: You're stuck in traffic with your buddies when suddenly you're confronted with the question; Is that a fart or a turd workin it's way down? Eventually the truth will smack you in the *** but the least embarrassing course of action is to hold it and remain ignorant for as long as possible(hopefully at least until you get out of the car)
Sometimes knowledge stinks
I disagree. With knowledge that it's a fart, you can just let it rip in a controlled and silent manner, then accuse one of your friends of having done it. If you're really dramatic and you do it before it is smelled, then you've pre-empted your victim, who won't be able to mount a convincing case. Knowledge wins out in this case.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
If you know it's a fart then you aren't confronted w/ the question. If you don't know, if you are truly ignorant to the nature of the beast, the only way to know truth is to push it out. It's better to remain ignorant than to find out the sloppy way.
The comfort of releasing the fart outweighs the inconvenience of confronting the question. You have to also take into account that without the knowledge, you might risk it anyway, and end up with a shart. We've all been in that situation. I'm afraid I have to side with OB on this one.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
It's hard to be comfortable sitting in a mess. Regardless neither comfort nor convenience were what was being considered, embarrassment was.
Ps totally awesome debate. Discussing bowel movements with Siro>Than discussing evolution w/CJ
DutchJazzer
Banned
i mean survival of the fitest right
evolution.
so why should i not show i am the fittest.
why should i not starting kicking in weak. they should die right!
aren't the "weak" a scourge on the species as a whole
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
All right, Trout. This message directed toward you in an effort to hopefully let you see my mindset all them years ago when you made this thread. Look at this post.
(bold is emphasis)
Now, hopefully in your Bio. Anthro. class, you pretty early on during the evolution section of the course quickly dissected the fallacy of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). What that class won't tell you is no matter how many times you tell people that "survival of the fittest" is a totally improper and strawman argument against evolution (among many other bad arguments), people will constantly bring it up over and over and over again. Probably in this thread more than once. It's as useful as talking to a brick wall. This is the expectation of any thread on this particular topic on this, and many other boards, and generally elicits frustration.
(bold is emphasis)
Now, hopefully in your Bio. Anthro. class, you pretty early on during the evolution section of the course quickly dissected the fallacy of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest). What that class won't tell you is no matter how many times you tell people that "survival of the fittest" is a totally improper and strawman argument against evolution (among many other bad arguments), people will constantly bring it up over and over and over again. Probably in this thread more than once. It's as useful as talking to a brick wall. This is the expectation of any thread on this particular topic on this, and many other boards, and generally elicits frustration.
Red
Well-Known Member
If evolution were valid, and if it applied to humans.
What value would faith have from an evolutionary standpoint? What value does faith play in survival?
We are self conscious animals. We reflect upon ourselves. We address the universe at large.
Enough to ask, who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?
Evolution provides no comfort to conscious beings, no narrative but survival of the fittest.
Faith provides comfort by providing meaning to life, and meaning provides a greater will to live. Faith serves the interest of survival. (Or does it? Religious wars might demonstrate quite the opposite).
A greater will to live is of value from an evolutionary sense. When the life is self conscious and addresses the universe at large.
It's conceivable that self conscious life requires meaning to be lived healthfully.
It seems all cultures interpret reality, they can't just let it go, lol.
Always seeking meaning, enveloping reality with unseen meaning. So called primitive people's assign to shamans the task of bridging this realm with a higher realm, a realm that can influence this realm for good or bad. The shaman is an intermediary and that higher realm is both prior to birth and after death.
We separate the higher faiths from these primitive beliefs. But both imprint meaning on creation, seek meaning in life, give hints of purpose behind this realm. Are we just fooling ourselves, in order to make life more palatable? A more palatable life has survival value for any living thing. Is God an invention? At least a God that loves, that says this love gives meaning to your life, your kind? An invention of self conscious beings in need of meaning to carry on in a realm we don't truly understand?
Live the Golden Rule and all is well. You will not be extinguished. You will live forever. Reducing anxiety is probably of evolutionary value. Soothing existential angst is probably of evolutionary value. Whatever aids survival of the species has evolutionary value.
Does a chipmunk ask "who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?"
Does any other form of life experience existential angst? And what does existential angst do if not invent soothing solutions to that angst. Like inventing Gods. Like making morality something handed down from a higher power. And are not moral codes of evolutionary value, of survival value, for self conscious social beings?
(It matters not, but for the record, I do believe there is an intelligence behind creation. It sure ain't mine, lol. Like most everyone else, I call that intelligence God. This is the Ground of Being, the Alpha and Omega of existence. All manifest creation emerges from the Ground of Being we call God, and to that Ground of Being all returns. Alpha and Omega. For me, "In the beginning" does not just denote a moment in time. It denotes that which underlies all of manifest creation at all times. In the beginning exists at all times. It is the precondition of manifest creation. Beneath all of the manifest universe, that which is the beginning sustains it's manifest creation. Can I know God? I can believe, if I choose, that that which we know as Love is the Nature of God, and to the extent I love, I fulfill the will of my creator. In other words, I choose to seek meaning. I do not believe I am just kidding myself.
Yet, mine are the words of a "modern" man. A man raised in a faith who left that faith. What scripture is it that fortells of a time, and I paraphrase, when "your young men will cry out for God and not find him"? I am a modern, full of existential angst. Confused by science even as I embrace it's method. Cast adrift in a modern world. I don't look for God in the Bible. It isn't easy being a "modern man".
Not easy at all. I cannot know if the meaning I find matters one iota. I do not pretend for one moment to enjoy being a modern. It has exacted a great price.)
What value would faith have from an evolutionary standpoint? What value does faith play in survival?
We are self conscious animals. We reflect upon ourselves. We address the universe at large.
Enough to ask, who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?
Evolution provides no comfort to conscious beings, no narrative but survival of the fittest.
Faith provides comfort by providing meaning to life, and meaning provides a greater will to live. Faith serves the interest of survival. (Or does it? Religious wars might demonstrate quite the opposite).
A greater will to live is of value from an evolutionary sense. When the life is self conscious and addresses the universe at large.
It's conceivable that self conscious life requires meaning to be lived healthfully.
It seems all cultures interpret reality, they can't just let it go, lol.
Always seeking meaning, enveloping reality with unseen meaning. So called primitive people's assign to shamans the task of bridging this realm with a higher realm, a realm that can influence this realm for good or bad. The shaman is an intermediary and that higher realm is both prior to birth and after death.
We separate the higher faiths from these primitive beliefs. But both imprint meaning on creation, seek meaning in life, give hints of purpose behind this realm. Are we just fooling ourselves, in order to make life more palatable? A more palatable life has survival value for any living thing. Is God an invention? At least a God that loves, that says this love gives meaning to your life, your kind? An invention of self conscious beings in need of meaning to carry on in a realm we don't truly understand?
Live the Golden Rule and all is well. You will not be extinguished. You will live forever. Reducing anxiety is probably of evolutionary value. Soothing existential angst is probably of evolutionary value. Whatever aids survival of the species has evolutionary value.
Does a chipmunk ask "who are we, where do we come from, where are we going?"
Does any other form of life experience existential angst? And what does existential angst do if not invent soothing solutions to that angst. Like inventing Gods. Like making morality something handed down from a higher power. And are not moral codes of evolutionary value, of survival value, for self conscious social beings?
(It matters not, but for the record, I do believe there is an intelligence behind creation. It sure ain't mine, lol. Like most everyone else, I call that intelligence God. This is the Ground of Being, the Alpha and Omega of existence. All manifest creation emerges from the Ground of Being we call God, and to that Ground of Being all returns. Alpha and Omega. For me, "In the beginning" does not just denote a moment in time. It denotes that which underlies all of manifest creation at all times. In the beginning exists at all times. It is the precondition of manifest creation. Beneath all of the manifest universe, that which is the beginning sustains it's manifest creation. Can I know God? I can believe, if I choose, that that which we know as Love is the Nature of God, and to the extent I love, I fulfill the will of my creator. In other words, I choose to seek meaning. I do not believe I am just kidding myself.
Yet, mine are the words of a "modern" man. A man raised in a faith who left that faith. What scripture is it that fortells of a time, and I paraphrase, when "your young men will cry out for God and not find him"? I am a modern, full of existential angst. Confused by science even as I embrace it's method. Cast adrift in a modern world. I don't look for God in the Bible. It isn't easy being a "modern man".
Not easy at all. I cannot know if the meaning I find matters one iota. I do not pretend for one moment to enjoy being a modern. It has exacted a great price.)
Last edited:
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
What has happened to Darwin’s long-accepted idea regarding the “survival of the fittest?” This he called “natural selection.” That is, he believed that nature “selected” the fittest living things to survive. As these “fit” ones supposedly acquired new features that worked to their advantage, they slowly evolved. But the evidence of the past 125 years shows that, while the fittest may indeed survive, this does not explain how they arrived. One lion may be fitter than another lion, but that does not explain how he got to be a lion. And all of his offspring will still be lions, not something else.
In Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. .*.*. One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another .*.*. This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, .*.*. It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."
In Harper’s magazine, writer Tom Bethell commented: “Darwin made a mistake sufficiently serious to undermine his theory. And that mistake has only recently been recognized as such. .*.*. One organism may indeed be ‘fitter’ than another .*.*. This, of course, is not something which helps create the organism, .*.*. It is clear, I think, that there was something very, very wrong with such an idea.” Bethell added: “As I see it the conclusion is pretty staggering: Darwin’s theory, I believe, is on the verge of collapse."
DutchJazzer
Banned
darwin was a godhating r*****.
edited cant afford an infraction
dont know if i am allowed to call him the r word.
edited cant afford an infraction
dont know if i am allowed to call him the r word.
MVP
Well-Known Member
So wrong. Like calling Hitler jew loving.