|
Post by Lee on Nov 30, 2015 11:32:29 GMT -5
"No evidence to the contrary"
such wisdom ...
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 30, 2015 11:36:00 GMT -5
"I find it interesting that you seem especially obsessed with male sexual behavior."
Its one of the first things to wander in the absence of redemption.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Nov 30, 2015 12:04:45 GMT -5
"I find it interesting that you seem especially obsessed with male sexual behavior." Its one of the first things to wander in the absence of redemption. Or so you imagine.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 12:27:10 GMT -5
Given that people are better behaved than at anytime before and given your complaint about authority as it has presented itself through the ages, what makes your opinion providential over evolution? I think you missed the point. When an organization defines the problem (everyone has original sin, for example), declares that only a paranormal being can provide the 'cure' and therefore salvation, further claim that they are the only ones who can negotiate with the paranormal being, develop a set of mysterious rituals, overseen, of course, by the same organization, and state that if they are not supported in their efforts all is lost you have a setup for not only controlling the people but gaining power/wealth. And all without a single bit of proof that what they are claiming is true! Better behaved according to what metric?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Nov 30, 2015 12:57:56 GMT -5
If you are advocating against nature, and you want everyone to be straight from a religious basis then I see this as a problem. I don't think it's a choice to be gay. So far no gay person has every given me any reason to be concerned. Many christian's until just recently were against that "gay lifestyle". The bible, and in particular the 2x2 have some not so straight lifestyle examples. The God of the OT was very much into controlling sex, and he was obsessed with the male sex organ, which also seems rather gay. I didn't get the circumcision thing, whose interpretation today is a little clearer. Are you saying nature has no normal? On what basis is the norm of 'no-normal' more normal than what is healthful and advantageous to a species? It makes you wonder if god wanted all male children to be circumcised, why didn't he design them that way in the first place, instead of doing a recall. Circumcision is not "normal" in nature. Ever read about how a Jewsih mohel does circumcision. Don't watch the video. abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618 In the USA most go by the American Academy of Pediatrics position Ref: American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision Policy Statement pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/130/3/585.full.pdf
"Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure. Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 13:15:26 GMT -5
"No evidence to the contrary" such wisdom ... Nope, it isn't. It is being skeptical of extraordinary claims being made without any supporting evidence. For thousands of years people have been claiming life(or something) after death but in all that time with all those deaths not a single verifiable bit of evidence. I would have the same degree of skepticism if you claimed you could levitate. If asked why I don't believe in something after death my answer is that there is nothing to indicate that there is anything after death other than the hopes of people that there is.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 30, 2015 13:41:36 GMT -5
For all that ... nothing you've claimed definitively shows that you know what life is.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Nov 30, 2015 13:45:02 GMT -5
Given that people are better behaved than at anytime before and given your complaint about authority as it has presented itself through the ages, what makes your opinion providential over evolution? I think you missed the point. When an organization defines the problem (everyone has original sin, for example), declares that only a paranormal being can provide the 'cure' and therefore salvation, further claim that they are the only ones who can negotiate with the paranormal being, develop a set of mysterious rituals, overseen, of course, by the same organization, and state that if they are not supported in their efforts all is lost you have a setup for not only controlling the people but gaining power/wealth. And all without a single bit of proof that what they are claiming is true! Better behaved according to what metric? Yours for one. You keep telling us the world has never been better. My point is that nothing falls outside of the evolutionary-prerogative ... neither religion, nor culture, nor government.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 16:32:18 GMT -5
For all that ... nothing you've claimed definitively shows that you know what life is. Life n its simplest state - self-replicating molecules of ribonucleic acid.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 30, 2015 16:40:04 GMT -5
I think you missed the point. When an organization defines the problem (everyone has original sin, for example), declares that only a paranormal being can provide the 'cure' and therefore salvation, further claim that they are the only ones who can negotiate with the paranormal being, develop a set of mysterious rituals, overseen, of course, by the same organization, and state that if they are not supported in their efforts all is lost you have a setup for not only controlling the people but gaining power/wealth. And all without a single bit of proof that what they are claiming is true! Better behaved according to what metric? Yours for one. You keep telling us the world has never been better. Never been better for humans. But I thought you might have some other metrics you wanted to use. No, I suppose it doesn't. As the millions and millions of species found out the hard way! At the point where it stops being useful it is just pushed aside and fades from view.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2015 9:32:45 GMT -5
Useful? According to evolution everything that is owes its existence to everything that was.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2015 9:33:45 GMT -5
For all that ... nothing you've claimed definitively shows that you know what life is. Life n its simplest state - self-replicating molecules of ribonucleic acid. Why would you refer me to a "simplest state" if you were trying to tell me what life really is?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2015 11:20:44 GMT -5
Useful? According to evolution everything that is owes its existence to everything that was. That may be your definition of evolution. I know no one else who would claim that. Some things evolve and simply do not make the cut. The tree of evolution is rife with dead ends.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2015 11:29:38 GMT -5
Life n its simplest state - self-replicating molecules of ribonucleic acid. Why would you refer me to a "simplest state" if you were trying to tell me what life really is? You asked for a definition of life. I provided the base case. That, at the lowest level, is what life is. And it is the basis of every living thing. It happens in people from the time the DNA from the sperm enter the egg until the person is no longer considered alive. I am guessing you and I have very different views of what is required for something to be considered alive. A human embryo can be kept frozen pretty much indefinitely and still be viable. Is it alive while frozen? Things to think about when considering the definition of life.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2015 12:47:10 GMT -5
You not terribly concerned with teleology
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 1, 2015 12:48:18 GMT -5
Useful? According to evolution everything that is owes its existence to everything that was. That may be your definition of evolution. I know no one else who would claim that. Some things evolve and simply do not make the cut. The tree of evolution is rife with dead ends. How are they less important that continued ends?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2015 14:25:08 GMT -5
You not terribly concerned with teleology Actually I am. I fear that at some point this will be taught in schools. I fear that people believe this in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But if you present a case it would possibly make an interesting discussion.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 1, 2015 14:31:20 GMT -5
That may be your definition of evolution. I know no one else who would claim that. Some things evolve and simply do not make the cut. The tree of evolution is rife with dead ends. How are they less important that continued ends? I was responding to your erroneous comment regarding evolution: According to evolution everything that is owes its existence to everything that was.Nothing owes its existence to the dead end organisms. They gave it a shot and failed.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 2, 2015 8:37:37 GMT -5
Everything that is does
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 2, 2015 8:39:04 GMT -5
You not terribly concerned with teleology Actually I am. I fear that at some point this will be taught in schools. I fear that people believe this in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But if you present a case it would possibly make an interesting discussion. With teleology?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2015 9:54:22 GMT -5
No, that is incorrect. The evolutionary failures did not contribute to the organisms that exist. For example, if in the distant past a paramecium evolved without cilia it would probably die out very quickly without contributing a single chromosome to the paramecium happily swimming in the pond out back.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2015 9:58:38 GMT -5
But if you present a case it would possibly make an interesting discussion. With teleology? Sure. Present your case showing a design or purpose for any natural entity or phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 2, 2015 10:08:22 GMT -5
No, that is incorrect. The evolutionary failures did not contribute to the organisms that exist. For example, if in the distant past a paramecium evolved without cilia it would probably die out very quickly without contributing a single chromosome to the paramecium happily swimming in the pond out back. Michael Phelps breaks the record for the 200 Free. Do his many failed attempts contribute to his breaking the record?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2015 10:27:17 GMT -5
No, that is incorrect. The evolutionary failures did not contribute to the organisms that exist. For example, if in the distant past a paramecium evolved without cilia it would probably die out very quickly without contributing a single chromosome to the paramecium happily swimming in the pond out back. Michael Phelps breaks the record for the 200 Free. Do his many failed attempts contribute to his breaking the record? Had he died after the first failure nothing would have been contributed. You see, the discussion was regarding the evolutionary failures. The genetic material was not passed forward so there was no contribution to future organisms. If he was successful because of an evolutionary change to his chromosomes and produced offspring those traits would possibly be passed forward. But then this would not be a dead end. However, if the evolved genetic trait that made him successful also made him sterile it would be a dead end and the positive change would not contribute anything towards future generations.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 2, 2015 10:53:38 GMT -5
Michael Phelps breaks the record for the 200 Free. Do his many failed attempts contribute to his breaking the record? Had he died after the first failure nothing would have been contributed. You see, the discussion was regarding the evolutionary failures. The genetic material was not passed forward so there was no contribution to future organisms. If he was successful because of an evolutionary change to his chromosomes and produced offspring those traits would possibly be passed forward. But then this would not be a dead end. However, if the evolved genetic trait that made him successful also made him sterile it would be a dead end and the positive change would not contribute anything towards future generations. Another way to look at it. The law of probability; You are rolling a dice in an attempt to get a 6. It takes you 5 rolls to get the 6. Were the first 4 rolls necessary? Because of the laws of probability, the answer would be yes. In other words, the failures you refer to were in fact necessary to obtain the final results. The failures were contributory.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Dec 2, 2015 11:22:52 GMT -5
Had he died after the first failure nothing would have been contributed. You see, the discussion was regarding the evolutionary failures. The genetic material was not passed forward so there was no contribution to future organisms. If he was successful because of an evolutionary change to his chromosomes and produced offspring those traits would possibly be passed forward. But then this would not be a dead end. However, if the evolved genetic trait that made him successful also made him sterile it would be a dead end and the positive change would not contribute anything towards future generations. Another way to look at it. The law of probability; You are rolling a dice in an attempt to get a 6. It takes you 5 rolls to get the 6. Were the first 4 rolls necessary? Because of the laws of probability, the answer would be yes. In other words, the failures you refer to were in fact necessary to obtain the final results. The failures were contributory. For Phelps, the stakes are whether or not he gets another medal, not life or death. One might argue that without all of the medals and wealth, he might not be engaged to (and potentially reproducing with) a model (i.e. his swimming prowess has probably helped him "get the girl" with whom he may pass on his genetic information to the next generation in high style...) We don't know ahead of time which factors will be important for survival. If, for example, a virus emerges that is lethal to all but a few humans who happen to have a genetic trait that confers immunity, then suddenly that trait is extremely important to the survival of those individuals and potentially the survival of the species....probably more important than being able to swim quickly!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 2, 2015 11:25:38 GMT -5
Another way to look at it. The law of probability; You are rolling a dice in an attempt to get a 6. It takes you 5 rolls to get the 6. Were the first 4 rolls necessary? Because of the laws of probability, the answer would be yes.[/quote]I believe you are in error here. Each roll of fair dice is an independent event. Had you rolled 1,000,000 '3's in a row the probability of getting a '6' on the next roll is exactly as was the probability of getting a '6' on the first roll. The events are unrelated and therefore not dependent. Just to be clear - the discussion was regarding evolution. For an evolutionary change to have any effect on successive generations the DNA would need to be passed on. In the case of species that have become extinct there is no passing of the chromosomes/evolutionary changes on to future generations, pretty much the definition of extinct. The statement: According to evolution everything that is owes its existence to everything that was.is incorrect because the failed species (part of "...everything that was.") made no contribution to the current species. They existed yet did not pass anything forward.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Dec 2, 2015 13:44:17 GMT -5
Another way to look at it. The law of probability; You are rolling a dice in an attempt to get a 6. It takes you 5 rolls to get the 6. Were the first 4 rolls necessary? Because of the laws of probability, the answer would be yes. I believe you are in error here. Each roll of fair dice is an independent event. Had you rolled 1,000,000 '3's in a row the probability of getting a '6' on the next roll is exactly as was the probability of getting a '6' on the first roll. The events are unrelated and therefore not dependent. Just to be clear - the discussion was regarding evolution. For an evolutionary change to have any effect on successive generations the DNA would need to be passed on. In the case of species that have become extinct there is no passing of the chromosomes/evolutionary changes on to future generations, pretty much the definition of extinct. The statement: According to evolution everything that is owes its existence to everything that was.is incorrect because the failed species (part of "...everything that was.") made no contribution to the current species. They existed yet did not pass anything forward. [/quote] In the case of the dice, you are wrong. You are attempting to single out one roll. So yes, one roll would have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6. But if you take all 1,000 together (all necessary), then you would have a 1000 in 6 chance of rolling a 6. Basically you will probably roll a 6, 166 times. The law of probability WILL always prove true over the long hall.
So in evolution, probability has been a huge necessary factor. The unsuccessful (rolls) or DNA that wasn't passed on was necessary in order to for the successful results. The DNA that WAS passed on. So his statement is true.
|
|