Or, in the alternative, chosen (dis)belief is required to ignore all the scientific evidence published. As long as people are indoctrinated by the creationist view during childhood, they will not be willing to accept other explanations that contradict what they believe.Originally Posted by Pedal2Metal
This is exactly the same mentality that made it difficult for Copernicus to convince the religious world that Earth is not the center of the Universe.
Fair enough although I don't subscribe to the determinism principle of human behavior as implied by the absolute governance of one's beliefs based on childhood experiences/training. I know plenty of people who have changed beliefs as adults of one form or another. I believe most nurture/nature studies have shown them to be roughly equivalent in impact so certainly my ability to choose (i.e.: nature) gives me some measure of control over my beliefs as an adult despite my indoctrination as a child (i.e.: nurture). To say otherwise simply absolves us of all responsibility for everything which I completely disagree with.
I think the scenarios are a bit different as discussion/challenge should be welcomed by all sides w/o fear of reprisal. Copernicus didn't have that luxury. All sides of controversy have been guilty of this over history & still are today. It's just human nature.
I find, by definition, the topics which are controversial all have certain similarities/characteristics:
No clearly obvious answer
Difficult to experiment/prove in real-time
High importance
With such topics (religion, politics, evolution, climatology, etc...), controversy is inevitable IMO.
There are plenty of intelligent people on all sides of every controversial issue w/plenty of data to support their claim(s). I haven't supplied any data because that's not my concern. I personally don't care if anyone believes in evolution or not, at least not within the context of this online discussion. My issue is with the simplification of the topic as if it's the same type of issue as gravity, the speed of light, etc.... It's different in qualitative nature & the very fact the controversy exists is the proof/evidence. Using your Copernicus example, no one argues this anymore. Why? Because 1 or more of the above 3 attributes has been addressed so it's no longer controversial. When that happens w/evolution, the same effect will occur & it will cease to be controversial. Until that day, it will remain controversial despite any attempts in this forum or elsewhere to short-circuit the process & say it's a foregone conclusion.
In the end, we each have to make our own choice & whatever choice we make, it's our to live & die by. I'm completely comfortable with that.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-07-2010 at 05:52 AM.
Yes, I actually read a personal story by someone who had a similar experience. It was really interesting. I think this is a commendable approach.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Regardless, I think it's great you posted this information.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
First, sorry for jumping in to you guys conversation, but this is cool stuff.
I'm not saying you aren't correct about evolution, you probably are. I'm just saying that scientists can say anything and have "evidence" to support it. It still doesn't make it true by any stretch of the imagination. Evidence can be either mis-analyzed, or worse, flat out fabricated for all sorts of different political and financial reasons, and to sway public opinion.
Trust me I know what you mean though about people being un-willing to accept alternative theories, and I can agree mostly with that part of what you are saying, that people beleive what they were taught at a young age.
But, there are also many things that I grew up believing, that I was indoctrinated in you could say, that I have changed my opinion on. Just like P2Medal said so well, that there is still free will and an ability to chose if you have a free and open mind.
The problem is that most people don't have a truly open mind, and are only willing to accept what they believe as truth no matter how much evidence or reasoning you can use to try and persuade them otherwise.
But there are some out there that can.
More theories. Thats fine. Are these theories generally accepted among scientists, and if so, under what basis? Where are the implications, let alone the evidence, to support these theories. To think something that makes sense doesnt make it true.
Again, noone seems to be focusing on my earlier point, which is that evolution, assuming it is accurate, is limited in what it provides for us and in all honesty seems insignificant to me. Things adapt, ok, good job. Now why are these things here, what reality do they exist within, and what other realities exist.
Actually, it's you that isn't focusing on the points. Showtek already answered this question for you.
"we have told you before that evolution doesn't answer the question "why?" but the question "how?" the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the idea of a creator. maybe he has made evolution. i don't know."
The theory of evolution is not supposed to explain why life exists or how life came into existence. It's the same as attacking the theory of evolution because it doesn't explain gravity. It's completely irrelevant.
The punic/revolution war example is terrible. An intelligent being (human) observed the events, partook in them, recorded them, and artifacts have been dug up to support the eye witness accounts. There is no eye witness to evolution, and the only 'evidence' we have are fossils and genetic make up. Again, whether or not evolution is correct is not to be proven fact until we have some sort of conclusive undeniable evidence, and all we have right now is suggestive evidence.
Not sure how you cant understand what life is. Sure, we can put a peatry dish with food in it and watch the mold grow, but we didnt create the life, it was here already and we attracted it. Creating life is another story, and has not, and will not be done by humans. Creating life out of inadimate molecules, chemicals, whathaveyou, is not plausible, which leads me to my most important question. Although evolution exists, it is rested upon the foundation of lifes existence. Meaning, even more important than evolution, which just explains the formation of something pre-existing, is the question of how life came to be, or in other words, where did it come from. Did it form here or come here, and if it came here, where did it come from and how is life over there? Significantly more important is the latter topic than is evolution, as evolution not only lacks permanenet credibilty, but at its very core only attempts to explain an insignificant topic within the vast depths of knowledge we have yet to discover, or possibly cant conceive with our minds.
No offense, and this might sound edgy, but you guys arent reading my posts or something. I keep saying the words "evolution attempts to explain something insignificant compared to what which we dont know", meaning, evolution tries to explain just that, evolution. Meanwhile, there are way bigger and more important questions out there with much more relevance, one would assume, as to who we are and why we have life. Why do our conscious' currently occupy this body, what happens after the body dies, etc.
I dont want evolution to explain the origins of life. I want evolution as a topic to go away. Its unproven, and even if it were proven, its insignificant.
Then why do you keep stirring evolution into this soup of philosophy you keep cooking? You're right, it's insignificant in that context.
But it isn't insignificant in the real world. Because of it we have made advanced in medicine, genetic engineering, etc. Look it up on wikipedia if you want, it's that easy.
On the other hand, you are so sure that finding the answer to 'why are we here?' is going to reap massive rewards. If the answer is 'randomly in the right place at the right time' then obviously that isn't going to help us much. Which suggests that you have already dismissed this possibility.
If you don't accept evolution then I fail to see why you would accept any particular answer to the 'deep' questions you keep proposing. You obviously don't accept physical evidence as proof, so what else is there?
Last edited by HydroDragon; 05-07-2010 at 07:27 AM.
Woah, woah. That statement can only be directed at either myself or pedal, and personally i was raised athiest by a single mom who laughed at each and every religion. Jumping to assumptions wont get you anywhere zso, and i only say this bc it doesnt make sense for you to have recommended this aspect without, subliminally or intentionally, directing it at one or more of your 'opponents'.
Youre making some hefty claims here as well by stating that it would have to be choice to disbelief evolution, implying that it is concrete fact that has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, which it hasnt. I havent decided against evolution, nor have i decided for it (marco anyway, i agree with micro), but whos to say i must agree with it, as if choosing to disagree with it is going 'out of my way'? In other words, saying that it requires disbelief is stating that ground zero = evolution is fact. I dont have religions views that restrict my ability to comprehend scientific notions (not fact), however i have a very cautious and philosophical mind that tends to analyze things very thoroughly before claiming them as fact.
This very reality we exist within must be scrutinized before being accepted, as we can currently only perceive a very small portion of existence with our limited senses and the physical vessels which we occupy. Science only works with whats avaiable, science used to state that it is unlikely for there to be alien life, science used to state that space travel was highly unlikely. Science is simply the act of observing the obvious, and figuring it out. Science tends to avoid the not-so-obvious, and therefore anybody who abides by science and science alone will have a limited perception on this reality, as we dont yet have the means to study that which is currently unknown to us, nor do we, generally speaking, go out of our way to figure it out. We tend to stick with what we know, modify it, or delve a bit into the unknown that is notioned through the known, which is again, not that far from the comfort zone of 'known truth'. Science is not an end-all path to truth, as some things cannot be measured, tested, and the likes by us humans.
Evolution hasnt helped in those fields, geneticists (sp) have. The study of genetics alone has reaped the rewards you speak of, evolution simply uses the study of genetics at an attempt at making the theory more concrete.
I dont believe it will reap massive rewards to discover why were here, although it very well may. What im saying is that humans are here and now, so why not try to figure out how we got here, what this current that we exist within is, and what may reside outside of this current, this universe, and what is outside of that, etc. If you woke up on an island one day after falling asleep on your bed, wouldnt you try to figure out how you got there? Evolution is insignificant, and i fail to see why so many people treat it as some law that they can rest their head upon, knowning that at least there is some comfort zone of truth to be attached to.
I do accept physical evidence, which is why i believe in micro evolution. My question would then be beyond the physical, why does micro evolution occur and what drives it? Is it our sub-conscious, is it the life force, and if so, what is the life force and why does that exist? Of course you can give the very obvious answer 'to better suit to our enviornment' but then i would ask why do we better suit to our enviornment? Why is there a dire need to survive? These seem so obvious "bc were alive, why would we want to die" but its not that clear. We humans can decide to die, unlike animals (except animals that die after spawning, in which case it becomes the argument of whether or not they know they will die). Why do we have this choice? Choosing to die doesnt better suit our enviornment nor does it further our chance of reproduction, so why is it in our throught process to able to choose such a path?
What im getting at is that questions outnumber answers a million to one, and people seem to not ask questions, and stop with what they know, generally accepting a combination of ignorance and lack of curiosity. Evolution is a fine example. Lets just figure out how we evolved into complex beings and not figure out how the simple life occured etc.
Last edited by Aheadatime; 05-07-2010 at 07:38 AM.
Proof
Indeed there is good evidence for those events.
I was going to further investigate your definition of evidence/proof and explain why it still has a problem but I don't see that conversation doing anything other than annoying you... So I'll drop it
even if we can say it came here on an asteroid or whatever that doesn't actually help because you still have the same question of where the asteroid came from and how it 'evolved' where it came from.
Evolution (however you might cut it down) is a building block in the way we view the world. For it to 'go away' and not be taught would be like teaching biology and physics but not chemistry (yes you can do that but you are missing a link).
It also isn't clear why you are so eager for it to go away - what harm does it do? Are peopel dying because of evolution theory?
wow...
the sheer ignorance that has appeared in this thread is astounding. But from some specific people, not that surprising.
Let's get some basics down:
Scientific 'theories' are based upon evidence and fact before they are called such. This is not to be confused with the 'common language' usage of the term. 90% of the attacks on evolution rely on this BS style. Science uses terms such as 'theory' and 'law' to mean more than just someones idea.
Evolution exists. It's proven via science. Species evolve as needed to overcome environmental/external constraints among other reasons.
here's a nice summation on the finds in human evolution. It's a gathering of various fossil evidence/etc that has been done. It's even got some creationist arguments in there for completeness:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
It even has a nice timeline at the bottom of this page:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
Just for fun, if you haven't actually taken a class in Biology (Ie, you like to spout on the internet without actually having any real knowledge except for wikipedia) here's a link so that you can at least learn *what* is called evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html
Now...
Evolution is *not* in conflict with faith/belief in a 'god(s)'. In fact it says nothing about it. On purpose. Only the religious attack it as such, which is the only problem. Faith/belief via religion is only meant to be a system of control for the *actions of the population* it affects. Do this, don't do that. IT's all about ensuring that the population follows a set of rules defined for the 'good' of the people. (don't kill, steal, screw your neighbours wife, etc). It's the basis of societal acceptance issues. These have nothing to do with each other. Leave it that way. The issue is when the religious try to tell you what to think. Especially when there's no evidence.
The creationist argument is fundamentally flawed. 'God did it, and I don't believe you about evolution because it's not in the bible; which is literal'. That's basically about it.
Here's the issues:
The bible got written by man, not god. There was a meeting led by the wannabe spiritual emperor of Rome where they voted on what would and would not make it in. As shown, there's been plenty of things that contradict the bible that didn't make it in but we know about it now. Hence, subject to change. (look at all the versions now) (also linguistic issues, due to the constant changes in language). I really don't care about the Quran's statements anymore than the bible.
Here's another flaw in the creationists theory:
if God did it, and we're only ~20,000 years old, why the @#$@ is there fossils from before that point? Not logical.
Here's another issue:
The framing of the creationist pov can be used to make the evolutionary pov correct.
Premises:
God exists
God made life/the universe.
There was a 'big bang'. - we have scientific evidence showing that the universe is still expanding for a central point and that there's a specific start time.
Evolution has been shown to exist in species/families over time (biological families). We have plenty of fossils with DNA evidence (genetic sequences of the fossils have been derived and show commonalities); we can show plenty of current live examples of species that have adapted for various reasons, but area all in the same space.
Therefore:
GOD made the universe via a big bang and used evolution to drive the genetic adaptations of species to find the 'fittest' ones to exist.
QFT
(If you are athiest just drop the god part and it still works).
If you read the bible or only get your information via the religions then don't bother responding to me. My side line to it is that if God is all powerful and all knowing, etc etc, would that God decide to personally create every little thing in existence, or set up a set of simple rules for a massively complex systems and let it happen.
"why does micro evolution occur and what drives it? Is it our sub-conscious, is it the life force, and if so, what is the life force and why does that exist? Of course you can give the very obvious answer 'to better suit to our enviornment' but then i would ask why do we better suit to our enviornment? Why is there a dire need to survive? These seem so obvious "bc were alive, why would we want to die" but its not that clear. We humans can decide to die, unlike animals (except animals that die after spawning, in which case it becomes the argument of whether or not they know they will die). Why do we have this choice? Choosing to die doesnt better suit our enviornment nor does it further our chance of reproduction, so why is it in our throught process to able to choose such a path?"
Well basically, the goal of life is to preserve itself. And by 'itself' I mean the genes, the D.N.A. To do this it must either protect the genes (survive) or make copies (reproduce) or both. Reproducing and then dying is actually more advantageous than trying to live forever because it's the equivalent of putting all your eggs in one basket (or all your genes in one body in this case). By spreading the genes among many offspring (some of which will die but some of which will produce more offspring) you are effectively making more and more eggs and more and more baskets. Eventually you reach a global egg-basket corporation instead of the single egg in a single basket you started with.
Why do we die? Because since reproducing is more effective than immortality for preserving the genes, we don't need immortality. We have essentially 'evolved' the trait of mortality. Many simple organisms are effectively immortal. They don't age.
There's a book called 'The Selfish Gene' which would answer many of your questions, including why we age and die, etc. I could write a gigantic post, or a book explaining these concepts to you (looking back at what I just wrote, I've actually made a decent attempt at it, lol.....anyway) but I can't realistically do that. Read the book if you want the answers.
"What im getting at is that questions outnumber answers a million to one, and people seem to not ask questions, and stop with what they know, generally accepting a combination of ignorance and lack of curiosity. Evolution is a fine example. Lets just figure out how we evolved into complex beings and not figure out how the simple life occured etc."
You certainly do have a lot of questions, but answers are there. People here are answering you. There are books that answer you. There are obviously questions that can't be answered, but most of yours probably can be answered.
Anyway, I'm off now, hope that was helpful.
Not sure why you posted any of that to be honest. Micro evolution has been proven, macro evolution has been notioned, with supporting evidence, but not enough to classify it as fact, hence it being labeled a theory and not a law. A law is an observable factual event that cannot be argued against. That being said, i am not against evolution whatsoever. Noone here is i believe. So not sure why all the enforcing of evolution. My argument was simply that evolution in itself is insignificant, and is a mere snowflake in a blizzard of information that us humans have yet to stumble upon, yet it seems to be a nesting ground for left-brained close minded people to reside within, allowing themselves to stay put with the theories and knowledge at hand rather than attack the mysteries, both scientifically and philosophically, of this reality.
As per the religious talk, you seem a bit hostile, as do most science-oriented minds, towards religion. True, religion is flawed and was created by man. That is originated this way, false. Personally i believe in some form of god, not a being like all the books talk about, and perhaps too abstract and vague for me to even discuss with written words or the human language altogether. However, noone argued the creationist theory, nor has anyone (before you) argued against it. You probably assumed that either myself or pedal believed in this theory via our debate against the importance of evolution, and that is a wild assumption that has no place in genuine debates such as the one being had currently. I dont believe in creationism through religious texts, nor am i sure whatsoever how we came to be. Evolution doesnt try to explain it, so at this point the only thing that is 'fact' is that noone has a damn clue how we came to be.
I have no desire for it to go away. I want people to try to see beyond this and answer some of the more challenging philosophical questions of the universe and of life itself, regarding our very existence. These seem a bit more significant than the explanation of how an organism can grow legs.
exactly my point. so why not attack these questions or at least debate possible outcomes and pursue the most promising, rather than saying 'whatever, thats a mystery if i ever heard of one' and continuing to reiterate the meaningless speck of information that we have cumulated over the timeline of human existence.
I never asked why organisms die, this makes sense to me via the transfer of energy from one organism to the next that is required to keep life itself stabilized. My question was why he have a choice to die before reproducing or for no good reason. In other words, i can sit here and starve myself to death for no reason whatsoever, but every other animal on earth lacks this ability, and is controlled by pure instinct. We can override our instincts, an ability that only humans posess, and for unknown reasons. This is my point.
My questions cannot be answered, and this may be the most annoying aspect of this debate. You guys cant even hope to answer why life exists, how it arrived here on earth, or what current exists outside of the medium of space between the multiple universes in existence. Obviously i have many more questions than that but you get the point, there are no answers to be had by simple human minds. No offense to anyone here, but thats just the way it is. That being said, i would prefer if people as a whole strived to at least figure out a portion of the more important questions of life, or provide possible explanations with no evidence, just pure philosophical discussion and evaluation given our contextual existence, rather than just reinforcing the knowledge that we have gained over the years, and trying to further the path of concrete reality that we seem so obsessed with. There are things in this universe, in this world, in this existence, that science cannot explain but should not be ignored and should be considered nonetheless. However, they seem to be ignored due to the inability to apply the scientific method, which makes me laugh.
A good post but just wanted to point out this addresses "what", not "why".
Aheadatime is asking questions at a more abstract level, not just seeking to understand the mechanics of evolution.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Ignorance is easily addressed. Apathy is the real enemy. Should Aheadatime not care & remain silent as a result or give voice to his questions because he cares enough to do so? Do you honestly think that's a superior & more thoughtful approach to the quest of discovering new information?
Conceit in one's knowledge & understanding is not conducive to growth for anyone, personally or socially.
I'm not sure why Aheadatime's questioning is such a volatile issue for you but sounds like something deeply personal vs. something he's written specifically. Or maybe you're referring to me, Showtek, others, etc.... In any case, I've yet to see anything enflaming in this thread from my perspective. Of course, I'm so ignorant I can barely read English, much less understand it... Would you volunteer to tutor me?
That being said, I do appreciate the transparency vs. trying to hide one's disdain so you aren't called to account. That's refreshing honesty.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Last edited by Pedal2Metal; 05-07-2010 at 10:03 AM. Reason: add positive observation
Fair point. Aristotle wrote the first systematic books on physics and metaphysics (and are entitled as such). Physics analyzes natural phenomena, whereas metaphysics studies the "first principles" of those natural phenomena. In other words, their objects of study, while related, are distinctly demarcated.
This is why the debate concerning whether or not evolution should be studied side by side with religion is a rather misguided debate. It's a bit like asking whether poetry and math should be taught in the same classroom. Of course each should be taught, as they're both fascinating subjects, but not in the same classroom insofar as each has its own method of inquiry proper to its subject. The debate as it is usually formulated by the two opposing sides is fraught with misleading assumptions.
Stepping back...
In adition to us just not being smart enough it could also mean that there is no answer or that the question is not coherent.
This question may or may not fall into one of those two categories, but a lot of questions do and so we should not just assume that because a question can be asked it is meaningful to expect an answer.
Agreed. Here's a great link on theoretical knowledge. I know the guy who created the site personally.
http://www.pieofknowledge.com/index.html
With regards to questions, there are at least the following:
Invalid questions
Valid questions that can be answered
Valid questions that can't be answered
I believe Scottie is referring to the first and third categories. These are tough to distinguish. Personally, I think Aheadatime's questions fall into category 3. There's nothing intrinsically invalid about asking questions of origin or the question of "why?" in my assessment. I mean didn't we all do this at some point? Don't we all still do this at least occasionally? Isn't it a natural inclination of the human mind? Shouldn't I give voice to such questions vs. silencing them?
The questions may not have an answer or may be found to be invalid at some point but given our current state of knowledge, the most genuine knowledge-seeking approach is to assume it's valid and answerable until such time as evidence refutes that categorization. I think Aheadatime is doing that & pursuing this path is laudable IMO.
best regards,
Pedal2Metal
Pedal answered that pretty thoroughly, not sure how the 3 questions or so that i posted on the last page were not coherent. They made perfect sense and brought up a legit point, but cannot be answered due to human ignorance, we simply lack certain information as a species, and currently, the tools to find out said information.
My point which P2M seems to have largely 'got' is that you can't easily tell if they are coherent or if they are valid with this sort of question and that thpose are additional possibilities along with all of the various answers that you can imagine.
For example it is perfectly concievable that there is no 'why' or at least nothing you would recognise as an answer to why or that in the context of god (or whatever you want to put in this place) 'why' doesn't have any meaning. Since you have already seem to feel it is far beyond our knowledge to answer the question I dont see on what grounds you would exculde those sorts of possibilities.
Simply bc we lack the ability to look back to the instant life formed and directly examine it. The possibility of life having formed one way or another is debatable, i only gave mere split second guesses. The fact is that we dont know and have no way of currently finding out exactly how life started, meaning noone here can answer this question, along with other questions equally out of reach such as, assuming the big bang theory is accurate, what existed previous to the big bang in entirety as well as what exists outside of our known universe.
You are absolutely right on this point. Indeed, people may choose to change their views and some do, given sufficient reason for it. I'm not claiming that one cannot dispose of his/her "indoctrinated" views. All I'm saying is that it presents a significant barrier. E.g. if one collected statistics about how many people believe in evolution vs creationism in the US and also in Europe, then you would find a much higher portion of the US prefers creationist/intelligent-design view over evolution than in Europe. In other words, if the two theories were given equal chance (removal of indoctrination), I'd expect evolution to be far more universally accepted, i.e. it wouldn't be considered contraversal anymore.
From all your previous posts I may have incorrectly assumed that you accept the creationist view, because you seem to be so determined to attack and oppose macro-evolution. My mistake, sorry.
On the other hand, your last sentence above makes no sense to me after all the posts in this thread. Maybe the problem lies in me not understand your definition for "we". If I assume you mean the human species (homo sapiens), then your statement is incorrect. We do have much more than a clue. Evolution is a scientific theory with lots of data and evidence behind it and it DOES explain exactly how we came to be all the way from bacterial level of life. On the other hand, if you are asking how the most primitive forms of life came to be, that question is answered by the topic of Abiogenesis mentioned and linked by my earlier post #199 in this thread (page 20).
To me it seems like you are constantly switching between asking philosophical questions like "why do i exist", historical questions like "what process bridged the gap between A and B" and experimental questions "is there a process that can bridge the gap from A to B".
Maybe these are all the same question toyou and you expect an answer that covers everything but this makes the debate very hard to get any traction on because we cant get on the same topic.
This is a little like the other conversation where Zso_Zso is talking about communities/countries and P2M talks about individuals being able to change their mind. Ie no contradiction at all.
Supreme
BTW this threat seems to be a great opportunity to get my post count up so that I can get a cool word next to my name like "Supreme".
194....
Define 'we' as life itself. Post 199 is a theory zso, you cant honestly believe that someone knows how life started, and claim that its fact. Ideas and theories are one thing, but you have to be honest with yourself when discussing the origin of life, understanding that its unknown.
I never claimed that i was going to ask questions in a straight-forward fashion only pertaining to a single aspect of conversation. That my questions are multi dimensional doesnt seem like a problem to me. These questions, specifically the latter scenarios disregarding the philosophical 'why', are questions in a very obviously tangible format, and i established them as so because your earlier post said my questions were incoherent and too philosophical, so i brought up these very strict and clear questions, still on the same mysterious playing field as the philo questions though in my opinion. Equally unknown, and both seem to be ignored by the scientific community.
well, this is not my opinion. first off, you take the dancing example as if i meant it literally which is of course not the case. i would rather advise to change your language when arguing. i don't find this comment offensive because you have added an "imo" which tells me that you accept that your own opinion is relative and other may legitimately disagree. other times, i find you present your opinion as if it was an absolute. more importantly, it is my personal opinion and that of most of the established official opinions (i only say this to demonstrate that i did not come up with it) that personal attacks and polemic arguments are inappropriate in an equitable discussion. i find it very clear that your use of such arguments is of excessive nature and to me it also seemed very clear that you used them because at some point you stopped discussing for the purpose of the issue but for the purpose of winning the argument. i get offended by polemic-personal arguments.
you probably disagree with this. that doesn't mean that it's dispensable for you to change your arguing in some way. just as it isn't dispensable for me trying to change my attitude towards arguments that i would normally find offensive even though i don't think i get offended too easily.
i am glad that you have written this and i am also glad that you have used the harsh language because this is the only language that can address ignorance properly. and that is imo exactly what you deal with in this thread. i have argued for this in my posts and it's good to see that other people agree with what i consider common sense. the process of evolution is proven. doubtlessly. evolution is an absolute in the physical world. i won't accept other opinions, i.e. i won't regard them as serious.
and by the response you have gotten from pedal, your revealing of ignorance is affirmed in my opinion. you have been provoked personally rather than your arguments being countered. your personal attributes have been attacked instead of the validity of your arguments. i don't think you argue for the theory of evolution because you dislike religion in general. i think you were arguing against pure ignorance of evidence that has been confirmed several times. and you argue harshly because this ignorance insults those that have observed this evidence.
again, i do not mean to offend anyone. this is my subjective opinion and i don't believe in objective ones.
I'm teaching Hobbes this week in my PHIL 220 class, and I was just perusing a section which I thought pertained to Civ Rev strategy. It's not one of the famous quotes with which many of you are familiar, but a different one:
"Pusillanimity disposeth men to irresolution, and consequently to lose the occassions and fittest opportunities of action. For after men have in deliberation till the time of action approach, if it be not then manifest what is best to be done, it is a sign the difference of motives, the one way and the other, are not great; therefore not to resolve then is to lose the occassion by weighing of trifles; which is pusillanimity."
All too often in Civ Rev I hesitate in action because two actions appear to be equally necessary, albeit one might mitigate the other. In such a case, Hobbes observes, if the difference between the two is minimal, then it is best to not "lose the occassion" and simply make a decision---since if the difference is little, either course of action couldn't possibly be much worse than the other.
However, in civ rev one of the two choices always reveals itself as the 'better choice', given the consequences of choosing the worse choice varys from game to game and opponent to opponent. Playing a perfect game is thus rare, as it is difficult to foresee future events.
it's funny that you say this because i have recently detected this attribute in me due to my beloved self-consciousness. if you're in a good mood with a fresh mind that is capable of taking good, logical, practical, and quick decisions in your everyday life, then this can be quite helpful. that includes civ even though i, in this case, usually think that i have done something wrong if i have to make such a decision. and worse, if it later becomes clear that you have actually made the wrong decision, you still quarrel with yourself.
Hmmmmm.... Since you stipulated that the future event is unforseeable, then once again it won't make much of a difference in your decision-making process, and thus you're still better off pursuing one of those courses of action with a certain decisiveness.
Yes, I agree mood can be very conducive to strong, smart actions by strong, smart people. I can't cite the study right now, but I remember reading an article once which said that workers with higher sounding titles perform better than without those titles. In this way, subjectivity influences our objective environment.
But of course there are always counter-examples to almost all of our research and studies. All one has to do is think of how confident, arrogant people with excess power (some of our rich bankers, powerful politicians, etc.) make all sorts of mistakes because of their delusional boldness.
Last edited by Zefelius; 05-08-2010 at 01:40 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote