Yes, most of my mates are atheists and they are not rapists or murderers, plus they dont usually hump my leg. I did not accuse you of any of these things either. Thats my point, we both actively resist the animal instincts that form the basis of evolutionary theory, we chose a different way. Im glad you agree that following 'survival of the fittest' is not a good rule for life and can justify immorality. I think this is what 'do the evolution' is about. The rather demented figure that sings it jusifies his actions saying 'its evolution baby' and he is being consistent with evolution, its just 'herd behaviour'. Interestingly, he also uses Christianity, 'here's my church, i sing in the choir' but here he is not being consistent, he is contradicting christianity, so he is a thief and a liar. Thats the difference, Hitler was being consistent with evolutionary thought when he decided that the 'fittest' should destroy the 'parasytical' races and that people with defective genes should not procreate, however he was being totally inconsistent with any teaching from the New testament.
I don't know, man... There's not much to resist. I certainly don't have a desire to kill or rape that I need to resist, not even passively.
I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that Ed is thief and a liar. You'll have to explain that one again, dude.
edit: please read the whole site!
edit: you watched that movie, didn't you?
I havn't watched your link yet but, I'm NOT saying Ed is a theif and a liar, I think the song is written from the viewpoint of a deranged, power crazed leader of some sort.
Hi Collin.
I've looked at your link now. I never said that Darwinism was the ONLY cause of the Holocaust, how about 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism, that didn't help much either. Hitler also fervently believed the anti-semitic conspiracy document 'The Protocols of the Wise men of Zion', which i think was the no.1 factor. But the arian superiority element, and a large part of the justification for the holocaust was Darwinian Eugenics, no doubt. Yes later Darwinists like Lewontin and Gould have done much to exorcize Eugenics from Neo-Darwinism, but that doesn't alter the historical impact it had already had. I actually only heard about the film 'Expelled' yesterday, I just watched the trailer and it looks awesome. Everyone interested in this debate should check it out on the link below. Have you seen the whole film?
In my own spiritual journey Ed has been a constant voice, a co-searcher of truth. I used to be amazed how new albums seemed to reflect my own searchings. But now we are adrift, worlds apart. From Ten to Yield, Ed's lyrics beat a genuine, honest, and real, path to God. After the metaphysical groping of vitalogy and no code,Yield's affirmation of faith and heavy allusions to the crucifixion of Jesus in Given to fly, made it the the soundtrack to my own recent submission to God. However, although remnants remained on Binaural, it soon became clear that Ed had seen the truth, counted the cost, and turned back. Now I am dismayed by the anti-Christian videos on tenclubs activism page and the 'God is a delusion' messages in Ed's lyrics. I feel gutted that ed did not come along for the ride, he's missed the greatest discovery of all - Life as a disciple of Jesus. I feel like I've lost a friend, am I the only one who feels this way?
Has anyone involved in this discussion read the book "The Selfish Gene " by Richard Dawkins?
It intelligently addresses many of the issues being bantered about in this forum. Might want to check it out.
Edited cause I couldn't find the ? on my keyboard!!!
Welcome to the thread.
I actually havn't read that one but I have read his later books 'the blind watchmaker' and 'The God delusion'. These are essential texts for anyone interested in the debate. The problem is that not so many people seem to have read the essential texts on the other side of the argument, such as 'Darwin on Trial' and 'Darwin's Black Box'. Too many people let Intelligent Design be defined by its critics, Dawkins and the like are scared shitless of ID, and they have led many to believe that it is a dangerous psuedo-scientific religion, I think that anyone who has read any ID books knows that this is a lie. If there is one bit of wisdom I can give you it is this: NEVER let a movement be defined only by its critics.
Welcome to the thread.
Too many people let Intelligent Design be defined by its critics, Dawkins and the like are scared shitless of ID,
Thank you for the welcome. You definitely have to get past Dawkins' personal feelings on religion when getting to the crux of his theory. For me, Dawkins' constant interjection concerning his hatred of religion was the biggest weakness of the book.
Does anyone ever think that maybe a creator (God, Allah, Eddie whatever you want to call it) was the entity that set the whole chain reaction process of evolution into motion?
Is it possible that the Genesis story of creation is a simpler telling of the evolutionary process? At times, the 6 days of creation appear to loosely follow what scientific theory.
Or we could use transitive logic (if a=b and b=c then a=c) to answer the question "Does Eddie believe in God?"
Eddie is god! (this is an obvious given)
Eddie believes in himself (as most successful people do)
Therefore: Eddie believes in god!!!
/im a loser
Thank you for the welcome. You definitely have to get past Dawkins' personal feelings on religion when getting to the crux of his theory. For me, Dawkins' constant interjection concerning his hatred of religion was the biggest weakness of the book.
Is it possible that the Genesis story of creation is a simpler telling of the evolutionary process? At times, the 6 days of creation appear to loosely follow what scientific theory.
This is kind of old ground in this debate so here is my old post on the subject:
The idea of God and Darwin as mates is like a horse pulling a tractor. The tractor was created to replace the Horse, it has no need of the horse cos it can do the job all by itself. Darwinism was dreamed up as an alternative to the Genesis account and as I have said it is based entirely on the philosophy of naturalism, which explicitley rejects any divine cause for the natural world. Theologically, the problems of trying to fit the two together are massive. Genesis is clear that God's origional creation was 'very good', so evil, no sin, no death. Everyone, man and animal was vegetarian - no lions tearing Zebras apart with their teeth, as gen 1:30 says they were given 'every green plant for food’. Now, however much you try to allegorize these texts one vital thing is clear from the whole Bible: the entrance of pain, suffering, and death into the world is a consequence of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. You can see this in Romans ch5: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men… death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses'. Without this foundation, the whole mission of Jesus is meaningless since he was sent to reverse the effects of Adam's sin, as Rom ch5 goes on to say:
'For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.’
The problem is that if, when Adam and Eve were walking about in the garden of Eden, and God said it was all 'very good', they were walking on top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers brimming with dead animals and protohumans, death did not come through Adam's sin so the work of Jesus is useless. If death and bloodshed, the suvival of the fittest, are the way that God created the world, then he is squarely responsible for all the suffering in the world, not us. What kind of all-powerfull God would design a world that can only progress through the strong destroying the weak, to me this kind of world is not 'very good'. If what Jesus did on the cross was really to reverse the effects of Adam's sin and so defeat sin and death, then all the sedimentary layers full of dead creatures MUST be post-eden. How could this be? well the answer is found 5 chapters later in genesis. If their really was a global flood that drowned the entire stock of life on earth (except those on the ark), then hundreds of feet of fossil-filled sediment all over the world is exactly what we should expect to find, and guess what - we do.
Peace.
Ok Cate. Since you have made a statement of faith, are you willing to have your belief scrutinized in the same way that you have scrutinized mine?
Is your energy/presence made of atoms and molecules or is it supernatural?
Is it a thing, or does it have a personality?
yes scrutinise away.
my energy/presence is a sense. it has no personality. it absorbs what is around it and projects that outward, bouncing it back to the person it is meant for. you could call it intuition, you could call it conscience. you can call it whatever you like. its just a primal sense. i dont see it as supernatural cause i feel it is a part of us.
i see it in the same way as i sense when one of my children is doing something they shouldnt be doing. the silence in the house has a different feel and sound about it than when they are quietly doing soemthing such as reading a book or some such thing.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
my energy/presence is a sense. it has no personality. it absorbs what is around it and projects that outward, bouncing it back to the person it is meant for. you could call it intuition, you could call it conscience. you can call it whatever you like. its just a primal sense. i dont see it as supernatural cause i feel it is a part of us.
i see it in the same way as i sense when one of my children is doing something they shouldnt be doing. the silence in the house has a different feel and sound about it than when they are quietly doing soemthing such as reading a book or some such thing.
I see, so some kind of ESP? This in itself is supernatural but your phrase: 'it absorbs what is around it and projects that outward, bouncing it back to the person it is meant for.' seems to suggest that it is separate from the person, is it? Intuition and concience certainly are not. If you are just talking about concience, it sounds a bit strange to call it a 'presence'.
I havn't watched your link yet but, I'm NOT saying Ed is a theif and a liar, I think the song is written from the viewpoint of a deranged, power crazed leader of some sort.
I see, so some kind of ESP? This in itself is supernatural but your phrase: 'it absorbs what is around it and projects that outward, bouncing it back to the person it is meant for.' seems to suggest that it is separate from the person, is it? Intuition and concience certainly are not. If you are just talking about concience, it sounds a bit strange to call it a 'presence'.
no not some kind of ESP. the presence is both separate and a part of the person. this is why more than one person is able to experience the presence.
i think i misspoke when i used the words intuition and conscience. it is difficult for me to put labels to things, but i thought thats what was needed. perhaps i should have called it instinct rather than intuition.
anyhoo try this for an example of what im trying to convey.
i am a single parent. i am the primary caregiver for my children. living basically 24/7 with my children, when they were younger i could sense from a change in the 'vibe' of our house when they are up to 'no good'. their father never could. even when they were in his custody. he always equated their silence with good. i told him he couldnt leave them as alone with themselves as he did because he wasnt around them enough to understand the changes in the air. i know this may sound a little airy fairy. but im sure im not the only mother than can sense this. or any father who has primary custody of his children.
as for your contention that intuition is not separate from the person, i question that. sure it feels like intuition comes from within us, but there has to be something out there to be sensed in the first place i think, dont you? intuition is just a reaction to outside stimuli. but yes i agree with you conscience does come from within. i actually think our conscience is our soul. thats why even though I am an atheist i believe i have a soul.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Hi Collin.
I've looked at your link now. I never said that Darwinism was the ONLY cause of the Holocaust, how about 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism, that didn't help much either. Hitler also fervently believed the anti-semitic conspiracy document 'The Protocols of the Wise men of Zion', which i think was the no.1 factor. But the arian superiority element, and a large part of the justification for the holocaust was Darwinian Eugenics, no doubt. Yes later Darwinists like Lewontin and Gould have done much to exorcize Eugenics from Neo-Darwinism, but that doesn't alter the historical impact it had already had.
You are trying, very hard it seems, to link Hitler with evolution. You will fail, however, because the link is not there. It exists only in your mind.
And you are doing it again, despite the hard evidence. "Darwinian Eugenics" does not exist, it is also a figment of your imagination, probably introduced by the creationist smear campaign. Darwin did not propose eugenics, nor did he support it.
Furthermore, the historical impact is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. We've already established that eugenics and evolution are two entirely different things. One was heavily supported by Christian groups, by the way. But I'm sure you've read that too.
I actually only heard about the film 'Expelled' yesterday, I just watched the trailer and it looks awesome. Everyone interested in this debate should check it out on the link below. Have you seen the whole film?
I don't plan to watch it. I've read that entire website. They have posted direct claims from the movie and disproved them. The site shows how the maker of this movie leaves out certain information, distorts certain facts, twists everything he can into an argument against evolution or for creationism. A simple read of the website will shows they are not "debating" the issues, they are disproving claims and correcting lies or simply providing entire sources of which only the parts which the maker deemed convenient were used. I am not interested in a propaganda movie that shows no respect for the truth. I really hope you'll read the entire site as well. I think you will agree with the site instead of the movie. If not, then you are willing disregarding a lot of information and facts.
I said I will try and get a copy of Darwin on Trial. I agree that both sides should be read. I will of course also read the criticisms. And I will also look into The Design Inference by Dembski, if I can find it.
but yes i agree with you conscience does come from within. i actually think our conscience is our soul. thats why even though I am an atheist i believe i have a soul.
Do you believe your soul will live on? Or will died with you? I think the word soul is a bit like sin.
well i dont believe i have a brain collin. i know i have a brain. and i am more than just that brain.
You're right, I know I have a brain.
I also think that I am more than just that brain, but at the same time I'm not. Everything I am, even the sense of self, the "I" who sits in the control room, is all brain activity.
Our thoughts and feelings are physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. There's plenty, actually huge amounts of scientific evidence to support this claim, if you want I will provide it. Any neuroscientist will tell you the same. The problem is people can't seem to accept the substantial evidence.
I became very interested about this when I first read about it. I did a lot of 'research' on the subject - I even aksed Ahnimus for sources I knew he would not let me down.
This field of study is fascinating and scary in a way.
I also think that I am more than just that brain, but at the same time I'm not. Everything I am, even the sense of self, the "I" who sits in the control room, is all brain activity.
Our thoughts and feelings are physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. There's plenty, actually huge amounts of scientific evidence to support this claim, if you want I will provide it. Any neuroscientist will tell you the same. The problem is people can't seem to accept the substantial evidence.
I became very interested about this when I first read about it. I did a lot of 'research' on the subject - I even aksed Ahnimus for sources I knew he would not let me down.
This field of study is fascinating and scary in a way.
so youre of the opinion that your body is just a vessel for your brain?
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
so youre of the opinion that your body is just a vessel for your brain?
Well... basically. Everything my body does is controlled by my brain. Without my brain, my body would be useless. But without my body, my brain could not survive.
I've read about these things and there's little room for arguing. You'd have to have some real hard evidence to prove those theories wrong.
I accept those theories because of the huge amount of evidence. But it's not my life view, or whatever.
I'm too busy to give a fuck, though. See, my brain is creating all these feelinsg, thoughts, sensations... I don't see the point in telling myself it's "just" brain activity, even though factually I would be right. Like I said, to me it's also more. The fact that I know what causes feelings of love, or being in love etc. does not alter the feelings I have for my girlfriend (sorry manipulatedliving ).
We're not focused on electrical activity within the brain. We enjoy life, I enjoy life and I intend to keep it that way. My girlfriend and I talk about things we both like, pearl jam for example, food, books, movies, parties, talks... The fact that hormones, brain activity all have a part in this does not change how I feel about her. I don't feel less in love, I don't love her less.
Why try to actively suppress feelings, thoughts, sensations... that are products of your brain? It doesn't make sense to me.
It's like listening to a beautiful piece of music and taking it apart completely, separating the bassline, the lead guitar, the vocals, the lyrics, the drums... for each other. You know the beautiful piece of music consists out of simpler elements yet you still think it's beautiful. You might even be amazed how people can create such beauty with such simple means.
I have similar feelings about these neuroscientific findings.
edit: My girlfriend and I rarely talk about talks Just thought I'd mention that!
Tim, instead of quoting all these scientific facts about how freshwater fish could have survived the great flood why not just say....God performed a miracle and kept them all alive. Its much easier.
I havn't watched your link yet but, I'm NOT saying Ed is a theif and a liar, I think the song is written from the viewpoint of a deranged, power crazed leader of some sort.
I think this discussion again comes down to understanding evolution. You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution, and neither does the 'protagonist' in the song. I also think the 'protagonist' isn't one person, I think it's mankind in general. And that's just my opinion.
To me, it's about mankind thinking they are it. The most perfect beings on the planet, the best beings, the blessed beings... The pinnacle of evolution or god's children...
It's about people, regardless of creed, doing what they want and justifying it with whatever reason they choose. Or they don't even justify it themselves, they just do it and don't think about it... Ed sort of points it out.
I think this discussion again comes down to understanding evolution. You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution, and neither does the 'protagonist' in the song. I also think the 'protagonist' isn't one person, I think it's mankind in general. And that's just my opinion.
To me, it's about mankind thinking they are it. The most perfect beings on the planet, the best beings, the blessed beings... The pinnacle of evolution or god's children...
It's about people, regardless of creed, doing what they want and justifying it with whatever reason they choose. Or they don't even justify it themselves, they just do it and don't think about it... Ed sort of points it out.
yeah, i dont think DTE is about 1 person, its about all mankind destroying the planet.
Comments
It intelligently addresses many of the issues being bantered about in this forum. Might want to check it out.
Edited cause I couldn't find the ? on my keyboard!!!
I don't know, man... There's not much to resist. I certainly don't have a desire to kill or rape that I need to resist, not even passively.
I don't understand the reasoning behind your conclusion that Ed is thief and a liar. You'll have to explain that one again, dude.
Here's a must read:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
edit: please read the whole site!
edit: you watched that movie, didn't you?
naděje umírá poslední
I havn't watched your link yet but, I'm NOT saying Ed is a theif and a liar, I think the song is written from the viewpoint of a deranged, power crazed leader of some sort.
Ed isn't. But the protagonist of DTE is: "I'm a thief, I'm a liar. Here's my church, yada yada."
for the least they could possibly do
I've looked at your link now. I never said that Darwinism was the ONLY cause of the Holocaust, how about 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism, that didn't help much either. Hitler also fervently believed the anti-semitic conspiracy document 'The Protocols of the Wise men of Zion', which i think was the no.1 factor. But the arian superiority element, and a large part of the justification for the holocaust was Darwinian Eugenics, no doubt. Yes later Darwinists like Lewontin and Gould have done much to exorcize Eugenics from Neo-Darwinism, but that doesn't alter the historical impact it had already had. I actually only heard about the film 'Expelled' yesterday, I just watched the trailer and it looks awesome. Everyone interested in this debate should check it out on the link below. Have you seen the whole film?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
agreed
Welcome to the thread.
I actually havn't read that one but I have read his later books 'the blind watchmaker' and 'The God delusion'. These are essential texts for anyone interested in the debate. The problem is that not so many people seem to have read the essential texts on the other side of the argument, such as 'Darwin on Trial' and 'Darwin's Black Box'. Too many people let Intelligent Design be defined by its critics, Dawkins and the like are scared shitless of ID, and they have led many to believe that it is a dangerous psuedo-scientific religion, I think that anyone who has read any ID books knows that this is a lie. If there is one bit of wisdom I can give you it is this: NEVER let a movement be defined only by its critics.
What do you agree with?
Thank you for the welcome. You definitely have to get past Dawkins' personal feelings on religion when getting to the crux of his theory. For me, Dawkins' constant interjection concerning his hatred of religion was the biggest weakness of the book.
Does anyone ever think that maybe a creator (God, Allah, Eddie whatever you want to call it) was the entity that set the whole chain reaction process of evolution into motion?
Is it possible that the Genesis story of creation is a simpler telling of the evolutionary process? At times, the 6 days of creation appear to loosely follow what scientific theory.
Or we could use transitive logic (if a=b and b=c then a=c) to answer the question "Does Eddie believe in God?"
Eddie is god! (this is an obvious given)
Eddie believes in himself (as most successful people do)
Therefore: Eddie believes in god!!!
/im a loser
This is kind of old ground in this debate so here is my old post on the subject:
The idea of God and Darwin as mates is like a horse pulling a tractor. The tractor was created to replace the Horse, it has no need of the horse cos it can do the job all by itself. Darwinism was dreamed up as an alternative to the Genesis account and as I have said it is based entirely on the philosophy of naturalism, which explicitley rejects any divine cause for the natural world. Theologically, the problems of trying to fit the two together are massive. Genesis is clear that God's origional creation was 'very good', so evil, no sin, no death. Everyone, man and animal was vegetarian - no lions tearing Zebras apart with their teeth, as gen 1:30 says they were given 'every green plant for food’. Now, however much you try to allegorize these texts one vital thing is clear from the whole Bible: the entrance of pain, suffering, and death into the world is a consequence of Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. You can see this in Romans ch5: 'Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men… death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses'. Without this foundation, the whole mission of Jesus is meaningless since he was sent to reverse the effects of Adam's sin, as Rom ch5 goes on to say:
'For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.’
The problem is that if, when Adam and Eve were walking about in the garden of Eden, and God said it was all 'very good', they were walking on top of hundreds of feet of sedimentary layers brimming with dead animals and protohumans, death did not come through Adam's sin so the work of Jesus is useless. If death and bloodshed, the suvival of the fittest, are the way that God created the world, then he is squarely responsible for all the suffering in the world, not us. What kind of all-powerfull God would design a world that can only progress through the strong destroying the weak, to me this kind of world is not 'very good'. If what Jesus did on the cross was really to reverse the effects of Adam's sin and so defeat sin and death, then all the sedimentary layers full of dead creatures MUST be post-eden. How could this be? well the answer is found 5 chapters later in genesis. If their really was a global flood that drowned the entire stock of life on earth (except those on the ark), then hundreds of feet of fossil-filled sediment all over the world is exactly what we should expect to find, and guess what - we do.
Peace.
Indeed Grazman! and the others went in seven by seven.
yes scrutinise away.
my energy/presence is a sense. it has no personality. it absorbs what is around it and projects that outward, bouncing it back to the person it is meant for. you could call it intuition, you could call it conscience. you can call it whatever you like. its just a primal sense. i dont see it as supernatural cause i feel it is a part of us.
i see it in the same way as i sense when one of my children is doing something they shouldnt be doing. the silence in the house has a different feel and sound about it than when they are quietly doing soemthing such as reading a book or some such thing.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
what happened to all the freshwater fish?
they evolved.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Good Question!
However, no they did not evolve as cate suggests.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4108
http://www.icr.org/article/351/
Peace
I see, so some kind of ESP? This in itself is supernatural but your phrase: 'it absorbs what is around it and projects that outward, bouncing it back to the person it is meant for.' seems to suggest that it is separate from the person, is it? Intuition and concience certainly are not. If you are just talking about concience, it sounds a bit strange to call it a 'presence'.
Ok, that doesn't change the argument, however.
naděje umírá poslední
oh tim lighten up, i was joking.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
no not some kind of ESP. the presence is both separate and a part of the person. this is why more than one person is able to experience the presence.
i think i misspoke when i used the words intuition and conscience. it is difficult for me to put labels to things, but i thought thats what was needed. perhaps i should have called it instinct rather than intuition.
anyhoo try this for an example of what im trying to convey.
i am a single parent. i am the primary caregiver for my children. living basically 24/7 with my children, when they were younger i could sense from a change in the 'vibe' of our house when they are up to 'no good'. their father never could. even when they were in his custody. he always equated their silence with good. i told him he couldnt leave them as alone with themselves as he did because he wasnt around them enough to understand the changes in the air. i know this may sound a little airy fairy. but im sure im not the only mother than can sense this. or any father who has primary custody of his children.
as for your contention that intuition is not separate from the person, i question that. sure it feels like intuition comes from within us, but there has to be something out there to be sensed in the first place i think, dont you? intuition is just a reaction to outside stimuli. but yes i agree with you conscience does come from within. i actually think our conscience is our soul. thats why even though I am an atheist i believe i have a soul.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You are trying, very hard it seems, to link Hitler with evolution. You will fail, however, because the link is not there. It exists only in your mind.
And you are doing it again, despite the hard evidence. "Darwinian Eugenics" does not exist, it is also a figment of your imagination, probably introduced by the creationist smear campaign. Darwin did not propose eugenics, nor did he support it.
Furthermore, the historical impact is irrelevant to the theory of evolution. We've already established that eugenics and evolution are two entirely different things. One was heavily supported by Christian groups, by the way. But I'm sure you've read that too.
I don't plan to watch it. I've read that entire website. They have posted direct claims from the movie and disproved them. The site shows how the maker of this movie leaves out certain information, distorts certain facts, twists everything he can into an argument against evolution or for creationism. A simple read of the website will shows they are not "debating" the issues, they are disproving claims and correcting lies or simply providing entire sources of which only the parts which the maker deemed convenient were used. I am not interested in a propaganda movie that shows no respect for the truth. I really hope you'll read the entire site as well. I think you will agree with the site instead of the movie. If not, then you are willing disregarding a lot of information and facts.
I said I will try and get a copy of Darwin on Trial. I agree that both sides should be read. I will of course also read the criticisms. And I will also look into The Design Inference by Dembski, if I can find it.
naděje umírá poslední
Do you believe your soul will live on? Or will died with you? I think the word soul is a bit like sin.
I believe I have a brain, I believe I am a brain.
naděje umírá poslední
no. yes.
well i dont believe i have a brain collin. i know i have a brain. and i am more than just that brain.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
You're right, I know I have a brain.
I also think that I am more than just that brain, but at the same time I'm not. Everything I am, even the sense of self, the "I" who sits in the control room, is all brain activity.
Our thoughts and feelings are physiological activity in the tissues of the brain. There's plenty, actually huge amounts of scientific evidence to support this claim, if you want I will provide it. Any neuroscientist will tell you the same. The problem is people can't seem to accept the substantial evidence.
I became very interested about this when I first read about it. I did a lot of 'research' on the subject - I even aksed Ahnimus for sources
This field of study is fascinating and scary in a way.
naděje umírá poslední
so youre of the opinion that your body is just a vessel for your brain?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Well... basically. Everything my body does is controlled by my brain. Without my brain, my body would be useless. But without my body, my brain could not survive.
I've read about these things and there's little room for arguing. You'd have to have some real hard evidence to prove those theories wrong.
I accept those theories because of the huge amount of evidence. But it's not my life view, or whatever.
I'm too busy to give a fuck, though. See, my brain is creating all these feelinsg, thoughts, sensations... I don't see the point in telling myself it's "just" brain activity, even though factually I would be right. Like I said, to me it's also more. The fact that I know what causes feelings of love, or being in love etc. does not alter the feelings I have for my girlfriend (sorry manipulatedliving
We're not focused on electrical activity within the brain. We enjoy life, I enjoy life and I intend to keep it that way. My girlfriend and I talk about things we both like, pearl jam for example, food, books, movies, parties, talks... The fact that hormones, brain activity all have a part in this does not change how I feel about her. I don't feel less in love, I don't love her less.
Why try to actively suppress feelings, thoughts, sensations... that are products of your brain? It doesn't make sense to me.
It's like listening to a beautiful piece of music and taking it apart completely, separating the bassline, the lead guitar, the vocals, the lyrics, the drums... for each other. You know the beautiful piece of music consists out of simpler elements yet you still think it's beautiful. You might even be amazed how people can create such beauty with such simple means.
I have similar feelings about these neuroscientific findings.
edit: My girlfriend and I rarely talk about talks
naděje umírá poslední
Tim, instead of quoting all these scientific facts about how freshwater fish could have survived the great flood why not just say....God performed a miracle and kept them all alive. Its much easier.
I think this discussion again comes down to understanding evolution. You apparently don't understand the theory of evolution, and neither does the 'protagonist' in the song. I also think the 'protagonist' isn't one person, I think it's mankind in general. And that's just my opinion.
To me, it's about mankind thinking they are it. The most perfect beings on the planet, the best beings, the blessed beings... The pinnacle of evolution or god's children...
It's about people, regardless of creed, doing what they want and justifying it with whatever reason they choose. Or they don't even justify it themselves, they just do it and don't think about it... Ed sort of points it out.
naděje umírá poslední
yeah, i dont think DTE is about 1 person, its about all mankind destroying the planet.