Thoughts on Religion and the State

[zagibu]

That's called adaption not evolution which is what evolution always confuses.

You may give it a new name, but this exact process is what is known as "evolution" to the rest of the world. A random mutation turns out to be an advantage for a species' survival, those who don't have it die and cannot reproduce, the random mutation becomes a common trait through inheritance. Pretty easy. As you said, even you recognize that this mechanism works fine.

What you seem to be having problems with is how this mechanism could turn a fish into a land animal. You are a classic believer, they usually accept micro-evolution, but reject macro-evolution (because it makes god as a creator much less interesting). I understand that it's hard to comprehend mutations on such large timescales, but in the case of the fish, can't you see how it could be an advantage for a fish to have slightly longer and thicker fins than other fish, so that he could better travel from one shallow pool to another, or reach out of the water further to get at that juicy snail that is so very close to the pool's edge but not quite in it? Now what happens, when food in the pool actually gets rare? Certainly, the fish better able to change the pool or get at other sources of food will survive, while the others will die. Hence longer, thicker fins, better muscles to power them, a shorter, lighter tail that doesn't slow you down so much and eyes that are better suited for vision in air instead of vision in water.

I know it doesn't have lungs yet, but my biology-fu is too limited to explain this transmutation. But I don't see why this process shouldn't be useful for ANY change in ANY species, given that the external circumstances make development into this direction beneficial. Especially since there are so many fossils and even still living species that fit right into the gaps that so many religious people claim cannot be bridged.

Here is a list that orders some of those intermediate species so that you can see evolution better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils The fish to tetrapods part is relevant to what I just said.

[zagibu]

what makes human evolution so funny is that the rabble actually kills off the smart ones.

Evolution is not always beneficial for the long term survival of a species. It doesn't have a plan, you know.

[GRANDMOM]

About we and them, third world etc:

"With the drama and urgency of a sportscaster, statistics guru Hans Rosling uses an amazing new presentation tool, Gapminder, to present data that debunks several myths about world development."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

[_schizo321437]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250603/Reduction-in-tooth-size

[Xant]

Most Creationists fail to understand what adaptations really mean. "Oh yeah, those Darwin's finches, their beaks are just, like, adaptations." Well, what the fuck happens when they continue to adapt further? Oh, that's right, they become a new species after a sufficiently long enough time and enough adaptations.

[Kalam]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250603/Reduction-in-tooth-size

There's a startling example of that in Russia.

I've got to say that I hope we make a better effort of educating people everywhere in the sciences. Not through rote memory, but analysis. If people understood what they were learning, we might get better decisions regarding religion in the future.

What kind of logic is not mathematical logic ? Philosophy is math sans rigor. Both "philosophical problems" and "philosophical solutions" tend to rely on language misuse. I would even go as far as challenging you to find an example of actual logic being used to "solve" a "philosophical problem". There is no language misuse in math, and in some way there is no problem in math, as everything derived from correct premisses will be correct by construction (here logic and math is pretty much the same thing). The existence of unintuitive properties in higher-order logic such as the indecidability of some problems (strongly linked with the paradox you mentioned) is only a problem if you really want a consistent set of axioms from which a computer could derive all mathematic truths that exist with this set of axioms. I mean, it only destroyed mathematics for a couple of years after Godel's famous proof of the incompleteness of arithmetics. Turing together with several others fixed it with decidability theory.

You're right. I still believe you need regular Philosophy though, because culture and behavior can rarely be reduced to math, though it seems to be an area that we're advancing in with theories like this.

[kinngrimm]

... I still believe you need regular Philosophy though...

I would prefer philosophy and ethic education for children in schools, a thousand times over any religion specific education. Also this should be present within pretty much every year and also part of bachalor, masters and doctorants studies. Not as the main courses but at least not leaving these out completly as that from my point of view already often led to disasters.

[Kafein]

That term is misused anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

The term is almost always misused but I precisely used First World to refer to Western Europe and the USA. People frequently think crime rates are increasing, but especially in the USA that vision comes from the 70s crime wave even though crime quickly stopped increasing and started decreasing again in the mid 90s

[Taser]

The term is almost always misused but I precisely used First World to refer to Western Europe and the USA. People frequently think crime rates are increasing, but especially in the USA that vision comes from the 70s crime wave even though crime quickly stopped increasing and started decreasing again in the mid 90s

You can thank the media for that as well. Perception is reality and all that.

[Corsair831]

you guys obviously know a lot about the theory of evolution, but as for changing someone's opinion on their beliefs, you seem to suck ass at that.

this guy has had a different upbringing than you, access to very different information all his life, authority figures saying that god is the truth and scientists are liars, do you really think that shouting at him and calling him an idiot on the internet is really helping things, or just distancing him from you.

the only way to change the mind of these people is a bit of gentle encouragement to educate themselves with a firm hand every time they get out of line regarding their religion. if you berate them and make fun of them it does no-one any good at all. i really hate overzealous atheists, you do nothing but alienate the religious majority from the message we're actually trying to bloody give them.

[Xant]

Oh yes, silly us. Being condescending like you, on the other hand, just oughta do the trick.

[Kafein]

you guys obviously know a lot about the theory of evolution, but as for changing someone's opinion on their beliefs, you seem to suck ass at that.

this guy has had a different upbringing than you, access to very different information all his life, authority figures saying that god is the truth and scientists are liars, do you really think that shouting at him and calling him an idiot on the internet is really helping things, or just distancing him from you.

the only way to change the mind of these people is a bit of gentle encouragement to educate themselves with a firm hand every time they get out of line regarding their religion. if you berate them and make fun of them it does no-one any good at all. i really hate overzealous atheists, you do nothing but alienate the religious majority from the message we're actually trying to bloody give them.

By trying to change their minds, you are the one being zealous in the first place. The reason why I stopped trying to "convince" religious people is both because it takes a lot of effort for very little results and because time is on my side anyway. Why should I care about alienating the so-called "religious majority" ? Most debates in history were won not because people were convinced, but because the opposition died out.

[Xant]

The reason he gets called an idiot is because he's behaving like one. I'm all for being nice and kind and kissing in the moonlight and happy happy fun time, but Jarold's not worth it. His debating style (and it's a stretch to call it debating) is gay, and on top of that, rude. So rudeness is what he gets in return. He stops making baseless claims and ignoring 99% of the arguments where he gets proven wrong, maybe he'll earn some politeness in return.

[the real god emperor]

Christian bad. ate pork. go hell. Muslim good.Go heaven.Allah is merciful.

What I learned from religions is ; God -> evidence of existance -> Holy books -> written by -> prophets -> sent by -> God.

 Wake up.

[kinngrimm]

Christian bad. ate pork. go hell. Muslim good.Go heaven.Allah is merciful.

What I learned from religions is ; God -> evidence of existance -> Holy books -> written by -> prophets -> sent by -> God.

 Wake up.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login