# The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 7, 2021)

The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?

By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". *Survivorship bias* causes us to miss the forest for the trees.

My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship")  analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II. He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:





Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?

No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.

Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.

Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 8, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


Another key part of Darwin's theory came from Malthus.  Malthus noted that life produced many more offspring than can survive into the next generation.

I'm not sure man is still evolving since just about everyone has an opportunity to reproduce (even a schlub like me).  I think the magic of being human is that our societies evolve.  It initially made us warlike and aggressive but now seems to be headed in the opposite direction.  Maybe.  If true, it means that cultural influence is the measure of success.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 9, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Another key part of Darwin's theory came from Malthus.  Malthus noted that life produced many more offspring than can survive into the next generation.
> 
> I'm not sure man is still evolving since just about everyone has an opportunity to reproduce (even a schlub like me).  I think the magic of being human is that our societies evolve.  It initially made us warlike and aggressive but now seems to be headed in the opposite direction.  Maybe.  If true, it means that cultural influence is the measure of success.


But humans are evolving in ways other than natural selection. Like genetic drift. But the amount of admixture and the large population will slow that down.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But humans are evolving in ways other than natural selection. Like genetic drift. But the amount of admixture and the large population will slow that down.


In the past millennia clans or tribes were thought to number from 20 to 200. Clans were probably very aggressive toward each other.  Evolution in craftiness, foraging, etc. was no doubt at a high pace. That doesn't happen today. When it comes to survival of human fittest, fitness has to be redefined.  There is an inverse relationship between birthrate and income. An interesting question is what groups will survive the next huge meteor hit.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 9, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> In the past millennia clans or tribes were thought to number from 20 to 200. Clans were probably very aggressive toward each other.  Evolution in craftiness, foraging, etc. was no doubt at a high pace. That doesn't happen today. When it comes to survival of human fittest, fitness has to be redefined.  There is an inverse relationship between birthrate and income. An interesting question is what groups will survive the next huge meteor hit.



Survival of the fittest is a species wide thing. It's not about one individual within the species. Individuals depend on the whole. Do they look after their weak or not? That doesn't change their ability to survive, all the time, sometimes it might.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 9, 2021)

I'm not sure who to answer on Evo/Survival and what I think should be called Dysgenic.
The best of our societies, both locally, and worldwide are being out-reproduced by the least.

On the largest level, continentally/racially, the First World, both Euro/and NE Asian has a strong negative fertility. App 1.3-1.8 and is shrinking pretty dramatically. (2.1 is break even).
Places like Germany would have their population halve by 2050, erased on the planet, or replaced with immigration by Third-worlders. Which is why I think Merkel allowed in 1 million a few years ago despite  the collateral near term damage (crime, etc). The numbers are daunting: she had to take the gamble.

In this country we are growing slightly but only because of immigration and their birth rates. In the USA 'Whites;' Fell 8% between 2010 and 2020 Census.

Africa, ie,, which basically lived the same way in 1900 as 50,000 years ago, had not advanced/'evolved' nearly as much and remained hunter-Gatherers living in huts. Some/many still do today while those who moved North were forced to innovate in re food storage, clothing, shelter, etc, not just walking out of the hut and killing an animal or digging up a root. Different evolutionary pressures/environment IS what drives evolution.

App 10,000 years ago, 'we' (Eurasians) started using Agriculture and produced 100x the calories, weights and measures, trade, leisure time, and non-physical job demands. Thus there is an evolutionary difference in IQ/Cognitive ability between the temperate climates and the equatorial ones which remained hunter-gatherers.

Until app 1950, the strongest groups of humans genocided, colonized, and enslaved the less developed (evolved) ones and well out-reproduced them. Now/since that date, 'we' started the UN and have given them countries and innovation that might have taken them another 100,000 years if left alone. Bill gates spends most of his money on Meds for the Third World instead of birth control for them, that would keep their population in balance with hunter-gatherer needs as it had done forever.

So they have some of our technology/Medicine and are able to well out-reproduce us and survive what their own cognitive abilities would otherwise produce.
But not thrive or Govern themselves/a country because of cognitive ability that is still 10K years behind.

Even very recently, Africa's population would have been gutted by AIDS and/or Ebola and balance returned to the human/environment mix and the hunter gatherer way of life would have gone the way it had forever.

Now/instead their survival rates have dramatically increased and they don't have enough land to live their old life style on. The Wildlife and Flora of Africa and other tropical climates (Northern S America, New Guinea, Haiti, Central America, Africa, etc) is being eliminated by population pressure and they have no place to go but to developed ones.
Some come North to/Flood 'us,' while others head North to the EU whose technology can feed denser population and govern them in a civil society. Look at the failed states of the equatorial peoples. Africa, Central America, etc.

So for the first time in Human History, indeed the history of Life on the planet, the lesser of the species is out reproducing the stronger.
Dysgenics has raised it's head..

On the more local level, (intra-continental) the same trend.
IQ is dropping in the Western World since app 1990/birth year app 1975.

Too bad (or lucky) we alive now won't see this play out over the next few centuries.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> In the past millennia clans or tribes were thought to number from 20 to 200. Clans were probably very aggressive toward each other.  Evolution in craftiness, foraging, etc. was no doubt at a high pace. That doesn't happen today. When it comes to survival of human fittest, fitness has to be redefined.  There is an inverse relationship between birthrate and income. An interesting question is what groups will survive the next huge meteor hit.


Excellent and interesting question, IMO If a meteor like the one that hit Chicxulub hits tomorrow, then what? We would probably have a good year's warning at minimum. The people on the opposite side of the world would be spared the death of the atmosphere cooking them (maybe, unless it's a bit bigger than the Chicxulub meteor), but the darkness and cold would set in and last for months.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> I'm not sure who to answer on Evo/Survival and what I think should be called Dysgenic.
> The best of our societies, both locally, and worldwide are being out-reproduced by the least.
> 
> On the largest level, continentally/racially, the First World, both Euro/and NE Asian has a strong negative fertility. App 1.3-1.8 and is shrinking pretty dramatically. (2.1 is break even).
> ...


All well said. A few things:

1) IQ measures aptitude at IQ tests, as much as it measures any IQ. Put another way, sometimes it does seem to measure ignorance, not just intelligence. The people being tested have various levels of exposure to the type of problems on an IQ test. Give it to a 15 year old with 10 years of homework and tests under his belt, and it seems obvious that his demo, on the whole, would outscore another 15 year old demo with only, say, 3 years of proper schooling. That being obviously true, it could stand for Ignorance Quotient as easily as it does Intelligence Quotient.

2) #1 being the case, the problem becomes solvable not just by means of some immoral eugenics program, but rather by means of the impeccably moral and ethical method of protecting human rights and educating people.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All well said. A few things:


Thanks but it all holds together Including IQ, it's not an evolutionary exception, it's a vital consequence OF natural selection in different and more demanding intellectual environments.
100% Consistent with evolutionary pressure to adapt.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> 1) IQ measures aptitude at IQ tests, as much as it measures any IQ. Put another way, sometimes it does seem to measure ignorance, not just intelligence. The people being tested have various levels of exposure to the type of problems on an IQ test. Give it to a 15 year old with 10 years of homework and tests under his belt, and it seems obvious that his demo, on the whole, would outscore another 15 year old demo with only, say, 3 years of proper schooling. That being obviously true, it could stand for Ignorance Quotient as easily as it does Intelligence Quotient.
> 
> 2) #1 being the case, the problem becomes solvable not just by means of some immoral eugenics program, but rather by means of the impeccably moral and ethical method of protecting human rights and educating people.


That's just another old PC trope: "IQ only measures IQ."

IQ is the single best measure of individual life outcomes in matter of both economic and longevity terms.
It's also a great predictor of continental outcomes.
ie, Predicatbly ungovernable sub-Saran Africa, utterly failed Haiti, etc.
The success of the Japanese (and Korea, Taiwan) despite living on a Seismic resourceLess rock VS sub-Saharan African failure on a resource-rich sub-continent.

The world, in fact, only makes sense acknowledging group IQ.

This country is ripping itself apart with the liberal assumption (egalitarianism) everyone is the same and the only outcome difference must be Racism (even when/where there is none or reverse of it), when in fact it's brains, which are btw, 75% HERITABLE.
When sorted by IQ, regardless of race, outcomes are very similar. Just there are far less percentages of ie, 120+s among some groups and more among others.
We see this daily.
Asian-Americans have higher IQs, Higher edu, and higher income than whites Despite 'discrimination.'
`


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All well said. A few things:
> 
> 1) IQ measures aptitude at IQ tests, as much as it measures any IQ. Put another way, sometimes it does seem to measure ignorance, not just intelligence. The people being tested have various levels of exposure to the type of problems on an IQ test. Give it to a 15 year old with 10 years of homework and tests under his belt, and it seems obvious that his demo, on the whole, would outscore another 15 year old demo with only, say, 3 years of proper schooling. That being obviously true, it could stand for Ignorance Quotient as easily as it does Intelligence Quotient.
> 
> 2) #1 being the case, the problem becomes solvable not just by means of some immoral eugenics program, but rather by means of the impeccably moral and ethical method of protecting human rights and educating people.


I agree. IQ may not have as much to do with survival as some might think. I have worked with many very smart people on various projects. Some of them did not have the wisdom to know what was best to do with their intelligence. I found that IQ meant little if you lacked wisdom and determination. An IQ test does not measure the latter two which are important for innovation and survival.

As we have seen, determination can be the most important factor in becoming the leader of a country and it trumps wisdom and intelligence.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Survival of the fittest is a species wide thing. It's not about one individual within the species. Individuals depend on the whole. Do they look after their weak or not? That doesn't change their ability to survive, all the time, sometimes it might.


Yes, Darwin was concerned more with the survival of the species. It seems that our species is here to stay so our survival is largely moot. What more could we possibly need to make our species "fitter"? 

IMO our species will survive the worst calamities that befell the earth over the last billion years. What we need to consider is the nature of the surviving gene pool.
.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Thanks but it all holds together Including IQ, it's not an evolutionary exception, it's a vital consequence OF natural selection in different and more demanding intellectual environments.
> 100% Consistent with evolutionary pressure to adapt.
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry but I don't buy it.  Culture is not based on IQ, it is based on history and geography.  It is culture that determines success.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, Darwin was concerned more with the survival of the species. It seems that our species is here to stay so our survival is largely moot. What more could we possibly need to make our species "fitter"?
> 
> IMO our species will survive the worst calamities that befell the earth over the last billion years. What we need to consider is the nature of the surviving gene pool.
> .


Our biology is largely irrelevant it is culture that evolves now (e.g., Stephen Hawking was a major cultural influence).


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Our biology is largely irrelevant it is culture that evolves now (e.g., Stephen Hawking was a major cultural influence).


Well, Darwin was more concerned with species. When it comes to homo sapiens today, there isn't much we can say at this point until the gene pool has a reason to change. 

Evolution of culture is different but also an interesting question. 
.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, Darwin was concerned more with the survival of the species. It seems that our species is here to stay so our survival is largely moot. What more could we possibly need to make our species "fitter"?
> 
> IMO our species will survive the worst calamities that befell the earth over the last billion years. What we need to consider is the nature of the surviving gene pool.
> .



Survival of the species now is all about the ability to survive under extreme conditions. We don't know how hot the planet is going to get, or how cold. That's a problem. We might be able to tech our way out of it, or it might mean we have to massively cut back.

If there were an ice age soon, we'd lose a lot of agricultural land, which means we'd struggle with world populations as they are.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Survival of the species now is all about the ability to survive under extreme conditions. We don't know how hot the planet is going to get, or how cold. That's a problem. We might be able to tech our way out of it, or it might mean we have to massively cut back.
> 
> If there were an ice age soon, we'd lose a lot of agricultural land, which means we'd struggle with world populations as they are.


Man is adaptable so mankind will survive.  Individuals won't be so lucky.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Man is adaptable so mankind will survive.  Individuals won't be so lucky.



Well, unless man massively messes things up. And we're good at that.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I agree. IQ may not have as much to do with survival as some might think. I have worked with many very smart people on various projects. Some of them did not have the wisdom to know what was best to do with their intelligence. I found that IQ meant little if you lacked wisdom and determination. An IQ test does not measure the latter two which are important for innovation and survival.
> 
> As we have seen, determination can be the most important factor in becoming the leader of a country and it trumps wisdom and intelligence.
> 
> .


Debating using a personal experience rather than overall fact, is a fallacy.
Virtually all human achievements/advancements in life were made by those in the top 10% of IQers, if not 2%
Being 'a leader of a country' doesn't mean being a good one.
You could have Kennedy who put us on the moon and drove subsequent progress, or a Trump who is really a stone age con man.

Nevertheless science/scientists (the smart) go on finding ie, VACCINES (and new ways to make them) which saved Tens of millions in the last year alone.
Those are the smart/smartest/high IQers doing mRNA work.
And the ones before them stopping Polio and many other plagues.
Not to mention the high IQ elite from Germany we grabbed to help put men on the moon, or the Jewish math guys who fled that country and made us the A-Bomb.

Someone else mentions what would happen if Chixilub hit today and that we'd have a year's warning.
Why is that?
Is it Galileo or anyone from, ie, the sub-Saharan Continent, who at that time were living in huts, and would probably still be if unmolested by by other cultures.
Is it the Chinese who've kept astronomical records for 2 Millennia, or equatorial hunter gatherers who live day to day without invention or need to plan for the future (like Winters/food storage and shelters).

Half or more of sub-Saharan Africa would have been wiped out by AIDS or Ebola were it not for Western medicine and IQ of the top 10% of them who are able to innovate such treatments/cures.

Again, virtually all of our progress has been the result of the top 10%, if not 2% of IQers.


`


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Survival of the species now is all about the ability to survive under extreme conditions. We don't know how hot the planet is going to get, or how cold. That's a problem. We might be able to tech our way out of it, or it might mean we have to massively cut back.
> 
> If there were an ice age soon, we'd lose a lot of agricultural land, which means we'd struggle with world populations as they are.





alang1216 said:


> Man is adaptable so mankind will survive.  Individuals won't be so lucky.


No matter what the direction is - hot or cold, there will always be at least small zones where man (and our species) can survive. At either extreme the population is sure to drop. Hopefully the drop won't be due to calamity, but simple attrition. 

I think the major problem is the speed at which the climate changes. If it's slow enough, the generations will have time to gradually reduce birth rate, relocate farming areas, and relocate habitable land. 

.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Sorry but I don't buy it.  Culture is not based on IQ, it is based on history and geography.  It is culture that determines success.


And what determines culture?
The Lottery, or being smart and valuing knowledge in the first place.
'Out of Africa' evolutionarily required a different kind of fitness: brains to store food and make shelter and clothing for 'winters.'
Then eventually agriculture to produce food in abundance to store.
Resulting in free time, trade, weights and measures, etc, etc. Jobs (merchants, scholars, bankers) where brains, not spear accuracy and foot speed counted.

`


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Debating using a personal experience rather than overall fact, is a fallacy.
> Virtually all human achievements/advancements in life were made by those in the top 10% of IQers, if not 2%
> Being 'a leader of a country' doesn't mean being a good one.
> You could have Kennedy who put us on the moon and drove subsequent progress, or a Trump who is really a stone age con man.
> ...


Debating with personal experience is not a fallacy, but a rhetorical devise to make an informal point clear. Do you want to discount wisdom and determination as being a worthwhile trait for survival?

The rest of your post largely focusses on keeping individuals from dying. Not on keeping the species evolving or not going extinct. 

When the next devastating calamity hits, I think militia type survival groups are the ones who will keep the species from dying. Street smarts will be more important than financial smarts

.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Debating with personal experience is not a fallacy, but a rhetorical devise to make an informal point clear. Do you want to discount wisdom and determination as being a worthwhile trait for survival?
> 
> The rest of your post largely focusses on keeping individuals from dying. Not on keeping the species evolving or not going extinct.
> 
> ...


​​








						Your logical fallacy is anecdotal
					

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.



					yourlogicalfallacyis.com
				




anecdotal​​You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.​
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.​

`


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> ​​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I know the fallacy, but you misunderstood.
It should have been clear that I was making an informal point and not trying to make
a sound argument or compelling evidence​as you want to put it in bold face. Jeez you are in a sour mood.

You seem to want to challenge my style and avoid the whole point of my post. If you want to continue that way, I'm not interested.

.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I think the major problem is the speed at which the climate changes. If it's slow enough, the generations will have time to gradually reduce birth rate, relocate farming areas, and relocate habitable land.


Long term planning?  Doesn't sound like the USA.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes I know the fallacy, but you misunderstood.
> It should have been clear that I was making an informal point and not trying to make
> a sound argument or compelling evidence​as you want to put it in bold face. Jeez you are in a sour mood.
> 
> ...


It was in bold face at the website.
I merely copied it/did not code the bolding!
ooops 2.

I never avoid the meat of  post.
I directly answered you
The more abstract 'Wisdom' is a refined product of the raw smart (or dumb) and is an intentional Deflection here.
The Wisdom of Archie Bunker is useless.
The extreme smart of Von Braun, Oppenheimer, or Einstein is what changes the world.

`


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Long term planning? Doesn't sound like the USA.


You got that right.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> And what determines culture?
> The Lottery, or being smart and valuing knowledge in the first place.
> 'Out of Africa' evolutionarily required a different kind of fitness: brains to store food and make shelter and clothing for 'winters.'
> Then eventually agriculture to produce food in abundance to store.
> Resulting in free time, trade, weights and measures, etc, etc. Jobs (merchants, scholars, bankers) where brains, not spear accuracy and foot speed counted.


Culture is based on history and geography.

You have an odd view of history.  Even today our military is a major part of our society.  Maybe less than in the past but still important to our culture.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Culture is based on history and geography.
> 
> You have an odd view of history.  Even today our military is a major part of our society.  Maybe less than in the past but still important to our culture.


Culture doesn't survive if it's not smart enough to adapt.
Many have failed and many are doing poorly now.
IQ enables adaptation.
Many groups no doubt failed heading North out of Africa, the smarter ones figured out how to cope with Winter etc.
IQ in general goes North as one heads in that direction from the equator.
They had to deal with increasing problems.
Welcome to Evo 101.
`


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God.  God created natural selection to protect the species.  It means God is science and belongs there.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Love the analogy, but *Darwin stole natural selection from God.  God created natural selection to protect the species.  It means God is science and belongs there.*


You have NO business here.
You are a Proselytizing ***hole with no factual/Scientific basis for your Sunday School idiotic pronouncements.
You are a brainwashed god-cult lunatic who needs to be debriefed/treated.
`


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God.  God created natural selection to protect the species.  It means God is science and belongs there.


Please do not troll this thread. We heard everything you have to say hundreds of times.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Culture is based on history and geography.
> 
> You have an odd view of history.  Even today our military is a major part of our society.  Maybe less than in the past but still important to our culture.


Does America even have a single culture anymore. We have at least two broad cultures - right and left. They are diametrically opposite on many issues. 

I agree, the military is a strong part of our culture. Military spending is almost 3 times that of China, the next leading contender.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Please do not troll this thread. We heard everything you have to say hundreds of times.


No, you haven't.  It was Charles Lyell and James Hutton, two atheists, who conspired to go against the domination of science by creationists by making up uniformitarianism and that which led to evolution.  Both based on atheism, but you treat that as non-religion.

"At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.

Siccar Point, on the east coast of Scotland, is famous in the history of the debate over the age of the Earth. It is this rocky headland that James Hutton (1726–1797), deist and often hailed as “the founding father of geology,” considered to be proof of his uniformitarian ideas of geological development. Consequently, his beliefs significantly undermined the biblical account of Creation and the Flood. Part of the sign at Siccar Point reads,

"The rocks at Siccar Point were the defining proof for his revolutionary Theory of the Earth. Most people at this time thought the world no older than a few thousand years. Hutton realised that earth processes are cyclical and that geological time is virtually unlimited . . . Hutton’s theory released science and philosophy from limitations of the biblical age of the earth (6000 years old). Though bitterly disputed at the time, it is now accepted as a fundamental of science.

Hutton’s views gave rise to the philosophy of uniformitarianism, which is the belief that the present is the key to the past. This would later be popularized by influential lawyer-geologist Charles Lyell in his three-volume work _Principles of Geology_ (1830–1833), the first volume of which greatly influenced Charles Darwin during his famous five-year voyage around the world (1831–1836). Uniformitarianism has nothing to do with observation or the evidence but is accepted in order to avoid interpreting the evidence in light of the catastrophic processes implied by the global Flood described in Genesis 6–8. However, it is biblical revelation, and not observations in the present, that is the key to understanding the past (2 Peter 3:3–6).

Unfortunately, Hutton’s ideas played a vital role in the church abandoning its belief in the biblical account of Creation and the Flood, which had disastrous effects on the culture."









						Scotland and Two Men Who Changed the Church and the Culture
					

At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.




					answersingenesis.org
				




Hutton's ideas led to what he taught Charles Darwin and Darwinism.  Darwin used natural selection which he stole from the church and ran with it to con you into evolution today.  You and I are on different sides of this natural selection attributed to Darwin or God.

What gets me is my side was one with it first and now you ignore the credits and use it to leave God by the wayside.  Natural selection is his creation and not the lie of evolution.

I don't doubt what you, the atheists, and others state in this thread (even gave credit to the OP), but natural selection doesn't mean evolution.  It isn't what led to development of all life forms today.  Natural selection redistributes or reduces pre-existing genetic information and mutations corrupt that information.

Natural selection is what God created to ensure survival of the fittest no matter what Darwin claimed.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Love the analogy, but Darwin stole natural selection from God.  God created natural selection to protect the species.  It means God is science and belongs there.


It means you need to keep your bible thumping out of a science related thread.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, you haven't.  It was Charles Lyell and James Hutton, two atheists, who conspired to go against the domination of science by creationists by making up uniformitarianism and that which led to evolution.  Both based on atheism, but you treat that as non-religion.
> 
> "At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.
> 
> ...


Tirades that include long cut and paste walls of text from religious extremists don't belong in a science related thread.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> No, you haven't.  It was Charles Lyell and James Hutton, two atheists, who conspired to go against the domination of science by creationists by making up uniformitarianism and that which led to evolution.  Both based on atheism, but you treat that as non-religion.
> 
> "At a recent AiG event in Scotland, I came across two men whose beliefs had a lasting impact on the church and the culture for very different reasons.
> 
> ...


*I did not read this post past the first paragraph. Please stop trolling science threads with your religion.*

.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


Darwin has always and will always be the man!


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Does America even have a single culture anymore. We have at least two broad cultures - right and left. They are diametrically opposite on many issues.
> 
> I agree, the military is a strong part of our culture. Military spending is almost 3 times that of China, the next leading contender.


We have one culture with many flavors.  It has always been that way and our ubiquitous media ensures it always will.  The differences between Right and Left are not great but they are exacerbated by people whose agenda, for various reasons, is to divide the country.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Natural selection is what God created to ensure survival of the fittest no matter what Darwin claimed.


So you believe in natural selection but not evolution.  There is abundant evidence that climate has changed dramatically over time.  Africa today is much drier in many places than it was previous.  If the environment changes, what is the effect of natural selection?


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But humans are evolving in ways other than natural selection


We will probably augment ourselves with technology eventually. We are close to being able to engineer our own evolution.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> So for the first time in Human History, indeed the history of Life on the planet, the lesser of the species is out reproducing the stronger.


Surely this problem will reach some kind of equilibrium eventually? What's your vision of how this might play out?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> We will probably augment ourselves with technology eventually. We are close to being able to engineer our own evolution.


Our biology is and evolutionary cludge.  A complete mess.  Once we're able we'll to, we'll build the next generations with intelligent design.  We will become gods.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Our biology is and evolutionary cludge.  A complete mess.  Once we're able we'll to, we'll build the next generations with intelligent design.  We will become gods.


I actually believe we're only a lifetime or two away from being able to scientifically produce functional immortality. Why not? Once we master DNA and unlock the secrets of our brains I don't see what could possibly stop us from that.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I actually believe we're only a lifetime or two away from being able to scientifically produce functional immortality. Why not? Once we master DNA and unlock the secrets of our brains I don't see what could possibly stop us from that.


I think it will be a race between perfecting our biology and us becoming our AI.  I think AI will win in the long run.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> It means you need to keep your bible thumping out of a science related thread.


At least, you're somewhat open minded and not a troll and name caller like Wuwei in a science thread.  He lost to me in a science discussion and I can only guess he will be bitter forever.

Based on creation science, natural selection is a natural process created by God where we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment.  Certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable.  The result is those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Surely this problem will reach some kind of equilibrium eventually? What's your vision of how this might play out?


It's going to get ugly and very controversial.
ie, the Chinese who are not bound by our social mores have been doing lots of work, genes are being found.
High IQ probability already available in many of our commercial genetic tests. (based on Plomin's work I think)
Nothing Holy Grail yet, but it's coming.

You are going to have significant genetic manipulation in China first, then here.
A significant population of 160-200 IQers or even higher.
Of course people with high IQs (135+) and very High IQs (160+) there is trouble with social adjustment, but the innovations they can bring will be remarkable, and chess (and maybe college admissions) will need a new 'gender' for the 'manipulated brain' group.
Not to mention physics and weapons work.

Will be fun to watch. Lots of controversy coming, but that will enable those behind to catch up.

But FIRST there will be Social upheaval/HELL to pay when they prove what they already know about who has those genes.
Oh baby, the most taboo subject there is is race and IQ. Specifically that of the difference between the 'big two' in this country. Though those two are not nearly the furthest apart/not top and bottom. (only 15 pts, while at the extremes it can be 50 points)
They will try and hide it first, and are already probably doing so.
Some of the genes for IQ are already being identified, just no one has the balls to post who/what group has them in what frequency... and ruin his life.

`


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So you believe in natural selection but not evolution.  There is abundant evidence that climate has changed dramatically over time.  Africa today is much drier in many places than it was previous.  If the environment changes, what is the effect of natural selection?


We both know the effect would be short-term migration or death to the animals.  What do you think natural selection would do?


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> So you believe in natural selection but not evolution.


I've said it many times that evolution is only right about natural selection.  It galls me the atheist posters here steal it from God's creation and then hate me when I point out that it didn't happen by evolution.  I mean I recognize there are two religions and sciences working here, but the atheists and their scientists intellectually discard creation as a theory or science.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's going to get ugly and very controversial.
> ie, the Chinese who are not bound by our social mores have been doing lots of work, genes are being found.
> High IQ probability already available in many of our commercial genetic tests. (based on Plomin's work I think)
> Nothing Holy Grail yet, but it's coming.
> ...


The Bible states...

I know, I know, but hear me out.

It states (prophecy) what you just said and that there will be a huge leap in the _technology_ field of science.  Prepare to live in utopia in the short run.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> It's going to get ugly and very controversial.
> ie, the Chinese who are not bound by our social mores have been doing lots of work, genes are being found.
> High IQ probability already available in many of our commercial genetic tests. (based on Plomin's work I think)
> Nothing Holy Grail yet, but it's coming.
> ...


I've seen you catch shit a number of times for trying to discuss this issue. It seems rather obvious that you're right if you have even the most basic understanding of how evolution works. It sucks that it has to be so controversial when science challenges preconceived notions about people. These things may seem bad-spirited to some people, but they're not. Knowledge is important. Understanding reality is important, even if it's uncomfortable at times.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Thanks but it all holds together Including IQ, it's not an evolutionary exception, it's a vital consequence OF natural selection in different and more demanding intellectual environments.


No, that would not be natural selection or evolution. That is more like a population being fatter because they are more sedentary and/ or have a fattier Diet.





abu afak said:


> That's just another old PC trope: "IQ only measures IQ."


This is not a good substitute for an actual counter argument. An appropriate counter to your  trope would be to say that it's a favorite Trope of racists who refused to acknowledge, for the purpose of the expediency of their racist beliefs, that IQ tests are limited in what they actually measure. 

But i would rather deal in facts and arguments than in bumper stickers. Lets deal in facts and argument. The ball is in your court, as you have yet to account for mine.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I've seen you catch shit a number of times for trying to discuss this issue. It seems rather obvious that you're right if you have even the most basic understanding of how evolution works. It's sad that people are not willing to allow science to challenge preconceived notions about people. These things may seem bad-spirited to some people, but they're not. Knowledge is important. Understanding reality is important, even if it's uncomfortable at times.



The biggest issue in this country today (besides C19), is race/ism.
The PC line being taught everywhere is that we are all equal in all respects (even basketball, LOL)
And ergo..
If there are different life outcomes/success it must be racism.
(and that having failed, institutional racism, but in fact there's institutional reverse racism in college admissions and jobs)
(and that having failed 'just being born white/white privilege)

So we rip ourselves as liberal non-racist whites apart to try and avoid the very unpleasant/unthinkable truth that we are not all created equal in all respects.
Eugenics will surely follow they say. (we already thankfully have soft eugenics in the term called abortion since 1972. Otherwise the prisons would have two or three times their current population and IQ gap even higher)
But in fact groups have different relative advantages and disadvantages.
No need for the polarizing terms like superior/inferior/supremacist.

The world needs more Ashkenazi Jewish 100M dash winners and NBA centers. (Good luck with that)
And other groups need more theoretical physicists and World Chess Champions. (Good luck with that)
But the dice/genes are loaded.
`


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> IQ tests are limited in what they actually measure.


They are the best we have, and they continue to be improved upon. The results Abu speaks of are not changing as our understanding of intelligence becomes more complex. Maybe they will eventually but not so far.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> This country is ripping itself apart with the liberal assumption (egalitarianism) everyone is the same and the only outcome difference must be Racism (even when/where there is none or reverse of it), when in fact it's brains, which are btw, 75% HERITABLE.


That stupid and wrong and not a single person alive believes amy of that. Liberals and secular humanists want to guarantee equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Simple minded, vapid garbage on your part.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Liberals and secular humanists want to guarantee equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.


I don't know if I agree with that. They may not want to make outcomes exactly the same, but they certainly want to linearize outcome possibility in the hopes of making life easier and more enjoyable for people at large. Would you dispute that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> They are the best we have, and they continue to be improved upon.


The best... What? I am not criticizing the methods. I am stating that people should not overstate what information these tests actually provide.

As an individual's life experience can greatly affect an IQ test result, clearly we cannot draw a simple 1 to 1 causal effect between IQ and genetics. IQ tests may have their uses, but determining whether the individuals of one ethnic group are inherently destined from conception to be more intelligent than the individuals of another ethnic group is not one of them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> but they certainly want to linearize outcome possibility in the hopes of making life easier and more enjoyable for people at large.


I might dispute that, if i had any idea whatsoever what you mean.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> determining whether the individuals one ethical group are inherently destined from conception to be more intelligent than the individuals of another ethical group is not one of them.


Does the possibility seem unlikely? Would it really be surprising to find out that some races are smarter or stronger than others because of the environment they underwent evolution in? It seems extremely plausible to me.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> At least, you're somewhat open minded and not a troll and name caller like Wuwei in a science thread.  He lost to me in a science discussion and I can only guess he will be bitter forever.
> 
> Based on creation science, natural selection is a natural process created by God where we observe a certain genotype (the genetic makeup of an organism or group of organisms) that has pre-existed and has gradually adapted to one particular environment.  Certain environmental factors behave as a selection pressure that weeds out other genetic traits that are unsuitable.  The result is those that carry unsuitable genotypes are eventually removed from the gene pool.


As a religious extremist, it’s obvious why you insist on such heavy handed proselytizing but as noted before, the science forum is not the place for your Bible thumping.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I might dispute that, if i had any idea whatsoever what you mean.


The left wants to take care of people. They want to minimize how much people suffer for their ignorance. Many of them also want to take from the wealthy and give to the poor in some sense. Does that not come from a desire for equal outcomes? Is it not related?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Does the possibility seem unlikely?


Significant variation that would warrant different treatment or opportunities for a children simply by virtue of their ethnicity?

Can you tell when one person's IQ is 7 points lower than another? Nope. What guarantees would that information provide? And you would be making a bad bet anyway, as still half people of an ethnicity would have an IQ higher than the median.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Many of them also want to take from the wealthy and give to the poor in some sense.


Best economic idea ever invented. And look how modern economies have exploded because of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Does that not come from a desire for equal outcomes? I


Nah. Find me someone who thinks that. Find me a million who think it. Until then....nah.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Significant variation that would warrant different treatment or opportunities for a children simply by virtue of their ethnicity?


I don't know that we would do that. I think children could be tested individually and not discriminated against because of their race. I just think that if it's true it's worth knowing. It might be more relevant than you think. It's not necessarily malevolent.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nah. Find me someone who thinks that. Find me a million who think it. Until then....nah.


The left wants to equalize the playing field though, at least somewhat. They want as many people to have access as possible. Is that not true?


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> We both know the effect would be short-term migration or death to the animals.  What do you think natural selection would do?


The changes would be slow so individuals would hardly notice.  As the climate dries out trees would become scarcer and tree dwellers would have to spend more time on the ground to get to the next tree.  Natural selection would favor those more able to walk and run wouldn't they?


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> As a religious extremist, it’s obvious why you insist on such heavy handed proselytizing but as noted before, the science forum is not the place for your Bible thumping.


I can just post science jargon, but then I wouldn't be true to myself, you, and others.  For example, Darwin was wrong about evolution, i.e. his ToE, in that heredity works to the gradual variation in species.  Since then, we've discovered changes can happen quite rapidly with biology.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> scientists intellectually discard creation as a theory or science.


Science is the study of the natural world and there must be a natural mechanism for everything science can study.  There is no natural mechanism for creationism or anything supernatural.  It may be true but it is not in the realm of science.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That stupid and wrong and not a single person alive believes amy of that. Liberals and secular humanists want to guarantee equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. Simple minded, vapid garbage on your part.


Ooops.
I hit you right between the eyes didn't I.
The rage is off the charts their lefty!
But your 'proof' they aren't being treated well enough IS unequal outcomes. (Or test results, or Incomes, or arrest stats)

We haven't been very nice to Asians either.
The Chinese first came as indentured railway labor about the same time the slaves were freed.
They were mocked and prevented from citizenship and even coming to this country. (Chinese Exclusion Act)
Japanese were interned during WWII and lost everything. (including half that country's male population in the war)
They were discriminated against mightily.
But they are now on Top in Income and Edu.
Could it be that higher IQ was determinant regardless?

Do you know when I was born there were still signs in the South that said "No Blacks or Jews?" And I remember a car trip as a youngster where my father worried we wouldn't be able to stay in a/any hotel in Tennessee because we were Jewish.
I grew up knowing I would never be President of GM or Ford, much less the USA for that reason.
But somehow we, as a people overcame that and 1000 years of expulsions worldwide, and the more recent genocide of half of us in WWII.

It seems as part of our 1900 year diaspora we were so discriminated against we were not allowed to own land in Europe. So we became merchants, bankers, etc.
Funny thing, that made OUR 'fittest' not physically fit but Cognitively fittest. (meanwhile in sub-Sahara hunter-gatherers continued their 100,000 year way of life.)
Yes, Evolution is always/still at work.
It's pathetic to watch all those people who SAY they believe in it, deny it in humans.
It didn't stop 200K years ago with the appearance of H sapiens as 'liberal creationists' would like to claim. Even geniuses like SJ Gould/my sig, couldn't get off his liberal/leftist horse and admit significant differences had emerged.

I suggest: *"The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution"*
(Cochran, Harpending)

Are those we unjustly and viciously enslaved (I do condemn it 100%) doing worse than they would have had they been left alone? African Americans have 10x the GDP per capita of sub-Saharans and certainly live at a much higher standard with much more opportunity. The latter barely have a country that can govern itself as their continental IQ would suggest.
If they had Asian IQ's would they be living the way they do here or in Africa?
No, absolutely not.

Newsflash!
*When sorted for IQ life outcomes ARE very similar regardless of race.*
And that's most of what you need to learn.

`


----------



## Hollie (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> I can just post science jargon, but then I wouldn't be true to myself, you, and others.  For example, Darwin was wrong about evolution, i.e. his ToE, in that heredity works to the gradual variation in species.  Since then, we've discovered changes can happen quite rapidly with biology.


You cut and paste nonsense from fundamentalist xtian websites. That doesn’t belong in the science forum. Take your Bible thumping to the religion forum.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I just think that if it's true it's worth knowing. It might be more relevant than you think.


I am open to things that work. How would this be useful? Please tell me the practical applications of knowing that, say, sub-Saharan Africans are genetically pre-disposed to have, on the average over the entire population, an IQ 8 points lower than Europeans. 8 points on an IQ test could be due to an accidentally circling the wrong answer on ONE problem, even though you knew the right answer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> I hit you right between the eyes didn't I.
> The rage is off the charts their lefty!


 Keep your big boy pants on in the science section, please. Thanks.



abu afak said:


> But your 'proof' they aren't being treated well enough IS unequal outcomes. (Or test results, or Incomes, or arrest stats)


I never said or implied anything about that. I am saying we can alleviate -- to some degree or another -- IQ disparities between populations by protecting human rights and educating children. You have yet to even come close to addressing this. You want to maintain a narrative that these difference are completely due to genetic differences between ethnicities. And my argument creates a problem for that narrative. So you have avoided it. Should we start over?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> No matter what the direction is - hot or cold, there will always be at least small zones where man (and our species) can survive. At either extreme the population is sure to drop. Hopefully the drop won't be due to calamity, but simple attrition.
> 
> I think the major problem is the speed at which the climate changes. If it's slow enough, the generations will have time to gradually reduce birth rate, relocate farming areas, and relocate habitable land.
> 
> .



Maybe, but then the problem comes that people who are attuned to the modern world, get put back into the prehistoric world, will they survive?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> The left wants to equalize the playing field though, at least somewhat.


Yes, definitely. But again, that's opportunity. They aren't trying to rig the game, overall. Just level the playing field.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Keep your big boy pants on in the science section, please. Thanks.
> 
> 
> I never said or implied anything about that. I am saying we can alleviate -- to some degree or another -- IQ disparities between populations by protecting human rights and educating children. You have yet to even come close to addressing this. You want to maintain a narrative that these difference are completely due to genetic differences between ethnicities. And my argument creates a problem for that narrative. So you have avoided it. Should we start over?


This thread is about "Evolution/Simple brilliance" not raising the IQs of a few minority children to sate your SJW outlook.
WTF!
And boy did you WHIFF on the load of info I put in my last post about loads of social injustices on other groups besides the single one your wittle weftist mind is obsessed with.
A giant whiff after all that effort and info on my part.
You're a big disappointment, in fact a total failure when some social issue destroys your ability.
Who knew. 
`


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They aren't trying to rig the game, overall. Just level the playing field.


It seems plainly evident to me that the left wants to manipulate and equalize outcomes as well, at least to some extent.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> I've said it many times that evolution is only right about natural selection.


And you have been wrong every single time. There are 4 other well-known and well-proven mechanisms of evolution. You know less about evolution than the average high school freshman and really should never open your mouth about it again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> This thread is about "Evolution/Simple brilliance" not raising the IQs of a few minority children to sate your SJW outlook.
> WTF!


Oops, you avoided my argument again.

Then why did you bring up IQ and ethnicity?  I tried to discuss it with you, but you couldn't seem to keep your big boy pants on. So go start a thread.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> I agree, the military is a strong part of our culture.


But on the other hand, it really isn't. What percentage of families have a member serve in the military? Maybe 2%? This cultural absence is a big reason people are so nonchalant about sending our troops to do jobs they should not be doing: they are not personally affected.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, you avoided my argument again.
> 
> Then why did you bring up IQ and ethnicity?  I tried to discuss it with you, but you couldn't seem to keep your big boy pants on. So go start a thread.


Because at the point I did I was answering someone who brought up the stupider out-reproducing the smarter/more able.

And you Lost that debate when I answered and shut you up in post #9, until you re-emerged just recently also with Nothing to say, just anger SJW boy.

You're so mortally offended you've totally lost it.
As I said to anomalism, it IS the most sensitive issue there is in our culture and there will. be hell to pay when the genes confirm everything we already know statistically or looking at the country and planet.

And again You didn't answer the huge amount of meat I posted the post before my last.
If you wanted to debate BOY, that was/still is your chance.


`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Because at the point I did I was answering someone who brought up the stupider out-reproducing the smarter/more able.
> 
> And you Lost that debate when I answered and shut you up in post #9, until you re-emerged just recently also with Nothing to say, just anger SJW boy.
> 
> ...


Oops, forgot to address my argument again.

I read your first post. I thoughtfully and directly responded to it. And every post by you since then has been some form or degree of little hissy fit, with zero attempts to address what I have said, outside of specious appeal to emotion.  That doesn't exactly lend you or your positions any credibility.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, forgot to address my argument again.
> 
> I read your first post. I thoughtfully and directly responded to it. And every post by you since then has been some form or degree of little hissy fit, with zero attempts to address what I have said, outside of specious appeal to emotion.  That doesn't exactly lend you or your positions any credibility.


I just answered and you Porked you again when you asked Why I brought in race and IQ.
I explained why and You have no answer/rebuttal. Again!
You initially said, and I gutted the old wives tail that IQ only measures IQ.
Yawn.
Which is not true.
It is the single best measure of life outcomes.

*If you have another specific question I'd be glad to not only answer it, but embarrass you more than I already have while doing so.
Precisely state your question.

Then it will be your turn (you know-nothing Fraud) to stop dodging my very meaty entry 3 posts ago you whiffed on which goes to discrimination, success, race, IQ. (You won't/can't you Fraud)*

You're up junior.
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Another key part of Darwin's theory came from Malthus.  Malthus noted that life produced many more offspring than can survive into the next generation.
> 
> I'm not sure man is still evolving since just about everyone has an opportunity to reproduce (even a schlub like me).  I think the magic of being human is that our societies evolve.  It initially made us warlike and aggressive but now seems to be headed in the opposite direction.  Maybe.  If true, it means that cultural influence is the measure of success.


Also: we have been able to accumulate knowledge. Take 100 babies born in 2021 and put them in the Amazon to start a new community, keep them isolated, and that community might take 20,000 years to learn write a religious text. 

This accumulated knowledge is what makes up the thin veil that is civilization. And this veil can be brushed aside very easily. 

I like to remind my kids that, 100 years ago, half the US population did not have the universal right to vote. We thought the galaxy was the entire universe. We had just discovered the first human viruses, and the best computer we had was a switch. Two positions: on and off.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> Science is the study of the natural world and there must be a natural mechanism for everything science can study.  There is no natural mechanism for creationism or anything supernatural.  It may be true but it is not in the realm of science.


Except the creationists' scientists are the greatest scientists throughout history.  They have used the Bible to guide them and discovered the science to back it up.  IOW, science backs up the Bible.  Science has backed up the greatest supernatural event in history and that was the global flood.

To the contrary, all we have to explain what you call science today is natural selection and we disagree on how that is used.  It doesn't explain a common ancestor.  It doesn't explain any origins for life on the planet, but here we are.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Maybe, but then the problem comes that people who are attuned to the modern world, get put back into the prehistoric world, will they survive?


If the climate change is slow each new generation will make an incremental adjustment. I see no reason why the technology would take a hit. But you would be right if there was an apocalypse.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But on the other hand, it really isn't. What percentage of families have a member serve in the military? Maybe 2%? This cultural absence is a big reason people are so nonchalant about sending our troops to do jobs they should not be doing: they are not personally affected.


Certainly. It is not part of my culture. But ask foreign countries. Many will see a war mongering U.S. In that case culture is in the eyes of a beholder.

.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Hollie said:


> You cut and paste nonsense from fundamentalist xtian websites. That doesn’t belong in the science forum. Take your Bible thumping to the religion forum.


Just because of that post, I'll continue on here . This forum needs a young Earth creationist views to debunk the evolutionist crap. The evos have stolen singularity and natural selection from the creationists. Jeez, I hope I am around for the next thirty or so years to experience the rise of technology and utopia to see the *big end of world prophecy being fulfilled*.  Tough to make it to 2060 and experience the end of the world as Sir Isaac Newton predicted.  I'll just have to settle for watching it from above.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Certainly. It is not part of my culture. But ask foreign countries. Many will see a war mongering U.S. In that case culture is in the eyes of a beholder.
> 
> .


ha, no doubt. I imagine they see all of us as being gung ho and rah rah for every drone strike that we never even hear about.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> and that community might take 20,000 years to learn write a religious text.


No one cares about that.  First, the end of the world and the universe will be upon us before then.  You believe in global warming, so that will lead us to our doom.  Until then, the Bible will still be our moral and science guide.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> No one cares about that.


You mean, you don't, because you don't think the Earth is that old or that it will last that long. Because, you, sir, are insane.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This accumulated knowledge is what makes up the thin veil that is civilization. And this veil can be brushed aside very easily.


Ain't that the truth. And the accumulated knowledge of science and math came from many different countries over time, each seeing a rise and fall. The Brits, Greeks, Arabic countries, China, India, Italy ... each had a heyday of breakthroughs and innovation. What happened? Did they acquire a high IQ and then see it fade over time?  

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Ain't that the truth. And the accumulated knowledge of science and math came from many different countries over time, each seeing a rise and fall. The Brits, Greeks, Arabic countries, China, India, Italy ... each had a heyday of breakthroughs and innovation. What happened? Did they acquire a high IQ and then see it fade over time?
> 
> .


What happened was that Socratic and Hellenic thought and empiricism got squashed by religious faithers who did not enjoy seeing the space in which their gods resided be reduced.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What happened was that Socratic and Hellenic thought and empiricism got squashed by religious faithers who did not enjoy seeing the space in which their gods resided be reduced.


It seems that now they want to do that to US education.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> It seems that now they want to do that to US education.


Indeed. And always have. And they will succeed, if we let them. "the thin veil"


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Indeed. And always have. And they will succeed, if we let them. "the thin veil"


The thin veil can also be crushed by a massive solar flare. A large number of satellites and earth bound computers will be taken down.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You mean, you don't, because you don't think the Earth is that old or that it will last that long. Because, you, sir, are insane.


Whether one believes the end through global warming or whatever and aren't around to see, then who cares is my point?  Except I get to enjoy and experience joy seeing the end of this world.

If there is a rise in technology, then I assumed utopia.  That is the optimist view.  It may not necessarily mean utopia, but something nebulous like we need it to escape global warming.

As for insanity, it's the atheists and their scientists who are insane.  They continue to ignore God's warning and go down the path of atheist science.  Surely, trying to live elsewhere besides Earth spells doom.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The thin veil can also be crushed by a massive solar flare. A large number of satellites and earth bound computers will be taken down.


Yes, "CME", Coronal Mass Ejection. However, it will only affect half the planet. And we will have 8 minutes of warning to protect systems.  The power grid may go down, but probably not ALL of it. But would still be quite a disaster.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, "CME", Coronal Mass Ejection. However, it will only affect half the planet. And we will have 8 minutes of warning to protect systems. The power grid may go down, but probably not ALL of it. But would still be quite a disaster.


If we are prepared to do anything with an 8 min notice.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The thin veil can also be crushed by a massive solar flare. A large number of satellites and earth bound computers will be taken down.


OR, how about a Gamma Ray burst. There will be no shielding for to leeward side of the planet. When half of the atmosphere goes, that will affect them. there goes our protection from, for example, UV radiation from the Sun. Stay inside or go underground. Or cook like a hog on a spit.. There are your choices, maybe for a few million years.

Ugh.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If we are prepared to do anything with an 8 min notice.


Apparently,  one thing would be to drop the grid. Let the radiation take out some of the transformers and electronics, but don't fuel the damage with power surges. If I can find a cool article I read about this a while back, I will post it.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> OR, how about a Gamma Ray burst. There will be no shielding for to leeward side of the planet. When half of the atmosphere goes, that will affect them. there goes our protection from, for example, UV radiation from the Sun. Stay inside or go underground. Or cook like a hog on a spit.. There are your choices, maybe for a few million years.
> 
> Ugh.


That would nicely crush civilization too. But it's very short with no warning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> That would nicely crush civilization too. But it's very short with no warning.


ZERO warning. We would only detect it once it arrives. We may be able to see meteors and CMEs coming our way...

(15-60 minutes warning, as it turns out: 

"Imminent CME arrival is first observed by the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite, located at the L1 orbital area. Sudden increases in density, total interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) strength, and solar wind speed at the DSCOVR spacecraft indicate arrival of the CME-associated interplanetary shock ahead of the magnetic cloud. This can often provide 15 to 60 minutes advanced warning of shock arrival at Earth – and any possible sudden impulse or sudden storm commencement; as registered by Earth-based magnetometers."





						Coronal Mass Ejections | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center
					






					www.swpc.noaa.gov
				



)
... but we don't see "light" coming our way until it arrives. Eek.


----------



## james bond (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ZERO warning. We would only detect it once it arrives. We may be able to see meteors and CMEs coming our way...
> 
> (15-60 minutes warning, as it turns out:
> 
> ...


It's interesting that you hit upon CME.  The Bible states the sky will be on fire and that civilization will be wiped out with fire at the end.  First, by water and finally by fire.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> The Bible states the sky will be on fire and that civilization will be wiped out with fire at the end.


Right, because the ignorant, superstitious, illiterate people that were alive back then knew about fire. They weren't talking about gamma rays, because they didn't know what gamma rays were.

And here you are, talking about fire. Maybe it's time for you to play a little catch up?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 10, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> If the climate change is slow each new generation will make an incremental adjustment. I see no reason why the technology would take a hit. But you would be right if there was an apocalypse.
> 
> .



And the issue is we don't know the impact we're having on the environment. We don't know if we're going to cause an apocalypse or not.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Oops, forgot to address my argument again.
> 
> I read your first post. I thoughtfully and directly responded to it. And every post by you since then has been some form or degree of little hissy fit, with zero attempts to address what I have said, outside of specious appeal to emotion.*  That doesn't exactly lend you or your positions any credibility.


STILL WAITING FOR YOUR REPLY After Three or FOUR HOURS from the top of the last page.
YOU WHIFFED AGAIN Despite many replies to others.. as I Predicted in that post
So AGAIN/I REPEAT:


""I just answered and Porked you again when you asked Why I brought in race and IQ.
I explained why and You have no answer/rebuttal. Again!
You initially said, and I gutted the old wives tail that IQ only measures IQ.
Yawn.
Which is not true.
It is the single best measure of life outcomes.

*If you have another specific question/point I'd be glad to not only answer it, but embarrass you more than I already have while doing so.
Precisely state your question.

Then it will be your turn (you know-nothing Fraud) to stop dodging my very meaty entry 3 posts ago (#69) you whiffed on which goes to discrimination, success, race, IQ. (You won't/can't)*

You're up junior."""

`


----------



## abu afak (Oct 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am open to things that work. How would this be useful? *Please tell me the practical applications of knowing that, say, sub-Saharan Africans are genetically pre-disposed to have, on the average over the entire population, an IQ 8 points lower than Europeans.* 8 points on an IQ test could be due to an accidentally circling the wrong answer on ONE problem, even though you knew the right answer.


LOFL, NO!
Another show of Gross Ignorance.
American 'Blacks' are still app (the very well known) 1 SD (15 pts) below whites/Euros. (85 vs 100)
Some say it has closed a few points, some not.
10 pts would be very, very, generous.
They remain 1 SD below (15 IQ pt equiv) on the 86% Correlated SAT.

sub-Saharans OTOH, are IQ 70, some say has high as 75-80
(You rarely see a comparative group chart with the sub-Saharan 70 curve on it because it's Devastating info, so they use African American 'black' as 'Black!')

Reason?
American 'Blacks' (85+) are a Mixed Race due to the cruelties of Slavery.
On average they are 76% sub-Saharan and 24% Euro.
So their IQs, due to Mixed Genes, are higher than full-blooded sub-Saharans.
HARK!

NE Asians are app 105-106.
That's at least 30 pts (2 SD) higher than sub-Saharans.
Look at those group's relative success in America.
Look at their success in their respective countries/unmolested.
Just what one would predict.
China, Taiwan, Japan, S Korea, vs Piles of destitute ungovernable rabble of sub-Sahara despite the latter having more natural resources that NE Asia.
Japan is a seismic resourceLess rock that was Nuked 66 years ago.
That kind of organization is impossible in Africa due to IQ, and it's been that way for centuries/Millennia.

This country/World makes perfect sense [Only] when one knows the numbers.
Powerful evidence that discrimination is not the main reason for disparate economic outcomes.

And proof you know Nothing about this topic.
You are/remain completely non-conversant/wildly PC wrong.
`


----------



## james bond (Oct 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And you have been wrong every single time. There are 4 other well-known and well-proven mechanisms of evolution. You know less about evolution than the average high school freshman and really should never open your mouth about it again.


Lol, you're the one who is _insane_ and believe in the atheist religion instead of real science.  I already mentioned the papers that evos write in order to get published.  It's lies build upon lies.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection.



This was not new. Since 20,000 years we use selective breeding - how this works we found out from natural selection.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> By the simple brilliance of recognizing "survivorship bias". *Survivorship bias* causes us to miss the forest for the trees.
> 
> My favorite illustration of this -- for its simplicity -- is Abraham Wald's (who coined the term "survivorship")  analysis of how best to armor our bombers during WW II.



Not any instrument or machine which human beings make and use has anything to do with biological evolution.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He was presented with the following information, which shows where returning bombers were hit by enemy strikes:
> 
> View attachment 548978



So when the aeroplane was hit in other regions than the red dotted regions it came not back. I guess we Germans had paid some money for this picture.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Without recognizing survivorship bias, one might think that the (limited resource, have to conserve weight) armor should be increased in the spots where the bullet holes are concentrated. This would seem to be where most bullet strikes occur, per the data. So more armor should be spent in those places, right?
> 
> No. One would better spend the armor on the places where returning planes show fewer strikes. Why? Because the bombers that were hit in those areas did not make it back. They splashed.
> 
> Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought.



Sorry: But in this machines were biological entities who called themselve "human beings" and who are normally called from other human beings "mass-murderers" and/or "terrorists".



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.
> 
> Darwin's answer to the cause of that bias was the brilliant idea of natural selection.



Again: This had been not any idea which had been very astonishing. Every farmer since thousands of years was familiar with selective breeding. And the monk Gregor Mendel - a contemporary of Darwin - made very clear how genetics really works.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> otIn the past millennia clans or tribes were thought to number from 20 to 200. Clans were probably very aggressive toward each other.  Evolution in craftiness, foraging, etc. was no doubt at a high pace. That doesn't happen today. When it comes to survival of human fittest, fitness has to be redefined.  There is an inverse relationship between birthrate and income. An interesting question is what groups will survive the next huge meteor hit.



One problem of the expressions "fitness" and "survival" is the tautological use of both expressions - so it's not really clear what this analogy explains. A frog witout mouth not fits and not survives - but it never came to a fight in sense "survival of the fittest" between frogs without a mouth and frogs with a mouth.

"Musk" for example "survives" because this what he did do not fits to ways how other people think. But he "survives" because it fits to the dreams of human beings and/or to the money bags of human beings. All this is without any biological reality - so what to do with expressions like biological fitness or biological survival outside of biology? The often propagated  "universality" of the laws of evolution seem not really to exist.

Another example: "Income" = to get money  - but money is an illusion of our own psychological structure. Money motivates us - but indeed we could do everything what we do in the same way also without money. It's only a psychological crook or trick for our motivation. And how much money someone gets has also nothing to do with evolution. This follows social rules - and breaks of this rules - in the social game "might and money".


----------



## james bond (Oct 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, because the ignorant, superstitious, illiterate people that were alive back then knew about fire. They weren't talking about gamma rays, because they didn't know what gamma rays were.
> 
> And here you are, talking about fire. Maybe it's time for you to play a little catch up?


Not gamma rays, but CME.  Maybe, it's you who is turning ignorant, et al.

As for the Bible, we find is still backed up by science.


----------



## james bond (Oct 11, 2021)

Per observational science, we observe no monkeys are bipedal.  It shows Darwin was wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 11, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> One problem of the expressions "fitness" and "survival" is the tautological use of both expressions - so it's not really clear what this analogy explains. A frog witout mouth not fits and not survives - but it never came to a fight in sense "survival of the fittest" between frogs without a mouth and frogs with a mouth.
> 
> "Musk" for example "survives" because this what he did do not fits to ways how other people think. But he "survives" because it fits to the dreams of human beings and/or to the money bags of human beings. All this is without any biological reality - so what to do with expressions like biological fitness or biological survival outside of biology? The often propagated  "universality" of the laws of evolution seem not really to exist.
> 
> Another example: "Income" = to get money  - but money is an illusion of our own psychological structure. Money motivates us - but indeed we could do everything what we do in the same way also without money. It's only a psychological crook or trick for our motivation. And how much money someone gets has also nothing to do with evolution. This follows social rules - and breaks of this rules - in the social game "might and money".


The conversation is about survival of species, not individual frogs or Musk, and I don't know what money has to do with species survival.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> initially said, and I gutted the old wives tail that IQ only measures IQ.


Unfortunately for your bragging, you did not do that at all. You have not once addressed my arguments or the obvious truth that life experience affects IQ test results. Until you do, spare us the dancing and prancing and preening.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> This was not new.


Actually it was. But you go ahead and show us the prior treatises on natural selection before Darwin's, if you think otherwise. Selective breeding is not natural selection and your comment doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever. 




zaangalewa said:


> Not any instrument or machine which human beings make and use has anything to do with biological evolution.


It's an illustration of survivorship bias. Another irrelevant and inappropriate comment from you. 




zaangalewa said:


> Again: This had been not any idea which had been very astonishing.


Again that's nonsense, as shown by the fact that he was the first to name and describe natural selection and the fact that there was rigorous debate over it in the scientific community.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> LOFL, NO!
> Another show of Gross Ignorance.
> American 'Blacks' are still app (the very well known) 1 SD (15 pts) below whites/Euros. (85 vs 100)
> Some say it has closed a few points, some not.
> ...


Answer the question. The one you put in boldface. 

What practical use?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The conversation is about survival of species, not individual frogs or Musk, and I don't know what money has to do with species survival.


I think maybe things get lost in translation with that poster. His responses to me are sometimes wildly inappropriate and irrelevant to my prior comments.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2021)

Let's try this again.

*Please tell me the practical applications of knowing that, say, sub-Saharan Africans are genetically pre-disposed to have, on the average over the entire population, an IQ 8 points lower than Europeans.*


----------



## abu afak (Oct 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Let's try this again.
> 
> *Please tell me the practical applications of knowing that, say, sub-Saharan Africans are genetically pre-disposed to have, on the average over the entire population, an IQ 8 points lower than Europeans.*


Well for one thing it's a Raging LIE/understatement like everything you post.
"8 points" is Like asking what's the matter with having a glass of wine twice week when the problem is a bottle every day.

Second, You apparently have me mixed up with Anomalism to who you originally asked that question, NOT ME You idiot! But you kept saying I didn't answer an even earlier question too... You Idiot!

I answered all your questions and I posted the ONLY facts in the thread between us you Blind PC Clown.

*You are not qualified to even be in any such discussion without any basic knowledge. Never have I seen such Ignorance on any board over years of the discussion.*

Finally, I did explain the significance several times of what in fact was a much bigger gap than 8 points! That being that if the gaps are that big it explains unequal outcomes better than some phantom/worn out charge of Racism.

I have had this discussion many times with many people. No one EVER was as ignorant as you. "8 points!" between sub-Saharans and Euros? LOL again.

Did you ever google anything you blithering fool and LIAR for PC?
No one can be that dumb.
But you either are or are *Fabricating numbers that are a LIE to make a DISHONEST point that in fact Fails when REAL numbers Are introduced.*
You stupid POS.
Get some facts first next time.

* Gameover. ALL questions with/when Real numbers put in (30 points instead of 8).*
*and you exposed as a non-conversant Idiot with no knowledge of the topic.
So no more "answer the question" which was actually your Bogus premise question.*
`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 11, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Well for one thing it's a Raging LIE/understatement like everything you post.


It was a hypothetical. Still avoiding the question. Put your big boy pants on.

15 points is not a huge gap, between individuals. Go ahead and answer the question using 15 points difference.

And, go.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 11, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> The conversation is about survival of species, not individual frogs or Musk, and I don't know what money has to do with species survival.



The discussions about evolution never have only the character of a discussion about the real scientific theory of evolution. In this case we had not only to discuss about eating and being eaten - we also had to discuss about that every living entity on planet Earth has relations to all other living entities.

If you read what I said then you did perhaps not notice what I said about a wrong universality of the theory of  evolution. It's by the way for a species not important "to survive". And it's for a horseshoe crab without any relevance to be a member of an old species who is since hundreds of millions of years the same species. We are a new species and you have a common ancestor with Fiffy, the horseshoe crab. This common ancestor "survived" in you and in Fiffy.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Actually it was.



It was banal what Darwin said - and it gave a good - and wrong - explanation for the superiority of the white race.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But you go ahead and show us the prior treatises on natural selection before Darwin's, if you think otherwise. Selective breeding is not natural selection



It's absolutelly the same with only one difference: We on our own define what fits. And what we biologically define is often not able to survive without our help.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> and your comment doesn't seem to have any relevance whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was very angry a short time ago when I read an article about that Humboldt had been an idiot because Darwin had been a genius. Even if this should be true I would prefer to live in a world full of Humboldts instead to have to do with only one Darwin. Darwin not fits to life.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 12, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, Darwin was concerned more with the survival of the species. It seems that our species is here to stay so our survival is largely moot. What more could we possibly need to make our species "fitter"?
> 
> IMO our species will survive the worst calamities that befell the earth over the last billion years. What we need to consider is the nature of the surviving gene pool.
> .



Our species was not in existence a billion years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 12, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> It was banal what Darwin said


Total nonsense. It was a scientific breakthrough and a triumph of the human race. You are trying way too hard. And i think we know why.




zaangalewa said:


> It's absolutelly the same with only one difference: We on our own define what fits.


Also total nonsense. The evidence defines that. 


What is this anti intellectual nonsense? You go ahead and show us how you fit elephants to the crocodile lineage, for example.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Our species was not in existence a billion years ago.


He is speaking to the future. Typo.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 12, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Our species was not in existence a billion years ago.


Of course. I meant the calamities of the last billion years may be in our future.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 12, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Total nonsense.



Absolutelly not.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It was a scientific breakthrough



That is nonsense. No one was able to do anyting with the theory of evolution. It justified colonialism and racism. Later it will even justify the biological "theories" of the Nazs - so they murdered even little children to eliminate the superior race "the Jews" so the superior race "the Aryans" had been be able to rule the whole world alone. Darwinism was not any scientific  breakthrough. Even today it is not a breakthrough because nearly nothing has really something to do with the real scientific theory of evolution when most people use the word "evolution". For example exists not any evolution of cars or other machines including computers. Such constructions follow human plans - and plans are teleological.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> and a triumph of the human race.



A "triumph" compared with what any other "race"?  What the monk Gregor Mendel found out had been a scientific breakthrough. It made the process "selection" for breeding much more effective. This meant also we were able to produce more food in better quality.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are trying way too hard. And i think we know why.



You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Also total nonsense. The evidence defines that.
> 
> 
> What is this anti intellectual nonsense? You go ahead and show us how you fit elephants to the crocodile lineage, for example.



Did you ever notice that you say absolutelly nothing except _"I am right! I am right! I am right! ... "_. Don't forget to stomp on the Earth with your feet, kindergarten baby.

And the concrete elephant "Dudu" has a common anestor with the concrete crocodile "Didi". Crocodiles are about  300 million years old so the common ancestors between them is a little older. And if we should eliminate crocodiles by making it  for them impossible to survive in the future then we deny the last 300 million years of life - including us on our own.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 12, 2021)

abu afak 

Shut up


----------



## abu afak (Oct 12, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Absolutelly not.
> 
> That is nonsense. No one was able to do anyting with the theory of evolution. It justified colonialism and racism. Later it will even justify the biological "theories" of the Nazs - so they murdered even little children to eliminate the superior race "the Jews" so the superior race "the Aryans" had been be able to rule the whole world alone. Darwinism was not any scientific  breakthrough. Even today it is not a breakthrough because nearly nothing has really something to do with the real scientific theory of evolution when most people use the word "evolution". For example exists not any evolution of cars or other machines including computers. Such constructions follow human plans - and plans are teleological.



Evolution is the very foundation of modern Biology.
If someone abused it (like nuclear technology) that doesn't make it bad.
Certainly countless peoples considered themselves 'superior' before 1860.
The Roman Empire did.
Let's blame that on Darwin too.
You clown.




zaangalewa said:


> A "triumph" compared with what any other "race"?  What the monk Gregor Mendel found out had been a scientific breakthrough. It made the process "selection" for breeding much more effective. This meant also we were able to produce more food in better quality.


Another Dishonest and deflecting reply.
It was and remains a Triumph in understanding life on earth Not vs discoveries on unknown other planets by unknown 'other races.'
What a bizarre deflection and false challenge.




zaangalewa said:


> You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?


You indeed are an idiot but not because you're foreign.
It's because your mental processes have been screwed by an illness/defect.
You fancy trying to foist your eccentricity/illness.




zaangalewa said:


> Did you ever notice that you say absolutelly nothing except _"I am right! I am right! I am right! ... "_. Don't forget to stomp on the Earth with your feet, kindergarten baby.
> 
> And the concrete elephant "Dudu" has a common anestor with the concrete crocodile "Didi". Crocodiles are about  300 million years old so the common ancestors between them is a little older. And if we should eliminate crocodiles by making it  for them impossble to survive in the future then we deny the last 300 million years of life - including us on our own.



Evolution includes some species eliminating others, just as some natural causes have. (climate, collision, etc)
The evolution of the human brain and capability has created something of a 'gene sweep' and even more species will certainly vanish because of it.

Again, you are indeed an idiot but not because you're foreign, it's because you fancy yourself different (actually you probably need more treatment/medication), and think you can foist all sorts of BS.
But not with me you can't.

`


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Evolution is the very foundation of modern Biology.



Evoliution yes. Darwinism not. Darwinism is an ideology far from real life.



abu afak said:


> If someone abused it (like nuclear technology) that doesn't make it bad.



Nevertheless is the theory of evolution how Darwin said it not a very important theory. Sure it is interesting that the great magician made birds out of dinos - nevertheless misunderstand the very most people for example that "survival of the fittest" is a very bad description for selective processes within the nature. And also adaption is something what's totally different in biology to the normal use of this word. And this is so with all expressions of the theory of evolution. It needs a good knowledg not to make wrong interpretations of this theory.



abu afak said:


> Certainly countless peoples considered themselves 'superior' before 1860.



But not superior in sense of a race (=racism). Example: In the Roman empire existed many people and the superior people were the Romans (specially the Roman nobles). It existed laws for Romans and laws for all others. A Roman was for example not crucified - this was a form of execution for inferior people. Bur even in Rome this wrong concept never had been a biological concept. Who was seen as a "citizen of Rome" depended on laws and not on biology.



abu afak said:


> The Roman Empire did.
> Let's blame that on Darwin too.
> You clown.



If you had spoken with me here then you had to visit perhaps now a dentist with your handful teeth. If I make a spontanous beat then this is able to have such drastical consequences. be.



abu afak said:


> Another Dishonest and deflecting reply.
> It was and remains a Triumph in understanding life on earth



Buddists, Red Indians and Saint Francis understand "life on Earth" dimensions better than any "evolutionist" ever did do - maybe except Konrad Lorenz, because to find out that genes produce proteins and not to know excactly how this defines also instinctive behavior is still today one of the most irritating modern secrets.



abu afak said:


> Not vs discoveries on unknown other planets by unknown 'other races.'
> What a bizarre deflection and false challenge.



¿That the monk Gregor Mendel and what he found out had been for us all in reality very important and what Charles Darwin found out had been for us less than superflous? The mainstream is often wrong.



abu afak said:


> You indeed are an idiot but not because you're foreign.



No one would here in my ocuntry say so to a German like me. The loud laughter could damage his ears. It's for me absolutelly not any problem to be a real idiot if I like to be one.



abu afak said:


> It's because your mental processes have been screwed by an illness/defect.
> You fancy trying to foist your eccentricity/illness.



I would wish you had a better culture in using spearwords. Boring.



abu afak said:


> Evolution includes some species eliminating others,



and what causes afterwards their own downfall?



abu afak said:


> just as some natural causes have. (climate, collision, etc)



So evolution is the same like a natural catastrophe? Interesting view on this not existing problem.



abu afak said:


> The evolution of the human brain



Of the human brain? What kind of animal is this?



abu afak said:


> and capability has created something of a 'gene sweep'



¿What? ... What for heavens sake is a "gene sweep" and what means "create" in this context?



abu afak said:


> and even more species will certainly vanish because of it.



Okay. You spoke here a death sentence. I would now not be astoinished if god would throw all mankind into hell and not only 72 times more men than women.



abu afak said:


> Again, you are indeed an idiot but not because you're foreign, it's because you fancy yourself different (actually you probably need more treatment/medication), and think you can foist all sorts of BS.
> But not with me you can't.



"Duck and cover" before I will start now to throw with stones as my Jewish-Christian genes never did tell me to do.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 13, 2021)

abu afak

What for heavens sake do you call "funny"? You are boring not funny. "To be funny" is positive and not negative. Interpretations decide how we see the world - and the real scientific theory of evolution nearly everyone misinterprets. Tell me what a "gene sweep" is and what this has to do with a human brain.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You're insane/nonconversant
> You need to be in an institution.
> Maybe the room next to J Bond.
> 
> ...


As I said. Boring. Nothing what you say here has any creative moment. Start both videos (they are the same) with 1-2 seconds difference than you can hear what I think about this what you said here.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 13, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


>


You're insane/nonconversant
You need to be in an institution.
Maybe the room next to J Bond.

*Now back to your gratuitous and Nutty Trolling Youtube music posts I see.
(proof you LOST)*

Give the other patients a chance at the keyboard or I'll call the doctors and security to come get you and put you back in restraints.

`


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 13, 2021)

abu afak said:


> You're insane/nonconversant
> You need to be in an institution.
> Maybe the room next to J Bond.
> 
> ...



No comment


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 13, 2021)

For everyone here:


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 13, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Absolutelly not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only a fool would deny evolution.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 13, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Only a fool would deny evolution.



Only an idiot would think I deny the natural law evolution. But I never found any sense in the neverending anglo-american pseudo-discussion "creation vs evolution". One reason for is perhaps that I know a lot about religion and a lot about evolution - including evolutionary epistemiology.

I read by the way the book "the selfish gene" from Richard Dawkins. I never saw what he called "selfish" nor saw I any sense to try to find psychological parameters in the chemistry of genes. The title had also able to be "the unselfish gene". The book was not bad and was also not good - but found enthusiastic supporters. I fear most of them never read this book. And meanwhile I would say Richard Dawkins left everything what is rational philosophy and empirical science and is lost in atheism like a sectarian. His idea that agnosticism leads to atheism is one of the most stupid ideas I heard in my life.

That Richards Dawkins says about "they" (=also "me" and some more billions) that we say only "la la la" is more than an impertinence of Richard Dawkins. That's stupidity on a very high level of stupidity.

When I remember now how Richard Dawkins once supported writings on busses with a text like "Be happy - god is not existing" then I remember also what was my first reaction when I heard this: I imagined a man who was waiting for the bus when he came out out of a clinic where just a moment ago his beloved wife did die. There are many possible reactions of this man. And I ask myselve wo gives Richard Dawkins any right to call "an Harvardian" a _"disgrace for the human species"  _only because this man is able to combine religion and science. To make here something clear: Every member of any reltui is able to be an excellent scientist. No one has to convert first to atheism to have the right to be a scientist. Richard Dawkins lives only in his little brain far from the realities on our planet - also the loveful and positive realities.

This here was by the way the favorite song of Mr. Stephen Hawking a relativelly short time before he died. The video remembers me that we all have reasons to be thankful.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 13, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> You think ""we" know" - ¿by calling the god "nationalism" to help you against a foreign idiot like me, suerperior "American"?


Uh, no, I was referring to deviant religious belief.

Your comments about "probability" of life forming on Earth are specious and not useful. I have explained why. We can talk about that, if you like.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 14, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Only an idiot would think I deny the natural law evolution. But I never found any sense in the neverending anglo-american pseudo-discussion "creation vs evolution". One reason for is perhaps that I know a lot about religion and a lot about evolution - including evolutionary epistemiology.
> 
> I read by the way the book "the selfish gene" from Richard Dawkins. I never saw what he called "selfish" nor saw I any sense to try to find psychological parameters in the chemistry of genes. The title had also able to be "the unselfish gene". The book was not bad and was also not good - but found enthusiastic supporters. I fear most of them never read this book. And meanwhile I would say Richard Dawkins left everything what is rational philosophy and empirical science and is lost in atheism like a sectarian. His idea that agnosticism leads to atheism is one of the most stupid ideas I heard in my life.
> 
> ...



In fact, you know nothing. 
You've diverted because Dawkins gave irrefutable proof of evolution which can be repeated. 
I don't care if you can give Chinese sign language in reverse. Evolution is fact and no amount of denial or God or religious threats will change that. 

The human race had been conned by fraudulent charlatans who preyed on feeble minded fools like you.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Uh, no, I was referring to deviant religious belief.
> 
> Your comments about "probability" of life forming on Earth are specious and not useful.



Not any of my arguments is only a little "specious" - you have just simple not any other argument than to say "The universe is big". Sure it is big - but this means nearly nothing. It has to be so gigantic because otherwise we could not exist and are able to ask _"What's going on here?"_.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I have explained why.



Sorry but "to defame others" is not written e-x-p-l-a-i-n-e-d.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> We can talk about that, if you like.



We talked about. And I do not discuss endless. I found out that you don't have any argument for the existence of extraterrestrial cultures and civilisations. What you call "useful" means perhaps you like to live in your world of preproduced fantasies. But what if we will wipe out all life on planet Earth - directly (intentionally) and/or indirectly (on reason of stupidity) - and nowhere in the universe exists any extraterrestrial life? Then you destroy perhaps the hope of "the universe" in us to become alive until every quant of the energy of the universe will be part of a living entity in 100 billion years - or earlier - or later.

By the way - if I would be an alien on my own then I would also not know what in your way "to discuss" could had been "useful" and I also would not give a damn for the survival of this weird species who's calling oneself "homo sapiens sapiens" - but is on the other side not sure whether this means to be an aggressive monkey or not. The behaivor of other animals on this planet is not able to be an excuse for the own behavior. We are responsible in the eyes of the Lord for his living creation here - not so any other creature. Also not any alien.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> In fact, you know nothing.



Colin norris - Do you really think you are the sailor who is able to travel in most far parts of the nearly endless universe and to find there something when you are not even able to find what's in front of your eyes here on our planet?



Colin norris said:


> You've diverted because Dawkins gave irrefutable proof of evolution which can be repeated.



I do not discuss this totally idiotic English discussion "creation vs evolution" and Richard Dawkins is in my eyes an idiot with an extremly bad behavior. But why should a nobel price winner in biology not be able to be an uneducated extremistic atheistic sectarian who seems not able to accept anything else than the own selfishness?



Colin norris said:


> I don't care if you can give Chinese sign language in reverse.



 What if aliens speak Chanese? What if they are Catholics? What about if they dance the CanCan? ...



Colin norris said:


> Evolution is fact and no amount of denial or God or religious threats will change that.



Did you ever notice what I said about evolution or do you notice only this what your drugs tell your brain before it will become psychotic?



Colin norris said:


> The human race had been conned by fraudulent charlatans who preyed on feeble minded fools like you.



Says a fraudulent charlatan who believes in the own lies?


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


Evolution does not explain Creation except as the Dumb Luck theory of how we got here

There is obviously intelligent design at work also


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 14, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Our species was not in existence a billion years ago.



As far as I know not any multi-cellular organism was existing a billion years ago. But something was existing what leaded to this what we are now. So we were existing for sure as a concrete possibility of the future of our universe a billion years ago. Now we know which possibility became real - but we don't know anything about any other possibility which not became real. History knows not experiments - what on the other side also means the methods of natural science are not fully compatible with history.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> By the way - if I would be an alien on my own then I would also not know what in your way "to discuss" could had been "useful" and I also would not give a damn for the survival of this weird species who's calling oneself "homo sapiens sapiens"


Well, maybe that's a comment on YOUR morality and ethics. Even in the "pathetic" human race (as you apparently see it), we have figured out how to care about, sympathize with, and even empathize with other animals (apes, horses, dogs).

You seem so certain that an advanced race would view us the way we view insects. But this race would recognize a degree of sentience and empathy in our species, just as we recognize it in apes and horses and dogs (but less so in insects). Why would such an advanced race automatically be cruel? Maybe this is a projection of your own view of the human race and how YOU would act, if you had dominion over humans.

Maybe this even reflects your beliefs in a cruel and vain god, whom you see as having dominion over humans. So naturally you would assume the same cruelty and vanity of any "higher being".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> Evolution does not explain Creation except as the Dumb Luck theory of how we got here


Neither does electromagnetic theory, or game theory. These things are not meant to and don't attempt to explain creation.




Mac-7 said:


> There is obviously intelligent design at work also


It seems obvious that there is not. Else, for example, we would not have spent 200,000 years living in agony and dying at age 30 from our teeth. We had to engineer our own ways not to live a life of suffering and toil. Maybe...."unintelligent, negligent design" would be more appropriate, when referring to the mythical god character's hand in evolution.


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Seems obvious that there is not. Else we would not have spent 200,000 years living in agony and dying at age 30 from our teeth. We had to engineer our own ways not to live a life of suffering and toil. Maybe...."unintelligent, negligent design" would be more appropriate, when referring to the mythical god character's hand in evolution.


Unless you have created living world’s dont question the one who has


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> Unless you have created living world’s dont question the one who has


Unless you have talked to god and can prove that insane nonsense to me, don't pretend to speak for mythical god characters. Perhaps your preferred god is not as vain, cruel, and insecure as you think she is and does not mind being questioned.


----------



## james bond (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Neither does electromagnetic theory, or game theory. These things are not meant to and don't attempt to explain creation.


Creation of living organisms from non-life is by the supernatural.  Humans, the most intelligent beings on the planet, can't create life from non-life.  Miller-Urey didn't work exactly.  It didn't produce the right stuff to form a single-cell.


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Unless you have talked to god and can prove that insane nonsense to me,


I have no interest in proving anything to you

Your future does not interest me


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> I have no interest in proving anything to you


Well that's good, since you have zero evidence. How frustrating it would be for you if you DID care about convincing rational adults of your magical beliefs, given that you have no evidence. So your current stance is probably best for your peace of mind.


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's good, since you have zero evidence.


I dont need evidence because I dont care if you believe it or not

The Age of Evangelism is over for you


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> I dont need evidence because I dont care if you believe it or not


You don't need evidence because you believe things without evidence. That's what faith is. It's not a virtue, or something to be respected. Belief without evidence is childish and anti-intellectual.


----------



## Mac-7 (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You don't need evidence because you believe things without evidence.


Why do you care?

You have no faith and I do

I think many libs like you are insecure in their lack of belief


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Belief without evidence is childish and anti-intellectual.


I agree. Atheists are childish and anti-intellectual because they believe something without having evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Mac-7 said:


> Why do you care?
> 
> You have no faith and I do
> 
> I think many libs like you are insecure in their lack of belief


Did i come to you? Who came to a science thread talking about creationism?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I agree. Atheists are childish and anti-intellectual because they believe something without having evidence.


Oops, sorry, that is stupid and wrong and an old, failed canard by faithers who, having no intelligent way of elevating their own childish faith, can only try to drag other ideas down into the murk with them.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oops, sorry, that is stupid and wrong and an old, failed canard by faithers who, having no intelligent way of elevating their own childish faith, can only try to drag other ideas down into the murk with them.


It's true. The basic concept of theism has just as much evidence to support it as atheism does, which is none. Atheists in many ways are even louder and more obnoxious with their faith than theists in my experience. You can swim da Nile all you want, but that's all it is my friend. It's your arrogance that prevents you from seeing all of the ways you're similar to the people you're criticizing.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


So according to Darwinism, religion offers functional advantages over atheism?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> The basic concept of theism has just as much evidence to support it as atheism does, which is none.


 You are referring to the special case: gnostic atheism. Really, atheism in general is just not accepting a belief in gods. In that case, no, there is no claim that needs to be supported by evidence or argument. Just lack of a belief.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> So according to Darwinism, religion offers functional advantages over atheism?


If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I would not agree on theism. But I can see some ways adopting magical belief in anthropomorphic gods may have been an advantage to early humans living a subsistence existence.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are referring to the special case: gnostic atheism. Really, atheism in general is just not accepting a belief in gods. In that case, no, there is no claim that needs to be supported by evidence or argument. Just lack of a belief.


Look man. I have danced this pedantic dance with atheists before. Be honest and humble enough to see reality or don't; it makes no difference to me. Have a nice day.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Look man. I have danced this pedantic dance with atheists before.


Apparently you did not pay much attention. The vast majority of atheists you will ever meet are of the agnostic variety. They could not and would not say with absolute certainty that no gods or fairies or unicorns or leprechauns exist. But they simply do not accept belief in them. Try to keep that in mind, the next time you try your dusty old parlor trick.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If that is your opinion, you are entitled to it. I would not agree on theism. But I can see some ways adopting magical belief in anthropomorphic gods may have been an advantage to early humans living a subsistence existence.


No.  It's not my opinion.  That's what natural selection says.  Unless of course you think natural selection does not favor functional advantages and instead favors blind random luck.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They could not and would not say with absolute certainty that no gods or fairies or unicorns or leprechauns exist.


Are you asserting that you are true neutral when it comes to belief in god? If you are I think you're either in denial or you're being dishonest.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> That's what natural selection says.


False. I can look all over the world and see people who are not monotheists that are thriving.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False. I can look all over the world and see people who are not monotheists that are thriving.


Through out history every society has overwhelming believed in the existence of a higher power.  It's not even close.  Why has this continued to exist?

You said it yourself:



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> the more successful models propagated


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Are you asserting that you are true neutral when it comes to the existence of god?


One does not have to be ?true neutral" to be an agnostic theist. One only has to not accept the belief with 100% certainty that "there are no gods". I think there are likely no gods. or fairies, or unicorns, or leprechauns, either.

Do I KNOW gods do not exist? Nope. I would not pretend to know such a thing. But that is one of the pratfalls of magic: there cannot ever be evidence for or against.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Through out history every society has overwhelming believed in the existence of a higher power. It's not even close. Why has this continued to exist?


There are certainly qualities that lean more toward neutral for survival, but I would definitely entertain the idea that in some aspects religion has helped humans get to where they are.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Do I KNOW gods do not exist? Nope


Right. You just believe they don't, without evidence. A faith-based belief.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Through out history every society has overwhelming believed in the existence of a higher power. It's not even close. Why has this continued to exist?
> 
> You said it yourself:


And deists,  polytheists, and atheists have also propagated. Look around.., they are everywhere.

And if you mean to speak to all magical beliefs of higher powers, then say that. You said theism. Use the correct words, so people don't have to spend all day trying to puzzle out what you mean.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You just believe they don't, without evidence.


No, I believe they likely don't, based not only on there not being a shred of evidence, but also seeing no reason or need for them in order to explain anything, ever. But maybe they do exist. That is not faith. You can give it up now. You are not going to succeed at this weak attempt.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> There are certainly qualities that lean more toward neutral for survival, but I would definitely entertain the idea that in some aspects religion has helped humans get to where they are.


It's not about survival per se.  Any functional advantage will be retained and passed down.  Here is the best explanation of the functional advantage of religion that I have seen.  

*"When all is said and done, we are in the end absolutely dependent on the universe; and into sacrifices and surrenders of some sort, deliberately looked at and accepted, we are drawn and pressed as into our only permanent positions of repose.* Now in those states of mind which fall short of religion, the surrender is submitted to as an imposition of necessity, and the sacrifice is undergone at the very best without complaint. In the religious life, on the contrary, surrender and sacrifice are positively espoused: even unnecessary givings-up are added in order that the happiness may increase. *Religion thus makes easy and felicitous what in any case is necessary; and if it be the only agency that can accomplish this result, its vital importance as a human faculty stands vindicated beyond dispute.* It becomes an essential organ of our life, performing a function which no other portion of our nature can so successfully fulfill."  William James


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I believe they likely don't


Without evidence you lean toward one side. The logical thing is to lean toward neither side in the complete absence of evidence.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> not being a shred of evidenc


In either direction. Lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary, not even close.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is not faith.


You have faith in your own assumption, which is that god doesn't exist, or "probably" doesn't exist. Excuse me while I roll my eyes again.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are not going to succeed


Oh, I know. I don't aim to win or succeed in these conversations. I have accepted that I am here simply for catharsis.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And deists,  polytheists, and atheists have also propagated. Look around.., they are everywhere.
> 
> And if you mean to speak to all magical beliefs of higher powers, then say that. You said theism. Use the correct words, so people don't have to spend all day trying to puzzle out what you mean.


The functional advantage of faith in a higher power is not shared by atheists.  As such the best they can hope for is to suffer without complaint.  Whereas people of faith see meaning in suffering.  That's the functional advantage of religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Without evidence you lean toward one side.


Which is not faith. I lean towards unicorns not existing because of the utter lack of evidence. That is evidence based determination, not faith. 

Give it up. You are not going to out your evidence free faith on the same shelf as evidence based determinations. Ever. You will not succeed.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> people of faith see meaning in suffering.


Atheists can see meaning in suffering too. Suffering and adversity are how we grow. Any atheist worth their salt would see meaning in suffering.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Give it up. You are not going to out your evidence free faith on the same shelf as evidence based determinations. Ever. You will not succeed.


I'm a true agnostic, unlike yourself. I actually used to be a militant atheist back when I was more immature and arrogant.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> The functional advantage of faith in a higher power is not shared by atheists


Oh well. I cant throw a spear very well either. I will be fine.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I'm a true agnostic, unlike yourself.


Sorry, that's gibberish. Being agnostic only means you do not know if there are gods or not. That is true of both of us.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry, that's gibberish. Being agnostic only means you do not know if there are gods or not. That is true of both of us.


Our views are not even close to the same.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh well. I cant throw a spear very well either. I will be fine.


So we are in agreement then.  Belief in a higher power (spirituality) offers a functional advantage over atheism (materialism) and that's why religion exists and continues to exist.  

As you said before...

Fort Fun Indiana said:
the more successful models propagated


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Our views are not even close to the same.


Unfortunately for your parlor trick, they are effectively equal, when it comes to the definition of the word agnostic. In fact, we are both agnostic atheists.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> we are in agreement then. Belief in a higher power (spirituality) offers a functional advantage over atheism (materialism) and that's why religion exists and continues to exist.


No, sorry. I don't believe every single trait of an organism or model must always confer advantage. A successful model means the sum of its parts is successful. It does not mean every trait of the model has an advantage over every other possible trait. That was your error, in assuming otherwise.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, sorry. I don't believe every single trait of an organism or model must always confer advantage. A successful model means the sum of its parts is successful. It does not mean every trait of the model has an advantage over every other possible trait. That was your error, in assuming otherwise.


Way to argue against natural selection.

There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation. So natural selection confirms that spirituality is a behavior which leads to success. Otherwise, according to natural selection, it would have been abandoned long ago. As mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Way to argue against natural selection.


I didn't. Natural selection does not create perfect models. And successful models are successful on the whole by coming to dominate a population. This does mot mean every trait is advantageous over every other possible trait. 

But your entire argument relies on this rather elementary error, so i know you are going to proudly commit it for... Ever. 

You would lend yourself and your arguments a bit more credibility to specifically argue why such beliefs are -- or were at one point -- advantageous. The fact that they still exist does not cut it, given the fact that the other cases also still exist.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Natural selection does not create perfect models.


There you have it.  You don't believe in natural selection at all. 

But putting that aside the continuous and overwhelming belief in a higher power over the history of mankind proves religion offers functional advantages over atheism.   The length of time and numbers are your proof.  It's not an accident.  It's not a one off.  It is a persistent condition which has never ceased.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> But putting that aside the continuous and overwhelming belief in a higher power over the history of mankind proves religion offers functional advantages over atheism.


Which, of course, you now have to do, having utterly failed at presenting any good argument for the truth of this.






ding said:


> The length of time and numbers are your proof.


No, that's also wrong. That only shows us that it doesn't create such a disadvantage that it was extinguished from our lineage (Yet. Maybe religion is going in the same direction as wisdom teeth: no longer needed, waste of valuable time and resources)..

You still need to provide an argument for the functional advantage. If you are having a hard time, you can look up the attempts of others. Its not a wild claim. It may very well be true. But you have not presented any good arguments for it. You should brush up before making this attempt again.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which, of course, you now have to do, having utterly failed at presenting any good argument for the truth of this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sure I did.  I explained natural selection is about passing down functional advantages and I explained what functional advantage religion has over atheism.

You on the other hand argued that natural selection is perfect and that it's possible that natural selection could make a mistake that has lasted 6,000 years in overwhelming numbers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> I explained what functional advantage religion has over atheism.


Post # please. I must have missed it.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Post # please. I must have missed it.


Can't you go back and look for yourself?  Isn't that what you always tell me to do when I ask for a post number from you?

So when you said in the OP that "the more successful models propagated" that wasn't true?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Can't you go back and look for yourself?


I did. No luck. Post #?


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Apparently religion - according to Fort Fun Indiana - has proven natural selection to be false.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I did. No luck. Post #?


So when you said in the OP that "the more successful models propagated" that wasn't true?


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I did. No luck. Post #?


True or false:  There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> True or false:  There are two components to natural selection; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.


Irrelevant. There are 5 mechanism to evolution. Obviously natural selection does not work alone and does not produce and has not produced perfect models, in which every trait is advantageous over every other possible trait.

So it is up to you to argue what functional advantage(s) religion may have provided. Scientists have no problem forming these hypotheses, when they make this claim. But you seem to be having a very hard time.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Irrelevant. There are 5 mechanism to evolution. Obviously natural selection does not work alone and does not produce and has not produced perfect models, in which every trait is advantageous over every other possible trait.
> 
> So it is up to you to argue what functional advantage(s) religion may have provided. Scientists have no problem forming these hypotheses, when they make this claim. But you seem to be having a very hard time.


It's not irrelevant.  It's extremely relevant and it's the basis of Darwinism.  So answer the question.

Is it true or false that functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation is what natural selection is based upon?


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Did you or did you not say:



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and the more successful models propagated instead. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.



And isn't this saying that selection bias is based upon functional advantage?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> It's not irrelevant. It's extremely relevant and it's the basis of Darwinism.


False. By no stretch of the imagination or by any desperate attempt of any faither is the basis of Darwinism the idea that every single trait of every organism that has ever existed confers an advantage. 

So, what is your argument that religion (or belief in a special sky daddy in every single puddle and blade of grass) provided a functional advantage to early humans? You can do it. Just put in a little effort.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> False. By no stretch of the imagination or by any desperate attempt of any faither is the basis of Darwinism the idea that every single trait of every organism that has ever existed confers an advantage.
> 
> So, what is your argument that religion (or belief in a special sky daddy in every single puddle and blade of grass) provided a functional advantage to early humans? You can do it. Just put in a little effort.


I love how I made you shit all over natural selection.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

See, watch how easy:

Possibly, believing in magical gods as being responsible for observed events conferred an advantage upon early humans in that they could then better apply reason and engage in planning. For example, perhaps the tribe shaman looking up and deciding the sky gods were starting to get angry conferred advantage on the tribe, as they would find shelter before the storm started, instead of being caught in the open. 

Perhaps believing that the sabre tooth tiger WAS a god conferred an advantage to early humans, who, by attributing agency, were better able to live alongside these animals and even hunt them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Perhaps believing in gods that would smite or reward them conferred an advantage on early humans, as possibly they were more likely to follow commands. A better organized tribe would have been more successful. Possibly even a common belief in sky daddies helped organize humans into larger communities, helping ensure the survival of individuals. 

The tribe mentioned above may have been more likely to follow the shaman's advice to seek shelter from an imminent storm, having conferred divine authority upon him.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

I could rattle these off, one after another, all night.

ding is still struggling to make his first attempt.

I wonder what is handicapping him? Oh well... Looks like the requisite faither "declaration of victory" (found just above) that the faithers make in every science thread means he has given up.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I could rattle these off, one after another, all night.
> 
> ding is still struggling to make his first attempt.
> 
> I wonder what is handicapping him? Oh well... Looks like the requisite faither "declaration of victory" (found just above) that the faithers make in every science thread means he has given up.


Cool story.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Darwin's revelation of natural selection owes itself to the same turn of thought. The other models that are not observed? They died off, and *the more successful models propagated instead*. That being the case, selection bias would greatly influence what we observe today.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> *Natural selection does not create perfect models.*


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Or, alternatively, it may just be that faith in gods was and is just an artifact of the evolution of our sentience, abstract language, and introspective self awareness. It does not necessarily have to have conferred a functional advantage. It possibly was just not impactful enough either way to delete the advantages conferred upon us by the development of our sentience, and abstract language, and introspective self awareness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

*Natural selection does not create perfect models.*

Whoever said that knows his stuff. The successful models (itself a temporary state of affairs, as evolution marches on) only have to be better in some way(s) than the models they replace, for natural selection to replace one model with another.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Circling back to *Survivorship Bias*:

Deviant and/or unevidenced beliefs are often the most unshakeable beliefs. Why? Survivorship Bias.

If a person holds a belief that deviates from what the preponderance of evidence shows -- or adopts a belief, with absolute certainty, for which there is no evidence -- they have already demonstrated that argument and evidence are not going to sway them.

Everyone else who considered adopting these beliefs, and everyone else who adopted them and had a chance of being swayed by evidence and argument, has already put aside the deviant and unevidenced beliefs. Those that can be argued or evidenced out of these silly beliefs have already been argued out of them.

So who does that leave? "The Survivors". So, by understanding survivorship bias, we can gain more understanding of why the most deviant and evidence-free beliefs seem to be the most unshakeable, and the holders of these beliefs the most irrational and strident of people in the discussions of these beliefs.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> they are effectively equal


Only if you want to play games with labels and gloss over reality in a dishonest way.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A successful model means the sum of its parts is successful. It does not mean every trait of the model has an advantage over every other possible trait.


Yes.

Like I said earlier, some traits lean more toward neutral. The argument he's making actually is interesting though. Perhaps it's not entirely neutral with religion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Only if you want to play games with labels and gloss over reality in a dishonest way.


Nope. By definition. We are both agnostic atheists. The special case of a gnostic atheist is someone who knows there are no gods.

If this semantical path doesn't appeal to you, we can just agree that we are both agnostic.

You may find the existence of gods to be less unlikely than i do. But that invokes a spectrum that is not well described by the simple terms we have been using.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Yes.
> 
> Like I said earlier, some traits lean more toward neutral. The argument he's making actually is interesting though. Perhaps it's not entirely neutral with religion.


It absolutely is interesting. Hypothesizing is half the fun.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> His son shines over everyone.


This is the science section. Your magical incantations have no use here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Perhaps it's not entirely neutral with religion.


Right. Perhaps faith in gods did somehow confer a survival advantage to our ancestors.

However, that doesn't lend any moral value or any truth whatsoever to any of it. Killing off the competing tribe (and the shaman telling the killing tribe that they were agents of demons) also granted a survival advantage to the killing tribe's lineage. That doesn't mean any of that is moral or that the belief is in any way true.

When we no longer need archaic things and ideas that may have helped us in the past, we can put them aside. For example, slavery. Objectification of women. Killing your neighbor for his resources, or to keep him from competing with you for resources.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Only if you want to play games with labels and gloss over reality in a dishonest way.


He's the worst when it comes to that.  He doesn't even realize he's doing it or that he's doing anything wrong.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Or, alternatively, it may just be that faith in gods was and is just an artifact of the evolution of our sentience, abstract language, and introspective self awareness. It does not necessarily have to have conferred a functional advantage. It possibly was just not impactful enough either way to delete the advantages conferred upon us by the development of our sentience, and abstract language, and introspective self awareness.


The overwhelming numbers and thousands of years of existence say otherwise.  According to Darwin there would be a logical reason for that and it would have to be because it inferred a function and real advantage.   Otherwise you are embracing randomness when evolution is based upon logical reasons.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> The overwhelming numbers and thousands of years of existence say otherwise


No. It merely did not have to be enough of a disadvantage to extinguish itself from our lineage. It may merely be an artifact of our sentience and introspective self awareness. One example of this is color variance within a certain species. The variance itself may be an artifact of evolution and may not seem to confer any discernible advantage.

Perhaps faith in gods did confer advantage. But what you mentioned does not definitively show us this. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it confers any advantage now, nor does it lend any intellectual value, morality, or truth to belief in magical gods.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Circling back to *Survivorship Bias*:
> 
> Deviant and/or unevidenced beliefs are often the most unshakeable beliefs. Why? Survivorship Bias.
> 
> ...


You mean like religion has survived for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across all cultures?   A preponderance of evidence like that?


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No. It merely did not have to be enough of a disadvantage to extinguish itself from our lineage. It may merely be an artifact of our sentience and introspective self awareness.
> 
> Perhaps it did confer advantage. But what you mentioned does not definitively show us this. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it confers any advantage now, nor does it lend any intellectual value, morality, or truth to belief in magical gods.


It's continued existence for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society says otherwise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> You mean like religion has survived for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across all cultures?


Which is precisely what one would expect, were it a mere artifact of our other, advantageous mental traits, like sentience and introspective self awareness.

Other anomalous artifacts of the human mind have persisted, like hallucinations, false memories, etc. And they are pervasive throughout the human race.

I am not saying that what you are saying is necessarily false.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No. It merely did not have to be enough of a disadvantage to extinguish itself from our lineage. It may merely be an artifact of our sentience and introspective self awareness. One example of this is color variance within a certain species. The variance itself may be an artifact of evolution and may not seem to confer any discernible advantage.
> 
> Perhaps faith in gods did confer advantage. But what you mentioned does not definitively show us this. And even if it did, that doesn't mean it confers any advantage now, nor does it lend any intellectual value, morality, or truth to belief in magical gods.


According to Darwin there would be a logical reason for the continued existence of religion for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society and it would have to be because it inferred a function and real advantage.


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which is precisely what one would expect, were it a mere artifact of our other, advantageous mental traits, like sentience and introspective self awareness.
> 
> I am not saying that what you are saying is necessarily false.


So you are saying that religion promotes advantageous mental traits, like sentience and introspective self awareness but you won't credit religion directly?  

Seems dishonest to me.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> However, that doesn't lend any moral value or any truth whatsoever to any of it.


It would give it general value though. I agree that it's not evidence that gods exist, but on some level our morality and understanding of right and wrong _is_ shaped by the realities of natural selection. Surviving and adapting is the goal, and our morality is designed to help us achieve that.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That doesn't mean any of that is moral


Well, I agree, but morality is subjective. It would be arrogant to claim a knowledge of objective morality, something that doesn't exist because morality is a subjective human invention. I guess that's kind of what religious people do.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When we no longer need archaic things and ideas that may have helped us in the past, we can put them aside.


You may not need a god or religion to find your balance in life, but many people do. Would you really force religious people to come to terms with their ignorance? You would destroy a lot of productive lives. You would seriously injure a lot of good people. According to my morality that's pretty fucked up.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Killing your neighbor for his resources, or to keep him from competing with you for resources.


We only don't do this anymore because it's not beneficial to go to war with major nations.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> According to Darwin there would be a logical reason for the continued existence of religion for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society and it would have to be because it inferred a function and real advantage.


It's obvious what it does. It encourages community and solidarity among people that share the religion. It encourages people to work together in communities of like-minded people, which is exactly how humans survive.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> According to Darwin there would be a logical reason for the continued existence of religion for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society and it would have to be because it inferred a function and real advantage


No, it could just be because it is an artifact of other advantageous traits of our evolved consciousness. The evolved Consciousness persists oh, so naturally the anomalous artifacts persist with it


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You may not need a god or religion to find your balance in life, but many people do.


And many more just think they need it. Because it has been with them since birth.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And many more just think they need it. Because it has been with them since birth.


You say some _unbelievably_ arrogant things sometimes. I think you're not even aware of it. You also didn't answer my question. Would you destroy the lives of the many good people that depend on their belief in god to feel grounded and balanced by forcing them to realize their ignorance?


----------



## ding (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, it could just be because it is an artifact of other advantageous traits of our evolved consciousness. The evolved Consciousness persists oh, so naturally the anomalous artifacts persist with it


If it were only an artifact of other advantageous traits and not as a result of religion in and of itself then according to Darwin religion would not offer any functional advantage and religion would have died out.   So since religion HAS existed for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society, according to Darwin its continued existence was for a logical reason and that logical reason is that religion offers a functional advantage that atheism does not.  Unless of course you don't believe that evolution is based upon logical reasons.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You say some _unbelievably_ arrogant things sometimes.


. Do you not think that many people don't even realize that they don't need religion, since it has been with them since birth? What is incorrect or arrogant about that statement? This is a big kid discussion, if it makes you uncomfortable, that's a you problem.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

ding said:


> any functional advantage and religion would have died out.


Maybe it is dying out. humans have not been around for very long. Keep that in mind.

So when do you expect humans to stop hallucinating and having false memories? Are these artifacts also going to be extinguished, or can they persist in perpetuity?


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Do you not think that many people don't even realize that they don't need religion, since it has been with them since birth?


I don't think it's my place to decide that. If somebody tells me or implies that they depend on god for the strength to tackle life I take them at their word. That's why you're arrogant. You think you understand other people better than they understand themselves. That's profound arrogance. You should seriously rethink this.

Would you rid them all of their ignorance, because it's your assumption that they only _think_ they need god?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I don't think it's my place to decide that.


Okay. But i am, indeed, asserting it. I do indeed think it is true of some people. Some people have even said it about themselves, after freeing themselves from religious belief. I don't pretend to know which people are this way, i only know it is true of some people.

Is it even worth arguing about? Let's say we taught NO child anything about religion. Do you think this would result in:

1) increase in number of religious adults
2) exactly the same number as we have now
3) fewer

Easiest answer ever.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Would you rid them all of their ignorance, because it's your assumption that they only _think_ they need god?


Only by "force" of compelling argument. Come on. Do you think i have intentions of concentration camps or something? Next thing you know you are going to go full goofy and start using the term "militant atheist".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> It's obvious what it does. It encourages community and solidarity among people that share the religion


And also inspire and facilitate murder of those who don't. This would also help the tribe lineage survive. Definitely a method by which religion has persisted. A "functional advantage" in murdering the "others".

Evolution? Natural selection?


----------



## james bond (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


Can we get you up in the plane above?  Say 40,000 ft. high.  You can get the armor where you wanted and the believers will fill the plane with holes as marked.

If you survive, then I'll buy Darwin's answer as evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> We only don't do this anymore because it's not beneficial to go to war with major nations.


Or to go to prison for killing our neighbor to get his resources.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Okay. But i am, indeed, asserting it. I do indeed think it is true of some people. Some people have even said it about themselves, after freeing themselves from religious belief. I don't pretend to know which people are this way, i only know it is true of some people.
> 
> Is it even worth arguing about? Let's say we taught NO child anything about religion. Do you think this would result in:
> 
> ...


You asked me how you were arrogant. I explained it's because you're asserting that you understand other people and their needs more than they understand themselves and their own needs. I mean, you can obscure what it is you're doing by saying "some people" but it still is what it is. By the way, you went from "most of them" to "some of them" pretty quickly. Somebody is losing ground. Maybe what you're asserting really is kind of arrogant and difficult to defend.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Only by "force" of compelling argument. Come on. Do you think i have intentions of concentration camps or something? Next thing you know you are going to go full goofy and start using the term "militant atheist".


No, I don't think that. I was just asking if you would confront them with reality in a way they were forced to accept it if you were capable of that. I think you would destroy a lot more lives than you realize. I think you underestimate how many people would be lost and hopeless without the belief that there is an absolute moral power that can show them the way through life. It allows people to feel a sense of order and control in the chaos. It may just be an illusion, but it's an illusion that helps people.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And also inspire and facilitate murder of those who don't.


Don't blame religion for man's capacity for murder. That's just what people do. Religion is a convenient scapegoat for what people would have done anyway, which is kill other people they don't know or care about for their land and resources, or even just because they can.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You asked me how you were arrogant.


No, I did not ask you that, because I don't give two shits about your opinion of me. I am sure the reverse is true.

I asked you how the statement that invoked your opinion of me is arrogant.



Anomalism said:


> I explained it's because you're asserting that you understand other people and their needs more than they understand themselves and their own needs.


And I explained why that is false, and why I don't have to read anyone's minds to know that this is, indeed, true of some people. It is just self-evidently true. If you grow up in Islam, you will almost certainly be a Muslim. Not a Christian, or a deist, or a Taoist, or an atheist. A Muslim. Same for other religions. If you grow up with no religion, likely you won't have any as an adult.

How can this be true, if not for the obvious fact that indoctrination (and lack of it) as a child matters? It's an obvious fact. I do not even have to claim that they would be better off without religion, to make this point, nor am I claiming that. I only have to assert that they could still be fine without it, or "balanced" (as was the word used in the statement to which I responded when making my original comment), and possibly just haven't given it a shot yet. Again:

*Surely some people don't even know they don't really need religion, as it has been with them since birth*.

No, I don't have to claim I know better than anyone about themselves or have to read anyone's mind. It's just a true thing that exists in humans.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I asked you how the statement that invoked your opinion of me is arrogant.


Weird flex but okay. Anyway, you're failing to acknowledge extremely key parts of my posts, repeatedly. I don't think you want an actual discussion with somebody you can't bully and I don't think you're willing to admit that you've lost ground. You start to become intellectually dishonest when you're pressured. Kinda disappointing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Anyway, you're failing to acknowledge extremely key parts of my posts, repeatedly.


You do quite a gallop. I am not going to respond to all of it. Sorry. I try to make it clear to which of your statements i am responding. With my thoughts of it. Can't offer you mich more than that.


What ground do you suppose i have lost? Instead of directly countering my argument for my statement (in bold), you say i am arrogant and presuming to read peoples minds and know what is best for them.

What i said was none of those things. In fact, your accusations are specious appeal to emotion. Apparently you think "winning ground" means "sick burn", or something.

You have mounted no argument whatsoever that my simple statement - in bold above - is not true. In fact, i think you agree that it IS true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Okay, lets hit the reset. Here is the series of two statements, the second in response to the first:

1 Some people need religion for balance, and some do not.

2 And there are others who think they need it, because they have never known any other way.

Seems non-offensive. Banal, even. And self-evidently true.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You do quite a gallop. I am not going to respond to all of it. Sorry. I try to make it clear to which of your statements i am responding. With my thoughts of it. Can't offer you mich more than that.


Fine. Maybe I'm expecting too much. That's a mistake I make often.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What ground do you suppose i have lost? Instead of directly countering my argument for my statement (in bold), you say i am arrogant and presuming to read peoples minds and know what is best for them.
> 
> What i said was none of those things. In fact, your accusations are specious appeal to emotion. Apparently you think "winning ground" means "sick burn", or something.
> 
> You have mounted no argument whatsoever that my simple statement - in bold above - is not true. In fact, i think you agree that it IS true.


I agree that there are probably people that think they need religion but could function without it if they had to. That's kind of a pointless point though, because it would be ridiculous and arrogant to try to determine the breakdown in an attempt to undermine the question that you still won't answer clearly. You want me to acknowledge that somebody exists that doesn't actually need what they think they need. Okay, probably. Now will you acknowledge that you would seriously hurt people if you could actually convince them their god doesn't exist? Is that what you want?


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What ground do you suppose i have lost?


_At first_ you tried to suggest the majority of those people that think they need it don't actually need it, and I've got you quoted above if you want to deny it. Now you're trying to get me to admit that maybe, surely, some people don't actually need it. You really don't think you lost some ground there? haha


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Now will you acknowledge that you would seriously hurt people if you could actually convince them their god doesn't exist? Is that what you want?


Who has to do that, when people aren't taught religion as children in the first place? No other action needed. Sea change.


Anomalism said:


> _At first_ you tried to suggest the majority of those people that think they need it don't actually need it, and I've got you quoted above if you want to deny it.


No, I did not. Never was my intention. You read it wrong. or maybe I could have been more clear.

"And many more just think they need it. Because it has been with them since birth."

Many more people, not "many more people than all the people you mentioned". Also read: many others. So this is a dumb tangent we can discard. It was not my intent to imply "most", and it is not germane to my point.


So: Who has to do that, when people aren't taught religion as children in the first place? No other action needed.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I did not. Never was my intention. You read it wrong.
> 
> "And many more just think they need it. Because it has been with them since birth."
> 
> Many more people, not "many more people than all the people you mentioned". Also read: many others. So this is a dumb tangent we can discard.


If that's the case then your observation is meaningless. You would still hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of lives if you could successfully convince people that their religion is nonsense. It doesn't matter that some of them would be alright. That's just a deflection from the point.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So: Who has to do that, when people aren't taught religion as children in the first place? No other action needed.


How exactly are you going to prevent people from learning a religion that's passed down from parents to children, or even prevent them from starting a new religion in the absence of others? Do you not think more religions/spiritual outlets would arise if Christianity disappeared overnight?


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> or maybe I could have been more clear.


Humility. That defied my expectations. Perhaps I misjudged you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> You would still hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of lives if you could successfully convince people that their religion is nonsense.


I have no need of that, except in the specific cases where the beliefs are demonstrably false (YEC, for example). I won't be arguing that everything about their religion is nonsense. You wont catch me arguing that gods do not exist. So you have the wrong guy, there.

And remember, they are the ones who have malleable mythologies. They have to account for the facts, like everyone else. So there are Jews and Christians a plenty who accept evolution. Did Darwin "harm" them? Nope.






Anomalism said:


> How exactly are you going to prevent people from learning a religion that's passed down from parents to children, or even prevent them from starting a new religion in the absence of others?


I wouldn't make any effort to do that. I am not doing it now, and people are leaving religion behind in droves. They have kids, too. Not to mention the many practically secular Christians and Jews, found all over the US and Israel.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Humility. That defied my expectations. Perhaps I misjudged you.


Well i promise, i will be honest about what i mean to say.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism 

Because i think this is kind of related:

How many people do you suppose just pretend to be religious? Think: Saudi Royal Family (for example)

How much would you bet against me, if i bet most of them were atheists? 

An odd bet, i know. Now, let's look at US politics. Do you REALLY think Obama was a Christian? I don't. How about the Republican debate stage, when every candidate but one raised his hand in response to "Who here does not believe in evolution?"

Those shameless liars, haha. I would make an even odds bet that every single one of them actually believes in evolution. 

Anyway, just spitballin'. Make of it what you will.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I have no need of that, except in the cases where the beliefs are demonstrably false (YEC, for example). You wont catch me arguing that gods do not exist. So you have the wrong guy.


A whole bunch of shit in the Bible falls under this category. By doing what you said you are going to undermine the faith of many people. Let's be real man. You want to argue with people of faith. I've seen you do it numerous times. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And remember, they are the ones who have malleable mythologies. They have to account for the facts, like everyone else. So there are Jews and Christians a plenty who accept evolution. Did Darwin "harm" them?
> 
> Nope.


They still believe in god. God still gives them a sense of security in their universe. I actually think the reason you can rarely get through to them is _because_ they need/rely on it. It's so central to their belief structure. It's probably impossible with most of them, or damn close to impossible. If you could convince them it would destroy their entire sense of morality and order. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I wouldn't make any effort to do that. I am not doing it now, and people are leaving religion behind in droves. They have kids, too. Not to mention the practically secular Christians and Jews, found all over the US and Israel.


On average it's going down, but in raw numbers it's still going up, particularly in places like Africa and the Middle East. It's going to be a long time before religion stops being extremely relevant to humans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> A whole bunch of shit in the Bible falls under this category. By doing what you said you are going to undermine the faith of many people.


By teaching the scientific facts to children? Respectfully... That's their fucking problem. Not mine. You seem to exaggerate my "sinister" plans, haha




Anomalism said:


> On average it's going down, but in raw numbers it's still going up, particularly in places like Africa and the Middle East


Yes, less.developed societies. Because they are very religious and have lots o' babies. You are kind of making my point for me. 

What do you suppose happens, as they slowly develop into modern first world countries? It doesn't take a mind reader.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How many people do you suppose just pretend to be religious? Think: Saudi Royal Family (for example)


A lot, particularly elected people that rely on the confidence of the electorate. The Saud mafia? That's a tough one. Do you think their subjects would oust them if it was revealed that they are faithless? I actually don't understand Saudi Arabian culture well enough to answer that question clearly.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How much would you bet against me, if i bet most of them were atheists?


Most of the Saudi family? Atheist? I might take that bet. I definitely would not take the bet if you were saying the majority are not actually devout Muslims. I definitely believe that. I don't know if I believe they are atheists though. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> An odd bet, i know. Now, let's look at US politics. Do you REALLY think Obama was a Christian?


No, in fact I was actually mentioning Obama in an earlier part of my response, but then I saw this. I've never believed him to be a man of heavy faith. Possibly _very_ mild, but that's as far as I would go. 


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I don't. How about the Republican debate stage, when every candidate but one raised his hand in response to "Who here does not believe in evolution?"


LOL

Sadly I'd guess at least half of them are serious. But yeah, guys like Ted Cruz are pathalogical liars. I would eat my shoes if I learned he's truly a humble man of God. Give me a fuckin' break.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Those shameless liars, haha. I would make an even odds bet that every single one of them actually believes in evolution.
> 
> Anyway, just spitballin'. Make of it what you will.


Nah, you're spot on with that.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> By teaching the scientific facts to children? Respectfully... That's their fucking problem. Not mine. You seem to exaggerate my "sinister" plans, haha


As you wish.


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What do you suppose happens, as they slowly develop into modern first world countries? It doesn't take a mind reader.


Nah, I get it. You should see the way I harass PoliticalChic over the fact that her religion is dying along with social conservatism in the first world. I just think it's going to be way in the future before we can really call this stuff irrelevant.

EDIT: And before you call me a hypocrite for giving PC a hard time, well, maybe I am, but that dishonest nutbag deserves it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I definitely would not take the bet if you were saying the majority are not actually devout Muslims. I definitely believe that. I don't know if I believe they are atheists though.


Which is progress! I don't think the simple idea of theism, itself, poses the big problems. It's the baggage that comes with it. But I am not the one who has a problem separating these two things. That territory definitely belongs to the religious people. 

But, to erode the dogma is to erode the religion. In many ways, they are interchangeable words. Nobody has to put aside theism to accept evolution, for example. But they may have to put aside their dogma.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nobody has to put aside theism to accept evolution


They'd have to put aside creationism, which is a pretty significant part of it in my opinion. Maybe they could say God created the organisms that evolved into the organisms of today. To do that though they'd also have to accept that the Bible was probably actually the word of humans, not God, because God would not have been wrong about so much. It's a lot to get through. The intensity of religion is definitely going down a lot though. The dogma, as you say, is lessening for sure. 

What would it take for you to not publicly criticize religion or religious people anymore? I'm just curious.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> They'd have to put aside creationism, which is a pretty significant part of it in my opinion.


But why? With ANY scientific finding, they can say God did it. Science doesn't refute or attempt gods or divine creation.

Criticize them how? Do you also mean, their ideas? What are they, special needs? Nobody gets to claim immunity from having their ideas or beliefs scrutinized or criticized.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But why?


Well, creationism in the sense that is described in the Bible. A lot of people actually believe Adam popped out of the dust and Eve came from his ribs. lol


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Well, creationism in the sense that is described in the Bible. A lot of people actually believe Adam popped out of the dust and Eve came from his ribs. lol


Again... Respectfully... That's their fucking problem. Keep your toys at home.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Again... Respectfully... That's their fucking problem. Keep your toys at home.


That's why it's hard though. Those aren't toys to them, and in their universe you are polluting the minds of children, _their_ children. You're Satan to them. It's complicated.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 14, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> That's why it's hard though. Those aren't toys to them, and in their universe you are polluting the minds of children, _their_ children. You're Satan to them. It's complicated.


If i am Satan to them because i will not let their toys in the science classroom by "force" of due process... Again, respectfully... You know the rest...

If they want to spend the extra to send the kiddos to Jesus school, they can. 

But when they do... Well, they have made my point for me. They see the importance of indoctrinating those children. And the hopeful result.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> If i am Satan to them because i will not let their toys in the science classroom by "force" of due process... Again, respectfully... You know the rest...
> 
> If they want to spend the extra to send the kiddos to Jesus school, they can.
> 
> But when they do... Well, they have made my point for me. They see the importance of indoctrinating those children. And the hopeful result.


I also draw the line at education. We are in agreement here. I just think you're a little more invested in the argument than just that. That's the impression I get anyway.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 15, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> As far as I know not any multi-cellular organism was existing a billion years ago. But something was existing what leaded to this what we are now. So we were existing for sure as a concrete possibility of the future of our universe a billion years ago. Now we know which possibility became real - but we don't know anything about any other possibility which not became real. History knows not experiments - what on the other side also means the methods of natural science are not fully compatible with history.


When you started with "as far as I know" , 
I stopped there.  I know what you don't know.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> Look man. I have danced this pedantic dance with atheists before. Be honest and humble enough to see reality or don't; it makes no difference to me. Have a nice day.



Are you saying you believe there is a god?


----------



## abu afak (Oct 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> If that's the case then your observation is meaningless. You would still hurt a lot of people and destroy a lot of lives if you could successfully convince people that their religion is nonsense. It doesn't matter that some of them would be alright. That's just a deflection from the point.


Surely these people already know there are Different religions.
In fact, at least 75% are wrong IF one is right.
This must have occurred to anyone with a 95 IQ or better.

Surely they've gotten over the Tooth fairy nonsense and grown out of the idea there is a Santa Claus who comes by on Haysoos' birthday.



Anomalism said:


> How exactly are you going to prevent people from learning a religion that's passed down from parents to children, or even prevent them from starting a new religion in the absence of others? Do you not think more religions/spiritual outlets would arise if Christianity disappeared overnight?



That's just it.
There is no major religion without Major Indoctrination.
No desert Island tribes are going to he getting Visions of a fair-haired anglo JC and the Bible.

Some people may be 'hurt' by learning many facts, doesn't mean it's not good to inform of them.
NOT that anyone can prove a negative.
So they are free to keep their fairy tail, even knowing it is a fairy tale.
Secular/cultural Christians.

I am an atheist but still culturally somewhat Jewish.
They can hold on to that as many already do.. UN"hurt."

`


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, maybe that's a comment on YOUR morality and ethics.



You seem not to know what moral is good for and what moral is not good for.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Even in the "pathetic" human race (as you apparently see it), we have figured out how to care about, sympathize with,



About what? About moral? Human ideologists? You are a joker.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> and even empathize with other animals (apes, horses, dogs).



I am an animal - everyone is. Other animals are my sisters and broters - this says the theory of evolution. And god's rainbow is in the sky to make clear that his sympathy and empathy is with all human beings and all animals. His sun shines for everyone.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You seem so certain that an advanced race



Advanced what? Why do yo think ET's - if they exist at all - have a biological substance and races?



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> would view us the way we view insects.



Insects are also our sisters and brothers. And by the way: Our insects need help.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But this race would recognize a degree of sentience and empathy in our species, just as we recognize it in apes and horses and dogs (but less so in insects).



What a strange theory. You have not any plausible idea about - except the size of the universe - whether it is possible that a comparable biology of aliens is able to exist -  but you know how they are psychologically. And even in case of our own species you are wrong. Two teenagers in Australia murdered for example a short time ago more than a dozen big kangaroos. Only one child of them survived heavily hurted. Sure care other human beings - but because they are encultured and civilized human beings with a good feeling for life, beauty, truth and responsibilty.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why would such an advanced race automatically be cruel?



When and where did I say anyting in such a direction?




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe this is a projection of your own view of the human race and how YOU would act, if you had dominion over humans.



Maybe you should not use any drugs and try to see in everyone an anti-"Fort Fun Indiana" who shares not your wrong opinions, enemy yours.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe this even reflects your beliefs in a cruel and vain god,



 You should really try to listen what Christians say in this context - for example that god is love.




Fort Fun Indiana said:


> whom you see as having dominion over humans.



Whom I see as my very best find - ... ah sorry "friend" ... - but "find" sounds also not wrong. 



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So naturally you would assume the same cruelty and vanity of any "higher being".



That's absurde nonsense.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

Everyone needs some religion and some science because they are looking for the truth.  Except one group is right and the rest are wrong.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Apparently you did not pay much attention. The vast majority of atheists you will ever meet are of the agnostic variety. They could not and would not say with absolute certainty that no gods or fairies or unicorns or leprechauns exist.



The philosophy agnosticisms speaks not  about gods, fairies, unicorns or leprechauns (=creations). In profan words we may perhaps say the philosophy agnosticims tries to find out whether god is real creator or god is "only" a creation of human beings. Agnosticism finds out this problem is philosophically not solveable. One of the main reasons  why this is not solveable is it that we are not able to make a difference between intersubjective truth and objective truth in this context. (_"Is really true for itself what looks like to be true for us?"_) and the other main reason is what we are able to say at all. For example in a question like this: _"Was god existing or not existing when he created existence?"_



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But they simply do not accept belief in them.



To say so is only nonsense. Who believes not in unicorns believes not in unicorns. I believe in unicorns and you will not be able to understand what I think about in this context because I will not tell you.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Try to keep that in mind, the next time you try your dusty old parlor trick.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> You mean like religion has survived for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across all cultures?   A preponderance of evidence like that?



Not only this: Religion created all cultures and civilisations. The hypothese human beings "evolved" and became farmers so they got a lot of free time to makes gods "just for fun" is a wrong hypothese. Not civilization bore religion - religion bore civilization. It were hunter and gatherers who made the first buildings (temples or churches) in Göbekli Tepe. We are able to imagine agriculture was made because more and more people liked to live in the near of such temples.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> When you started with "as far as I know" ,
> I stopped there.  I know what you don't know.



ooooox

"o": time without [nearly any] multi-cellular life on our planet
"x": time with [growing wide spread] multi-cellular life on our planet

Here again what I wrote:

_As far as I know not any multi-cellular organism was existing a billion years ago. But something was existing what leaded to this what we are now. So we were existing for sure as a concrete possibility of the future of our universe a billion years ago. Now we know which possibility became real - but we don't know anything about any other possibility which not became real. History knows not experiments - what on the other side also means* the methods of natural science are not fully compatible with history*._


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is the science section. Your magical incantations have no use here.



I have not any idea why you decided to be intentionally an extremist idiot and to call this "science". Bye bye, Sir idiot.

(bye = "god be with you")


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

abu afak 

Are you sure you know what "funny" means?


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 15, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> ooooox
> 
> "o": time without [nearly any] multi-cellular life on our planet
> "x": time with [growing wide spread] multi-cellular life on our planet
> ...



You keep repeating that. 
Knock yourself out son.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe it is dying out. humans have not been around for very long. Keep that in mind.
> 
> So when do you expect humans to stop hallucinating and having false memories? Are these artifacts also going to be extinguished, or can they persist in perpetuity?


Your attacks against religion and people of faith says otherwise.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> Are you saying you believe there is a god?


I'm saying that when it comes to the universe I am painfully, hopelessly ignorant, so I do my best to stay truly neutral in conversations like this. I used to call myself an atheist. I can't speak for others, but for me, atheism and my desire to argue on behalf of it came from a place of anger and resentment. I didn't like that so I changed the way I look at the world.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> When you started with "as far as I know" ,
> I stopped there. I know what you don't know.


Bw.. bw.. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

You don't even know how to separate your replies nor how to work this forum.  This is before we get to what you wish to state.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Surely these people already know there are Different religions.
> In fact, at least 75% are wrong IF one is right.
> This must have occurred to anyone with a 95 IQ or better.


I don't understand how a person can be sure of their particular god in light of what you just said. Their faith can be quite powerful and difficult to grapple with. It's pretty annoying sometimes as I'm sure you're aware.


abu afak said:


> Surely they've gotten over the Tooth fairy nonsense and grown out of the idea there is a Santa Claus who comes by on Haysoos' birthday.


Yeah. None of that was central to the order of their universe though. We're talking about a whole different ball game here.


abu afak said:


> That's just it.
> There is no major religion without Major Indoctrination.


Very likely to be true.


abu afak said:


> No desert Island tribes are going to he getting Visions of a fair-haired anglo JC and the Bible.


Lol. You're funny when you get on a roll.


abu afak said:


> Some people may be 'hurt' by learning many facts, doesn't mean it's not good to inform of them.


You're right. It doesn't mean it wouldn't ultimately be a good thing. It very well may be in the end. I just wanted to see if atheists would be willing to acknowledge and take responsibility for what it might mean in the short-term if you could actually win these debates and get through to these people. You'd be ruining the lives of individuals. What do you think would happen to james bond's universe if you convinced him his god isn't real?


abu afak said:


> NOT that anyone can prove a negative.


Fair enough.


abu afak said:


> I am an atheist but still culturally somewhat Jewish.


You likely have a more sophisticated mind than your average faither.


abu afak said:


> They can hold on to that as many already do.. UN"hurt."


Maybe many will, and particularly after a few more generations water down religious extremism. I think many of the heavy believers today would be completely fucked if you could get through to them, though. That's why they'll never let you get through.


----------



## zaangalewa (Oct 15, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> You keep repeating that.
> Knock yourself out son.



Interesting schnapsshot from your try to stay forever in wrongness under all circumstances.



PS: The correct solution seems by the way not to be "ooooox" - it seems to be "ooooooooooooo|ooxx". ( "|" = ~1 billion years). The very most time of the "life" (=duration) of our planet existed not [or nearly not] any multi-cellular life. Asides from science is "multi-cellular life" this what we call normally just simple "life". And this means under very best conditions our planet had not been able to create a biology which had been able to produce a species which is able to use an abstract language and mathematics - what we call somehow an "intelligent species" - although human beings are often the worst idiots so even animals are sometimes more human than human beings on their own. And how many other species on our planet made this step after about 4.5 billion years of existence (or evolution) of life on our planet?


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 15, 2021)

in fact, natural selection and evolution are not related concepts. Evolution is a trend towards complication, and selection is rejection of those who are not adapted to the current ecology.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> I think many of the heavy believers today would be completely fucked if you could get through to them, though.


But why do you think this? The choice to leave behind their faith and outgrow it would still be THEIR choice. When i hear and see people talk about this in their own lives, i don't see them desperate and failing and distraught. I see happy people who seem relieved and feel they made the right choice.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> What do you think would happen to james bond's universe if you convinced him his god isn't real?


Another Bw... bw... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  I can't change my position.  The Bible and its prophecies cannot change since God wrote his auto-biography.  OTOH, atheism and their atheist science can change as much as they want.  Thus, I AM POSITIVE THAT I AM RIGHT ABOUT CREATION and the atheists, atheist scientists, and sinners believe in THE fairy tale.

Life is short.  The absolute proof is in one's death.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> in fact, natural selection and evolution are not related concepts. Evolution is a trend towards complication, and selection is rejection of those who are not adapted to the current ecology.


Well that made no sense on any level.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> Your attacks against religion and people of faith says otherwise.


Maybe you are confused again. Maybe re-read the questions you quoted.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that made no sense on any level.


What didn't make sense?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> What didn't make sense?


Well, either you cant understand or you are saying really dumb shit for attention (as Frannies do). Either way, explanation would be a waste of time.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 15, 2021)

The theory of evolution still has a biological meaning, because development proceeded mainly from the simple to the complex, this is a fact. It just wasn't a linear process. From a survival point of view, complexity does not always win, but there was general  complication in the nature, and this is a big step forward, and it also gave impetus to the teachings of heredity.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe you are confused again. Maybe re-read the questions you quoted.


Nope. No confusion here.  It is YOUR opposition which proves you view religion as a threat that isn't dying out.  

It is cyclical for a reason.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 15, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> What didn't make sense?


Your complete misunderstanding of evolution.
Life has tended towards complication/building on existing but always mutating life, and the mutations are helpful are better adapted survive better.
They are absolutely related.
Without constant mutation there would be no evolution or adaptation. When species don't mutate/adapt fast enough to changing conditions they go extinct.

More..
Humans have one Less chromosome than Apes because two proto-ape Chromosomes merged/fused at some point. Thus our 23 pairs vs their 24.

See my:





						Human(s) Chromosome 2 resulted from the Fusion of two Ape Chromosomes: Easily seen.
					

Contrary to what you might read from some IDIOT KWEATIOIST Website... (Like ICR/Institute for Creation Research recently posted here.) this is a SIMPLE one and a BIGGIE. Easy to understand/SEE. We have 23 pairs of Chromos, ALL GREAT Apes 24. Their 2 a/b fused into our #2 as can be easily seen...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





`


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 15, 2021)

In general, the science of the 19th century was a series of amazing breakthroughs, this 20th century became a scientific swamp with Newtonianism and the word of God, a rollback into medieval obscurantism


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Your complete misunderstanding of evolution.
> Life has tended towards complication/building on existing but always mutating life, and the mutations are helpful are better adapted survive better.
> They are absolutely related.
> Without constant mutation there would be no evolution or adaptation. When species don't mutate/adapt fast enough to changing conditions they go extinct.


and what is my "misunderstanding"? Did I argue with that? But adaptability and complexity are not directly related. The opposite is often the case. For example, slavery gave impetus to the survival of farmers. Just like the reduction of the ant gave life to the anthill.

In short, there is an opposite trend: *the simplification of the individual leads to the development of society.*


----------



## abu afak (Oct 15, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> and what is my "misunderstanding"? Did I argue with that? But adaptability and complexity are not directly related. The opposite is often the case. For example, slavery gave impetus to the survival of farmers. Just like the reduction of the ant gave life to the anthill.
> 
> In short, there is an opposite trend: *the simplification of the individual leads to the development of society.*


What!
1. You were wrong an got schooled.
2. Survival of farmers is a socio-economic result not a physical evolutionary one.
(You are one confused clown)
2a. Evolutionarily.. Slavery DID result in a very physically fit sub-race of blacks between the minority who survived the journey and were able to do the work, as well as some related Selective breeding of them which is not evolution.

3. You have an IQ and edu problem.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> Nope. No confusion here.  It is YOUR opposition which proves you view religion as a threat that isn't dying out.
> 
> It is cyclical for a reason.


Nobody cares about your opinion of me. I promise. 

So, back to my questions.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But why do you think this? The choice to leave behind their faith and outgrow it would still be THEIR choice. When i hear and see people talk about this in their own lives, i don't see them desperate and failing and distraught. I see happy people who seem relieved and feel they made the right choice.


People are different, and not everybody processes these things or heals or grows the same way. I don't know why it is. Maybe some people are just weak.


----------



## Anomalism (Oct 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> I can't change my position.


Yeah, I believe you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

Anomalism said:


> People are different, and not everybody processes these things or heals or grows the same way.


Well if they choose to modify their beliefs, it is their choice. Presenting factual information to them is not a microaggression. These are their problems to work through.


----------



## rupol2000 (Oct 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> What!
> 1. You were wrong an got schooled.
> 2. Survival of farmers is a socio-economic result not a physical evolutionary one.
> (You are one confused clown)
> ...


They were not black lol But I will not discuss this with you just for the reason Iq


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nobody cares about your opinion of me.


Finally, you got something right.  You are a believer of fairy tales.  Maybe the tale changes from ape-humans to dinosaurs-to-birds-to-humans.  One of the evidence would be humans of bird brain.  I would have to agree with that  .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> Finally, you got something right.  You are a believer of fairy tales.  Maybe the tale changes from ape-humans to dinosaurs-to-birds-to-humans.  One of the evidence would be humans of bird brain.  I would have to agree with that  .


Haha, look at you, begging for my attention. Baby Jesus is embarrassed.of you right now.


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Haha, look at you, begging for my attention. Baby Jesus is embarrassed.of you right now.


I was right about you not knowing anything about the TRUTH.  Jesus is not a baby anymore by a long shot and he has what is now a glorious history.  Unfortunately, Lucy nor her ancestors were able to write anything about their history.  It is further evidence that evolution is a lie lol.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 15, 2021)

james bond said:


> I was right about you not knowing anything about the TRUTH.  *Jesus is not a baby anymore by a long shot and he has what is now a glorious history. * Unfortunately, Lucy nor her ancestors were able to write anything about their history.  It is further evidence that evolution is a lie lol.


"Jesus" has NOTHING to do with this section
Move to religion you OCD FREAK.
Goddammit this place needs a moderator.

`


----------



## james bond (Oct 15, 2021)

abu afak said:


> "Jesus" has NOTHING to do with this section
> Move to religion you OCD FREAK.
> Goddammit this place needs a moderator.
> 
> `


Jesus was a human and he discussed science during his lifetime you fooley fool.  Our side does not have ape-human Lucy who somehow found a mate and was able to reproduce.  Maybe the foolish monkey-humans lived in caves.  Isn't that what we get from the Flintstones and cave people?  This is your chance to explain your history.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 15, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> in fact, natural selection and evolution are not related concepts. Evolution is a trend towards complication, and selection is rejection of those who are not adapted to the current ecology.


Absolute rubbish.  
Evolution is a fact and can be proved by DNA repeatedly. Why do you bother posting bullshit when you know it's fact.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nobody cares about your opinion of me. I promise.
> 
> So, back to my questions.


I agree.  It's you opposition which shows YOU don't believe religion is dying out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> I agree.  It's you opposition which shows YOU don't believe religion is dying out.


Oh look, yet another steaming pile of dimestore psychology that nobody cares about. Ding, when you are done soothing yourself, rejoin the discussion.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

I won the discussion pages ago, Fort Fun Indiana .  I'm just rubbing your nose in now.  

1. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.
2. More successful models propagate.
3. So since religion HAS existed for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society, according to Darwin its continued existence was for a logical reason and that logical reason is that religion offers a functional advantage that atheism does not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> I won the discussion pages ago.


If declarations of victory were actual victories, every religious nutter on this board that pollutes the science section would be an 11 star general by now.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Victory lap....

1. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.

2. More successful models propagate.

3. So since religion HAS existed for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society, according to Darwin its continued existence was for a logical reason and that logical reason is that religion offers a functional advantage that atheism does not.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> I won the discussion pages ago, Fort Fun Indiana .  I'm just rubbing your nose in now.
> 
> 1. Natural selection has two components; functional advantage and transfer of functional advantage to the next generation.
> 2. More successful models propagate.
> 3. So since religion HAS existed for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society, according to Darwin its continued existence was for a logical reason and that logical reason is that religion offers a functional advantage that atheism does not.


Even if that were all accurate (it isn't), we have learned a lot about evolution since Darwin bought it. One thing we have learned is that traits that are now useless can persist for quite a while. 

While it may be true that believing magical nonsense was once an advantage for those who displayed that trait (note that doesnt mean necessary or advantageous for the entire species, just that they enjoyed an advantage over the individuals who did not possess the trait), it may also be true that this trait is now useless or a disadvantage.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> *3. So since religion HAS existed for thousands of years in overwhelming numbers across every single society, according to Darwin its continued existence was for a logical reason and that logical reason is that religion offers a functional advantage that atheism does not.*


3. *You're confusing Remnants of primitiveness with advantages of evolution.
Not every stupid human remnant (ie, the related Superstition, or Hallucinogenic drug use) means it's an evolutionary advantage.

In the most advanced countries Religion is fading, and even vanishing, while it does well in the most backwards.*

Love your argument for ie, Voodoo, Santeria, and hallucinogens as necessarily evolutionary advantaged.
Aztecs love sacrificing each other as did many other now gone/FAILED religions and Failed peoples.

BTW, you're a stupid Last-Wording ***hole whose every opinion is wrong and I can Gut.


*EDIT:
And please note DingDing did NOT quote me or address my refutation of is ILLogical POS despite making consecutive TROLLING Last-word posts below. 
His usual trying barrage/frequency instead of the IQ he lacks.
He Lost again.*


`


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Thousands of years of continued existence, in overwhelming numbers, across every single society...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> Thousands of years of continued existence, in overwhelming numbers, across every single society...
> 
> View attachment 552270


But enough about hallucinations and false memories. And mental illness. And delusion.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Your browser is not able to display this video.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

Once again circling back to *survivorship bias:*

The reason we have the few major religions of today is because their followers were very adept at both killing off the competition and at indoctrinating entire societies. Functional advantage? Maybe. It would seem to me the functional advantage here came from power, not any quality or characteristic of the religions at issue. . 

Had history gone differently (say, the Huns were more successful), we might have very little religion today, or Paganism might dominate the globe.


----------



## ding (Oct 15, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Once again circling back to *survivorship bias:*
> 
> The reason we have the few major religions of today is because their followers were very adept at both killing off the competition and at indoctrinating entire societies. Functional advantage? Maybe. It would seem to me the functional advantage here came from power, not any quality or characteristic of the religions at issue. .
> 
> Had history gone differently (say, the Huns were more successful), we might have very little religion today, or Paganism might dominate the globe.


Actually Darwin would have said the diversification of religion is quite natural and is exactly what one would expect in nature.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

ding said:


> Actually Darwin would have said the diversification of religion is quite natural and is exactly what one would expect in nature.


Then why didn't he? Darwin had a mouth. And he knew how to write.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 15, 2021)

So, another artifact of our consciousness is hallucination/false memory, both of which rely heavily on our introspective self awareness and language ability, and which can happen to anyone. They are normal human behaviors. We have to account for them when, for example, interviewing witnesses in an armed robbery. 

Do these provide functional advantage? Both have been with us for a long time, maybe since before religion. 

It's a tough question to answer. We can probably hypothesize situations where they may provide an advantage. 

Same for religion. Even Darwin hypothesized that it may have been an advantage for tribes. Something to strengthen the social bond. But one could surely think of other things that could provide the same function. Like Bowling league. But they didn't have bowling leagues then. 

Bowling league participation continues to grow in this country. Religious participation continues to wane. Evolution at work?


----------



## ding (Oct 16, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then why didn't he? Darwin had a mouth. And he knew how to write.


How do you know he didn't?

Konrad Lorenz considered Darwin to be a forerunner of behavioral biology. The reason was to be found in _The Descent of Man_ and chapter VIII of _The Origin of Species_, where Darwin provides an explanation of behavior through selection, stating that the same mechanisms explaining morphological changes also account for gradual improvements in instincts. He assessed the accuracy of his evolutionary theory by directly studying animal behavior, hence laying the foundations of behavioral research for the next century.









						Darwin as a student of behavior
					

In The Expression of the Emotions, Charles Darwin documents evolutionary continuity between animals and humans, emphasizing the universality of expres…




					www.sciencedirect.com


----------



## ding (Oct 16, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Religious participation continues to wane. Evolution at work?


Not worldwide.  And even those that leave religion do not abandon their spirituality.  Lastly, as mankind has gained more and more knowledge of his natural surroundings his desire for spirituality has not diminished. In fact, the more materialistic we became the less satisfied we became.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 16, 2021)

ding said:


> How do you know he didn't?


How do you know he didn't believe in unicorns and leprechauns? 

He may have believed in both. I don't care.

Just own your own thoughts without always attempting the specious garbage of pretending they come from some authority. Try that for us.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 16, 2021)

ding said:


> Not worldwide.


Right, just in developed countries. Pretty safe to say it will be worldwide, as the less developed countries become more modern. Their citizens more educated. Which would seem, itself, to be a comment on the intellectualism and primitive nature of religious belief. And its necessity.


----------



## Hollie (Oct 16, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Once again circling back to *survivorship bias:*
> 
> The reason we have the few major religions of today is because their followers were very adept at both killing off the competition and at indoctrinating entire societies. Functional advantage? Maybe. It would seem to me the functional advantage here came from power, not any quality or characteristic of the religions at issue. .
> 
> Had history gone differently (say, the Huns were more successful), we might have very little religion today, or Paganism might dominate the globe.


Very true. We also know that gods were invented by mankind to explain the  workings of nature. Sun gods, Moon gods, gods of lightning and thunder, etc., etc.

It’s interesting, but not surprising, that there have been no new “world” religions invented since Islam co-opted both Judaism and Christianity. Especially as Europe emerged from the Dark Ages and threw off fears and superstitions imposed by the religious authorities, there was simply no need for new religions and new gods to explain a natural world being discovered by scientific inquiry.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 16, 2021)

Hollie said:


> Very true. We also know that gods were invented by mankind to explain the  workings of nature. Sun gods, Moon gods, gods of lightning and thunder, etc., etc.
> 
> It’s interesting, but not surprising, that there have been no new “world” religions invented since Islam co-opted both Judaism and Christianity. Especially as Europe emerged from the Dark Ages and threw off fears and superstitions imposed by the religious authorities, there was simply no need for new religions and new gods to explain a natural world being discovered by scientific inquiry.


And also not surprising that, even still today, we gain and disperse scientific knowledge quite in spite of and in the face of opposition from religion. It was only a few years ago that the Vatican was saying condoms are worse than AIDS.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How do you know he didn't believe in unicorns and leprechauns?
> 
> He may have believed in both. I don't care.
> 
> Just own your own thoughts without always attempting the specious garbage of pretending they come from some authority. Try that for us.


But you would care if Darwin believed that religion offered a functional advantage that atheism didn't.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, just in developed countries. Pretty safe to say it will be worldwide, as the less developed countries become more modern. Their citizens more educated. Which would seem, itself, to be a comment on the intellectualism and primitive nature of religious belief. And its necessity.











						Protestant Christianity is booming in China
					

President Xi does not approve




					www.economist.com


----------



## Erinwltr (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation
> 
> This revelation was natural selection. Evolution appeared, to Darwin, to be a fact that explained the existence of every organism on the planet. And a  mechanism to explain this fact was proposed by Darwin: natural selection. But how did Darwin puzzle this out?
> 
> ...


I dig you.  Can you please put that in a single sentence or post a video?  I'm hung over this morning.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

ding said:


> But you would care if Darwin believed that religion offered a functional advantage that atheism didn't.


I think he very well might have thought that. He even hypothesized about its advantages for tribes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Protestant Christianity is booming in China
> 
> 
> President Xi does not approve
> ...


Ah yes, the 4th largest religion in China, at just over 2% of religious people.

And also, "China has the world's greatest irreligious population", at about 77% and growing. Irreligion in China - Wikipedia

 Which was my point. Which you thought you could sidestep with a half truth.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ah yes, the 4th largest religion in China, at just over 2% of religious people.
> 
> And also, "China has the world's greatest irreligious population", at about 77% and growing. Irreligion in China - Wikipedia
> 
> Which was my point. Which you thought you could sidestep with a half truth.


The only one sidestepping the truth is you, bro.  You want religion to perish, but it's not going anywhere.  That you are proud of a communist atheistic government shows exactly how far you have fallen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

ding said:


> The only one sidestepping the truth is you, bro.


Funny, i am the one that just had to correct the false impression you tried to give with your half truth. Bro.


ding said:


> You want religion to perish, but it's not going anywhere


I have no fantasies that religion will disappear completely, in a species that is basically hardwired to believe utter nonsense. But i would like to see its effects on the world diminish. I can literally sit and do nothing, and that will happen.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Funny, i am the one that just had to correct the false impression you tried to give with your half truth. Bro.
> 
> I have no fantasies that religion will disappear completely, in a species that is basically hardwired to believe utter nonsense. But i would like to see its effects on the world diminish. I can literally sit and do nothing, and that will happen.


Is a growing religion in an atheistic country a half truth


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Is a growing religion in an atheistic country a half truth


Oh boy. Ding, go waste someone else's time.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oh boy. Ding, go waste someone else's time.


Best of luck navigating the storms of life without God in your life.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Best of luck navigating the storms of life without God in your life.


Don't need luck or god. Childish ideas for children.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Don't need luck or god. Childish ideas for children.


Ahhh, vanity. It’s Satan’s favorite sin.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

ding said:


> Ahhh, vanity. It’s Satan’s favorite sin.


Hahahah

And the Tooth Fairy's. Grow up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 17, 2021)

Okay, now that our daily episode of "Religious Guy Tries to Suck All the Oxygen Out of the Science Thread" has completed...

Circling back to Natural Selection:

One form of natural selection is sexual selection. Sexual selection can produce seemingly absurd traits that would appear to be a disadvantage to the survival of the individuals possessing them.

But our genes do not give a shit about us, really. They only care about themselves.

While sexually selected traits may make an individual less likely to live as long as another without the trait, they make the individual more likely to pass on its genetic code.

This second, brilliant revelation of Darwin helped explain may things environmental selection could not.

Natural selection is brilliant. Realizing also that the "selector" could be the mate (instead of the environment) was the rug that really tied the room together.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hahahah
> 
> And the Tooth Fairy's. Grow up.


Ahem. Functional advantages.


----------



## ding (Oct 17, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Okay, now that our daily episode of "Religious Guy Tries to Suck All the Oxygen Out of the Science Thread" has completed...
> 
> Circling back to Natural Selection:
> 
> ...


I am discussing natural selection.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 20, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think the magic of being human is that our societies evolve.


Yes. Worth repeating. 

We have an acute sense of 'self' and of 'other'. We commune for common good and protect the weak. And we have gotten better at this over time. No doubt about it. Our advancement of knowledge is not subject to the sluggish timelines of previous evolutionary mechanisms. This evolution of our socities is hapoening at warp speed, compared to evolution.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 20, 2021)

One thing about what Darwin talked about is that few really understand it.

Evolution is still going on today.  We can see it all around us, but few recognize it.

during the time of President Lincoln, he "towered' over others.  Yet, he was only 6'4".  The same was said of President Washington, and he was only 6'2".  Look in any museum of "Medieval Armor", and it would fit a modern day 15 year old.

We have gotten significantly larger with each generation.  And as advances allow more to reach maturity, they are passing their genes on to more following generations than ever before.  Hence, things like myopia are becoming more common through the generations.
'
Evolution is really a crap shoot.  A great many mutations pop up all the time.  Some are advantageous and survive.  Some are not, and fade out again (or are lessened in later generations).  But in reality, it is little more than random chance, and that some survive and add to the next generation, and some do not.

And sometimes, it is actually advantageous to become smaller.  But even that is not always a solution.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But our genes do not give a shit about us, really. They only care about themselves





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes. Worth repeating.
> 
> We have an acute sense of 'self' and of 'other'. We commune for common good and protect the weak. And we have gotten better at this over time. No doubt about it. Our advancement of knowledge is not subject to the sluggish timelines of previous evolutionary mechanisms. This evolution of our socities is hapoening at warp speed, compared to evolution.


In short, our genes keep us alive long enough to reproduce and protect our offspring. Society keeps us alive long after that.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> In short, our genes keep us alive long enough to reproduce and protect our offspring. Society keeps us alive long after that.
> 
> .


Yes, well said.


----------



## alang1216 (Oct 21, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes. Worth repeating.
> 
> We have an acute sense of 'self' and of 'other'. We commune for common good and protect the weak. And we have gotten better at this over time. No doubt about it. Our advancement of knowledge is not subject to the sluggish timelines of previous evolutionary mechanisms. This evolution of our socities is hapoening at warp speed, compared to evolution.


I think as our technology has improved our sense of 'us' has also grown.  200 years ago I would have considered myself a Virginian, now I am an American.  Much as many despise globalism, my grandchildren will likely consider themselves Earthlings.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Oct 21, 2021)

alang1216 said:


> I think as our technology has improved our sense of 'us' has also grown.  200 years ago I would have considered myself a Virginian, now I am an American.  Much as many despise globalism, my grandchildren will likely consider themselves Earthlings.


Fascinating point.


----------



## Wuwei (Oct 22, 2021)

Evolution in action:
_WASHINGTON — A hefty set of tusks is usually an advantage for elephants, allowing them to dig for water, strip bark for food and joust with other elephants. But during episodes of intense ivory poaching, those big incisors become a liability._​​_Now researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks._​








						Elephants have evolved to be tuskless because of ivory poaching, a study finds
					

Researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks.




					www.npr.org
				



.


----------



## Erinwltr (Oct 29, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I think he very well might have thought that. He even hypothesized about its advantages for tribes.


Just perusing some replys, here and there.  That's some good shit right there, IN.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> His idea that agnosticism leads to atheism is one of the most stupid ideas I heard in my life.


Hmm, seems spot on.


----------



## james bond (Nov 5, 2021)

Wuwei said:


> Evolution in action:
> _WASHINGTON — A hefty set of tusks is usually an advantage for elephants, allowing them to dig for water, strip bark for food and joust with other elephants. But during episodes of intense ivory poaching, those big incisors become a liability._​​_Now researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks._​
> 
> 
> ...


It natural selection created by you know who.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 5, 2021)

abu afak said:


> Your complete misunderstanding of evolution.
> Life has tended towards complication/building on existing but always mutating life, and the mutations are helpful are better adapted survive better.
> They are absolutely related.
> Without constant mutation there would be no evolution or adaptation. When species don't mutate/adapt fast enough to changing conditions they go extinct.



In Sollnhofen we found many fossils. A famous one was the first Archaeopterix for example. Very rare fossil. Masses of others got the funny German name "Pfeilschwanzkrebse" - only a German may speak out such a word. The English name is horseshoe crabs. Sounds also funny -  and what can I say: They still exist. Crocodiles for example are also about 300 million years old. 400 million years not-evolution of horseshoe crabs are about 80% of the time since standard multicellular lifeforms exist at all.

My question now: What made they wrong? Did they not evolve so they were so stupid not to die out - while they were on the other side intelligent enough to survive the evolution of all others?

-----

PS: And a more interesting question: If they will die out now during our days of evolution and we would be the reason for: Who would make something wrong in this game of the thoughts? We - or the horseshoe crabs, who made since 400 million years nothing wrong in sense of evolution?


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 5, 2021)

ding said:


> How do you know he didn't?
> 
> Konrad Lorenz considered Darwin to be a forerunner of behavioral biology. The reason was to be found in _The Descent of Man_ and chapter VIII of _The Origin of Species_, where Darwin provides an explanation of behavior through selection, stating that the same mechanisms explaining morphological changes also account for gradual improvements in instincts. He assessed the accuracy of his evolutionary theory by directly studying animal behavior, hence laying the foundations of behavioral research for the next century.
> 
> ...



Konrad Lorenz had a terrible problem: his wonderful language. Once I read a book from him and I read and read and read and read and read and read and read and ... made an emergency break, because I suddenly understood that I did not understand what I read during the last 60 pages - although I agreed with everything what he said and felt very comfortable. But what had been my incomfortableness now? Very easy: What are genes doing? They produce proteins! So how for heavens sake are proteins able to be a cause for an instinctive behavior which is able to be a model for an evolutionary tree? ... I'm not sure wether anyone since the days of Konrad Lorenz ever really did understand what's happening there in a body. If someone eats a chicken ... will this one become chicken like? For sure not!

In context of this I made a philosophical ... "experiment" ... by thinking our brain is not an organ which thinks on the own but is 'only' a (biological) communicator with something what thinks. And indeed I was not able to see any difference between this two different realities. They (re-)act in the same way - what somehow also could explain what we are doing when we communicate with others: we let them think for us. With this hypothese it's much more easy to understand how proteins could build a communicator (also with themselves) and this could perhaps produce a concrete behavior.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 5, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And also not surprising that, even still today, we gain and disperse scientific knowledge quite in spite of and in the face of opposition from religion. It was only a few years ago that the Vatican was saying condoms are worse than AIDS.



If you like to get a baby: use a condom. It fails in 14%. Experienced partners are able to reduce this to 3%.

But if you like to get aids then do analsex with normal condoms. Then you have nearly no chance to avoid to get aids. But if you like to be more sure to get aids then do the same with changing partners and as many chance acquaitances as possible.

I wait by the way still today that for example Kenia will buy for a billion dollars condoms every year and give it to everyone for free. But from white Catholics everyone seems to expect to give black Catholics condoms for free. Strange, isn't it?

Here in Germany for example about 2-3 condoms per year and inhabitant are sold. Not very much isn't it? So why has not every German aids?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 5, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> If you like to get a baby: use a condom. It fails in 14%. Experienced partners are able to reduce this to 3%.
> 
> But if you like to get aids then do analsex with normal condoms. Then you have nearly no chance to avoid to get aids. But if you like to be more sure to get aids then do the same with changing partners and as many chance acquaitances as possible.
> 
> ...


You tell me.


----------



## abu afak (Nov 5, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> My question now: What made they wrong? Did they not evolve so they were so stupid not to die out - while they were on the other side intelligent enough to survive the evolution of all others?
> 
> PS: And a more interesting question: If they will die out now during our days of evolution and we would be the reason for: Who would make something wrong in this game of the thoughts? We - or the horseshoe crabs, who made since 400 million years nothing wrong in sense of evolution?


The original basic creature bony 'shell' was good for all comers since, obviously
Some traits may have indeed evolved despite similar/same appearance.
ie, perhaps they now produce twice the eggs/offspring, and their shells a bit thicker, etc.
But no obvious trait needed to change to suit the environment.

And of course they have evolved/adapted and have 4 Different species, not one. That is not only subspecies, but greater species among them.
Wiki:
Taxonomy​Horseshoe crabs resemble crustaceans but belong to a separate subphylum of the arthropods, Chelicerata.[7] Horseshoe crabs are closely related to the extinct eurypterids (sea scorpions), which include some of the largest arthropods to have ever existed, and the two may be sister groups.[7][8] Other studies have placed eurypterids closer to the arachnids in a group called Merostomata.[9] The enigmatic Chasmataspidids are also thought to be closely related to the horseshoe crabs.[10] The earliest horseshoe crab fossils are found in strata from the Lower Ordovician period, roughly 480 million years ago.[5]​​*The Limulidae are the only Recent family of the order Xiphosura, and contains all Four living species of Horseshoe crabs:*[1][2]​​
_Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda_, the mangrove horseshoe crab, found in South and Southeast Asia
_Limulus polyphemus_, the Atlantic or American horseshoe crab, found along the Atlantic coast of the United States and the Southeast Gulf of Mexico
_Tachypleus gigas_, the Indo-Pacific, Indonesian, Indian or southern horseshoe crab, found in South and Southeast Asia
_Tachypleus tridentatus_, the Chinese, Japanese or tri-spine horseshoe crab, found in Southeast and East Asia


That covers all your questions which could have been answered by googling IF you were truly curious.

`


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 5, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You tell me.


?


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 5, 2021)

abu afak said:


> The original basic creature bony 'shell' was good for all comers since, obviously
> Some traits may have indeed evolved despite similar/same appearance.
> ie, perhaps they now produce twice the eggs/offspring, and their shells a bit thicker, etc.
> But no obvious trait needed to change to suit the environment.
> ...



?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 5, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> ?


Your question. Answer it. Last sentence of your post.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your question. Answer it. Last sentence of your post.



You like to get an answer on a rhethorical question? ... What is in your head ? A gun?


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

abu afak 

Your concept of evolution seems to be wrong. Evolution has no plans - is not "teleological". Specially your idea 


> When species don't mutate/adapt fast enough to changing conditions they go extinct.


is very problematic beause millions of mutations are bad and only in very very few cases a mutation in the genotype is able to create a positive effect for the phenotype. So you should perhaps really try to find a good answer.


----------



## abu afak (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> abu afak
> 
> *Your concept of evolution seems to be wrong. Evolution has no plans - is not "teleological". Specially your idea*
> 
> is very problematic beause millions of mutations are bad and only in very very few cases a mutation in the genotype is able to create a positive effect for the phenotype. So you should perhaps really try to find a good answer.


What?
You have a language problem and a logic problem.
I never said it has a "plan".
Evo is hit and miss Mutation/errors with only the better ones left remaining to survive.
Said it 100 times.
I understand it completely while you are a know-nothing freak.
I explained why The Horseshoe survives and that it has split into FOUR Different species by the grace of separated populations.
The way almost all speciation starts.
First with small mutations/subspecies, gradually building wider as the populations spend thousands/millions of years separated, and mutating with the best better fitted to the knew area/geography having moved further away to fit it best.


you are an idiot, a mental defective, and you don't speak english well either
You are non-conversant for that and the reason you do not understand Evo 1% as well as I..
Bye.

`


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> You like to get an answer on a rhethorical question? ... What is in your head ? A gun?


It was not rhetorical. You asked why Germans has less incidence of AIDS. Now answer your own question and stop wasting everyone's time.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

abu afak said:


> What?
> You have a language problem and a logic problem.
> I never said it has a "plan".
> Evo is hit and miss Mutation/errors with only the better ones left remaining to survive.
> ...


no comment


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It was not rhetorical. You asked why Germans has less incidence of AIDS.



I "asked" why nearly no use of condoms plays not any role for the spreading of aids in Germany. And I ask myselve why racists try to tell 'white' Catholics in Europe what they have to tell 'black' Catholics in Africa - although Catholics just simple speak from Catholic to Catholic.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Now answer your own question and stop wasting everyone's time.



no comment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> I "asked" why nearly no use of condoms plays not any role for the spreading of aids in Germany.


And I told you to answer your own question. Stop being a sissy. You tell us.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And I told you to answer your own question. Stop being a sissy. You tell us.


no comment


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> no comment


Of course not. Typical cowardly move by you, as always. Pinch off a steaming turd and then run from it.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Of course not. Typical cowardly move by you, as always. Pinch off a steaming turd and then run from it.


What about if you would first visit a kindergarten before you try to speak with other human beings and to survive this?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> What about if you would first visit a kindergarten before you try to speak with other human beings and to survive this?


How about you discard your transparent, weak attempts to avoid answering your own question? Answer the question. Or shut the fuck up. No offense.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How about you discard your transparent, weak attempts to avoid answering your own question? Answer the question. Or shut the fuck up. No offense.



Let it be to use drugs. It's totally clear what I said in the context "aids" and "condoms". It's not clear what you think about when you say it is "better" if someone or something survives  - except the survival on its own. The natural law evolution has not any direction from "bad" to "better". Also degeneration is evolution.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> It's totally clear what I said.


Right. It was a sentence ending in a question mark.

Answer it,..

I know why you won't answer. And you know I know why.


----------



## james bond (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You tell me.


If evolution was true, then we wouldn't have gay babies or gays.  But Konrad Lorenz.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right. It was a sentence ending in a question mark.



Rhethoriucal queisons use a qursions mark instead of an exclamation mark. Believe it or not: the world is a spiritual world and not a formal world.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Answer it,..
> 
> I know why you won't answer. And you know I know why.



Drugs. It's impossible to explain such a weird behavior with anything else than the use of alcohol or drugs. By the way: Why survives alcoholism? And what means the word "better" in this form of survival?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 6, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Rhethoriucal queisons use a qursions mark instead of an exclamation mark. Believe it or not: the world is a spiritual world and not a formal world.
> 
> 
> 
> Drugs. It's impossile to explain such a weird behavior with anything else than the use of alcohol or drugs.


Then explain the point of your rhetorical question. Be specific.

You are not going to slither out of this one. You are going to explain it, or you are going to run away and hide. two choices.


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Then explain the point of your rhetorical question. Be specific.



Don't  use drugs. It's totally idiotic what you are doing. It is senseless and without any reasonability.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are not going to slither out of this one. You are going to explain it, or you are going to run away and hide. two choices.



You try to win in a war of nonsense the first price.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 7, 2021)

zaangalewa said:


> Don't  use drugs. It's totally idiotic what you are doing. It is senseless and without any reasonability.
> 
> 
> 
> You try to win in a war of nonsense the first price.


You are running from your own comments. I know why. You know I know why. Moving on...


----------



## zaangalewa (Nov 7, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You are running from your own comments. I know why. You know I know why. Moving on...


no comment


----------



## watchingfromafar (Mar 17, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> .,.,..,.,.,.,. Pinch off a steaming turd and then run from it.


Just because this technique worked for you does not mean it would work for others as well.
-
just kidding


----------



## watchingfromafar (Mar 17, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How about you discard your transparent, weak attempts to avoid answering your own question?


As a bystander I would like to know what the question was.
Please Oh Wise One, tell me the question.
-


----------

