michelle_tabor wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:
michelle_tabor wrote:
(seems a bit dumb to design something that causes cancer IMO)
Obviously evolution doesn't consciously design. Richard Dawkins called it "the blind watchmaker", and I agree. Evolution tends to settle in basins within the evolutionary space, whether that basin is optimal or not. Equilibrium will tend to be favoured over optimality. It can also converge into the same basin from different starting points.
But death makes perfect design sense, whether it is through cancer or some other form of mortality. Evolution doesn't care once an organism passes the point of being able to reproduce enough to at least sustain a population level. Any given ecosytem can only support a population of a particular size, so a quick death after reproduction is preferable for the good of the species as a whole. Similarly, an organism that lives a long time will out grow it's ecosystem and more than likely die out (or oscillate between boom and bust population levels). You can see this in the pyramid nature of food chains, with large populations of base organisms and very few apex predators.
I realise I'm anthropomorphising evolution, but I'm acutely aware that it is more akin to a dimension (perpendicular to entropy) than an entity. It's just easier to talk about as if it were an entity...
I didn't suggest that it was design, I was flippantly pointing out a flaw of the intelligent design arguement because I think it is wrong.
I'm not suggesting you thought that, just clarifying in case someone only read that bit quoted and thought I was an idiot.
No, you didn't suggest that, but I was responding to multiple posts in one fell swoop. However it was 2am, I have to be up at 6:30 and couldn't be bothered messing about with multiple quotes and HTML edits.
Level 3
ProjectVRD wrote:Intelligent Design is basically a belief put forward by Christians, radical Christians at that. I know other religions also have their versions but they are not pushed into the media limelight like the Christian event.
You have been watching too much BBC, the bbc has been pushing an agenda for a while in this regard, filling their science programs with biased theories without giving balanced oposing views and implying anyone who believes the opposite is crazy.
The fact is, its possible to believe in intelligent design and not believe in the bibile and lots of people do.
Einstein believed in a non personal god (something that started everything but not a human with a beard that we pray to but a substance of thought), so did many other people far more intelligent than anyone you see on the TV or can follow on twitter, or anyone on this forum.
Most ridiculed religion and are often quoted as being anti religious which is true, but that does not mean they were against the idea of a god, or the idea of intelligent design, even darwin wouldnt bother arguing with you about a god or intelligent design, just that things evolve and change.
its perfectly acceptable for people to believe in intelligent design.
Its also perfectly fine to believe there is no intelligent design and we are mortal because the mortal being is far superior to an imortal being as it can adapt and survive at a greater pace than the imortal.
As long as there is no answer, its not crazy to believe what you want.
fenian wrote:
Its also perfectly fine to believe there is no intelligent design and we are mortal because the mortal being is far superior to an imortal being as it can adapt and survive at a greater pace than the imortal.
Everyone is entitled to believe what they want.
Adaptability for evolutionary survival occurs over generations, so it doesn't matter if you live 10 minutes or 10 thousand years, your evolutionary adaptability is exactly the same. The species with highest evolutionary adaptibility is the one that has the shortest reproduction cycle, not the lowest or highest mortality rate.
Level 3
People can believe what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. If you want to meet up with a group of people with similar views, not eat certain foods or sit and quietly feel smug at how right you are that's fine.
Don't enforce it on other people, don't use it as an excuse for violence or being an arse to other people who don't fit in with what you believe.
michelle_tabor wrote:
People can believe what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. If you want to meet up with a group of people with similar views, not eat certain foods or sit and quietly feel smug at how right you are that's fine.
But can beliefs themselves negatively affect others? Even disgraceful (IMO) beliefs like racism and the like...?
Surely it's only when those beliefs are acted on that the line is crossed?
And does "acting on" include sharing with others?
Level 3
InfiniteStates wrote:
michelle_tabor wrote:
People can believe what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. If you want to meet up with a group of people with similar views, not eat certain foods or sit and quietly feel smug at how right you are that's fine.
But can beliefs themselves negatively affect others? Even disgraceful (IMO) beliefs like racism and the like...?
Surely it's only when those beliefs are acted on that the line is crossed?
And does "acting on" include sharing with others?
You can argue it any way, sharing a believe such as racism or homophobia with those who are on the fence may incite them to act on it, or sharing it with those who disagree may be is offensive, though tbf it's horrible anyway.
I was only really talking about belief (or not) in god or whatever and that chosing to go to church or sit and read a richard dawkins book is something that taken on it's own does not affect others.
IF by going to church (or synagogue/mosque/wherever) you think that a certain group are bad so you should bully/kill/belittle them/try to change them so they are "right" then it is a negative effect to others.
Equally, if you are an atheist (which incidentially I am) DON'T keep telling your lovely old aunt what an idiot she is by going to church every week.
michelle_tabor wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:
michelle_tabor wrote:
People can believe what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. If you want to meet up with a group of people with similar views, not eat certain foods or sit and quietly feel smug at how right you are that's fine.
But can beliefs themselves negatively affect others? Even disgraceful (IMO) beliefs like racism and the like...?
Surely it's only when those beliefs are acted on that the line is crossed?
And does "acting on" include sharing with others?
You can argue it any way, sharing a believe such as racism or homophobia with those who are on the fence may incite them to act on it, or sharing it with those who disagree
may beis offensive, though tbf it's horrible anyway.
I was only really talking about belief (or not) in god or whatever and that chosing to go to church or sit and read a richard dawkins book is something that taken on it's own does not affect others.
IF by going to church (or synagogue/mosque/wherever) you think that a certain group are bad so you should bully/kill/belittle them/try to change them so they are "right" then it is a negative effect to others.
Equally, if you are an atheist (which incidentially I am) DON'T keep telling your lovely old aunt what an idiot she is by going to church every week.
I'm not arguing it either way. I'm genuinely interested in the answers to the questions I asked. I'm just throwing them out there, not specifically directed at you, or troll baiting, or whatever.
If you share your beliefs with someone else and they act on it, then it is them that has potentially crossed the line, not you I would have thought. While the effects are a result of your actions, are you responsible for the results? Is it analagous to teaching someone to drive then being held accountable if they run someone over?
I guess it's a fine line between sharing and imposing your beliefs. It would be ok to tell your aunt you are not religious, but belittling her for believing differently is imposing, in my opinion.
And who is to judge what is and isn't acceptable as far as beliefs go? For instance racism. I think (hope) that the general consensus is that it is undesirable, but if one race is persecuted by another, can the victim be blamed for holding racist beliefs against their persecutors?
Level 3
InfiniteStates wrote:
michelle_tabor wrote:
InfiniteStates wrote:
michelle_tabor wrote:
People can believe what they want as long as it doesn't negatively affect other people. If you want to meet up with a group of people with similar views, not eat certain foods or sit and quietly feel smug at how right you are that's fine.
But can beliefs themselves negatively affect others? Even disgraceful (IMO) beliefs like racism and the like...?
Surely it's only when those beliefs are acted on that the line is crossed?
And does "acting on" include sharing with others?
You can argue it any way, sharing a believe such as racism or homophobia with those who are on the fence may incite them to act on it, or sharing it with those who disagree
may beis offensive, though tbf it's horrible anyway.
I was only really talking about belief (or not) in god or whatever and that chosing to go to church or sit and read a richard dawkins book is something that taken on it's own does not affect others.
IF by going to church (or synagogue/mosque/wherever) you think that a certain group are bad so you should bully/kill/belittle them/try to change them so they are "right" then it is a negative effect to others.
Equally, if you are an atheist (which incidentially I am) DON'T keep telling your lovely old aunt what an idiot she is by going to church every week.
I'm not arguing it either way. I'm genuinely interested in the answers to the questions I asked. I'm just throwing them out there, not specifically directed at you, or troll baiting, or whatever.
I'm just giving my opinions like you are, I didn't think it was directed at me, baiting or anything. 
Website ©2013 Sony Computer Entertainment Europe
All content, game titles, trade names and/or trade dress, trademarks, artwork and associated imagery are trademarks and/or copyright material of their respective owners. All rights reserved. [more info]
