RFK Jr book - Crimes Against Nature - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 10-31-2004, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

This is pretty much false.

Opie please explain.

Locobot · 10-31-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Didja ever think maybe the earth consented?

lol, you have the audacity to make a statment like this and then try to label people as "bizzare-o nutjobs?" Mr. Kettle I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot.

Quote:

Didja hear about the problem with the parks in California? Seems that in a fit of PC-ness, some people decided that the BSA couldn't use the parks. Unintended consequence? She state of the parks are declining, since the BSA did lots of community service preservation stuff.

BSA=non-gay friendly, but good conservationists.
PETA=Bizzare-o nutjobs.
So which group should we support?

I didn't hear about this "problem" and I won't enter a debate structured around a logical fallacy. This isn't an either-or question. We can choose to support BSA or PETA or both or niether.

on BSA: It's sad that an organization that has done such good things for young men and our country is being hamstrung by political decisions their national leaders. Local Boy Scout troops, thankfully, have little or nothing to do with the national organization which has recently decided to become discriminatory and exclusionary. My Boy Scout troop contained gay scouts (gasp!) and atheists (lordy!) and we got along just fine. Our troop was actually the most active in terms of camping and service in our area, that's why my family chose it. If supporting BSA means supporting discrimination and exclusion of minorities then no, we shouldn't support them. I still hold on to my Eagle badge because of the memories I had of an open-minded troop (and also the certificate was signed by Bill Clinton

).

My on-topic question for you daswig: Didja ever get really angry that you'll never see a full herd of buffalo stampeding over the American prairie? Or that you can't just go hunt a buffalo for your winter's food? Instead we use the prairie to grow grain to feed cattle which we get to buy (literally) piecemeal at Wal-mart. Hurrah for human progress!

host · 10-31-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

with whatever respect is due... that really isn't a response to my post. Also, a very small minority of Christian fundamentalists believe the young earth theory. I guess all I have to offer is my own anecdotal evidence... but I'm surrounded by fundamentalists like you wouldn't believe (seriously, i think i would get a few laughs if i told everyone the full story) and I've yet to meet someone who believes the grand canyon was made in 40 days.

it's so much easier to believe such crazy things about people who view the world differently than you.

My research persuades me that belief in a literal interpretation of genesis is
widespread, as is a belief in "young earth" theory:

Quote:

Beliefs of American adults:

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.

Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:
<a http="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm">http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm</a>
<img src="http://me.to/svr003.gif" width=850 height=1200>
The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." 1

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view. It is barely statistically significant. The sample size is about 1,000 so the sampling error is within +/- 3.2%, 19 times out of 20. It will take a decade or two to determine if a significant shift has really happened.

By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. And its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain. 1 Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%).

Beliefs among Internet surfers:

The Christianity section of About.com conducted a poll of its readers during 2000-SEP. They listed two responses which more or less agree with the Creationist, and Theistic Evolution beliefs. Their third response, that Evolution is a fact, would probably have received the votes of most believers in Naturalistic Evolution. Their final option would probably have been selected by some creationists who believe that students should be exposed to all belief systems, and by others who are undecided. Results were:
Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution (probably) Neutral
Group of adults Evolution is an unproven theory, contrary to God's revealed truth. Evolution was simly the means God chose to create life on this planet. Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact. Evolution may be an unproven theory, but it is important enough to merit study in our school systems.
Everyone 27% 15% 50% 8%

These results are based on 2904 votes. The margin of error in this poll is 1.8%. Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public. 7

Click below to Visit one of our Sponsors:
Click to learn more...

Beliefs among conservative Christians:

In 1999-NOV, Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian agency, concluded a poll of their web site visitors concerning their beliefs about creation and evolution. Results were:
bullet God created the universe, but I don't know when: 46%
bullet God created the universe thousands of years ago: 43%
bullet God created the universe billions of years ago: 10%
bullet Life came into being and evolved on its own: 1%
bullet I don't have a clue: 0.4% 6

[Author's note: The poll is not particularly well designed; it mixes apples and oranges. The first three options concern when the world came into existence and assumes that God created it. The fourth response concerns evolution of life on earth. A participant in the poll might well believe that God created the world billions of years ago and that life evolved on its own. They would believe in two options, but could mark only one.]

The participants in the poll are self-selected from among the visitors to the Focus web site. They may not represent typical Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christian practices.

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:

Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:
bullet 97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
bullet 80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. 4

Why do they hold these opinions?

The Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star, surveyed 604 respondents on 1999-OCT-22 to 26. Kansas has been a target of much interest and some ridicule after the state Board of Education dropped the necessity of teaching evolution in its public schools. 3 Some interesting comments by Kansans were published. As always, beliefs seem to be derived from people's fundamental interpretation of the Bible:
bullet Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.]
bullet The National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution. Spokesperson Eugenie Scott commented: "It goes to the meaning and purpose of life. I think many Americans believe that somehow they are less special to God if they evolved from nonhuman animals." [Author's note: The main alternative to evolution is found in Genesis which states that Adam came from dirt.]
bullet The Rev. Victor Calcote, pastor of Epworth United Methodist Church in Wichita KS stated: "I believe there is a God that’s in control of creation. I’ve never gotten hung up on how he did it." He added: "I don’t appreciate some of the caricatures of Kansans. Just because our school board voted that way doesn’t mean we’re a bunch of bumbling idiots."
bullet A liberal religious source was not interviewed. If someone who was a Unitarian Universalist minister or a Humanist or other secularist were asked, they would probably comment that Genesis is a very beautiful myth, but not a story that should be interpreted literally. The authors of Genesis lived in a pre-scientific era and simply adopted creation legends from their surrounding Pagan societies.

host · 10-31-2004, 12:35 PM

Where's the evidence of leadership in the promotion of scientific teaching
from Bush or Cheney?

The poll results above demonstrate that even without the effects of the
current movement by fundamentalist christians to alter the curriculum
emphasis and content that will be taught in public schools, a surprising number of adults held believes about creation and evolution that differed
sharply from those of 95 percent of scientists. Do a search on google for
the term "creationist geologists", your research will surprise you. This
Timothy Lahaye rapture theme hardcover book, "Glorious Appearing: The End of Days (Left Behind #12)" is the 423rd best seller at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842332359/qid%3D1099255285/102-8877083-1427363">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842332359/qid%3D1099255285/102-8877083-1427363</a>

Jimmy Carter protested a plan earlier this year by the Georgia State education
commissioner to drop the word "evolution" from public school curriculum:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109939,00.html">http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109939,00.html</a>
Georgia School Official Wants No 'Evolution'
Friday, January 30, 2004

ATLANTA — The state's school superintendent has proposed striking the word evolution (search) from Georgia's science curriculum and replacing it with the phrase "biological changes over time."

The change, which drew criticism from both liberals and conservatives, is included in more than 800 pages of draft revisions to Georgia's curriculum that have been posted by the Department of Education on its Web site. The middle and high school standards are expected to be voted on by the state Board of Education in May, after public comments.

Superintendent Kathy Cox said the concept of evolution would still be taught under the proposal, but the word would not be used in the curriculum. The proposal would not require schools to buy new textbooks omitting the word evolution and would not prevent teachers from using it.

Cox, a Republican elected to the post in 2002, repeatedly referred to evolution as a "buzzword" Thursday and said the ban was proposed, in part, to alleviate pressure on teachers in socially conservative areas where parents object to its teaching.

"If teachers across this state, parents across this state say, 'This is not what we want,' then we'll change it," Cox said.

Educators and legislators criticized the proposal, saying science teachers understand the theories behind evolution and how to teach them.

"Here we are, saying we have to improve standards and improve education, and we're just throwing a bone to the conservatives with total disregard to what scientists say," said state Rep. Bob Holmes, a Democrat.

Former President Jimmy Carter (search) had harsh words for the change on Friday, calling it an embarrassment and saying it exposes the state to nationwide ridicule.

"As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University (search), I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," Carter said in a statement.

Social conservatives who prefer religious creation to be taught instead of evolution criticized the proposal as well.

"If you're teaching the concept without the word, what's the point?" said Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican. "It's stupid. It's like teaching gravity without using the word gravity."

Carter, a Baptist and Democrat who had served as Georgia governor before he was elected president in 1976, said that existing references to evolution in Georgia's curriculum have done nothing to damage religious faith in the state.

Cox spokesman Kirk Englehardt said the superintendent was reviewing Carter's statement Friday morning and did not have an immediate response.

And.....in Kansas:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/10032772.htm?1c">http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/10032772.htm?1c</a>
....Robert Meissner of Topeka, who is challenging Bill Wagnon of Topeka, says he is keeping an open mind about what Kansas students should learn in science classes regarding the origin of life. Wagnon says he believes the teaching should be limited to evolution.

On funding, Meissner hopes state dollars for schools can increase without a tax increase or with “as little of a tax increase as possible.'' Wagnon says that he would favor a tax increase if that's what it takes to educate every student adequately.

Meissner, a Republican, has 12 years of experience as a member of a suburban school district in Topeka. Wagnon is seeking his third term on the state board. Tuesday's winner will represent District 4, which includes Shawnee and Wabaunsee counties and parts of Douglas and Osage counties.

The board's 10 members serve four-year terms. Half of them are up for re-election every two years. The only board member up this year from the Kansas City area is Sue Gamble of Shawnee. She has no opposition, along with Carol Rupe of Wichita. Incumbent Steve Abrams of Arkansas City was re-elected in the August primary. Also in the primary, newcomer Kathy Martin of Clay Center beat incumbent Bruce Wyatt of Salina.

The teaching of evolution has been an issue for the board for years. In 1999, conservative Republicans succeeded in downplaying evolution in the state science standards. In 2001, after a bloc of moderate Republicans and Democrats gained control, the board reversed the vote.

With Martin's election, observers believe conservatives will have the votes to make some change in the teaching of theories of origins.

irateplatypus · 10-31-2004, 01:24 PM

bah...

still waiting for a shred of evidence to back up the hilariously outrageous things i pointed out before.

even if you believe those poll results, you're drawing visibly false conclusions from it.

under the creationism section it says...

Quote:

"God created man pretty much in its present form at one time in the past 10,000 years."

first, the question pigeonholes everything that may fall under the creationism umbrella. what if you believe man was created 11,000 years ago? there are many many ways to hold a creationism view without placing the birth of humanity within such a timeline. even if you do think man was made as we are now within the last 10,000 years... it says nothing about the earth before man was made. that maybe a "young man" theory, but it's irrelevant to a young earth theory. additionally, people of MANY religions hold that their God is the source of creation. you're taking the percentage of all people who believe in creationism and attributing the entire set to fundamentalist Christians.

host · 10-31-2004, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

bah...

still waiting for a shred of evidence to back up the hilariously outrageous things i pointed out before.

even if you believe those poll results, you're drawing visibly false conclusions from it.

under the creationism section it says...

first, the question pigeonholes everything that may fall under the creationism umbrella. what if you believe man was created 11,000 years ago? there are many many ways to hold a creationism view without placing the birth of humanity within such a timeline. even if you do think man was made as we are now within the last 10,000 years... it says nothing about the earth before man was made. that maybe a "young man" theory, but it's irrelevant to a young earth theory. additionally, people of MANY religions hold that their God is the source of creation. you're taking the percentage of all people who believe in creationism and attributing the entire set to fundamentalist Christians.

You posted an opinion, I attempted to refute your opinion with polling data
on the same subject from a reputable source, and you simply dismissed the
signifigance of the polling data with more of your unreferenced opinion and
interpretation of the content and validity of the polling data. Did it take you
more than 5 minutes to accomplish that? I'd like to learn new things from you.

I could post so much more often if I confined my posts to personal opinion.
Every time I decide to respond to an unreferenced opinion post, I learn
something new while researching my response, and if you do, too, then that
is another positive reason to put the time into participating here.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp"><H4>A young Earth—it's not the issue!</H4></a>


By Ken Ham
First published in: 
January 1998 AiG-USA Newsletter
Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds,
those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young
Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers'
(this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative'
Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,'
who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence
for an old Earth.
I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known
primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT
'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing
in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old,
which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of
the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class
Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone,
without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up
with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The
answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'
Let's be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can't find any
hint at all for millions or billions of years. 
For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and
our articles in <a href=http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/gateway.asp?PageType=detail&UID=90-3-001>Creation
magazine</a>, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known
and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in
a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation.
However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days
is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world
is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they
start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.
When someone says to me, 'Oh, so you're one of those fundamentalist, young-Earth
creationists,' I reply, 'Actually, I'm a revelationist, no-death-before-Adam
redemptionist!' (which means I'm a young-Earth creationist!).
Here's what I mean by this: I understand that the Bible is a revelation from
our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must
interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When
I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed,
disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and
bloodshed because of sin—this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one
cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease
and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense
as the graveyard of the flood of Noah's day). 

Also, the word for 'day' in the context of Genesis can only
mean an ordinary day for each of the six days of Creation [see Q&A
Genesis: <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#days">Days of Creation</a>
for more information].
Thus, as a 'revelationist,' I let God's Word speak to
me, with the words having meaning according to the context of the language
they were written in. Once I accept the plain words of Scripture in context,
the fact of ordinary days, no death before sin, the Bible's genealogies,
etc., all make it clear that I cannot accept millions or billions
of years of history. Therefore, I would conclude there must be something
wrong with man's ideas about the age of the universe.
And the fact is, every single dating method (outside
of Scripture) is based on fallible assumptions. There are literally hundreds
of dating tools. However, whatever dating method one uses, assumptions
must be made about the past. Not one dating method man devises
is absolute! Even though 90% of all dating methods give dates far younger
than evolutionists require, none of these can be used in an absolute sense
either. [See <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp">Q&A: Radiometric
dating</a> and <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp">Q&A: Young age evidence</a>
for more information.]

Question: Why would any Christian want to take man's fallible
dating methods and use them to impose an idea on the infallible
Word of God? Christians who accept billions of years are in essence saying
that man's word is infallible, but God's Word is fallible!.........

daswig · 10-31-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

lol, you have the audacity to make a statment like this and then try to label people as "bizzare-o nutjobs?" Mr. Kettle I'd like you to meet Mr. Pot.

Please try to understand humor when it's presented to you.

As for seeing a plains full of buffalo, frankly, if I did, I'd machinegun them. Not out of malice, or joy of killing, but simply because they're tasty eating, and because I've always wanted a nice buffalo-hide furniture suite.

Spotted owl dipped in oil and deep fried = Dinner.

Superbelt · 11-01-2004, 04:15 AM

daswig, that's just abhorrent for you to say (Whether or not you believe it). And it's troll baiting.

tecoyah · 11-01-2004, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Please try to understand humor when it's presented to you.

As for seeing a plains full of buffalo, frankly, if I did, I'd machinegun them. Not out of malice, or joy of killing, but simply because they're tasty eating, and because I've always wanted a nice buffalo-hide furniture suite.

Spotted owl dipped in oil and deep fried = Dinner.

There ARE several boards appropriate to humor on TFP. This , at Times is one of them. It would likely be beneficial to all in this debate if the sarcastic joking was put aside in favor of serious discussion.

This will hopefully, keep the participants from bursting into flames.

irateplatypus · 11-01-2004, 06:35 AM

host,

i appreciate you going to the lengths of trying to find concrete data to address admittedly anecdotal notions. but, the conclusions you drew from that data were very plainly inappropriate. my acceptance or dismissal of the poll data is irrelevant so long as the interpretation is demonstratably flawed. and no, it didn't take me 5 minutes to respond to the poll data... it took much less than that. please don't talk of sidestepping or dismissal while my original post on this thread goes unchallenged.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

daswig, that's just abhorrent for you to say (Whether or not you believe it). And it's troll baiting.

Which part, the machinegunning of buffalo or the fried owl bit?

I'm dead serious about machinegunning the buffalo. Look at how the Native Americans harvested them. At least one way of harvesting them used by the Native Americans was to stampede the herd off of a cliff, and then collect tehir dead bodies after they hit. A machinegun would just be less damaging to the body of the animals, and much more controllable and safer to the harvester.

As for the spotted own bit, extinction is sometimes a GOOD thing. It's nature's way of saying "Enough! You didn't cut it. NEXT!!!" to an entire species. Everybody goes "Yay Evolution!" and thinks it's a great thing. But the dark side of evolution is that the less sucessful species die off. It's part of the natural order. That's like people who say "we MUST have our cars!" but refuse to allow oil drilling, or the NIMBY folks who refuse to allow the construction of power plants near them, and then can't understand why they have brownouts when demand exceeds capacity.

bling · 11-01-2004, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

As for the spotted own bit, extinction is sometimes a GOOD thing. It's nature's way of saying "Enough! You didn't cut it. NEXT!!!" to an entire species. Everybody goes "Yay Evolution!" and thinks it's a great thing. But the dark side of evolution is that the less sucessful species die off. It's part of the natural order.

As soon as we start placing human intervention into the natural order, we can do anything and it's a "GOOD thing".

We could kill all black people - they're in the minority, so it would just be evolution. We could pour toxic waste into our streams - and the people that suffer from it are simply suffering from the natural order.

There is obviously a distinction between the natural order as dictated by man and the natural order as dictated by nature. Whether you choose to recognize the difference or not.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

There is obviously a distinction between the natural order as dictated by man and the natural order as dictated by nature. Whether you choose to recognize the difference or not.

So mankind is not part of the natural order? Hate to do the chicken and the egg thing, but if mankind isn't part of the natural order, how did we get here? Are you a scientologist or something?

bling · 11-01-2004, 01:37 PM

That's not what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

There is obviously a distinction between the natural order as dictated by man and the natural order as dictated by nature. Whether you choose to recognize the difference or not.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

That's not what I said.

So you're saying that mankind is different than the natural order?

I'm seriously trying to understand where you come from. Mankind isn't that special. There are other animals that use tools, language, et cetera. So if we're not part of the natural order, what are we?

bling · 11-01-2004, 01:48 PM

You're trying to lump the free will of humans into the natural order as a means of excusing behavior that many people consider inappropriate, simply because you do no consider it inappropriate.

I could walk outside and kill someone and use your excuse that it was simply all acceptable according to the "natural order".

Your argument, the dissolution of the responsibility of mankind due to mankind being an element of the natural order, is false.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

You're trying to lump the free will of humans into the natural order as a means of excusing behavior that many people consider inappropriate, simply because you do no consider it inappropriate.

I could walk outside and kill someone and use your excuse that it was simply all acceptable according to the "natural order".

Your argument, the dissolution of the responsibility of mankind due to mankind being an element of the natural order, is false.

Ummm, but aren't violent human-like behaviors seen throughout nature? For example, during dominance struggles, don't animals sometimes get killed? Don't some animals kill their own young? Don't some animals ostracize other animals? Beat other animals? Scar up other animals as a sign of their displeasure, reducing them in rank?

What makes humans so special (besides the obvious "we were created in God's image, so other animals must serve us" mentality) that we get a separate category?

Humanity are meat socks, just like the rest of the animals on the planet.

bling · 11-01-2004, 02:01 PM

You should really study the differences between humans and animals a little more closely.

Some violent human-like behaviors are seen throughout nature. But not all violent human behaviors are seen throughout nature.

You're suggesting a Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law philosophy - but without demonstrating the depth of understanding of what that actually means. On top of that, you're suggesting that simply because something can be destroyed, it is ok to destroy it. It's pure nihilism.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 02:04 PM

wait, I thought I was supposed to be a Compassionate Conservative??? When did I turn into a nihilist??? Was my wife warned or notified???

what exactly makes mankind different from the rest of nature? And isn't whatever your answer is merely an example of a specist belief structure?

bling · 11-01-2004, 02:11 PM

There are so many differences between humans and the rest of nature that I can't believe your question is truly being posed in good faith. I'll list one, the most important and obvious:

Degree of intelligence. Humans have a much higher degree of ability to work through problems than do any other animal.

I'm not going to walk you through the vast ramifications of this, because you have the ability to do that yourself.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

Degree of intelligence. Humans have a much higher degree of ability to work through problems than do any other animal.

There are several animals that are as smart, if not smarter, than human beings in many ways. Do they build nukes? No. Why not? Probably because they're smarter than we are.

Mephisto2 · 11-01-2004, 02:23 PM

Daswig,

You're trolling again. You should really stop.

If you honestly believe that extinction caused by the result of human intervention is part of the normal evolutionary process, you are misguided. However, please feel free to start a seperate thread to discuss this. It's a very interesting and topical subject.

Beforehand, you may wish to read some books by Mayr, Gould, Dennett, Dawkins, Ridley, Dobzhansky et al. If I was to recommend one book on this subject for you to educate yourself, it would be Daniel C Dennets Darwin's Dangerous Idea (ISBN: 068482471X). Or, if you are feeling short of time, try Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is, an excellent primer for beginners.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...982080-9378247

I'd be more than happy to debate the "merits" of your opinion that machine-gunning buffalo or industralized logging are just normal features of species extinction. In a seperate thread.

Mr Mephisto

bling · 11-01-2004, 02:29 PM

If humans pollute the oceans so much that dolphins decide to put a stop to it - what are they going to do to solve the problem? They might start attacking humans (assuming they're even able to determine that humans are the actual cause) but they're not going to be able to solve the problem.

There are no animals that have the intelligence of humans to solve problems. That is why we are at the top of the food chain and it is why we do not indiscriminantly destroy.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bling

There are no animals that have the intelligence of humans to solve problems. That is why we are at the top of the food chain and it is why we do not indiscriminantly destroy.

We do not indiscriminately destroy? I thought that was what this was all about...our indiscriminately destroying things.

daswig · 11-01-2004, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Daswig,
If you honestly believe that extinction caused by the result of human intervention is part of the normal evolutionary process, you are misguided.

How is human-caused extinction of a species significantly different from any other predator-caused extinction of a species?

Prior to humanity's coming on the scene, at least 95%+ of all species were already extinct, yes? Or do you subscribe to the notion that humanity caused the extinction of the dinosaurs by over-hunting them?

bling · 11-01-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

We do not indiscriminately destroy? I thought that was what this was all about...our indiscriminately destroying things.

Naturally I was speaking about the potential of humanity.

But yes, if we left it up to you - we would indiscriminantly destroy.

Mephisto2 · 11-01-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

How is human-caused extinction of a species significantly different from any other predator-caused extinction of a species?

Prior to humanity's coming on the scene, at least 95%+ of all species were already extinct, yes? Or do you subscribe to the notion that humanity caused the extinction of the dinosaurs by over-hunting them?

The actual statistic is 99.9%. That is, 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Extinction is not evolution. I think you may have got your terms mixed up.

Predation is also significantly different from extinction caused by pollution or (human) destruction of natural habitats.

Now, evolution has been driven by the results of human impact upon the environment. The general darkening of tree moths in Nothern England during the early phases of the Industrial Revolution is a prime example (the moths camoflage darkened as the result of the soot left on trees).

But stating that wholesale slaughter of animals with automatic weapons is just another manifestation of "natural extinction" (and therefore evolution) is simply untrue.

Mr Mephisto

daswig · 11-01-2004, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The actual statistic is 99.9%. That is, 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

I thought it was something like that, but didn't want to go to the trouble of digging up the exact figures or having somebody scream "SOURCE???" at me. Now that figure is your problem.

Quote:

Extinction is not evolution. I think you may have got your terms mixed up.

Nope, I didn't mix them up. Extinction is the flip side of evolution. If an organism doesn't evolve, it runs a very real risk of losing it's niche due to the evolution of it's competition for that niche. It's the old "running as fast as you can just to stay even" scenario. If you stay put, you're most likely going to lose. There are exceptions to this (diatoms, sharks, alligators, opossums spring to mind) but by and large, the competition is "fro'cious", and if you don't evolve you risk losing your spot, which can easily lead to extinction.

seep · 11-01-2004, 11:00 PM

I don't have the exact figure handy, but species are going extinct at a much faster rate now than they were before humans began having a major impact on the global environment. But we need more space for apartments, who cares about the permanent erasure of a few measly species?

People will start worrying when it starts cutting into their profits. We have dominion over the earth, right? On the other hand, if lack of sleep + carbon monoxide causes you to pass out at the wheel, your death will never be counted.

Mephisto2 · 11-02-2004, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

I thought it was something like that, but didn't want to go to the trouble of digging up the exact figures or having somebody scream "SOURCE???" at me. Now that figure is your problem.

Haha... well, if you want the source I can give it you. It's one of those "fluffy" statistics anyway, as not even all species that currently exist have been identified and/or classified. If anything, the figure is higher.

Quote:

Nope, I didn't mix them up. Extinction is the flip side of evolution.

It's not really. There is no "flip side" to evolution. It is unavoidable result of development based upon sexual reproduction, taking environmental factors, adaptation and mutation into account. Evolution is "caused" (or actioned, if you will) by adaptation which drives speciation. Gould et al proposed a theory of punctuated equilibrium that takes the emphasis off gradual adaptationism, but that isn't universally accepted and doesn't change the underlying precepts.

Quote:

If an organism doesn't evolve, it runs a very real risk of losing it's niche due to the evolution of it's competition for that niche.

Agreed. And machine-gunning buffalo isn't competition.

Quote:

It's the old "running as fast as you can just to stay even" scenario. If you stay put, you're most likely going to lose. There are exceptions to this (diatoms, sharks, alligators, opossums spring to mind) but by and large, the competition is "fro'cious", and if you don't evolve you risk losing your spot, which can easily lead to extinction.

Well, I'm not going to argue, per se, with any of those comments. They are more or less correct. However, the point is that extinction is NOT inevitable (a species can reach a summit in a "fitness landscape" to coin Dennet's term), nor is it "natural" when humans massacre creatures or destroy landscape. In those circumstances, it's impossible for the species to adapt, as the change in circumstances (either forests being torn down or bullets slamming into their bodies) is so rapid that "evolution" does not have a chance to work.

It's a very interesting subject, and one of my favourite topics, so I'd be delighted to discuss further in another thread.

Mr Mephisto

PS - Those book recommendations weren't meant to be snooty... on rereading the post it may have come across that way. They are honest to goodness excellent books on this fascinating subject. I can recommend a whole bunch more if you're honestly interested, rather than trying to troll.

daswig · 11-02-2004, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

PS - Those book recommendations weren't meant to be snooty... on rereading the post it may have come across that way. They are honest to goodness excellent books on this fascinating subject. I can recommend a whole bunch more if you're honestly interested, rather than trying to troll.

In years gone by, I've read some of them. Gould sticks in my mind...

11-01-2004, 06:35 AM	#50 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	host, i appreciate you going to the lengths of trying to find concrete data to address admittedly anecdotal notions. but, the conclusions you drew from that data were very plainly inappropriate. my acceptance or dismissal of the poll data is irrelevant so long as the interpretation is demonstratably flawed. and no, it didn't take me 5 minutes to respond to the poll data... it took much less than that. please don't talk of sidestepping or dismissal while my original post on this thread goes unchallenged. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

11-01-2004, 04:15 AM	#48 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	daswig, that's just abhorrent for you to say (Whether or not you believe it). And it's troll baiting.

11-01-2004, 01:48 PM	#56 (permalink)
bling Banned	You're trying to lump the free will of humans into the natural order as a means of excusing behavior that many people consider inappropriate, simply because you do no consider it inappropriate. I could walk outside and kill someone and use your excuse that it was simply all acceptable according to the "natural order". Your argument, the dissolution of the responsibility of mankind due to mankind being an element of the natural order, is false.

11-01-2004, 02:01 PM	#58 (permalink)
bling Banned	You should really study the differences between humans and animals a little more closely. Some violent human-like behaviors are seen throughout nature. But not all violent human behaviors are seen throughout nature. You're suggesting a Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law philosophy - but without demonstrating the depth of understanding of what that actually means. On top of that, you're suggesting that simply because something can be destroyed, it is ok to destroy it. It's pure nihilism.

11-01-2004, 02:04 PM	#59 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	wait, I thought I was supposed to be a Compassionate Conservative??? When did I turn into a nihilist??? Was my wife warned or notified??? what exactly makes mankind different from the rest of nature? And isn't whatever your answer is merely an example of a specist belief structure?

11-01-2004, 02:11 PM	#60 (permalink)
bling Banned	There are so many differences between humans and the rest of nature that I can't believe your question is truly being posed in good faith. I'll list one, the most important and obvious: Degree of intelligence. Humans have a much higher degree of ability to work through problems than do any other animal. I'm not going to walk you through the vast ramifications of this, because you have the ability to do that yourself.

11-01-2004, 02:23 PM	#62 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Daswig, You're trolling again. You should really stop. If you honestly believe that extinction caused by the result of human intervention is part of the normal evolutionary process, you are misguided. However, please feel free to start a seperate thread to discuss this. It's a very interesting and topical subject. Beforehand, you may wish to read some books by Mayr, Gould, Dennett, Dawkins, Ridley, Dobzhansky et al. If I was to recommend one book on this subject for you to educate yourself, it would be Daniel C Dennets Darwin's Dangerous Idea (ISBN: 068482471X). Or, if you are feeling short of time, try Ernst Mayr's What Evolution Is, an excellent primer for beginners. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...982080-9378247 I'd be more than happy to debate the "merits" of your opinion that machine-gunning buffalo or industralized logging are just normal features of species extinction. In a seperate thread. Mr Mephisto

11-01-2004, 02:29 PM	#63 (permalink)
bling Banned	If humans pollute the oceans so much that dolphins decide to put a stop to it - what are they going to do to solve the problem? They might start attacking humans (assuming they're even able to determine that humans are the actual cause) but they're not going to be able to solve the problem. There are no animals that have the intelligence of humans to solve problems. That is why we are at the top of the food chain and it is why we do not indiscriminantly destroy.

11-01-2004, 11:00 PM	#69 (permalink)
seep Tilted	I don't have the exact figure handy, but species are going extinct at a much faster rate now than they were before humans began having a major impact on the global environment. But we need more space for apartments, who cares about the permanent erasure of a few measly species? People will start worrying when it starts cutting into their profits. We have dominion over the earth, right? On the other hand, if lack of sleep + carbon monoxide causes you to pass out at the wheel, your death will never be counted.