| | Playing GodPage 1 of 2 (1, 2) | Tied this in our local forum, wasn't the right place. Maybe here.
People are amazing animals. What sets us apart from other species is our intelligence that comes as a result of the size of our brains. Around 2.4 million years ago we dropped two genes, this gene is responsible for the large muscle and jaw structure other primates have.
Because we do not have this gene we have smaller jaws and jaw muscles which gave us the opportunity to grow a large brain. With our large brains we developed intelligence.
Seeing that we made the evolutional leap and we have learned to manipulate genes in plants and animals, what would you think if we gave another species a helping hand up the ladder? | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/11/2009 8:39:36 PM | | Didn't you see Planet of the Apes? | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/11/2009 11:32:06 PM | Jesus . . .
I'm not all that convince we've improved.
Either of my dogs are nicer to people than I am. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 11:16:01 AM |
...what would you think if we gave another species a helping hand up the ladder?
I think we are doing a fine job destroying the human race without any help thank you. Like the poster above said, "Have you SEEN Planet Of The Apes?". | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 11:25:09 AM | I'm sure that we will be doing just that when we get better a playing with genetics (I wouldn't call it playing god).
I'm trying to think if we've already done that... sort of... I guess... breeding better domestic animals and engineering some simple life forms (glowing mice). We haven't been doing it to ensure their survival, just as tools to make our lives easier or for study. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 12:47:48 PM | We've been "improving" plants and animals for millennia, through selective breeding and other methods. The thing is, we've "improved" them to be of better use for us; most of the species we've "improved" have been so specialized to suit our needs they can't survive without us. Once we've managed to extinguish ourselves, most of our pet plants and animals will be doomed to the same fate.
Should we?
As with any technology, it's a tool that can be used for good or ill. We just have to stay ahead of those who would use it for wicked purposes; I think this means licensing and taxing it instead of prohibiting it. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 1:20:11 PM | Quite frankly, the world is so imperfect that playing "God" wouldn't be too bad of an idea. Look at the past ice ages, how blizzards are even possible, and severe droughts in some places in the world. Maybe God made the world so imperfect to give the scientific minded some challenges to overcome? If there are countries where only a small percentage have access to clean water boring machines creating rivers and desalination plants to thoroughly clean the water to reach such places would drastically improve living conditions all over the entire planet.
Look at the environments we've destroyed and the chemicals we've put into the air. If we break it it is up to us to fix it. So let's get planting some trees and turning these deserts into farmland. Arcology technology should also be a big help. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 2:32:47 PM |
Because we do not have this gene we have smaller jaws and jaw muscles which gave us the opportunity to grow a large brain. With our large brains we developed intelligence.
I never heard that one before. There were probably multiple selection pressures working on increasing the size of the human brain, including sexual selection (impressing females!). It's also a fallacy that there's a "tree" with humans at the top of it. Every creature alive on the planet today is in some way a cousin of yours and just as much evolved as you are, if you see what I mean.
Don't let the current explosion in population (since the end of the last ice-age) fool you that we're somehow superior. It was certainly a close run thing, with populations down to a few thousand not so long ago and moreover, it isn't clear at all that we have the evolutionary "smarts" to survive as a species for any length of time, like, say, the Celiocanth has. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 2:45:06 PM | Lets not and say we did. Seeing that as a species we leave a lot to be desired,
the LAST thing we need to be doing is playing God with naure.
We need to concentrate on perfecting our own nature. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 4:05:11 PM |
Seeing that we made the evolutional leap and we have learned to manipulate genes in plants and animals, what would you think if we gave another species a helping hand up the ladder? I think it would be cool. After all, evolution dictates that species change, and species will eventually be dominated by another species. Maybe it's time someone else was the top predator, and we became extinct. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 4:45:12 PM | In the words of Roger Waters, haven't we already amused ourselves to death?
Amused to death (cont...)
They ran down every lead
They repeated every test
They checked out all the data on their lists
And then the alien anthropologists
Admitted they were still perplexed
But on eliminating every other reason
For our sad demise
They logged the only explanation left
This species has amused itself to death
No tears to cry no feelings left
This species has amused itself to death
What we need (IMO) it to stop playing god and at the same time stop believing that some god(s) will save us.
But we would need a miracle (again IMO) for either one of those things to happen, let alone both.
And since I don't believe in god(s) or in miracles, I guess that leaves it up to us to save ourselves.
Which brings us back to the miracle thing.
Yeah.
Ah well...such is (was..?) life on planet earth.
JMO
| |
|
Vancer
| | Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 12 | |
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 5:07:31 PM |
I think it would be cool. After all, evolution dictates that species change, and species will eventually be dominated by another species. Maybe it's time someone else was the top predator, and we became extinct.
According to this song, it will happen in the year 2000. We are doomed. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1BdQcJ2ZYY | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 8:17:40 PM | | God gave man dominion over the animals for a reason. | |
|
Verzen
| | Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 14 | |
| Playing God
Posted: 1/12/2009 8:36:28 PM | | There is no proof of God. There has never been any proof of God. Study history and biology a bit and you will understand. Bible thumpers think that Earth is only 6,000 years old however, we have proof that the Earth is over 4 billion... Thus, "God" didn't declare that man has dominion over animal's.. since we are animals ourselves. (we are part of the primate group even.) The belief of something because there is no other explanation is a logical fallacy. The belief in something because the majority believes it to be true is also a logical fallacy. Thus, God = logical fallacy. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/13/2009 7:54:21 PM | --There is no proof of God. There has never been any proof of God.---
That is not entirely accurate. It depends what you mean by God. For those of us whose
world view is ruled by reason and logic, the meaning of the concept of God has
evolved as science has pushed the limits of human knowledge. It seems that the more we learn, the more inscrutable reality becomes. Infinity of time and space alone
infer the existence of levels of reality and causation so beyond human experience and comprehension that the only term we can possibly give it, is God. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/14/2009 8:01:18 PM | @Verzen
There is no proof of God. There has never been any proof of God.
......."God's" existence (or lack of) is not something that is amenable to any scientific or empirical undertaking!........only that which is a part of the fabric of this reality can be subject to proofs...for a God to be "provable" would automatically disqualify him as being God......the notion of God is that "he" is supernatural (otherwise god would not be "God") and thus his existence would be beyond our grasp.
Study history and biology a bit and you will understand. Bible thumpers think that Earth is only 6,000 years old however, we have proof that the Earth is over 4 billion...
...just because the writings within a religious text don't coincide with geologic findings is no grounds to rule out the existence of God..as God's existence does not hinge upon the handwritten texts!.....if you were a student of logic you'd see this clearly.
The belief of something because there is no other explanation is a logical fallacy
...true believers do not elect to believe in God because of an absence of "logical explanations"............quite to the contrary, pple who truly believe do so because they believe that God is the ultimate explanation for everything that is, be it logical or not! | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/14/2009 8:19:11 PM |
Presumption is our natural and original disease. The most wretched and frail of all creatures is man, and withal the proudest. He feels and sees himself lodged here in the dirt and filth of the world, nailed and riveted to the worst and deadest part of the universe, in the lowest story of the house, trapped worse than bird or fish, and yet in his imagination he places himself above the circle of the moon, bringing heaven under his feet.
By the vanity of the same imagination he equals himself to God, attributes to himself divine faculties, and withdraws and separates himself from all other creatures; he allots to these, his fellows and companions, the portion of faculties and power which he himself thinks fit.
How does he know, by the strength of his understanding, the secret and internal motions of animals, and from what comparison between them and us does he conclude the stupidity he attributes to them?
--Montaigne, The Defense of Raymond Sebond | |
|
Verzen
| | Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 18 | |
| Playing God
Posted: 1/14/2009 8:34:03 PM | sum1reel:
If someone lies to you multiple times (the world is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, moses actually existing, jews supposedly crossing egypt, crossing the red sea, the earth is only 6,000 years old, Noah's Arc and him trying to put 10 billion different species on a boat, then redistribute the animals to the appropriate locations) there are plenty more as well) what incentive do you have to actually believe anything that comes from that source?
If they have a horrible track record, why choose to believe in something in that source? It's illogical and foolish to believe in something from something who is untrustworthy. If someone borrowed $2,000 from you, would you lend that person even more money if they have failed to pay you back? Of course not. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
And if you believe in God after a source repeatedly lies, then you are gullible. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/14/2009 11:46:48 PM |
The belief in something because the majority believes it to be true is also a logical fallacy.
True.
Thus, God = logical fallacy.
False.
Also, proving one aspect of an argument false only proves the argument is false, and is not contingent on the whole. | |
|
Verzen
| | Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 20 | |
| Playing God
Posted: 1/15/2009 12:45:33 AM | The belief in God IS a logical fallacy.
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
(Most people believe in God, thus God must be true)
The Bandwagon is a fallacy in which a threat of rejection by one's peers (or peer pressure) is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Person P is pressured by his/her peers or threatened with rejection.
2. Therefore person P's claim X is false.
(Follow God or you are going to hell)
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.
1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
(The truth is that God exists. Thus God must be real)
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X.
(There is no evidence for Atheistic beliefs, Thus God must be real since an Atheist can't provide proof) (The proof rests with the Creationists btw)
The Relativist Fallacy is committed when a person rejects a claim by asserting that the claim might be true for others but is not for him/her. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. Claim X is presented.
2. Person A asserts that X may be true for others but is not true for him/her.
3. Therefore A is justified in rejecting X.
(Atheism may be true for others, but it is not true for me, thus, atheism isn't a good option)
The Appeal to Fear is a fallacy with the following pattern:
1. Y is presented (a claim that is intended to produce fear).
2. Therefore claim X is true (a claim that is generally, but need not be, related to Y in some manner).
(Y = Believe in God! X is true because if you don't, you will go to hell even if you are a good person)
The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:
1. X (God) is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.
2. X (God) is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.
3. X (God) is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
4. X (God) is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.
5. I wish that X (God) were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.
6. I wish that X (God) were false, therefore X is false. This is known as Wishful Thinking.
(Sound familiar? Just replace X with God for all of those.)
The Appeal to Common Practice is a fallacy with the following structure:
1. X is a common action.
2. Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
(Going to church is a common action, however, there are many people who feel that those who don't go to church are not moral. They also believe that believing in God is a common action, thus it is moral)
Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:
1. Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
2. Therefore X is true.
(Most believe God is real, therefore God is real.)
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
(The pope anyone? The pope claims to be an authority on the Catholic Faith. He claims that rock music is satanic. Thus, Rock music must be satanic.) (You can take this a step further and also say that since the pope is an authority on the catholic faith, he is able to decide on who becomes a saint in heaven. Thus, that person automatically becomes a saint in heaven. (Joan of Arc was Sainted in 1920, does that mean she is a saint in "heaven" ? Nope!))
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
(Person A: God doesn't exist! Person B: You are going to hell for your blasphemy! Thus, Person A is wrong.)
Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done." This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. X is old or traditional
2. Therefore X is correct or better.
(Religion and rituals are old and traditional, therefore religion and rituals are better than not believing in said Religion and rituals.)
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:
1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).
(Bill believes that there is no God, but my parents brought me up believing that God exists, thus Bill must be wrong.)
Have I covered enough of them yet? I can keep going if you want. God is a "walking" logical fallacy. You can claim he isn't if you want (which is another logical fallacy, since you are claiming he isn't a logical fallacy and by saying that, you actually believe that god is not a logical fallacy), or you can check out all of the logical fallacies that are presented with religion as it is today. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/15/2009 2:06:45 AM | | I don't think there would be anything wrong with creating other rational intelligent creatures, whether they are biologically modified organisms such as 'enhanced' dolphins, wales or higher apes (these creatures may well be sentient already) or artifical machines. Such creatures have often been a staple of horror fiction and science fiction when they go bad, but hopefully a rational creature of another species would avoid the self-destructive tendencies that exist in humanity. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/15/2009 3:23:13 AM | Seems we've been doing it this whole time accidentally!
Cows
Squirrels
Pigeons
Roaches
Cats
Dogs
Wheat
Grapes
etc... | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/15/2009 10:16:37 AM |
what would you think if we gave another species a helping hand up the ladder?
I like how you think...we could give cows, dogs, apes, horses, pretty much every mammal REAL BOOBIES! Round and pink and firm, oh they'd be thrilled!
(. Y .)
But seriously, there's so many issues I could take with your question, but I just lack the motivation to go into it. Maybe later. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/21/2009 5:45:32 AM | Sadly we are animals like the rest but just have the bigger brain capacity for intelligence. We do whatever we were determined to do. We do whatever we were brought up to do. If you were brought up in a Catholic family, chances are you are Catholic, your brought up believing in Allah and that it's the only right road, then that's what you will be, if your abused as a child then you are going to grow up to be bad and worse depending on how bad it was. People have morality, ethics, and religion from being conditioned and that means that it is not instinct. Humans aren't born to differentiate between evil. If we are brought up in a society that thinks it's okay to murder, then we would murder. It's sad because if their was a God, one would think he would have pre-programmed us to be what we think of as good. But that's not the case, we are just like the animals who kill each other for whatever. Animals are much smarter then generally known. Even fish react with fear and can be seen struggling if caught. Animals also rape others, kill others, and so on. The world seems so cruel at times and so beautiful at other times.
That's why I can only assume that humans somehow were evolved and atoms formed together in which way made sense. Maybe some God made the planet in some random magic but I don't think he personally crafted human beings because human beings are as cruel as animals. | |
|
| Playing God
Posted: 1/21/2009 6:25:03 AM |
Have I covered enough of them yet? I can keep going if you want. God is a "walking" logical fallacy.
Most or all of those equally apply to athiesm. The only truely logical belief is agnosticism, since we really can'y prove it either way. Before you begin saying how there's all sorts of proof that there is no sort of God out there, you should remember that it's technically impossible (from a logic perspective) to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that certain chunks of the bible can't be disproved, but not everyone who believes in some concept of God believes in the bible literally, or even at all.
To answer the OP, I agree with the people who mentioned Planet of the Apes. | |
|
Home
login 
