Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1106
view profile
Evolution.Page 44 of 64    (24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)

And again you made a blanket statement; a lot of religious people would LOVE to abolish religions that aren't THEIR religion

Not a blanket statement at all. I said religion, which means ALL religion in the world, including their own. Had I said religions, then of course I would be wrong, but I didn't say that. Perhaps you should read my comments more carefully.

Anyway, for all you evolution fans. I know you probably won't watch it, but it answers a lot of your questions if you stick with it.

And yes, I know he's in jail. But the message is the important part, not the messenger.
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1108
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 12:46:54 PM
When you said:

Posted: 4/25/2011 930 PM

I'll argue in defense of anyone who sides with evolution."

I knew someone would go on about Hovind, atheists love to bash him. I also said I knew you wouldn't bother to watch it.
I know all about Hovind thanks. And of course I believe dinosaurs were alive at the same time as man. Seeing as they were made on the same day and there's tons of evidence to back it up.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1109
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 12:49:52 PM
"Wouldn't make sense a religious person wanting to abolish religion would it.

Actually, that is a good basic description of what the Protestant revolt was: believers, who wanted to destroy religion (in the form of the Catholic Church). They wanted beliefs to be up to the believers, not the power structure. That is anti-religion, but pro-faith.
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1110
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 1:37:05 PM
The "LOL" was after the second sentence and in reference to Jeffrey Dahmer.

There is no evidence that dinosaurs walked the earth with man

You say that so bodly. How could you possibly know that? Only someone who knows everything could make such a statement.

It doesn't need to take fossils found in the same rock layers to prove man lived with dinosaurs. And finding them in different rock layers doesn't prove they missed each other by 64 million years at all.

I'd love to see you try and prove we missed each other by 64 million years. Or even that that amount of time ever existed in the first place would be a good start.

I could be here all day posting evidence. I've managed to do my own research, what's stopping you doing yours?
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1111
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 2:53:12 PM
If you truely want to see evidence, watch this vid, check out the other links, then get back to me.

Lucy was debunked years ago, as has all apparent "transitional fossils" between ape and human. Can't believe people are still talking about them. I guess they are behind the times, just like those who still believe Hitler's propaganda that he was a Christian in his last years.
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 1112
Posted: 4/26/2011 3:24:34 PM

Ah so you defend Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Karl Marx.... Figures.

Godwin's law violation! One again, a creationist resorts to unoriginal argumentation tactics. Very, very tedious!
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1113
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 3:35:49 PM
As predicted, you didn't bother to actually look at any of the info. God could show up on your doorstep and you still wouldn't believe in Him your heart is that hard.

They are merely religious websites, but contain the science you are looking for. Answers In Genesis is run by scientists. You can't have watched the video.
Lucy is made up of fragments of bones, not necassarily of the same creature. It could be a mixture of ape bones, human bones and bones of something else. If they are all of the same creature, it could be an ape of a species that is not alive today, not related to humans. The scientists will of course say it's a transitional fossil in order to support their precious theory and gain more funding.
You've not even mentioned the human find in the creataceous rock layer that someone asked for, or the human footprint covered by a dinosaur one.
Why ask for evidence if you just shun the whole lot without looking at it?
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1114
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 3:57:26 PM
Oh and the only websites that are .edu are post secondary American websites.
Only post-secondary institutions and organizations that are accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies are eligible to apply for a .edu domain.

As you're a Darwin fan, you'd love it over here in the UK where almost everyone believes in evolution theory. We even have him printed on our £10 notes
Joined: 7/18/2010
Msg: 1115
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 4:03:05 PM

Lucy and her baby are not a hodge-podge of different species. In Lucy's case, about 40% of her skeleton has been preserved, and it includes several hundred pieces or fragments of bone, with no duplication, confirming the original speculation that they were from a single skeleton. Lucy's preserved skeleton contains far more fossil material than those you have presented in the above links as so-called "evidence."

Prove they are not a "hodge-podge". Of course there's no duplication of bones. They won't put it on display until they've got it all sorted now would they. So that doesn't confirm they're from the same creature.

No I am not referring to Pluxy River Texas. They're not all fakes at all. Go to Carlisle and or any of the other sites and see for yourself. They're not drawings like what your evolution scientists come up with, they are actual photos.
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1116
view profile
Posted: 4/26/2011 4:07:08 PM
We have seen these sites repeatedly over the years by the creationistas. They have been exposed as hoaxes and conspiracy sites. For instance..

Meanwhile, the not-so-subtle nature of YECcies...Young Earth Creationistas, has produced a record crop of theocratic ID/creationism legislation this year.

And keeping with the need for theocracy, a record number of attacks on women's health and rights, once again showing how Theocracies become authoritarian states, thus the need for our First Amendment.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1117
Posted: 4/26/2011 7:08:23 PM
Rocket Robin Hood all the way! Hercules is lame.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1118
Posted: 4/26/2011 7:43:05 PM
No, the Habs won because of my faith in Science (and Rocketry).

And the Canucks are winning!!!

I'm going to be torn if they meet in the finals. My first favourite are the Habs (I was a teenager when LaFleur played). But these Canucks are a helluva good team. Unfortunately the one team that is practically tailor made to beat them are the Blackhawks. I suspect a higher power might have created the team to test the virtue of our heroes. Is Joe Quenville God or the Devil? He's got the moustache the bad guys always wear.
Joined: 7/28/2008
Msg: 1119
Posted: 4/26/2011 9:22:11 PM
The Canucks are canuckleheads. If they win this one, theymay lose eventually.
The Habs are a caricature of their former glory.
Evolution does not protect us from the infamy of our egos. All never depends
on what really matters. Witness the disintegration to hockey talk on this
thread where everybody is arguing with a Creationist who is also a Christian.
Evolution was never about intelligence. Evolution is always about who rules
the human jungle. Now that is awful and pitiful and pretty shameful at this
point of history.Evolution has gotten all of us to a point where you cannot and will not afford your utilities, food and driving the old tank. Good job, boys. Something very
suspect and air headed about the debate re: evolution. I am not convinced we have evolved past the petty details. We are going way backwards. For flippin sure.
Animals needed the step up and value of a good female and male genetic strain ...but they were animals. They needed the step up. Human beings have failed miserably in the talents their genetics generated and failed to live up to.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1121
Posted: 4/29/2011 12:37:54 AM
Whats evolution got to do with round pegs into square holes
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 1122
Posted: 4/29/2011 3:19:53 AM
I'm hoping this book I was alerted too by a girl with a cat/lizard
Will add to our evolution after The Genesis explanation
"The Good Book: A Humanist Bible by A.C.Grayling"
If any bibles get into the class room I would hope it would be alongside this one

Havent read it yet other than a few exerts so I'm hoping my faith aint in vain

"The meaningful thing is that my parents taught me to give a sh*t beyond my own blessed behind."

Ive always given a sh*t and am always prepared to give as much of it as any one asks for :-)
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1123
view profile
Posted: 4/29/2011 4:53:29 AM
It's a bit silly to offer facts and logic to Quello. He's made it abundantly clear that his view is entirely based on beliefs (faith), and has nothing whatsoever to do with scientific discipline, nor is there any starting point within his view of existence that ALLOWS for logic to play any part at all.
The only good thing coming out of the responses, are the little fun bits like the YouaTube thing.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1124
Posted: 4/29/2011 3:07:03 PM
No, no. I think you're onto something there.

It's your fault.

And when the Habs don't win the Stanley Cup we all know that means the Tories get into power. So that's your fault too.

Magical thinking is much more fun than boring rationality.
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 1125
view profile
Posted: 4/29/2011 4:04:52 PM
Having been close to the "warzone" of the last 157 tornados in these parts, and looking raptly at the numerous hand held videos of swirling death and destruction, the religious folks invariably invoke the mercy of their God, during an act of God(s). Still trying to figure out what 190 mph swirling winds, lightning strikes, and the body count is so intelligent in the intelligent designers. Seems a bit smiteful given that most of the victims were highly religious. The Bible Belt got severly belted.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1126
Posted: 4/29/2011 5:25:13 PM
Well, I remember an episode of the Simpsons where Homer opined that if they were wrong, all the time they spent in church was just making God madder and madder.

The Swedes and Norwegians don't seem to get much in the way of natural disasters, so maybe try Lutheranism. The Dutch all live below the sea level pretty safely, so maybe Dutch Reform is the way to go. Utah seems immune to these events - could be LDS has the right teachings.

I guess I can't recommend Shintoism anymore.
Joined: 9/13/2009
Msg: 1127
view profile
Posted: 4/30/2011 4:43:30 AM

It's difficult to come up with a reason that makes good sense for God creating a cannibalistic creature with the biggest, sharpest teeth.

Perhaps He was taking a break after creating 1,000,000 different species of mites? Or maybe it was the nearly 500,000 separate species of bugs and beetles that bored Him?

Insects are the most diverse group of animals on Earth.
So far, there have been observations of 5,000 dragonfly species, 2,000 praying mantis, 20,000 grasshopper, 170,000 butterfly and moth, 120,000 fly, 82,000 true bug, 360,000 beetle, and 110,000 bee, wasp and ant species.

Keep in mind that arachnids, such as mites — of which there are over 1 million described species — and crustaceans, like lobsters, are not insects, which only includes members of the class Insecta.

It has long been recognized and documented that insects are the most diverse group of organisms, meaning that the numbers of species of insects are more than any other group. In fact, they represent approximately 80 percent of the world's species.

The true figure of living species of insects can only be estimated from present and past studies. Most authorities agree that there are more insect species that have not been described (named by science) than there are insect species that have been previously named. Conservative estimates suggest that this figure is 2 million, but estimates extend to 30 million.
Insects probably have the largest biomass of the terrestrial animals. At any time, it is estimated that there are some 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1128
view profile
Posted: 4/30/2011 5:46:12 AM
Isn't the NUMBER of different species of this or that a result of the mutation, or 'genetic drift' that happens over generations? I would expect there to be more variations in a species with a shorter gestation period and lifespan.

As to the notion that humans might 'evolve' away from greed, selfishness, opportunism and the like, the basic idea of evolution would suggest that the key to this, would be the coming into existence of an ENVIRONMENT where those "negative" traits were no longer conducive to survival and reproduction, but their opposite was.
That the "peace and love" generation seemed to spawn the "shove it, and give me mine" generation, is another good example of the fact that a change of MIND doesn't appear to have any effect on DNA. Of course, a more pertinent fact in that is, that even at it's height, the proportion of "peace and love" people to the rest of society was about 1: 10,000,000. The number of "gimme" people always far outnumbered the givers.
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 1130
Posted: 4/30/2011 7:58:37 AM
I'm going to try not to offend anyone here.

Pole dancing isn't inherently immoral. It's just at odds with what we old folks understand about the practice of most Christian religions. But religions are human institutions - unlike the unchanging Word of God. So they will accept things they condemned only a few years earlier as society changes. I think that's pretty normal and healthy.

But.....I saw a thread here about what is essentially Christian D/s. I'll be damned if I can remember the term, but I googled it back then. That one took me aback. I had a tough time understanding that one. Until I did the "Christians are humans; humans have kinks; some Christians are going to have that kink" rationale. On the first page of Google, there were blogs by practitioners that were pretty weird.

For the record though, I still consider you a woman of ill repute Anasthasia, if that's any comfort.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 1131
view profile
Posted: 4/30/2011 7:01:08 PM
RE Msg: 2245 by Krebby2001:

It's a long post. But it does address issues that you raised as being serious problems for humanity, and provides potential solutions to those problems. So I made it lengthy, to cover as much of those issues as I could see, so that you could see that these potential solutions really do cover all your issues.


What you describe, basically, is politics and religion, mixed in for self-interest. Politics and religion, serving each others' backs.
Actually, what I was describing, was how politics is affected by any number of things, and that religions only fall as part of those things. Today, it is routine for politicians to cite scientific studies to support their policies, and to cite 'national security' to support their policies, and 'helping the economy', and 'helping the people', 'helping the poor', 'helping the underpriviliged', and 'helping the disabled', just to name a few. These days, most policies do not involve any mention of religion at all. So it's rare for anyone to mention religion as being even a partial motivator in politics.

Religious points are only mentioned in a few policies. These days, any policies that mention religious points, tend to be argued against by many, even if they are points that everyone would agree are beneficial for everyone, and even if the policies themselves have no problems with them at all, for anyone.

I believe that religious points should not get special treatment. They should be treated just the same way as any other argument. If they are used to promote a political policy, they must be examined, and if found wanting, or harmful, then that policy must be ignored, and if they are found to stand up to reason, then they MUST be implemented, not to promote that religion, or religions in general, but because those points are reasonable, and thus would benefit humanity in general.

Unfortunately, the way that religion is often portrayed in the West, is that it is automatically bad. So it is often not subjected to reason, either by many of those who are non-religious and by many of those who are religious. That 'automatic' assumption makes us think that we don't have to apply reason to it. So, when religious points are in our interest, many non-religious people oppose them anyway, to the suffering of humanity.

Alike, when religious points are against our interest, because many non-religious people oppose them on point of principle, many religious people think that the only reason that they would be opposed, is because non-religious people are only opposing them because they are religious points, which is true. So, they apply the "Witness for the prosecution" argument, which is that if you have a witness that testifies that someone is definitely guilty of murder, and that witness makes a much stronger case than the other evidence, and then that witness is discredited, then many will simply assume the man is innocent, and will ignore all the other evidence, even if that evidence would normally be enough to convict the accused. The same happens in these situations, and because many non-religious people are only disagreeing on it on point of principle, many religious people come to the conclusion that this is the ONLY reason to oppose these points, and so consider those points are being things that ARE in the interest of humanity. These things happen, even when those same religious people would disagree with those points being brought to policy, if they had never heard anyone arguing against them, simply because those points would not be in the interest of humanity in the form that those policies express.

This hardly falls under a thread on evolution.
Religions evolve. Many religions have had powerful positive effects on our civilisation, that are part and parcel of evolutionary processes.

Moreover, I would contend, that it's precisely politics and religion, that have prevented evolution to reach fruition on a sustainability sense.

Think of it in this way. Horses were the "transportation" for warfare. Beasts of burden. Resources needed for warfare. Hell's Bells, let's let loose on the forests.

Amplify that to the 1950's. Lay that atom bomb down.

Amplify that to modern times. Well, in the interest of politics and religion, we're having battles in the Middle East, and countries gathering up as much nuclear warfare potential as possible. And, in order to sustain societies, we're pillaging, yes, pillaging resources with no regard to other life forms on Earth. Think the BP oil spill, global warming, shrinking natural eco-systems, etc.
I can see how you might argue this.

It has been pointed out by historians before, that the Western desire for productivity and progress, is a result of the Protestant Work Ethic. Without a specific way to do G-d's will as specified by priests, Protestants came to the conclusion that to explore G-d's creations, that was called 'natural philosophy', and is today called Science, was exploring G-d's will, and hence a way to come closer to G-d. Likewise, to produce, to make things, and to embrace new inventions and discoveries, was to act, and to act, was why we were created, and so, by doing, by producing and using the things that we came up with, was the way to do G-d's will. So, 'progress' was seen as G-d's will, and the path to Heaven. Eventually, 'progress' became seen as a moral virtue in itself.

However, the things that we now see as beneficial for society, were equally argued by people who felt so committed because of their religious beliefs.

It's clear that it was the desire for fundamentalist Puritans to have a church that was 100% committed to G-d, that chose them to feel that priests, riches, and authority were just getting in the way of their connection to G-d. It was that desire that led them to the conclusion that no king should be able to tell them how to worship, and that no-one except for G-d should be their absolute monarch, hence the slogan of the Scottish Presbyterians to follow 'King Jesus'. It was they who fought hardest for Parliament to reign supreme over England, and not the King. It was the Puritans that you have to thank for setting up the model of democracy in the 17th Century, over 100 years before France or America thought to fight for that themselves.

It was the evangelist William Wilberforce, and the Quakers, who campaigned for many years to have slavery abolished right throughout the British Empire, and who succeeded. The only English colony to not ban slavery, was the only colony to be no longer under British rule, namely, America. But a few decades later, Americans followed suit.

It was mostly religious extremists, who fought for children to be given rights, to not have to work all day in the mines, in appalling conditions. It was mostly religious extremists who set up schools for wayward children, like child prostitutes. It was mostly religious people who set up the homeless shelters and the soup kitchens.

These groups were of the same religion as the majority, but were of a different denomination than the majority. Those different denominations held different religious views. Hence, on those issues, there was no monolithic viewpoint, but a pluralistic viewpoint.

When it comes to making decisions, in each issue, there are multiple issues, each important to people to differing degrees. We can only come to the best decisions, by taking into account ALL the issues, and their respective importances that people attach to them.

Societies aim for harmony, by making them homogeneous. This homogeneity results in only one set of viewpoints being presented. So we end up with decisions that only support the homogeneous view that that society considers the one for society to adopt. So we end up with one-sided policies. They cause problems for us, because the other issues are ignored, even in those cases when they ARE important.

There are many religions in the world. Even within each religion, there are many denominations. Even within any one denomination, there are many people with many different views. As a result, when you get many different religious groups together, but who are required to discuss things in a manner that is respectful to each other, you end up seeing many different views. Each religious person is passionate for their views that they associate with their religion. So these views are fought for passionately, until it becomes clear that each religious person's points are being taken seriously, to the extent that those people feel those issues are important.

As a result, when you have many religious groups engaging in discussion, each of those religious views comes out.

Now for the kicker. When anyone follows a religion, they tend to believe that their religion is right. So they tend to take for granted, that anything they believe is right, MUST be a fundamental of their religion as well. So the values that people consider important by reason, the real issues in any particular case, become values that they will fight for on a religious basis. Those reasons, because they are based on reason, are reasons that others can also see as reasons to consider.

However, those values that come strictly from THEIR religious books and prophets, and that are NOT based on reason, are not automatically going to be universal. Far from it. Because those values are not based on reason, they are arbitrary, randomly selected, and logic dictates that many other religions and many other denominations of the same religion, will not agree with those reasons. Moreover, because they are not based on reason, they are likely to be highly disputed by all other groups.

So, when you have many different religious denominations discussing things, the points that are reasonable, and the points that are arbitrary are likely to all come out, but that only those points that are reasonable are likely to find quite a following among many different religions and denominations.

So, ironically, when you have a pluralistic discussion of people coming from many different religious backgrounds, each stating their own concerns that they find connected to their religious beliefs, that you see all sides of any issue coming out.

When you exclude religious points altogether, although the same is possible, the drive for a homogeneous society results in a one-sided viewpoint.

Case in point: sustainability. When I was a kid, we were all taught about how Jews are commanded by G-d, not to burn fruit-bearing trees for wood, when there are non-fruit-bearing trees around. Jews are also taught that any law in the Bible, is not just a specific law, but that if possible, it implies a general principle. So, naturally, when I was a kid, when we were taught this, we were taught that as a general principle, if we had a way of using 2 things for a purpose, and one was less wasteful, even if it was just that one thing could have more uses than the intended purpose, that G-d had commanded us to do that one, and to do the other, was going against G-d's will. We were implicity raised to think that recycling and sustainability, was G-d's will, and to go against this, was to go against G-d.

When recycling became an issue, it became natural for me to do that, as that was how I was raised to think anyway. It was just a matter of applying G-d's will in a different way.

But this was NOT part of the Protestant Work Ethic that demanded that G-d's will was 'progress'. So in this way, Jewish education was in distinct difference to Protestant teaching.

This might have become apparent centuries ago. But it is only relatively recently that it has become accepted for Jews to enter politics, without having to give up their Jewishness and become either Xians or atheists, and as such, the idea of bringing up Jewish ideas into Western politics, was not socially acceptable.

Even these days, I keep coming across ideas that I first learned in Judaism, that science is only now discovering, but that even when I mention Jewish concepts around atheists, they seem to take it as a personal affront to do so.

I could list you a dozen ways to be sustainable. But I doubt that you'd even consider them, because they come from a Jewish mindset, that is anathema to your mindset, and so currently, you'd reject them, to the loss of society.

But, if you can learn to accept that religious views CAN do good, and often do do good, just not all the time, and that includes views that are not the same as your own, then you could open your mind to hear religious points objectively, and then, within them, you would find that many have important points, that you could learn from. Then, you would see that many of the things that you are struggling to deal with in sustainability, have already been solved, and have been tested by actual practice, and developed to a point where you could find them easy to implement, and without having to change your personal views on theism one bit.

The choice is yours.

Yeah, let's, myopically, study what them people did thousands of years ago, easy enough to do by cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, or whatever.

Some of us recognize that, navel gazing at the details of history, gloss over the more important message of "We're destroying this Earth.

We need to see a better way.
Plenty of people have no problem in studying the psychology of religion, and stating their views about why people did what they did thousands of years ago. Plenty of people have no problem in criticising what it says in the Bible, or the Koran, all over the place, about why people did what they did thousands of years ago.

If those views are helpful, then there is no reason to dispute them. But, when those views make claims, that are not only not consistent with prior history, but are not consistent with current history, and when those who held used those types of reasoning in the past, ended up causing a LOT of problems for humanity, then they are likely to do the same today, just in the modern context of how those lines of reasoning would play out today.

When it comes to the Spanish Inquisition, many hold an attitude, as if to say: "Oh, those religious people were just killing nastily. If we just get rid of religions, then those problems will not happen today".

However, my examination of the events, has led me to the conclusion that it was an attempt to hold onto power, and to consolidate it, when others might have opposed their might, and in the process, they attempted to push their rivals out, to silence them. From what I can see of history, this is a pattern that has been repeated often, and even today, it still happens, just not with physical death, rather with reputation death, or career death.

There are at least 2 conclusions I have made as a result:

1) If people depend on supreme power, they have to get rid of all their rivals, before being able to wield it reliably.

So, if you are a scientist, and you wish people to just accept what you are saying, because you think that you have the facts, and that they should accept the facts, then you are depending on supreme power. You have to kill off ALL your rivals, before getting total consent to your authority, and that requires the immediate expulsion of all Jews, Xians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, New Agers, and everyone and anyone who does not believe that scientists are the supreme authority in your country, and then have to hold a mass inquisition, because many of them will publicly support you, but privately still cling to their views.

The former U.S.S.R. government knew this, which is why they went on such a level of persecution, sending so many to the Gulag.

2) If people depend on an industry for their income, their lifestyle, and their sense of power and control, they will not give that up easily, even if it is in the interest of humanity. They will fight to the death for it.

So, if you want to get people to stop using fossil fuels, and you DON'T wish to commit yourself to mass expulsions, and mass inquisitions, including many murders and many tortures, you have to FIRST come up with an alternative, that is compatible with their lifestyles, or come up with alternative lifestyles that will achieve the same ends for them, or they will fight you to the extent, that the only way you will get your way, is to wipe them out in mass murder, or to wait several generations, until their lifestyles have changed so much, that they really don't rely on fossil fuels that much anyway.

I gather the waiting game is NOT all that preferable to scientists, and neither is the inquisition mode. So that only leaves coming up with:

1) A complete energy system, that replaces fossil fuels so well, that they can easily slot straight into current fossil fuel uses, and that is itself not harmful to the environment either.

2) A complete lifestyle system, that replaces the existing different lifestyle structures in society, of which each new lifestyle offers the same advantages as the old comparative lifestyle, and where the complete system is fully sustainable as well.

But, if you just put it out there that fossil fuels is not sustainable, and 'killing the planet', and expect everyone to just stop using fossil fuels and find a new way for society to run, that one is not going to work, because for the last 100 years, our countries have been adjusting, bit by bit, to fossil fuels, to the point where our entire societies are based on fossil fuels.

Our society has evolved, to become dependent on fossil fuels, just like terrestrial organisms evolved to become dependent on oxygen. You might as well ask humans to stop breathing oxygen, and start using something else for energy conversion. It ain't gonna happen, because we are too dependent on it. You'd have to FIRST come up with a mutation that is NOT oxygen-dependent, and then ensure that the mutation spreads throughout the population.

The same is true of social evolution. You need to FIRST come up with a complete viable system. THEN, you can approach PR companies and plan out a campaign of how to promote it, and then implement such a campaign. PR companies will be happy to promote whatever you want, as long as they are getting paid. But any investor will tell you that it's a waste of time, unless you've got a complete system to replace the current one, without upsetting the different strata of society in the process.

Again, religions could help out here a lot, because religions HAVE dealt with how to make widescale changes again and again. Some worked, some didn't. Those groups have thousands of years of experience that you can utilise as potential sources of advice.

It's simply up to you, to decide if you are going to continue in the old Enlightenment attitude of 'if we say that science does it, then we must stamp out all other sources of knowledge and wisdom as potential rivals, and must never acknowledge our debt to other groups', which is really just a modern form of what people didn't like about religions, or, you evolve, choose to live as partners in humanity, and not benevolent rulers of humanity, and let humanity benefit as a result.
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 1132
view profile
Posted: 5/1/2011 5:32:26 AM
RE Msg: 2420 by annasthasia:
I would like to see you say that with a straight face to the native people of this earth.
You know, the ones that actually do see the value of taking care of mother earth.

I am referring to the rainbow tribes.
I always wanted to meet some old Native American tribal elders. I wanted to learn about the Native American traditions from them, to see what they knew that wasn't in Judaism that I could learn from, and to see what we had in common. Of what I've seen or read in supportive portrayals of Native Americans, they would fit right into a Jewish community, as many of the values they seem to hold, seem to be values that were either taught to me, or were implicit in Judaism, and many of their stories are incredibly similar to Jewish stories.

I find it interesting that your teachers of the lessons of how to live in harmony with nature, are called "the warriors of the rainbow". In Judaism, we are taught that the Rabbis are called 'warriors', because they engage themselves in the 'war' over understanding the Torah. They teach Jews what the Torah commands us to do, and show us how we can see those proofs for ourselves, without having to take their word for it on everything.

We are taught that Judaism requires that we treat animals with respect, minimise any pain to them, and to avoid unnecessary waste, such as burning fruit-bearing trees when non-fruit-bearing-trees are available. Non-sustainable lifestyles are just another example of unnecessary waste.

We are also taught that the Torah is in line with nature. So we are expected to understand that what the Rabbis teach, is in line with nature, and that if we find what we thought the Rabbis taught, was NOT in line with nature, then we probably misunderstood. In that case, we would then be going against G-d's will to continue our previous ways of thinking. So we would have to adjust our thinking to the way that is in line with nature, as that would be G-d's will.

We are also taught that for every generation since Adam's Sin, humanity have been pulled by an irrational inclination to self-destructive behaviour, that hardens us against the truth and against the pain of every living thing. But, at an unknown time, there will be a humungous war, that obliterates many humans, and much life on this Earth. After this time, G-d will bring the Messiah. At that time, there will be false prophets, who will preach to not follow the advice and ways of the Torah, who will encourage Jews to do many self-destructive things, like unsustainable lifestyles, and polluting the rivers and soil that we live on.

Then G- will remove "our hearts of stone", and will replace them with "hearts of flesh and blood".

Then Jews will recognise that they are much better off listening to their Rabbis, understanding why they say those things, and then implementing them, all the time. Non-Jews will also recognise the wisdom of the Jewish Rabbis, and will also seek their advice. People will then live according to G-d's way, that is, the way of the Being that rules over all things, over all universes, all multiverses, all dimensions, all time. Jews are taught that that Being has many names in many languages. Some call that Being 'G-d'. Others might call that Being 'the Great Spirit'.

So we Jews have a similar story, and in our story, we are brought back to rational behaviour that is in tune with the land, by people who are called 'warriors', but who wield wisdom, not swords.

I would expect that your Rainbow Warriors would be considered 'geirei tzedek', 'righteous strangers', in Jewish lore, and that they would get a great portion in Heaven.

I have come across cases of other great figures in other religions, where their behaviour was so eerily like that of some Jewish Rabbis, that the religious leader told some people that their great figures WERE Jewish Rabbis. So I wouldn't be entirely surprised to hear the same from your own elders' lips. But I do not require that they have to be so, for Jews are taught that there are non-Jews who also choose to act greatly.

Either way, it would interest me greatly, to meet them. If you would arrange for the opportunity for me to meet any of your elders, I would consider it a great honour.

The arrogance of the fact that you actually BELIEVE that your religion is the answer to everything is quite telling.
If you read what I wrote, I wrote that one could learn from views OTHER than one's own. That includes the Cree religion, the Seminole, the Protestants, the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox Xians, the Copts, the Shi'ites, the Sunnis, the Dervishes, everyone.

Jews are taught: "Who is wise? He who learns from ALL humans".

When was the last time you actually grew a garden or even tried to make a difference to any living creature apart from yourself?
Let's see. In the last week? I watered my plant. I went over to a friend's, and spent several hours fixing his computer for free. It was a few weeks ago since I popped my head in to my voluntary teaching, because Passover stopped me coming over on those days. Bees came in my window in the last few days, and I avoided trying to trap them, letting them find their own way back. I sometimes give them a little nudge, to guide them gently back to the window. I haven't had much in the way of insects lately, and those I have, have ended up dying. Usually, if I have a spider in my room, I put him on a piece of card, and then carry it outside. It quite a trick, to get those spiders outside without killing them, as they are really fast. Years ago, when I used to get slugs in my bathroom, I would pick them up with a piece of tissue and put them out the window, rather than pouring salt on them and killing them.

I don't have a garden. I have considered owning a dog and a cat. But at the moment, I am not so constant in my behaviour, that I am sure that I would give a dog the attention that one needs, and I am of the opinion that my flat would be too small anyway for either.

Care to guess where I learned to think about animals from? Tza'ar Baalei Chaim, the injuction to not hurt living animals, that comes from Jewish Law. The rule is taken from the Bible. One example is the injunction about Shiluach HaKen, sending the mother bird away before taking eggs. Since one is permitted to take eggs, but is required to send the mother away, and it would only be fractionally less painful to the mother, to not have to be directly looking at her eggs being taken from her nest, Jews learn from this that although one has to live one's life, if, in any situation, one can do things in a way that would make any animal's existence even fractionally less painful, then one has to choose the path that is fractionally less painful for the animal.

Were the Bible to stress to be careful to not harm animals in a big way, then you would be right to point out that such events are rare in our lives, and so are not likely to make much difference. But since the Bible only stressed to be careful not to hurt animals in a small way, then such events are commonplace in our lives, giving us many, many opportunities to make choices that will lessen the pain to animals.

Insects and bacteria are living organisms too, as are plants. All of these must be treated with care and respect by Jews, to not pain them unnecessarily.

For Jews, this is the law of G-d. It is as serious an infraction for us to cause unnecessary harm to animals, as it is for us to eat pig. We expect that if do cause animals unnecessary harm, that we will burn for it, in what you call purgatory, and what we call Gehinnom. So it's a very serious matter. Plus, it is one of those things that Jews are taught that G-d will lengthen their lives in this world for doing so. So it is considered very meritable to keep this.

The secular equivalent would be a law set down in your law books, that is clear and unambiguous, that to break that law, would cause harm to others, would be morally repugnant, and could carry some serious jail time, and to keep that law, would be considered so great, that for keeping that law, one would be granted several years of free funding in one's old age. So it's a very big deal for Jews.
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1133
view profile
Posted: 5/1/2011 6:31:44 AM
Hoo boy, scorpiomover, your idea of historical fact and mine come from different UNIVERSES. Your VERY long list of items included so many incorrect statements and deductions, I wont go into most of them.
Just this one for now: " the way that religion is often portrayed in the West, is that it is automatically bad." Apparently, your "West" is somewhere other than on THIS planet. I have spent my whole LIFE here, AND studied it's history, and can say flat out that you are dead wrong. I'm sure we can all find plenty of complaints expressed BETWEEN religions, they all have been battling each other for hegemony since they came into being.
But here in the U.S., especially in recent times, we have lots of main stream politicians saying EXACTLY that their religion is behind their governing concepts. How the folks in the majority (the believers) come to think that they are in the least threatened by the minority (non believers), or by the ULTRA-minority (Anti-theists) is beyond my comprehension (unless I succumb to the idea that the majority don't bother to teach themselves to think).

Back to Evolution though: might we discuss SOCIAL evolution here as well? That seems to be a big element in what a number of people are talking about. Specifically, DOES social evolution really happen as much as we think it does? I have come to be skeptical about it, through my studies of the general history of my species. The more I've looked, the more I've seen that humans as conscious entities haven't evolved all that much since the earliest know times. Our social STRUCTURES have evolved, our forms of government have evolved, and our technology has certainly evolved, but people as critters still spring from the womb (apologies to all mothers, I know that "spring from the womb" in no way matches the real experience of giving birth) as little savages. I suspect that there HAS been some true evolutionary changes in our DNA that generally makes us more sociable than our great-to-the-power-of-a-lot ancestors were, but not near as much change as I think most folks subconsciously BELIEVE has occurred.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >