Quantcast
What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

Forums - General Discussion - What is your take on evolution/old age earth?

Final-Fan said:
Smidlee said:
Final-Fan said:
Food is really almost the only commodity available to animals, so obviously that's what they're going to focus on.  Just because we have created money to embody wealth in a more abstract way doesn't make it fundamentally different from if there was an orange worth $5000 in that wallet.  Or for a more realistic example, think back to the 1500s in Europe when spices were ridiculously expensive. 

And remember that the monkey was actually trading a white chip for food.  Another monkey trading the same chip got way better food; the monkey felt the researcher himself was being "immoral", or unfair, in his trading. 

Also, if I saw someone handing out bread to the homeless, and one guy got a big cake for no reason, I would wonder why, and I would ask if I could think of a good excuse to insert myself into the situation.  Including if I was one of the guys who didn't get cake. 

(1) Mankind does many things that has nothing to do with food (or sex) , like sending man to the moon. And the monkey trade the chip only because time and time again they are rewarded  for food.  (2) This again doesn't mean an ape understand the concept of wealth/money. This is man trying to imply something human onto an ape.

(3) The ape was not only unthankful but eventually force the grapes out of the man's hand. Obviously the ape does not understand the concept of stealing and had no problem taking the grapes from the man's hand. Also the other ape which was giving the grapes didn't really care to share his grape to the other ape.

(4) Watching these apes  reminds me of some selfish children fighting of their parent inheritance that just passed away, afraid one will get more than the other. There is nothing moral about this kind of action.

1.  Look, no one is denying that humans have a more advanced intellect than those monkeys, so naturally we have more advanced ideas of what we value; we can for instance value things like going to the moon that are not directly related to food or sex or death. 

2.  But even though something as abstact as "money" (a universal trade good that has no use in and of itself) is probably beyond those monkeys, they can certainly understand "wealth".  And relative wealth, and barter, etc. 

For instance, when one monkey gives another one a tool it needs to get some nuts, and then gets paid a share of the nuts, that's actually a pretty sophisticated transaction, which relies on the other monkey being MORAL and giving the first monkey the share it deserves for the, shall we say, capital investment. 

3.  On the contrary, the monkey's poor behavior is actually the direct RESULT of its ability to recognize fair (and unfair) treatment to itself, because it was getting screwed in trading compared to the other one.  (And we already know that it is not sociopathic, i.e. only recognizing/caring about its own treatment, because of its fair treatment of the other monkey in the earlier experiment.)  If it was more stupid, it would not have recognized that it was getting less in trade and would have stayed blissfully ignorant. 

4.  That is a bad analogy, becuase it did not resent the other monkey who got a better deal, nor tried to Itake its grape.  It just wanted to get a trade equally valuable for an equal investment. 

I think the ape simply want some grapes and did what it could to get them.  I bet this was not the first time this monkey took the grapes out of the man's hand.  As far as animals  I think they are more intelligent than we give them credit for.



Around the Network

@smidlee

Obviously you aren't comprehending the analogy, or desperately trying to change the subject. The analogy wasn't about the mechanics of the process, and I think you know that. A snowflake is a complex structure, but water molecules going from a gaseous state into a solid state isn't complex. You keep proposing that a complex result must require a complex process. I have debunked that with nothing more then a snowflake. I could debunk it with hundreds of complex natural structures. Would you like me to rattle off a litany of them?

I think I have been more then gentle with you in this back and forth. I have let you slide on quite a lot. I haven't demanded citation for your claims. I haven't demanded sources. I haven't even responded in link. Don't you think its only honorable to have enough respect for me to address the point that was made. Rather then dance around the room stalling for time, or trying to intercede in another ongoing discussion. I have a lock on you, and I am not going to relent. Further more this thread doesn't look like it is going to collapse, or pinch off yet again. So yeah your pretty cornered, and yeah that is why you got snarky with me earlier.

You really have three choices here. You can concede the point. Concede you have no good argument. Leave the thread. Like I said I haven't been particularly brutal with you. I have handled you with kid gloves, and on top of that I have also been more articulate then I needed to be. I have been more then fair with you, and more then that I have been very nice to you. Bottom line I think I deserve a real response to the point. I have put out more then enough effort thus far to justify that.

Take the hint.



You have.... no idea how hard I would downvote some of these posts if it were possible. Some of the so called people claiming to know "science" here, and failing at it, is just disheartening. 



Dodece said:

@smidlee

Obviously you aren't comprehending the analogy, or desperately trying to change the subject. The analogy wasn't about the mechanics of the process, and I think you know that. A snowflake is a complex structure, but water molecules going from a gaseous state into a solid state isn't complex. You keep proposing that a complex result must require a complex process.

I never state "all"  complex structure requires a complex process  as in your snowflake is an example  that don't but life, like a PC, does. Life is both complex in structure and a extreme complex process.  Snowflakes doesn't have much function and is based only on the simple arrangement of atoms after energy/heat is loss. It"s the special property of the water molecule to expand when it becomes solid.  Man can create snow with extreme easy while he hasn't yet created FrankinCell.



what evidence for evolution? Where are all the millions of transitionary fossiles? If we did indeed evolve from the primoridal slime what happened? Did the fish thing land on the land and realise it couldn't breath and somehow got washed back into the ocean? Then kept doing this over millions of years and then somehow developed lungs to breath air. Then, once it developed lungs did it then develop legs, organs to reproduce etc? Ask a mathematician the earth is not old enough for evolution to be correct. sorry that's a fact. Mathematicians have debated biologists and left them questioning... there simply isn't enough time from the creation/big bang date to today. Even at billions of years the earth is too young to have had life evolve. Want to look at the complexity of just a single cell happening by random chance which is what evolution needs - that would be like covering North America with dimes that reach to the moon - then placing one red dime among the trillioins of dimes covering the continent reaching up to the moon then asking a blind man to just pick one and him picking that red dime. thats the probabilty mathematicians have calculated for the simplest of elements for life... sorry evolution doesn't add up.



Around the Network

any flaws come from our own doing. the original design was indeed perfect. Living in a world that isn't perfect has resulted in disease, deformity and changes to how we react to our environment. Just because we feel things about us are not perfect does not discount design. You have to consider the original plan. We've strayed from what the designer - or God, planned and we now live those consequences. But our lives are simply a dot on a never ending line so eternity - yours - is much more important the this tiny life time we have.



Smidlee said:
Final-Fan said:
Smidlee said:
(1) Mankind does many things that has nothing to do with food (or sex) , like sending man to the moon. And the monkey trade the chip only because time and time again they are rewarded  for food.  (2) This again doesn't mean an ape understand the concept of wealth/money. This is man trying to imply something human onto an ape.

(3) The ape was not only unthankful but eventually force the grapes out of the man's hand. Obviously the ape does not understand the concept of stealing and had no problem taking the grapes from the man's hand. Also the other ape which was giving the grapes didn't really care to share his grape to the other ape.

(4) Watching these apes  reminds me of some selfish children fighting of their parent inheritance that just passed away, afraid one will get more than the other. There is nothing moral about this kind of action.

1.  Look, no one is denying that humans have a more advanced intellect than those monkeys, so naturally we have more advanced ideas of what we value; we can for instance value things like going to the moon that are not directly related to food or sex or death. 

2.  But even though something as abstact as "money" (a universal trade good that has no use in and of itself) is probably beyond those monkeys, they can certainly understand "wealth".  And relative wealth, and barter, etc. 

For instance, when one monkey gives another one a tool it needs to get some nuts, and then gets paid a share of the nuts, that's actually a pretty sophisticated transaction, which relies on the other monkey being MORAL and giving the first monkey the share it deserves for the, shall we say, capital investment. 

3.  On the contrary, the monkey's poor behavior is actually the direct RESULT of its ability to recognize fair (and unfair) treatment to itself, because it was getting screwed in trading compared to the other one.  (And we already know that it is not sociopathic, i.e. only recognizing/caring about its own treatment, because of its fair treatment of the other monkey in the earlier experiment.)  If it was more stupid, it would not have recognized that it was getting less in trade and would have stayed blissfully ignorant. 

4.  That is a bad analogy, becuase it did not resent the other monkey who got a better deal, nor tried to Itake its grape.  It just wanted to get a trade equally valuable for an equal investment. 

I think the ape simply want some grapes and did what it could to get them.  I bet this was not the first time this monkey took the grapes out of the man's hand.  As far as animals  I think they are more intelligent than we give them credit for.

And I think that's gross misrepresentation of what was going on in the video, not to mention character assassination of the poor monkey! 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

bluxx said:

what evidence for evolution? Where are all the millions of transitionary fossiles? If we did indeed evolve from the primoridal slime what happened? Did the fish thing land on the land and realise it couldn't breath and somehow got washed back into the ocean? Then kept doing this over millions of years and then somehow developed lungs to breath air. Then, once it developed lungs did it then develop legs, organs to reproduce etc? Ask a mathematician the earth is not old enough for evolution to be correct. sorry that's a fact. Mathematicians have debated biologists and left them questioning... there simply isn't enough time from the creation/big bang date to today. Even at billions of years the earth is too young to have had life evolve. Want to look at the complexity of just a single cell happening by random chance which is what evolution needs - that would be like covering North America with dimes that reach to the moon - then placing one red dime among the trillioins of dimes covering the continent reaching up to the moon then asking a blind man to just pick one and him picking that red dime. thats the probabilty mathematicians have calculated for the simplest of elements for life... sorry evolution doesn't add up.

We didn't evolve from slime nor fish. You base your ideas about that stupid picture of a fish turning into a frog than a monkey than us. And you know what? Maybe the blind man does pick the red dime. Even though the chance is small, it could happen. Why do you think we're the only sentient life for thousands of light years? Life appeared on earth over 3.5 billion years ago. Yeah I think that's a good time frame for evolution to occur. You're contesting the fact that life formed by chance, when it did. There was no creator that did it. Just because the chances of it are infinitesimal does not mean it is impossible!



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

bluxx said:

any flaws come from our own doing. the original design was indeed perfect. Living in a world that isn't perfect has resulted in disease, deformity and changes to how we react to our environment. Just because we feel things about us are not perfect does not discount design. You have to consider the original plan. We've strayed from what the designer - or God, planned and we now live those consequences. But our lives are simply a dot on a never ending line so eternity - yours - is much more important the this tiny life time we have.


Bladdy blah blah, unsubstantiated ideas, blah.

You really don't have any proof of that, it's a bit inane to bring that up here.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

I do think it's kind of cute that he registered just for those two posts, though.  Especially when they are just regurgitations of Hovind or whoever is pushing that false math bullshit nowadays. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom!