Katrina

[Phytotron]

But it proves Darwins theory about Survival Of The Fittest, and thus it confirms the Darwin Birds on the Galapagos Islands...

Two things. One, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was not coined by Darwin. It was coined by Herbert Spencer, an advocate of eugenics, in an attempt to bastardize the theory of natural selection and apply it to human social activity—also known as Social Darwinism. It's absolute crap and has no relation to how evolution actually works. Lose that phrase.*

Two—and this is a notice to all the creationist wackos out there as well—Darwin himself is irrelevant to modern-day evolutionary biology. He lived 150 years ago. The theory has been refined since then, and Darwin needn't be brought up at all.

As to z-man's posts, I'm hoping he's not serious and is, as he seemed to mention, just playing devil's advocate.

For clarification on the rest that's been said on evolution, I highly recommend the website, Talk Origins. It covers just about anything you'd like to know regarding evolution and the theory(ies) describing it, including the peppered moths. There are also, of course—um, what are those things called—oh yeah! Books! Anything by Richard Dawkins, especially The Blind Watchmaker, is a good place to start.

But, I'd add, that specific example, as well as the others you mentioned, are by no means crucial to proving evolution. There are thousands upon thousands of examples of evidence for evolution. It's overwhelming; the most verified theory in science—more so than gravity.

Oh, and despite the fact that evolution occurs over very long periods of time, there have in fact been many documented instances of new distinct species developing. Bacteria are the easiest example because they go through generations at an extremely quick pace. But, you can look up others.

What else? Oh, yes, see, I was wondering when that response would come. SD says homosexuality isn't natural because no other animals do it. Well, what a stupid thing for a fundie to say, because after all, even if it were documented that numerous species practice homosexuality (and believe me, it's far more widespread than just bonobos), then that would also be dismissed out of hand by SD because he does not believe humans are animals anyway, or share any relation to other species. Of course, humans are animals—humans are apes, in fact—but that's of no matter to mind-f'ed ignoramuses like SD.


* Better short phrases one can use to describe the theory of evolution:

- Natural Selection and Sexual Selection
- Descent with modification
- A change in allele frequencies in a population over time (or for a funny: allele bit of this, allele bit of that)
- Survival of those best adapted to their habitat for the purpose of passing on their more successful genes to subsequent generations
- "Life results from the nonrandom survival of randomly varying replicators." — Richard Dawkins

[Self_Destructo]

...humans are animals—humans are apes,...

heh, I guess you don't think any better of yourself than that?

[Lucifer]

...humans are animals—humans are apes,...

heh, I guess you don't think any better of yourself than that?

Depends on how you look at it. I've known both dogs and cats that were more honorable, respectable, and generally nicer than a lot of humans I've known.

[microbus]

Dest, way back there you said homosexuality isn't acceptable, as
animals don't practice it, they were created as males and females...
now you've changed your tune

Homosexuality amongst animals:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... nimal.html

and a quote from a website:

Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals
Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn't come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don't normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.
In animals in which "bachelor groups" form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.
The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random.
In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season.

Not At All Unusual
Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you're in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.

species/percent homosexual/percent bisexual/percent heterosexual
silver gulls (females) 10 / 11 / 79
black headed gulls (both sexes) 22 / 15 / 63
Japanese macaques (both sexes) 9 / 56 / 35
bonobo chimpanzees (both sexes) 0 / 100 / 0
galahs (both sexes) 44 / 11 / 44

[Phytotron]

"It is as respectable to be a modified monkey as modified dirt." - T.H. Huxley

And, in fact, I say more so.

[Z-Man]

I'm proud to be an animal that made more out of it all by itself (as a species). Being the dominant species of a planet is no big deal if you're created that way. (Not that I'm particularily proud of how we handle our responsibilities here...)

As to z-man's posts, I'm hoping he's not serious and is, as he seemed to mention, just playing devil's advocate.

Gods Advocate. But yes, those are not my views. I was just trying to demonstrate that a sensible discussion of Evolution vs. Creationism is not possible, because Creationism can't possibly be proven wrong (unless, perhaps, we build a time machine and go back six thousand years and earth is still there, and even then, the Creationists will think of something to explain that, like our machine is bogus.). We've been there before.

...a survey you said would be worthwile

I said it would be interesting. I don't think I ever said that it would be worthwhile.

Right, you did not say it was worthwile,

Now, it sounds like a good study z-man, and if i have time I will look into it.

and if you say "good study", i'd say that means "I won't ignore the results even if they are uncomfortable". I would not have ignored the results had they shown a correlation. Sure, I'd have tried to explain it away (like I explained away the slight negative correlation that would have been very uncomfortable to you), but I would not have ignored it.

--homosexuality is not the only sin.
--tornadoes are not the only way God punishes.

Those two don't cut it. Even if homosexuality is only one of the punished sins and tornadoes are only one way of punishment, there ought to be a correlation. Unless God covers it up by killing more innocent people with tornadoes in less gay counties. And why would He do that?

--mostly only political sins are punished.

Now, I only came about the last conclusion today, because I was noticing with the examples I have that political sins seems to be the only ones punished. Now I don't believe that it is possible to make accurate statistical data on this subject. Just my conlusions since I had some time to think about it today at work.

Excellent, yes, this is a possible way out. However, if we make really good statistics, it OUGHT to show up. Otherwise, we can't learn anything from it, and punishment has no meaning if the punished can't learn from it. God's message needs to be visible for everyone, not just those who already believe, otherwise He would not need to send a message at all. Which is my Hpyothesis: God (should He exist) does not send messages these days.

So, what would we need for really good statistics?
- A more extensive list of disasters. We already have the exact dates of all spotted tornadoes since the fifties. We also need equivalent lists for other relatively frequent disasters. Any ideas? Earthquakes with casualties are relatively rare, so we won't get any good statistics from them, but there ought to be good data for minor earthquakes.
- A list of pro/contra-homo, pro/contra-abortion, pro/contra-unmarried couples, pro/contra-gambling political decisions with dates. It's important that this list is as pure as possible, from a source that does not already list only those where a disaster followed. Does anyone know where to get this?
- A statement by SD saying that should the resulting statistics show no significant correlation (less than one standard deviation), he'll <insert whatever SD is willing to do then>.
- A statement by Z-Man saying that should there be a significant (more than three standard deviations) correlation in positive direction (sinful decision -> disaster) and the data sources can't be proven to be biased, he'll accept that if God exists, he does punish Bad decisions with disasters. (The consequence of which, as I may add, may very well be Z-Man becoming a fighter against such a God). Consider this the statement.

Actually, the list of spotted tornadoes already disqualifies as an unbiased source. It may well be that after a pro-homo law is passed, people like SD go tornado spotting on purpose, so the probability of a tornado to be spotted increases in these times. The list of tornadoes that actually did damage would qualify. Earthquakes as registered by seismometers will do. Material damage done by anything not under human control (fires don't count), as recorded by insurance companies, would count.

When we have all this gathered, only then I can get to work.

Alternative shortcut with less work for me: SD acknowledges again that no possible statistical survey we can do would reveal God's intentions. At that point, the statement that God tries to warn us with disasters turns to moot. It's not a warning if you only see it with with your believer's hat on. That does not have to stop anyone from believing it, but it gives me the right to point out that the statement has not the least connection with reality as we know it.

And while we're at it: If homosexuality is unnatural, why did create God the bonobos the way he did?

I don't know. But I do know that we are not animals and it is unatural for us as humans. In this factor I know that I am not wrong at all.

How would you define "natural" for humans, then? Envy, greed, jealousy and hatred are, in the sense that everyone has experienced them some time, natural parts of us humans. Yet, correct me if I'm wrong, they are Sins or easily lead to Sins. And until you see your first Black, you may very well assume that the natural skin color of humans is pink. Being born with both male and female sexual organs certainly is unnatural, but yet it happens sometimes. Is it a Sin, too? Is being mentally retarded a Sin? Our digestive system can easily handle all food we throw at it all the time; what's wrong with eating meat on Fridays or (from other religions) pork or any form of dead animal? It sounds natural to me.
The two core questions: How do we know what is Natural? How do we know everything that is Unnatural must be a Sin?

(Expecting a bible quote and dropping the "natural" criterion as an answer...)

And just for fun: a Flying Spaghetti Monster Game! (Slightly less entertaining than killing Crazy Frog, though...)

[Lucifer]

The two core questions: How do we know what is Natural? How do we know everything that is Unnatural must be a Sin?

I love defining Natural. It's always fun. The way I figure it, if it isn't Natural, then it's impossible. Simple as that. Einstein says (or someone uses relativity to say) that it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light. (Expecting corrections here) So I say that if that is true, then travelling faster than the speed of light is not natural.

If it wasn't natural for people of the same sex to have sex with each other, then physics would prevent it.

I usually look at "synthetic" chemicals. Now, I realize that "synthetic" means "man-made", but I like to hear how they're not Natural. If they weren't Natural, then how could man make them? Chemistry is all about nature!

So, I can go with unnatural being a sin, since it would totally violate nature. I can go with there being a God who has set it up that way. But I'm having a hard time seeing how God can make things possible within the natural workings of the universe and then declare them to be "unnatural". He could've made these things impossible, why didn't he? What kind of ego trip is he on, anyway?

[Z-Man]

Einstein says that it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

Nitpick coming: it's not possible to accelerate something from below lightspeed to above. Things traveling faster than light all the time are possible, but we have not yet seen any and it's unlikely we'll ever do as they cause huge problems with causality and stuff. Plus, in GRT, with a bunch of exotic (not yet discovered) matter (about a star's weight of it), it gets possible to build wormholes and warp drives that don't violate SRT locally, but do when you see the whole picture. I bet that would be a Sin

God obviously created the world (if we assume He did it at all) in such a way that he doesn't have to micromanage everything. He does not have to make the sun rise every morning, inertia and earth's rotation handle that for him. He does not need to make the leaves fall in autumn; that's gravity's job. Neither the earth nor the leaves need to know God exists and they're fulfilling His wishes, they just do so naturally. It's only logical to assume similar things apply to humans. Leave a bunch of humans alone for a while, and they'll fulfill God's will all on their own. Without having to believe in Him and following some old book of rules because they think they're supposed to. Earth and leaves don't have a book either.

Unrelated: I'd just like to let these two statements sit next to each other without further comments (although quoting fonkay's avatar did come to my mind):

Don't force your beleifs on other people. I've seen to many of these god debates in these forums.. weve heard the same thing over and over again we know what you beleive now stop ...

I haven't forced any of my beliefs on anyone here. I am just staing my case like everyone else here does. And did I not say that I was done? Hint: look a few posts up.

Put the Ten Commandments and prayer back into the school. Kick evolution out and teach Creation. Read the Bible in school. That would bring the better envirionment that should be there.

[Self_Destructo]

Einstein says that it's not possible to travel faster than the speed of light.

Nitpick coming: it's not possible to accelerate something from below lightspeed to above. Things traveling faster than light all the time are possible, but we have not yet seen any and it's unlikely we'll ever do as they cause huge problems with causality and stuff. Plus, in GRT, with a bunch of exotic (not yet discovered) matter (about a star's weight of it), it gets possible to build wormholes and warp drives that don't violate SRT locally, but do when you see the whole picture. I bet that would be a Sin

Light has been completly stopped to sped up 300x faster than what it is already. So just speed up light And AFAIK it doesn't go against the Bible so it wouldn't be wrong (sin).

Leave a bunch of humans alone for a while, and they'll fulfill God's will all on their own. Without having to believe in Him and following some old book of rules because they think they're supposed to.

Not since sin is in the world. If there was no sin that would be the case. And there won't be one of these days.

Don't force your beleifs on other people. I've seen to many of these god debates in these forums.. weve heard the same thing over and over again we know what you beleive now stop ...

I haven't forced any of my beliefs on anyone here. I am just staing my case like everyone else here does. And did I not say that I was done? Hint: look a few posts up.

Put the Ten Commandments and prayer back into the school. Kick evolution out and teach Creation. Read the Bible in school. That would bring the better envirionment that should be there.

I am just doing just like you guys and stating my opinion. Yes, to do that would cause changes in everyone's life. But not everyone has to participate in it either. But you would be surpirsed at how many would. And I really doubt it would happen and if it did, of course, it would not be mandantory, just an option.

And as far a quiting? Well, I was asked some questions and it was proper to answer them.

[Fonkay]

Kick evolution out and teach Creation

That would make it mandatory, wouldn't it? Yes, let's all get rid of science, and biology and teach prayer and hatred against gays instead. While we're at it maybe we should get rid of art, history, and debate. English or political science maybe.
We should just change the public school system into churches, and make people have to pay for private non-christian schools.

Achoo!

[Self_Destructo]

Kick evolution out and teach Creation

That would make it mandatory, wouldn't it?

I suppose, but we could just make it all an option to the kids.

Achoo!

Sneez again.
How about going back to the way it was and just let the parents do thier kids education? Like Homeschool. heh, and alot of the sciences that you mentioned were made up by Creationists.

[Z-Man]

That would make it mandatory, wouldn't it?

I suppose, but we could just make it all an option to the kids.

That's what Sunday School is for Your original suggestion sounded very much like that stuff should be made mandatory, I'd agree with fonkay here. That's what my comparison was aiming at: you're not forcing your belief on us (because we'd fight back, I suppose ), but you want to force it on all children. Just imagine the other religions having similar claims; kids would ALL need to learn about Shiva and the other 50 million gods of Hinduism, the wisdom of Buddha, they'd need to learn Hebrew just to be able to read the Tora, not to mention read the whole boring Koran. And the Bible is not really that thrilling, either. With all that religion, there'd be no time left to learn math and other useful knowledge. Look where it got the Taliban.

Religious stuff belongs into the churches and temples. It's right that science alone can't teach important values, but literature and history classes do. It's the parents' job to fill in the blanks; they should not leave that to television

heh, and alot of the sciences that you mentioned were made up by Creationists.

That's the wonderful part about science: who made it up does not matter, as long as it fits the facts However, would you belive a Rabbi or a Guru when they tell their version of the Truth? Only as far as it fits what you already Know, I presume.

Light has been completly stopped to sped up 300x faster than what it is already. So just speed up light And AFAIK it doesn't go against the Bible so it wouldn't be wrong (sin).

Sorry I was inprecise. In [GS]RT, we always mean the vacuum speed of light. Yes, light can be completely stopped in a medium, and the phase velocity can be increased (not the group velocity that governs how fast information can be transmitted).

Back to the core questions, we got distracted (my mistake):
- What is unnatural and natural for humans? How do we define it?
- Is every unnatural thing a Sin?
- If there is no way God's punishments show up in statistics, why did SD cite the examples? Aren't they irrelevant then, too?

[Fonkay]

I think that religion should be taught in school. Not to confuse everyone, or to take back what I've already said.

I've always believed that there should be religion as an available class in school, but not in the way SD is referring. I think that there should be a class that teaches kids about all sorts of religion around the world. It should teach different sides of religion, and how it has impacted the world. It should show their beliefs, rituals and stuff like that.

It's known that alot of fear is based on ignorance. So teaching people what it means to be muslim, hindu, buddist, jewish, catholic or any other religion, would bridge the gap significantly IMO.
Also it might keep history from repeating itself in some instances.

Excuse my grammar, and nonsense. I'm tired.

[Tank Program]

I've always believed that there should be religion as an available class in school, but not in the way SD is referring. I think that there should be a class that teaches kids about all sorts of religion around the world. It should teach different sides of religion, and how it has impacted the world. It should show their beliefs, rituals and stuff like that.

2nd half of eigth grade I had a class sort of like this... in finland...

[Lucifer]

It's known that alot of fear is based on ignorance. So teaching people what it means to be muslim, hindu, buddist, jewish, catholic or any other religion, would bridge the gap significantly IMO.
Also it might keep history from repeating itself in some instances.

Indeed, I'm in agreement. I think philosophy should be taught in high schools and that religion should be figured into philosophy, since the two are tricky to separate at times and tend to influence one another anyway. Also, there are a number of hideous rumors circulating about Moslems right now. A little education can go a long way to stop these rumors, which would be good because the rumors are used to justify genocide in the middle east.

When I took my psychology class last semester, we talked about one of the studies involving group thinking. They took a summer camp and split up the kids into two groups of boys. All the kids were WASPs from the upper-middle class. They gave each one a name and encouraged them to be competitive with one another.

Mob rule took over at various eating functions and so forth, and the kids developed real hatred and prejudice towards each other. Realizing they had made a mistake and not wanting anyone to get hurt, the psychologists started looking for ways to get them to get along. They found that just putting them together wasn't enough (forced integration). In order to end the hatred and prejudice, they got them working together on various team activities, and by the time the camp was over the two groups got along famously.

With increasing diversity comes increasing opportunities to address these issues, and it seems to me that the opportunities aren't being taken.