|
|
#61
10-31-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, you're merely choosing to interpret your experiences a specific way. Very few atheists think theists, or gays etc, DESERVE to be tormented for eternity. huh? That doesn't seem to you just a bit worse then being childishly cocky because you are brighter/more informed than most of the theists you run into. luckyme [/ QUOTE ] The highlighted portion is what I like to refer to as "Atheists Misconception #1". Claiming all theists believe such a thing is no different than me claiming "Atheists support child molestation, because they have no morals." Are there child molestors who are atheists? Of course there are. Is that a blanket statement? No, it's ridiculous. 
|
|
#63
10-31-2007, 02:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
this is why i dislike democracy so much. democracy kind of works as intended in finland where most people are about equal and similar (compared to america's heterogeneity). but in america its just terrible. and how can you expect to run a society based on a completely incorrect premise: all men are created equal. [/ QUOTE ] I guess we can run it based on the equality principle because God says he loves us all equally so we regard each other as equals. We also have a political system of checks and balances that is kind of a trinity. One the Legislature makes the laws, Two the Judiciary judges the issues of law and Three the Executive oversees and enforces the law.
|
|
#64
10-31-2007, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
But in the case of genetic engineering it's not who reproduces the most that's important, but how the reproduction is done. So how does matter. In what is typically thought of as 'natural selection' it's just the who that matters. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know what you mean by "typically thought of," but in the scientific community "natural selection" isn't just about the who. Natural selection is definitely not a matter of who reproduces most - it's about genetic fitness, which may be increased through greater reproduction, but which also may be decreased through greater reproduction. Incidentally, this is part of the OP's fallacy - in fact, it was the human ancestors who reproduced less, putting more resources into each child, who were fittest. Those who reproduced too much were unable to go the distance and care for their children (who were very vulnerable for many years and who had significant physical and emotional needs), and so they were selected against (and thus, modern humans have evolved to have relatively fewer children than most species).
|
|
#65
10-31-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
If an "education" produces theories like this, then count me as happy that I belong to the great unwashed masses. You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularily novel viewpoint but it is undoubtably unwarranted. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't every poker player think this way?
|
|
#66
10-31-2007, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If an "education" produces theories like this, then count me as happy that I belong to the great unwashed masses. You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularily novel viewpoint but it is undoubtably unwarranted. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't every poker player think this way? [/ QUOTE ] No.
|
|
#67
10-31-2007, 05:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what you mean by "typically thought of," but in the scientific community "natural selection" isn't just about the who. [/ QUOTE ] I guess I meant "typically thought of by myself". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I can be presumptuous sometimes. But at any rate it doesn't matter. Just take what I said as "natural selection or evolution will be driven by biotechnology". Agree/disagree?
|
|
#68
10-31-2007, 05:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
Agree. It's a big difference. I'm just nitty about "natural selection" and "evolution" because people use the terms to justify the most absurd ideas sometimes.
|
|
#69
10-31-2007, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If an "education" produces theories like this, then count me as happy that I belong to the great unwashed masses. You think you are great and the rest of the world are idiots; this is not a particularily novel viewpoint but it is undoubtably unwarranted. [/ QUOTE ] Doesn't every poker player think this way? [/ QUOTE ] No. [/ QUOTE ] I'm echoing Dbblbarrelj's no with emphasis. I don't see this attitude a lot live, but I sense it more present online. Its probably a lot easier to role play this pseudo-superiority thing online than live where you actually socialize on a table. I can't imagine what satisfaction anyone gets out of this phoney superiority unless there's some kind of hole they're trying to fill. Online reality is definitely not the same as live reality [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
|
|
#70
10-31-2007, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: the process of de-evolution has begun
if you haven't seen it, the film Idiocracy w/ Luke Wilson deals with this issue and it has its moments.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
