A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?

[Iacchus32]

The following began on the thread How would you engineer the perfect human? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3600&perpage=15&pagenumber=2), which I decided to continue on here. I thought it was unusual that everyone was talking about genetically altering human beings, and wondering what if anything it had to do with natural selection? For this would almost seem to be its very antithesis.

I've also introduced a few chapters of my book which speaks about a timeline of 10,000 years that accounts for the Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor, as well as the development of the differences between the races at this time, suggesting that we might very well be "transplants." Any suggestions? Comments?

Here are a couple of posts from that thread which kind of get the ball rolling here ....


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps this is the next step in natural evolution: Self guided evolution. I used to think that this may go against God's plan or muck up the gene pool. Now, I feel that this comes down to a matter of random odds vs choices. Nature can be very cruel. But why the sudden leap all of a sudden, from that which is seemingly inocuous as natural selection, to that which seems to have "seized control" and quite possibly developed into its very antithesis? What part of the process will continue to remain "natural" once everything becomes artificial and man-made?
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Another God
The fact that our brain function is a direct result of natural selection, and our brains are designing the new bodies... I think "estranged" from the whole process is probably the best way to put it? Indeed I think it's indicative to a basic flaw in the theory that we merely arrived here by natural selection alone, not that I believe the whole theory is invalid ...

I would venture to say that as a species we've only been here about 10,000 years -- more than likely as "transplants" -- thus accounting for the Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor, as well as the differences between the races of people, which conceivably could have happened in about that period of time. I speak about this idea further in the first three chapters of my book (specifically in chapter 2) if you're interested ...


chapter 1 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html) |chapter 2 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html) |chapter 3 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html)
EDIT: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817).

[Iacchus32]

Another God was also a bit dismayed by my use of numbers here, and even accused me of being a bit off my rocker (to say the least), to which the following applies ...


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Another God
I had a quick look at chap 2 of your book....but quickly stopped reading. I can't take stuff like this seriously:

I mean, seriously...how strung out were you to make that series of connections??? it's not like any one of them are at all obvious, let alone even related?

Lets say that I am not amazed that no one else has seen this amazing number game you have found. Am afraid I can't let you off the hook quite so easily here. And, while I admit the numbers thing may sound a bit screwy (this was one of the first chapters I wrote way back when by the way), when plotted against the timeline of history, you may begin to see it yields some interesting results.

I also realize it may not have been the best thing to point you directly to this link, because you obviously aren't readily convinced. I probably should have left it with asking you to read the first three chapters. Which, I recommend you still do so if you're interested, at least chapter 1 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html) anyway, since it doesn't deal with numbers so much. Also, you might want to consider reading chapter 5 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html), which is the pivotal chapter of the book, and explains the timeline in accord with the year 1987, otherwise the rest of it becomes meaningless. If anyone wants to refer to the timeline specifically I would recommend reading the following chapters below or, we can discuss the evolutionary flaw in general if you like? Thanks!


Chapter 1 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html) | Chapter 2 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html) | Chapter 3 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html) | Chapter 5 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html)

[FZ+]

Ok... the weak link in all of this is...

What part of the process will continue to remain "natural" once everything becomes artificial and man-made?
Now natural selection is about altering the frequency of genes according to local selective pressures. Any selective pressures. For example, the old moth example is that of humans providing the selective pressures.

The whole concept of natural as distinct from artificial is, in effect, misguided. It's based on the assumption of the specialness of mankind and human influence, which is IMHO... simply wrong.

It is matter of fact that any human action has reverberations way in excess of the locality where it takes place. The use of a car slightly affects the air content of the earth, and so it can be said that all reactions to atmospheric changes have been influenced by human action. We quickly get to the conclusion that ALL EFFECTS ARE ARTIFICIAL.

The reality is that we must observe that mankind is part of nature, and that the division between natural and artificial is entirely arbitary. Then we can see guidance of natural selection as continued natural selection - with simply a different selective pressure. There is no difference.

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I thought it was unusual that everyone was talking about genetically altering human beings, and wondering what if anything it had to do with natural selection? For this would almost seem to be its very antithesis.


Haven't had time to review that other topic or read your link (sorry), but genetic alterations would probably fall under the topic of "artificial selection" which is another evolutionary mechanism like natural selection (although some people would argue that such uses of technology is "natural" human behavior). So, it doesn't seem to be a flaw of N.S., but instead a different aspect of evolution (which is simply changes in a gene pool from generation to generation). A.S. certainly can be faster acting than N.S. (as evidenced by agriculture and animal domestication). But perhaps you meant more than this?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok... the weak link in all of this is...Really? I thought it was a very good point. In fact I thought it was rather obvious. Oh well, silly me. [6)]


Now natural selection is about altering the frequency of genes according to local selective pressures. Any selective pressures. For example, the old moth example is that of humans providing the selective pressures.

The whole concept of natural as distinct from artificial is, in effect, misguided. It's based on the assumption of the specialness of mankind and human influence, which is IMHO... simply wrong.Yet it's a pretty broadly based assumption, and I think most people will readily say they feel a "distinct detachment" from nature.


It is matter of fact that any human action has reverberations way in excess of the locality where it takes place. The use of a car slightly affects the air content of the earth, and so it can be said that all reactions to atmospheric changes have been influenced by human action. We quickly get to the conclusion that ALL EFFECTS ARE ARTIFICIAL.If it wasn't for the fact that our existence on this planet didn't have such a broad impact on life in general -- to the extent of seizing control and over-riding the diversity -- I would be inclined to agree. While I think it would only be fair to say that life exists because of its diversity, even when looking at the complex diversity that goes into the makeup of the human body ... an eco-system unto itself!


The reality is that we must observe that mankind is part of nature, and that the division between natural and artificial is entirely arbitary. Then we can see guidance of natural selection as continued natural selection - with simply a different selective pressure. There is no difference. But who's to say this isn't just another fancy excuse for not taking responsibility for our actions? Maybe we don't want to be bothered because it seems too overwhelming?

[Another God]

But who's to say this isn't just another fancy excuse for not taking responsibility for our actions? Maybe we don't want to be bothered because it seems too overwhelming? [/B] NO matter what we say, we are stuck taking consequences for our actions. We can try to delude ourselves as much as we want, but you can't avoid consequences.

[megashawn]

Ok, so when humans were using sticks to hunt and living in caves, it was natural?

Now that we use a rifle, which is made by a man, same kinda man that made the spear, and live in a house, built by a man, generally out of natural materials its artificial?

I mean, if a dog were to build his own dog house somehow, would it be an artifical dwelling?

Technology is an accomplishment of a natural being. Burning a coal engine to heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity so we can argue about this is a natural process. It releases chemicals, which may or may not be found naturally in earths enviroment, they are found elsewhere in the universe, almost certainly.

You say many people feel we are not one with nature. That is because we've been able to use are tool building ability to alter our nature. Is it simply because we use our natural ability to alter our natural habitat what makes it artifical?

If we take it to the next step, using our technology, a result of our natural ability, to alter our genetics, how is this any less natural, then using that spear to kill a deer? It is simply putting to use a tool we created to improve our life.

Hopefully, we can start using our tools to improve all life.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
NO matter what we say, we are stuck taking consequences for our actions. We can try to delude ourselves as much as we want, but you can't avoid consequences. Of course, but does that mean we shouldn't be required to take corrective action?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Ok, so when humans were using sticks to hunt and living in caves, it was natural?Or, how far would we go back to construe what being human means? Just like I say in the timeline in my book, it began about 10,000 years ago with Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Beyond that -- i.e., the development of civilization -- what other inkling is there to suggest that what came before was truly human?


Now that we use a rifle, which is made by a man, same kinda man that made the spear, and live in a house, built by a man, generally out of natural materials its artificial?

I mean, if a dog were to build his own dog house somehow, would it be an artifical dwelling?

Technology is an accomplishment of a natural being. Burning a coal engine to heat water to turn turbines to generate electricity so we can argue about this is a natural process. It releases chemicals, which may or may not be found naturally in earths enviroment, they are found elsewhere in the universe, almost certainly.No, the key here is are we really natural to the environment? ... If not, then "who" put us here?


You say many people feel we are not one with nature. That is because we've been able to use are tool building ability to alter our nature. Is it simply because we use our natural ability to alter our natural habitat what makes it artifical?Yes, but what happens when we wipe out all the diversity?


If we take it to the next step, using our technology, a result of our natural ability, to alter our genetics, how is this any less natural, then using that spear to kill a deer? It is simply putting to use a tool we created to improve our life.

Hopefully, we can start using our tools to improve all life. It sounds to me a bit like playing God which, is supposedly the reason we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place! [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Phobos
Haven't had time to review that other topic or read your link (sorry), but genetic alterations would probably fall under the topic of "artificial selection" which is another evolutionary mechanism like natural selection (although some people would argue that such uses of technology is "natural" human behavior). So, it doesn't seem to be a flaw of N.S., but instead a different aspect of evolution (which is simply changes in a gene pool from generation to generation).Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?


A.S. certainly can be faster acting than N.S. (as evidenced by agriculture and animal domestication). But perhaps you meant more than this? And yet I think this could be the problem, because it leaves little time for anything else to adapt, except for as you say, those things we've managed to domesticate. But what of those things which can't be domesticated? What's going to happen there?

Also, if you read this thing about the timeline, you may wish to consider the possibility that we've only been here as "a species" (if we should call it as such) for about 10,000 years.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Or, how far would we go back to construe what being human means? Just like I say in the timeline in my book, it began about 10,000 years ago with Advent of Modern Man and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Beyond that -- i.e., the development of civilization -- what other inkling is there to suggest that what came before was truly human?You are trying to impose our arbitrary designation of groupings onto nature. Just because we believe we are human, all of us, and nothing else is, doesn't mean that we actually are different to anything. At a deep level, we are all different to everything, including each other, and then on an even deeper lever, we are all identical.

Groupings of species, genera's, clades etc are simply for our own ease of understanding, and don't need to be directly reflected in nature by solid lines of demarcation.

Lines simply don't exist in nature. nature appears to work in constant shades of grey.


Yes, but what happens when we wipe out all the diversity?
The remaining species diversify. The same way it has happened since the begining of life.


It sounds to me a bit like playing God which, is supposedly the reason we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place! [;)]
What's the garden of eden?


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?Nothing 'wrong' with it, but there is nothing 'right' with it either. As part of nature it is purely objective and uncaring in its ways. At least when we use artificial selection we are taking care of our own interests for once.

We associate it with "us" because thats who we are. We are so special, because we are us, and we are only concerned with us. There is nothing 'Actually' special about us....but that doesn't mean we can't think of ourselves as special.


And yet I think this could be the problem, because it leaves little time for anything else to adapt, except for as you say, those things we've managed to domesticate. But what of those things which can't be domesticated? What's going to happen there?
We put them in zoo's or they die.

Many things will adapt though. A strong selection pressure causes rapid evolution.

Also, if you read this thing about the timeline, you may wish to consider the possibility that we've only been here as "a species" (if we should call it as such) for about 10,000 years. I wouldn't bother considering that, because when ever alteration is only seperated by a nothing of a tiny thing...there is no need to designate the start and the end of a 'species' so specifically.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
You are trying to impose our arbitrary designation of groupings onto nature. Just because we believe we are human, all of us, and nothing else is, doesn't mean that we actually are different to anything. At a deep level, we are all different to everything, including each other, and then on an even deeper lever, we are all identical.

Groupings of species, genera's, clades etc are simply for our own ease of understanding, and don't need to be directly reflected in nature by solid lines of demarcation.

Lines simply don't exist in nature. nature appears to work in constant shades of grey.And yet this seems to be something we're very good at doing now isn't it? [;)]


The remaining species diversify. The same way it has happened since the begining of life.If it's inevitable, then I suppose that's how it works.


What's the garden of eden?Let's say it's supposed to represent man's fall from grace (by playing God), by which he becomes subjected to -- and hence "struggles with" -- nature.


Nothing 'wrong' with it, but there is nothing 'right' with it either. As part of nature it is purely objective and uncaring in its ways. At least when we use artificial selection we are taking care of our own interests for once.You ever see a mother cat care for its little kittens? Or, a mother duck care for its little ducklings? Whereas with nature, everything seems to be provided with its own "little niche."


We associate it with "us" because thats who we are. We are so special, because we are us, and we are only concerned with us. There is nothing 'Actually' special about us....but that doesn't mean we can't think of ourselves as special.In which case it would seem to suggest that life is special, and maybe we should show a little appreciation for what we've got.


We put them in zoo's or they die.Sounds a bit reminiscent of Noah don't you think? [;)]


Many things will adapt though. A strong selection pressure causes rapid evolution.But why should we allow it to happen if we can forsee it coming? If as you say, it's a relief to be saved from the "pangs of nature," then why should we -- at the same time -- stand by and allow for our devastation?


I wouldn't bother considering that, because when ever alteration is only seperated by a nothing of a tiny thing...there is no need to designate the start and the end of a 'species' so specifically. Except for the fact that we won't take into account religion which has been with us for 10,000 years.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet this seems to be something we're very good at doing now isn't it? [;)]No, not at all. we are terrible at it. We insist on it, and there are great reasons for that, but we suck at it. We can't agree on the definition of pretty much anything.


You ever see a mother cat care for its little kittens? Or, a mother duck care for its little ducklings? Whereas with nature, everything seems to be provided with its own "little niche."Of course ducks, cats etc care for their little ones. If they didn't, then there wouldn't be any more cats and/or ducks around, and your point couldn't be said.

In which case it would seem to suggest that life is special, and maybe we should show a little appreciation for what we've got.How??? Why? Just because we are egocentric: life is special. ? There is no logic in such a connection.

Sounds a bit reminiscent of Noah don't you think? [;)]Of who?


But why should we allow it to happen if we can forsee it coming? If as you say, it's a relief to be saved from the "pangs of nature," then why should we -- at the same time -- stand by and allow for our devastation?Because we think we can avoid it/we deny it will ever happen/we are too concerned with the present/we don't want to give up what we can have now in case it 'might' happen....


Except for the fact that we won't take into account religion which has been with us for 10,000 years.
Why should we? What makes u think it has been with us for that long? I know cavemen type people buried their dead a lot longer ago than that, with decorations on the dead like some sort of ritual had been carried out. Seems a lot like a religious tradition.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
with nature, everything seems to be provided with its own "little niche."
Originally Said by Douglas Adams
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But who's to say this isn't just another fancy excuse for not taking responsibility for our actions? Maybe we don't want to be bothered because it seems too overwhelming? Its only an excuse if people use it as an excuse. It doesn't have to nor should it be.

I don't really have anything else to add except to second what FZ+ said. I agree completely. And I'm sick and tired of the elitist movement toward "natural" stuff such as food.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its only an excuse if people use it as an excuse. It doesn't have to nor should it be.

I don't really have anything else to add except to second what FZ+ said. I agree completely. And I'm sick and tired of the elitist movement toward "natural" stuff such as food. No, I'm just as "addicted" to all this man-made stuff as anyone else. And yet if we continue to stress that this whole current state-of-affairs came about "naturally" -- which is to say there's very little we can do about it, and it's okay to remain complacent -- then at some point we're going to be in for the biggest shock of our lives. Nature did not bring us to our current predicament.

[FZ+]

No you misunderstand.

All our works, they are natural - because we are part of nature. As when a tree uses the "tools" of sunlight and CO2 to make their changes to the world, (and ones that are FAR more significant than anything we have done) the things we do are using our natural capabilities.

We can't presume arrogantly that we are above nature, and hence need to protect it out of a mere whim. It's not a matter of being nature removing responsibility, but giving us the need to act as almost a case of self-preservation. Nature - the bit of it that is us got us into this position indeed, and that's why we are capable of changing it. Preserving diversity is a thing that ultimately favours us, by saving the flavour that enriches the nature we are apart of.

To say that we are above nature, is to delude us as to how we are really integral to this world, both in powers and responsibility. It's to pretend that it will all settle itself down, that we can avoid taking choices and actions and "go back to nature". Which is, I need not mention, a bad thing.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
No you misunderstand.

All our works, they are natural - because we are part of nature. As when a tree uses the "tools" of sunlight and CO2 to make their changes to the world, (and ones that are FAR more significant than anything we have done) the things we do are using our natural capabilities.Have you bothered to read any of my posts, including the last one posted above? ...

The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=60022#post60022) | Timeline Page 1 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=60023#post60023) | Timeline Page 2 (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=60024#post60024) | The Rebirth (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=60025#post60025)

EDIT: These posts have been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817).


We can't presume arrogantly that we are above nature, and hence need to protect itout of a mere whim. It's not a matter of being nature removing responsibility, but giving us the need to act as almost a case of self-preservation. Nature - the bit of it that is us got us into this position indeed, and that's why we are capable of changing it. Preserving diversity is a thing that ultimately favours us, by saving the flavour that enriches the nature we are apart of.No, we aren't above nature, in the sense that we have "fallen to it." And what we need to understand, is that the fight is not against nature, but against ourselves. At which point maybe we can strike an accord with nature, while making certain allowances for it, and stop blaming it for our predicament. Otherwise it will only continue to get worse.


To say that we are above nature, is to delude us as to how we are really integral to this world, both in powers and responsibility. It's to pretend that it will all settle itself down, that we can avoid taking choices and actions and "go back to nature". Which is, I need not mention, a bad thing. Even so, the spiritual world does rules over the natural world, and this is what I'm suggesting. Whereas if we don't understand that the mind rules over the rest of body -- "in spirit" -- including the soles of one's feet, then we won't be able to do anything constructively.

You see if we understood that our stay here is only temporary, that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!

[Iacchus32]

Well, I couldn't resist adding this one! [;)]

From the thread, Skeptics a Dying Breed? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4595&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
When we condemn [not just ignore] the claims and experiences of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, we teach them that science is impotent, and arrogant. Agreed.

Originally posted by FZ+
But if you support them, you lie to them about what science is about. And if you ignore them, they think science doesn't matter.

And science is NOT about looking for an easy or most popular answer, but one that is closest to the truth, with the context of other observations. And yet it's all about the "mechanical truth," not the "animated truth" (life itself) which lies beyond the mechanics.


Originally posted by FZ+
Iacchus: To me, the animated truth comes from the mechanics, that one alone is not the truth.Hey I admit, my body is subject to gravity just like everybody else's. That's what makes it so difficult to explain. And yet caterpillars do turn into butterflies.

Of course in that sense you can say the animated truth "arose" from the mechanical truth. And yet, if the animated truth didn't exist first, there would be nothing to lay the eggs to spawn the mechanical truth. In other words butterflies procreate and caterpillars don't.

So it's really an illusion that we seem to be playing with here -- due to our being earthbound -- much like grubs grubbing in the dark! [;)]
While here I thought the thread below was interesting, because of the general date, 7,500 years ago, which comes very close the date posted on my timeline -- "5143 BC."

From the thread, Believers in the lost Ark: Guardian, UK (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4702) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
"The explorer who discovered the Titanic beneath the Atlantic in 1985 is setting out on another underwater expedition to document Noah's flood. The Black Sea was originally a freshwater lake that in ancient times became inundated by the salty Mediterranean. Robert Ballard believes that this was a cataclysmic event that occurred about 7,500 years ago, and was possibly the deluge described in the Bible."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1015350,00.html It's interesting he should come up with that date. Because it's very close to the date I came up with, about 7,160 years ago.

http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html#21
EDIT: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817).

[FZ+]

Have you bothered to read any of my posts, including the last one posted above? ...
Yes, and I am saying you missed the point. We aren't addicted to man-made things just as we aren't addicted to life.

No, we aren't above nature, in the sense that we have "fallen to it."

Still missing point. We aren't above, below, beside, in front or anything. We are a part of nature, and it's up to us to get us the sort of nature we want. The entity, or will of nature is not existent but as the combination of actions of many different lifeforms - not striking a cord with whatever, but recognising what we actually want and noticing that each move we make affects the lot. Nature isn't for "blame" for anything, because it doesn't exist a way that allows it to take blame.

Even so, the spiritual world does rules over the natural world, and this is what I'm suggesting.
Gah! You can't make that distinction of the "natural" world! It might be easier just to strike that word from the dictionary. There is NO SUCH (non-arbitary) ENTITY as NATURE. There is NO UNIVERSAL ADJECTIVE called NATURAL. Everything is a set of influences on everything else. It is ALL A BIG SYSTEM!

and stop ravaging the damn planet!
(OK, OK I'll stop shouting...) We are not ravaging the damn planet. We are the damn planet, and we are getting in a position where it is bad for us. We can't destroy the earth, or even life. We can destroy ourselves, and it is about keeping the entire system in a position where it will still be some place we want to live.

We don't own the planet - nobody owns the planet - it's a system we are part of, that can exist in many states, few of which we exist in.

[Tail]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I thought it was unusual that everyone was talking about genetically altering human beings, and wondering what if anything it had to do with natural selection?
If genetically altered human beings will be more fit for living on the Earth, they'll survive, if not, they'll die out pretty quickly. That's natural selection.

The ability to change human beings is just as good (ok, it's bad, but it's just as effective) as being able to swim faster than anyone. I cannot fight a bear with my hands, but I can use a human-invented gun, which makes me stronger than the bear. So I'm more fit to live here. Natura; selection... [:))]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Yes, and I am saying you missed the point. We aren't addicted to man-made things just as we aren't addicted to life.And yet if we were "addictive" by nature, why? Can't you look around you and see that people are out of control? Why all the alcohol, the cigarettes, the drugs, the religion, pornography, the food, fancy cars, fancy houses, the latest fashions, music fanatics, sports fanatics? Why do we "worship" movie idols and what not? Hey, why are we addicted to Physics Forums? [:D]


Still missing point. We aren't above, below, beside, in front or anything. We are a part of nature, and it's up to us to get us the sort of nature we want. The entity, or will of nature is not existent but as the combination of actions of many different lifeforms - not striking a cord with whatever, but recognising what we actually want and noticing that each move we make affects the lot. Nature isn't for "blame" for anything, because it doesn't exist a way that allows it to take blame.Why do men hate women? Why do husbands beat their wives, if not for the need to blame? Again, why are we out of control?


Gah! You can't make that distinction of the "natural" world! It might be easier just to strike that word from the dictionary. There is NO SUCH (non-arbitary) ENTITY as NATURE. There is NO UNIVERSAL ADJECTIVE called NATURAL. Everything is a set of influences on everything else. It is ALL A BIG SYSTEM!Yes there is such a thing. This is why we have to ask ourselves, why doesn't our being here "feel natural?"


(OK, OK I'll stop shouting...) We are not ravaging the damn planet. We are the damn planet, and we are getting in a position where it is bad for us. We can't destroy the earth, or even life. We can destroy ourselves, and it is about keeping the entire system in a position where it will still be some place we want to live.Really? I was originally going to say I don't agree with any of this and leave it at that. Hey it would be nice if all our problems went away by themselves now wouldn't it?


We don't own the planet - nobody owns the planet - it's a system we are part of, that can exist in many states, few of which we exist in. Do you know anybody who owns a house, a car, a supermarket mall? Then they own a piece of the planet. We might as well give all these things up then if we're supposed to "pretend" like we don't own them.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tail
If genetically altered human beings will be more fit for living on the Earth, they'll survive, if not, they'll die out pretty quickly. That's natural selection.

The ability to change human beings is just as good (ok, it's bad, but it's just as effective) as being able to swim faster than anyone. I cannot fight a bear with my hands, but I can use a human-invented gun, which makes me stronger than the bear. So I'm more fit to live here. Natura; selection... [:))] Yes, but can we accurately predict what's going to happen -- the so-called "side-effects" -- if we don't allow nature to run its course?

Isn't this normally what happens when we start tampering with things? We have to deal with the side-effects?

In fact this is the very problem right here. We really don't know what we're doing. Because our "thinking" is outside of nature.


NOTE: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817).

[Tail]

We can predict nothing.

I believe that meddling with nature will make us unfit to live IN nature...

If our thinking is outside of nature (hmm... don't forget we ourselves are "nature"!), we'll be eliminated. So easy!

[FZ+]

And yet if we were "addictive" by nature, why?
Didn't I tell you not to use the word nature?

Yes there is such a thing. This is why we have to ask ourselves, why doesn't our being here "feel natural?"
Because we have NEVER "FELT NATURAL". Because natural doesn't exist in the way we think it does.

Hey it would be nice if all our problems went away by themselves now wouldn't it?
You haven't even given any indication of understanding a single word I wrote yet.

Do you know anybody who owns a house, a car, a supermarket mall?
What I have said repeatedly is that nature is not a car, a supermarket mall or a house. Nature is a stupid metaphorical term about an abstract entity which we are part of, representing a collective grouping which if we aren't for a moment so egotistical, involves us. The planet I mean is a grouping - a biosphere. Does your thumb own your body?

Why do men hate women? Why do husbands beat their wives, if not for the need to blame? Again, why are we out of control?
Because men are *******s(Hey! The language filter works!) relative to the behaviour we expect of them. Because the behaviour we clumsily expect of them is beyond what these men acheive.

Let's just list my argument again.

1. The distinction between natural and artificial is arbitary and misleading.
2. Humans are products of nature, and by no way can we declare human actions to be divided objectively from "natural" ones.
3. The earth represents a macro-system of many components working together, including mankind. Nature/earth has no will or trend of it's own, except as the holistic result of the entire system together.
4. There is no specific position towards which the system prefers to be. It is exhibited as simply a dynamic system, with a "natural position" only definable as an average over a set period of time.
5. There is no special quality about any situation the earth/nature system is in - except to specific subsystems like humanity.
6. As the component of the system, no component can claim ownership of the other - in fact, in general control and ownership only exist as legal conveniences. In reality, the things they refer to exist as simply connecting influences, not one-way dominance.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Didn't I tell you not to use the word nature?I think it would be fair to say that man has his own nature, part of which is tied to the "natural world," and the other part which isn't.


Because we have NEVER "FELT NATURAL". Because natural doesn't exist in the way we think it does.Ever see a monkey psychiatrist, or a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans. [:D]

Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It's highly unlikely, otherwise it will be in conflict with its environment.


You haven't even given any indication of understanding a single word I wrote yet.Actually you present a very good argument, unfortunately I don't agree with any of it. [6)]


What I have said repeatedly is that nature is not a car, a supermarket mall or a house. Nature is a stupid metaphorical term about an abstract entity which we are part of, representing a collective grouping which if we aren't for a moment so egotistical, involves us. The planet I mean is a grouping - a biosphere. Does your thumb own your body?Tell this to somebody like Adolf Hitler. And what was the name of that song by Tears for Fears ... "Everybody Wants to Rule the World?"


Because men are *******s(Hey! The language filter works!) relative to the behaviour we expect of them. Because the behaviour we clumsily expect of them is beyond what these men acheive.Well, maybe we have someting we can agree upon here? [;)]


Let's just list my argument again.

1. The distinction between natural and artificial is arbitary and misleading.
2. Humans are products of nature, and by no way can we declare human actions to be divided objectively from "natural" ones.
3. The earth represents a macro-system of many components working together, including mankind. Nature/earth has no will or trend of it's own, except as the holistic result of the entire system together.
4. There is no specific position towards which the system prefers to be. It is exhibited as simply a dynamic system, with a "natural position" only definable as an average over a set period of time.
5. There is no special quality about any situation the earth/nature system is in - except to specific subsystems like humanity.
6. As the component of the system, no component can claim ownership of the other - in fact, in general control and ownership only exist as legal conveniences. In reality, the things they refer to exist as simply connecting influences, not one-way dominance. You can argue your point as long as you want, but it's not going to change the fact that "the clash" exists. Indeed, it's an idea that has a lot of merit and requires some further consideration.

Did you by any chance read my Timeline material? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817)

Oh well, I'm not the one to sound the trumpet before me, so perhaps it'll never get read? I'm the kind of person who tends to focus on the details (you know, do the actual work) rather than make a big display of it. Not to say I won't try and let other people know about it, but at some point I have to get back to the task of hashing out the details.

[FZ+]

I think it would be fair to say that man has his own nature, part of which is tied to the "natural world," and the other part which isn't.
No it isn't, as I repeated. You are assuming falsely an inherent "average" on the planet, to which you can be in equilibrium with or not. I am saying that by the dynamic quality (almost said "nature" there) of the world, such averages are transient and arbitary.

Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It's highly unlikely, otherwise it will be in conflict with its environment.
Does a human doubt that he is a human? (Ruling out deviants of course) This is a matter of personal identity, and is not relevant to this. What is relavent is to notice that "nature" as I have said is based on perspective - so, the lion would consider humans etc as part of his nature, a nature that drives past on land rovers and occassionally offers a neat snack.

Well, maybe we have someting we can agree upon here?
That the language filter works? [;)]

You can argue your point as long as you want, but it's not going to change the fact that "the clash" exists.
Show me the clash, and tell me how it is different from the inherent competition that in present in all places where life interacts. Or I will still contend that a particular clash is not a fact.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Ever see a monkey psychiatrist, or a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans. [:D]

I think the biggest downfall of this conversation so far comes from the fact that FZ+ is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable) and Iachus32 is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable), but when FZ+ addresses your beliefs Iachus, you basically ignore his point, and continue usiong examples from yoiur belief system. If the foundations of your belief are being undermined by an argument, you cannot use that belief system to prove itself. You have to argue from basic premises to prove why your beliefs are valid.

Stop assuming the conclusion and arguing from that standpoint. Doing so, is not a discussion, it is pointless. it furthers no ones understanding, and challenges no ones beliefs.

From what I can see, FZ is challenging your belief by addressing your understanding of certain terms and the relations you are using those terms within. Instead of addressing those challenges, you continue to use the very same terms in a way which FZ is challenging. Why do you do that!?!?!?!? Are you paying attention to the discussion? Do you want to learn/help others learn? Or do you not care?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
I think the biggest downfall of this conversation so far comes from the fact that FZ+ is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable) and Iachus32 is arguing his beliefs (which is perfectly reasonable), but when FZ+ addresses your beliefs Iachus, you basically ignore his point, and continue usiong examples from yoiur belief system. If the foundations of your belief are being undermined by an argument, you cannot use that belief system to prove itself. You have to argue from basic premises to prove why your beliefs are valid.

Stop assuming the conclusion and arguing from that standpoint. Doing so, is not a discussion, it is pointless. it furthers no ones understanding, and challenges no ones beliefs.

From what I can see, FZ is challenging your belief by addressing your understanding of certain terms and the relations you are using those terms within. Instead of addressing those challenges, you continue to use the very same terms in a way which FZ is challenging. Why do you do that!?!?!?!? Are you paying attention to the discussion? Do you want to learn/help others learn? Or do you not care? Actually I have very little to disagree very with FZ+ here, at least in terms of the natural world -- if, in fact that's all there were. In fact I was about to say something about this before I added the part about "the clash" in the last post, which to me pretty much says the same thing. Although I admit I could have been a little more clear.

Therefore the problem is not nature itself, but man's relationship with nature. FZ+ wants to lump man in with nature, thereby saying nature doesn't in effect exist, and I want to extract man, saying the two are not one and the same. FZ+ wants to speak of the "one system," as if it included man which, would be fine by me if it didn't include man. So what else can I really do, besides argue my point that "the clash" does exist?

So let me ask you this. Why is it that I feel both you and FZ+ are not listening to me? Could it be that both you and he have entered this discussion with preconceived notions?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
FZ+ wants to lump man in with nature, thereby saying nature doesn't in effect exist, and I want to extract man, saying the two are not one and the same. Perfact, thats all you needed to say. If you had have said to FZ "But I believe Man and Nature are the same: And here are my reasons" rather than constantly arguing from above that assumption, than many many posts in this thread could have been avoided.

Now, with that in mind, do you wish to continue this thread with the basic assumption that Man is outisde of nature, or do you want to address the fact that (at least) FZ+ and I disagree with this assumption, and start from there?

The choice is yours, and I am sure FZ would be just as willing as I am to accomodate both options (in the first case, we would probably both just leave the thread, while in the second instance we would be willing to explain why it is that we believe man to be a part of nature, and await your reasons for believing that man is not part of nature.)

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
Perfact, thats all you needed to say. If you had have said to FZ "But I believe Man and Nature are the same: And here are my reasons" rather than constantly arguing from above that assumption, than many many posts in this thread could have been avoided.

Now, with that in mind, do you wish to continue this thread with the basic assumption that Man is outisde of nature, or do you want to address the fact that (at least) FZ+ and I disagree with this assumption, and start from there?

The choice is yours, and I am sure FZ would be just as willing as I am to accomodate both options (in the first case, we would probably both just leave the thread, while in the second instance we would be willing to explain why it is that we believe man to be a part of nature, and await your reasons for believing that man is not part of nature.) Have you bothered to read any of this thread? Your condescending attitude really sucks man!


Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think "estranged" from the whole process is probably the best way to put it? Indeed I think it's indicative to a basic flaw in the theory that we merely arrived here by natural selection alone, not that I believe the whole theory is invalid ... Well, maybe I didn't quite spell it out here either, but it certainly alludes to the same! Can you tell me that it doesn't suggest the same? Also, I've had this conversation with FZ+ before, and he knows that I don't have a problem with evolution per se'. Which, is one reason I couldn't understand why he wasn't picking up on what I was saying?


Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, the key here is are we really natural to the environment? ... If not, then "who" put us here? Does this suggest anything to the contrary? Once again I am obviously making "that distinction" here.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
It sounds to me a bit like playing God which, is supposedly the reason we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place! [;)] Once again, alluding to the fact that we are not natural to the environment.


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special? This does not allude to the same thing?


Originally posted by Iacchus32
Let's say it's supposed to represent man's fall from grace (by playing God), by which he becomes subjected to -- and hence "struggles with" -- nature. This does not allude to the same thing?


Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm just as "addicted" to all this man-made stuff as anyone else. And yet if we continue to stress that this whole current state-of-affairs came about "naturally" -- which is to say there's very little we can do about it, and it's okay to remain complacent -- then at some point we're going to be in for the biggest shock of our lives. Nature did not bring us to our current predicament. This does not allude to the same thing?



NOTE: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817).

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Once again, alluding to the fact that we are not natural to the environment.

This does not allude to the same thing?

This does not allude to the same thing?

This does not allude to the same thing? And this is exactly my primary point: You have continued to claim that man wasn't in nature, without giving reasons for saying so. At no point did you say "Starting with the assumption that man is not part of nature..." nor did you correct FZ+ when he proceeded to disagree with your claims by saying "Oh, you have perhaps misunderstood my position. I am starting with the premise that man is outside of nature..."

It is quite obvious that you think man is outside of nature, but we all disagree with that assumption. Instead of confronting that disagreement, you insist on ignoring it, and restating your conclusion over and over...and over and over again.

Are you here to discuss contentious topics, or are you here to juxtapose contrary views for personal entertainment?

(PS: I do not mean for my attitude to be condescending, but I do admittedly get tired of your constant circling around the point, avoiding the issues, and reaffirmation of your own beliefs by restating them continually, ignoring the issues.

I have seen you involved in nearly every thread here, but I rarely see you actualy participate.

I have reached the point on several occasions already where I have decided that I am either going to ignore you completely or assist you with your methods of enquiry. Everyone here is interested in constructive rational engagement of ideas. Not useless undirected rhetoric.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
And this is exactly my primary point: You have continued to claim that man wasn't in nature, without giving reasons for saying so. At no point did you say "Starting with the assumption that man is not part of nature..." nor did you correct FZ+ when he proceeded to disagree with your claims by saying "Oh, you have perhaps misunderstood my position. I am starting with the premise that man is outside of nature..."And so far nobody has told me anything that I don't already know about nature, nor have they really considered what I've had to say. Which is fine, I can accept that, so long as I don't have to accept this other load of crap that goes along with it.


It is quite obvious that you think man is outside of nature, but we all disagree with that assumption. Instead of confronting that disagreement, you insist on ignoring it, and restating your conclusion over and over...and over and over again.What's this "we" business anyway? Yep, same preconceived bull**** on your part! And you're saying this is the same conclusion that I never stated in the first place? So what's it gonna be?


Are you here to discuss contentious topics, or are you here to juxtapose contrary views for personal entertainment?There you go again, clearly displaying your bias. No, the problem is that I don't agree with you!


(PS: I do not mean for my attitude to be condescending, but I do admittedly get tired of your constant circling around the point, avoiding the issues, and reaffirmation of your own beliefs by restating them continually, ignoring the issues.Do you know what's funny? I really thought I was making some good points.


I have seen you involved in nearly every thread here, but I rarely see you actualy participate.Well I guess the main thing is that I feel like I'm participating. Whereas if nobody chooses to respond, then so be it!


I have reached the point on several occasions already where I have decided that I am either going to ignore you completely or assist you with your methods of enquiry. Everyone here is interested in constructive rational engagement of ideas. Not useless undirected rhetoric. Of course it sounds like rhetoric, because it's too contrary to the "accepted view." Should I change my viewpoint just because of that? Not hardly ... and I can assure you I won't!

Aside from that, I have nothing more to say on this matter.



NOTE: The Timeline material has been relocated to the following thread, A Spiritual Timeline / The Church of Man (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817).

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And so far nobody has told me anything that I don't already know about nature, nor have they really considered what I've had to say.No one has considered what you have to say, because you are starting from unfounded assumptions!

Why is it precisely that you believe man is outside of nature???? What is this 'Nature' which he is outside of?

What's this "we" business anyway? Yep, same preconceived bull**** on your part! And you're saying this is the same conclusion that I never stated in the first place? So what's it gonna be?I don't understand most of what you are saying here. the we, is at least FZ and myself, and then probably the rest of the scientific community, philosophy community, and the educated english community. But don't get me wrong there, I am not claiming that that makes us right. No, i don't believe in arguments from authority. I believe in solid logically deductive arguments from solid premises. And that is what I intend to present...the second I have something to argue against.
There you go again, clearly displaying your bias. No, the problem is that I don't agree with you!How is calling a topic contentious displaying my bias? It is agreeing that there is something worth disucssing!!

If anything, the only bias present here is your bias to assuming that I am opposed to your views without foundation...even though you have no evidence for such a belief.

Of course it sounds like rhetoric, because it's too contrary to the "accepted view." Should I change my viewpoint just because of that? Not hardly ... and I can assure you I won't!No, it sounds like pointless rhetorhic because it doesn't address any issues. It waltzes all over the place, making much noise, without any progress in understanding.

I am all more than happy to deal with things that are contrary to the accepted view. In fact, contrary to the accepted view is my natural habitat. Thats what I do. I question socially accepted standards...But I have reasons for doing so, basis's for my claims, logic behind my ideas... If this sounds like what you do, then try presenting this logic to us, and see what response you get!

[Iacchus32]

A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

In answer to a question about the meaning of Reality an old master simply held up his fly-whisk, and another master asked one of his monks to explain the action. "The master's idea," replied the monk, "was to elucidate the spiritual along with the material, to reveal truth by means of an objective reality." "Your understanding," said the master, "is alright as far as it goes. But why are you in such a hurry to make theories about it?" At this the monk asked, "What, then, will be your explanation?" The master held up his own fly-whisk.What can I say? ...

Except life is capricious ... and I'm ornery. [;)]

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

What can I say? ...

Except life is capricious ... and I'm ornery. [;)] That ...means...nothing to me whatsoever. *shrugs* what can I say?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
That ...means...nothing to me whatsoever. *shrugs* what can I say? I think what the koan says is that both a spiritual and ojbective reality exist, but that the spiritual reality is not revealed by means of objective reality alone, but requires that it be revealed to you on a "personal level." In which case by raising the fly-whisk it would be pointless to try and explain.

In response to this what I'm saying is that I'm basically a whole person in my own right, and I'm not abouts to subject myself (involuntarily) to the scrutiny of someone else, who may or may not be able to determine this. Meaning, I've gone about as far as I can go in trying to explain my position here (which is spiritual), at least for now. [6)]

While another thing here is that you don't tend to hold on to things, be it intellectual or otherwise, and try and maintain your existence in "the moment." So there's not a whole lot of things to bring to the forefront, except through what you're able to discern through the here and now. Which, is as it should be. If we're going to speak about the things which address the nature of life, then they should be spoken from the standpoint of "being alive."

[FZ+]

In response to this what I'm saying is that I'm basically a whole person in my own right, and I'm not abouts to subject myself (involuntarily) to the scrutiny of someone else, who may or may not be able to determine this.
If you are not willing to accept scrutiny, then there is no point talking. You might as well chat with a wall.

Harsh... but true. Conversation is a two way process.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
If you are not willing to accept scrutiny, then there is no point talking. You might as well chat with a wall.

Harsh... but true. Conversation is a two way process. Actually I pretty much do, while I also feel like I have something to contribute. But, when it begins to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over again, and then someone says I haven't contributed anything so far, in any of my posts, and in effect I should start all over (under their scrutiny), then I have a problem with that, and I don't see any point in trying to continue further.

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But, when it begins to sound like I'm repeating myself over and over again, and then someone says I haven't contributed anything so far, in any of my posts, and in effect I should start all over (under their scrutiny), then I have a problem with that, and I don't see any point in trying to continue further.
Maybe you should stop repeating yourself, and try to understand why they aren't understanding you/disagreeing with you. And then try to address that.

90% of Philosophical issues are actually just a matter of coming to the topic from different angles. We need to realign our angles so that we can figure out why we disagree.

[Iacchus32]

How does one prove that God exists? By presenting it in such a way that it allows the other person to prove it to himself. Just as with the Zen koan, this is the only way I know how to accomplish that.

Should this be accomplished through the means of what is rational and objective? Yes. Nonetheless, I can only speak to you about the nature of which you have to ultimately understand for yourself. Now is that that hard to "understand?" If you can acknowledge what I'm saying then yes, you can understand. [;)]

Neither am I asking you to accept God by any other means than this. But the key here is that it has to be born (realized) through one's understanding.

In fact I think enough evidence already exists, to where maybe all that's necessary is to gather it and prioritize it in such a way -- as a thesis -- to allow science to evaluate it "collectively" (as a shared experience), and at least allow for the "plausibility" that God exists. I only say this because in order to establish this, even for oneself, it does require logic and reason.

Whereas prior to the advancement of science, logic and reason were tools that were not readily available to the general populace, and people had to rely more on someone else's say so on things like the Bible. Although there are certain passages in the Bible that suggest the importance of understanding the Bible for oneself (below). While believe it or not this is probably why the Christian Church became established in Greece, because of its faculty to use logic and reason.


When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:13-18).
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:4-5).

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
How does one prove that God exists? By presenting it in such a way that it allows the other person to prove it to himself. Just as with the Zen koan, this is the only way I know how to accomplish that.

Should this be accomplished through the means of what is rational and objective? Yes. Nonetheless, I can only speak to you about the nature of which you have to ultimately understand for yourself. Now is that that hard to "understand?" If you can acknowledge what I'm saying then yes, you can understand. [;)]

Neither am I asking you to accept God by any other means than this. But the key here is that it has to be born (realized) through one's understanding.

In fact I think enough evidence already exists, to where maybe all that's necessary is to gather it and prioritize it in such a way -- as a thesis -- to allow science to evaluate it "collectively" (as a shared experience), and at least allow for the "plausibility" that God exists. I only say this because in order to establish this, even for oneself, it does require logic and reason.

Whereas prior to the advancement of science, logic and reason were tools that were not readily available to the general populace, and people had to rely more on someone else's say so on things like the Bible. Although there are certain passages in the Bible that suggest the importance of understanding the Bible for oneself (below). While believe it or not this is probably why the Christian Church became established in Greece, because of its faculty to use logic and reason.

What does any of this have to do with natural selection?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
What does any of this have to do with natural selection? That's a good question. Because the flaw is contingent upon the existence of a spiritual reality, and this is what seems to be holding everybody up at this point. And nobody seems to want to address this. In which case I'm explaining why I've gone about as far as I can go with it. [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That's a good question. Because the flaw is contingent upon the existence of a spiritual reality, and this is what seems to be holding everybody up at this point. And nobody seems to want to address this. In which case I'm explaining why I've gone about as far as I can go with it. [;)]

In other words, you haven't found any flaw whatsoever..so why would you start a thread about a non-existant flaw?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
In other words, you haven't found any flaw whatsoever..so why would you start a thread about a non-existant flaw? And why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Becasue you're already convinced, right? So what's the point in continuing any further?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? Becasue you're already convinced, right? So what's the point in continuing any further? No, because you haven't presented a flaw in natural selection, and this thread has been going for days and days...eventually, you really should consider presenting an actual flaw.

There are flaws in natural selection, BTW, and modern scientists were the ones to find them, and modify the theory of evolution to take those flaws into account. In no way does me being 'convinced' have anything to do with your not presenting a flaw. Then again, your own flaw has been pointed out to you time and again, and you are completely blind to it.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No, because you haven't presented a flaw in natural selection, and this thread has been going for days and days...eventually, you really should consider presenting an actual flaw.

There are flaws in natural selection, BTW, and modern scientists were the ones to find them, and modify the theory of evolution to take those flaws into account. In no way does me being 'convinced' have anything to do with your not presenting a flaw. Then again, your own flaw has been pointed out to you time and again, and you are completely blind to it. The only thing that I've presented is something that "you" are not willing to accept.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only thing that I've presented is something that "you" are not willing to accept.

You haven't presented ANYTHING that points to a flaw in natural selection, from a viewpoint that anyone with any logic can take seriously. It isn't about my 'bias', it is about simple logic. You cannot start from a 'what if?' and claim to have any knowledge. You start from solid observation, and work from there. For instance, if I say that meteorology is completely wrong, because it doesn't take into account what my mommy told me about thunder being caused by Greek Gods bowling, should I be taken seriously? What you have presented has exactly the same intellectual weight as what my mommy told me.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
You haven't presented ANYTHING that points to a flaw in natural selection, from a viewpoint that anyone with any logic can take seriously. It isn't about my 'bias', it is about simple logic. You cannot start from a 'what if?' and claim to have any knowledge. You start from solid observation, and work from there. For instance, if I say that meteorology is completely wrong, because it doesn't take into account what my mommy told me about thunder being caused by Greek Gods bowling, should I be taken seriously? What you have presented has exactly the same intellectual weight as what my mommy told me. From the thread, Why the bias against materialism? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4537&perpage=15&pagenumber=17) ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Zero
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existance is on;y proof of your existance, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with? Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us. This is my starting point -- as well as ending point -- right here. [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
From the thread, Why the bias against materialism? (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4537&perpage=15&pagenumber=17) ...

Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us. This is my starting point -- as well as ending point -- right here. [;)] [/QUOTE] And none of that refutes a single tiny bit of natural selection. Wow, you have almost as many posts as I do, and you don't have any idea how to reply TO YOUR OWN THREAD!

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
And none of that refutes a single tiny bit of natural selection. Wow, you have almost as many posts as I do, and you don't have any idea how to reply TO YOUR OWN THREAD! About all I can do at this point is refer you to my Timeline Thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817), all of which is based upon the one experience that happened in 1987 (rebirth experience). While the thing about it, if the experience was real (am only putting it this way for your benefit), then the number I came up with, "230," can't just dangle there, not without it fitting into some sort of pattern. Or least this is what I was thinking when I started considering the timeline. If the experience is real, then the number 230 "must" signify something.

And sure enough, the dates I came up with, seem to be in accord with specific events in history, that suggest the beginning and the end of "an era," and hence church: i.e., the Church of Adam, the Church of Noah, the Israelite Chuch, the Christian Church, etc..

And, while I'm not asking anyone to accept this as conclusive evidence that a spiritual reality exists, nor can I verify that the Timeline is 100% accurate -- however, I do know the experience was real -- I would like it to be allowed as admissable, in the likelihood that futher evidence should come up to corroborate it. Or, lets just say in my own mind I have no problem accepting a spiritual reality, and can only marvel at the potential accuracy that the Timeline seems to suggest, Okay? [:)]

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Another evolutionary mechanism? What was wrong with the first one? And why is it that we only associate the latter with the Advent of Modern Man? Again, what makes "us" so special?


As I said initially, "some people would argue that such uses of technology is 'natural' human behavior". Does this defuse the rest of this debate? [;)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Phobos
As I said initially, "some people would argue that such uses of technology is 'natural' human behavior". Does this defuse the rest of this debate? [;)] Yes, in terms of "natural" human behavior I would have to agree. And yet in terms of the environment, I don't see how it can possibly be construed as natural, to which I've given various reasons for above. But then again these are merely observations, to which others around here don't seem to think is acceptable evidence. So I guess it's not possible to say such things without having some sort of scientific study to back it up.

Is this what evidence means? Or, is it possible that an observation can be held up as evidence? I suppose it could in a court of law. [;)]

[megashawn]

Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.

Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own? Your first months of life ar nothing but learning, and I'd be willing to bet the majority of that knowledge is not told to us from someone else.

If what you suggest is true, then automated robots like this one

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994075

would not work.


I would like it to be allowed as admissable, in the likelihood that futher evidence should come up to corroborate it. Or, lets just say in my own mind I have no problem accepting a spiritual reality, and can only marvel at the potential accuracy that the Timeline seems to suggest, Okay?

admissable to what degree? I mean, if you just want it around so you can say "See, I told you so", well that seems kinda vain. As many times as you've referenced it, we all know it's on your page, right?

Tell me this, how strong was your biblical knowledge at the time of your vision?


Is this what evidence means? Or, is possible that an observation can be held up as evidence? I suppose it could in a court of law.

I don't think evidence based on a vision, or observation as you've come to call it, that can not be directly observed by others, or in the slightest way provide a shred of evidence for, would hold up in a court of law. Remember that whole reasonable doubt thing?

I don't think you can construct an arguement for some supernatural event that is beyond reasonable doubt, either.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by megashawn
Where did you get that crazy idea? Your suggesting that you can't learn something for yourself, on your own?No, I'm saying just the opposite! I'm saying that unless we can acknowledge things for ourselves, and "truly know," through the faculty of being conscious -- the very thing which "defines" existence itself -- and I don't mean science -- then that's all we would be capable of doing, repeating what someone else has told us. I would recommend reading Zero's thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4537&perpage=15&pagenumber=17) for a little more clarity on this. [;)]


admissable to what degree? I mean, if you just want it around so you can say "See, I told you so", well that seems kinda vain. I was having problems trying to phrase this correctly. What I was trying to say was not to discount it, based upon the other evidence which may not be available at this time, you know, that a spiritual reality exists?


As many times as you've referenced it, we all know it's on your page, right? Oh really, yet this is one of the first times anyone has made mention of it. [;)]


Tell me this, how strong was your biblical knowledge at the time of your vision?Familiar enough, and although I suspected it had something to do with the "New Church," and was able to find the passage in the book of Revelation, I still had little or no understanding of the book of Revelation at that time, not until I was able to reference it with Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com/) materials perhaps a year later.


I don't think evidence based on a vision, or observation as you've come to call it, that can not be directly observed by others, or in the slightest way provide a shred of evidence for, would hold up in a court of law. Remember that whole reasonable doubt thing?And yet if wasn't for the vision I wouldn't have been able to come up with the date (1987) and contrast it with Swedenborg's date (1757).


I don't think you can construct an arguement for some supernatural event that is beyond reasonable doubt, either. And yet I did come up with a timeline based upon these two these dates, which is at least worth taking a look into.

[Iacchus32]

Okay, I'm going to try and do this one more time. I'm going to take some of the previous points that I made in this thread and ask you why it shouldn't be considered evidence.

But before I get started I would like to mention one thing, that I have no qualms with the theory of Natural Selection, at least in terms of the natural world. So in this respect I would ask that you not argue from the standpoint from Natural Selection, as this is not my point. Am sorry if the title may seem a little misleading in that respect. The distinction that I'm trying to make here -- and hence the "actual flaw" -- involves man's relationship with nature, but not the natural world itself. Which to me, as I pointed out in one of the previous posts, "a clash" does exist, and is rather glaring as far as I'm concerned.

With that in mind perhaps we should begin:

1. A Timeline: Why is it that we've only existed as "a species" for about 10,000 years? And why all of sudden that mankind experiences this tremendous rate of growth? The likes of which doesn't seem possible for a system which is designed to progress at it's own rate -- over the eons -- where the passage of time has little or no consequence. Which thus brings up the notion of time. Why is it that only mankind, of all the species on earth, seems to be preoccupied with time? Why do "we" bother to keep a record of it? Do other species do this?

Which brings up another question. Why is it that recorded history doesn't go back beyond 5,000 BC? Is it possible that there was some Great Deluge (flood) around 5,143 BC, that could have wiped everything out? This is the date that I come up with by the way, that I refer to in my Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) at the beginning of the thread.

Another thing is where are all the missing links? There's a vast enough difference between a man and a chimp, why isn't there a whole subset species between the two? Whereas when you look at it, given the development of agriculture in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago where, let's say we were possibly "transplanted" as a species, you know, from the Garden of Eden? wouldn't that be just about enough time to account for the difference in "evolution" of the races? Don't you think? So here we are spreading like a vine -- through agriculture -- after having been transplanted from the Garden. Hmm ... While it's funny how the date I came up with for the Advent of Adam, was 7,443 BC or, about 9,446 years ago.

2. Feeling Estranged: And what of the feelings of estrangment, or the sense that we're somehow "separated" from nature? And yet it's a pretty broadly based assumption, and I think most people will readily say they feel a "distinct detachment" from nature. And what if we were "fallen creatures?" Don't you think this would be evidenced by the fact we are at odds with nature, in a constant struggle for supremeacy over it? How does that belie living in harmony with it? Is it possible evolution has run amok?

3. Man-Made vs Artificial: And indeed it would seem man has done virtually everything possible to "recreate" nature to his own liking. Whooa ... wait a second. What does this have to do with being natural, where everything "natural" about it gets by-passed? Thus by tampering with it, and not allowing nature to "run its course," we have to deal with the side-effects: overpopulation, pollution, diminishment of resources, lack of natural diversity, etc. Doesn't this sound a bit like playing God -- which, is supposedly why we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place? Hmm ...

Hence it would seem "our thinking" is outside of nature which, could be the very problem right there. Meaning, we really don't know what the heck we're doing! [;)]

4. Nature of Addiction: If man were so in tune with his environment, then it would seem that all his basic needs should be easily satiated. Or for that matter, why would he require anything more than what was basic? -- which of course he doesn't. And yet why do we seem to be addicted to everything uner the sun? Why all the alcohol, the cigarettes, the drugs, the religion, pornography, the food, fancy cars, fancy houses, the latest fashions, music fanatics, sports fanatics? Why do we "worship" movie idols and what not? Why all the extravagance?

5. Spiritual vs Natural: So why do we seem to be so out of control? Could it be because we don't know how to live in harmony with ourselves, because we're spiritual beings and weren't meant to be a part of nature? Whereas through our addictions we try to conceal any possible "guilt feelings" associated with our fallen nature? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? Have you ever seen a monkey psychiatrist, a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans. [;)] Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It seems highly unlikely, otherwise -- much like us -- it would be in conflict with its environment.

So you see if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, and that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!


Well, that's pretty much what I've touched on so far (and then some), and I honestly don't see how anyone can come across saying I have no foundation for what I have to say. Do you? [;)]

[BiologyForums]

I'm very glad this column is in Religion.

I've never heard of anything so absurd. Talk about going against all proven evidence and supplying no logical evidence of your own!

Yeesh - even for a religion forum this is very very scary "stuff"...


Iacchus32 - You make so many claims that are disproven, and you ask so many questions is if they have no known answers when they are answered in introductory textbooks.

This tells me that you don't do any research which will hurt your concepts. You read the books which support it and they to say "Where's the evidence" and yet you never once pick up a book of knowledge and learn that what you claim as "mystery" and use to try to prove your outrageously strange claims is actually very simply proven.

I can't imagine myself wasting the time to go through this mess - and from my experience with similiar others, you'd surely never learn a thing that doesn't support these outlandish "hypothesis"....

[Zero]

LOL...good point, BF, he asks questions, and instead of doing research, he makes up answers that suit him.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
I'm very glad this column is in Religion.I could have just as easily posted it in the philosphy forum. [;)]

I've never heard of anything so absurd. Talk about going against all proven evidence and supplying no logical evidence of your own!

Yeesh - even for a religion forum this is very very scary "stuff"...What's so scary about it? That it actually might make sense? Yes, the truth is enough to cause alarm for a lot of people I'm afraid.


Iacchus32 - You make so many claims that are disproven, and you ask so many questions is if they have no known answers when they are answered in introductory textbooks.Actually I'm only making one claim, and the rest are (astute) observations to back it up. Of course I think you already knew that. [;)]


This tells me that you don't do any research which will hurt your concepts. You read the books which support it and they to say "Where's the evidence" and yet you never once pick up a book of knowledge and learn that what you claim as "mystery" and use to try to prove your outrageously strange claims is actually very simply proven.And where should I conduct my research? And whose answers should I accept?


I can't imagine myself wasting the time to go through this mess - and from my experience with similiar others, you'd surely never learn a thing that doesn't support these outlandish "hypothesis".... So what are you afraid of or, is there some other ulterior motive behind your posting here? The way you come across by the way, sure doesn't sound very professional for someone who has just opened up their own forum. Are you going to insist on maintaining the status quo there too? Lots of luck! [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I could have just as easily posted it in the philosphy forum. [;)]

What's so scary about it? That it actually makes sense? Yes, the truth is enough to cause alarm for a lot of people I'm afraid.


Actually I'm only making one claim, and the rest are (astute) observations to back it up. Of course I think you already knew that. [;)]


And where should I conduct my research? And whose answers should I accept?


So what are you afraid of or, is there some other ulterior motive behind your posting here? The way you come across by the way, sure doesn't sound very professional for someone who has just opened up their own forum. Are you going to insist on maintaining the status quo there too? Lots of luck! [;)]

I don't think there is any fear, or any cause for fear. You are on teh far fringe, and you will always remain there with the rest of the folks who have strong beliefs and a hatred of logic, facts, and simple common sense.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL...good point, BF, he asks questions, and instead of doing research, he makes up answers that suit him. He was just making it easy on you Zero, so you wouldn't bother to read my post and not think about what I have to say. [;)]

He probably figured it might be too much of a strain.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
He was just making it easy on you Zero, so you wouldn't bother to read my post and not think about what I have to say. [;)]

He probably figured it might be too much of a strain.

No, I read all of it...a bunch of questions, and leaps to unfounded assumptions. That's your trademark, though. You need to read some books, answer some questions, and when you have been completely debunked, come back and try again. I am NOT doing your research for you.

[BiologyForums]

Did you notice how he completely avoided my comments, and your agreement Zero, and instead made a joke to pass that uncomfortable moment, and used his trademark orange smilie? It's like he hides from the truth behind it.

Zero - Iacchus32 will never do his research.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Did you notice how he completely avoided my comments, and your agreement Zero, and instead made a joke to pass that uncomfortable moment, and used his trademark orange smilie? It's like he hides from the truth behind it.

Zero - Iacchus32 will never do his research. Well, I mean...look at what he starts with. Man as a species appeared suddenly 10,000 years ago? where did he come up with that?!?

[BiologyForums]

Yeah, I know. Apparently he has no clue....

...another piece I caught while scrolling down was this comment to the effect that "The human population has grown so fast recently."

Failing to even understand the fundamental basics that a species with no predators and an unlimited resource supply has absolutely no reason not to grow.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I read all of it...a bunch of questions, and leaps to unfounded assumptions. That's your trademark, though. You need to read some books, answer some questions, and when you have been completely debunked, come back and try again. I am NOT doing your research for you. There's really only one unfounded question here which, is really not unfounded if at least one person can ascertain it. Whereas if any of it could be ascertained, then the rest will most likely follow suit.

By the way Zero, wasn't Logical Atheist a biology major?

[Zero]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
Yeah, I know. Apparently he has no clue....

...another piece I caught while scrolling down was this comment to the effect that "The human population has grown so fast recently."

Failing to even understand the fundamental basics that a species with no predators and an unlimited resource supply has absolutely no reason not to grow. Nope, it must be magic!!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
There's really only one unfounded question here which, is really not unfounded if at least one person can ascertain it. Whereas if any of it could be ascertained, then the rest will most likely follow suit.

By the way Zero, wasn't Logical Atheist a biology major?

Ummm...what sort of make-believe are you talking about now?


And what does Logical Atheist have to do with anything?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...what sort of make-believe are you talking about now?


And what does Logical Atheist have to do with anything? Do you know what I think? I think I'm going to hold off here until somebody poses a legitimate question that I can respond to. Heck, at least FZ+ was willing to debate the issues with me! [;)]

[BiologyForums]

I think that's precisely what everyone is doing Iacchus32.

Waiting for someone (you) to post a legitimate question.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BiologyForums
I think that's precisely what everyone is doing Iacchus32.

Waiting for someone (you) to post a legitimate question. Let's not forget what forum this is okay? [;)]

I would also suggest that you stop spamming my thread.

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm going to lock this topic unless someone starts talking sense.

[Zero]

OK, Greg, I'm going to buckle down...let's get some answers.Originally posted by Iacchus32


1. A Timeline: Why is it that we've only existed as "a species" for about 10,000 years? And why all of sudden that mankind experiences this tremendous rate of growth? The likes of which doesn't seem possible for a system which is designed to progress at it's own rate -- over the eons -- where the passage of time has little or no consequence. Which thus brings up the notion of time. Why is it that only mankind, of all the species on earth, seems to be preoccupied with time? Why do "we" bother to keep a record of it? Do other species do this? Where did you come up with the 10,000 year figure? What do you mean by 'rate of growth'? And where does perception of time fit into any of this?

[quote]Which brings up another question. Why is it that recorded history doesn't go back beyond 5,000 BC? Is it possible that there was some Great Deluge (flood) around 5,143 BC, that could have wiped everything out? This is the date that I come up with by the way, that I refer to in my Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) at the beginning of the thread.The length of recorded history would depend on lots of factors, not the least of which being that they didn't know we'd be looking back 7000 years later, so for the most part wouldn't have recorded things in a fashion that could survive that long. Where did you come up with the date 5143 BCE for a flood, and what evidence do you have for it?

Another thing is where are all the missing links? There's a vast enough difference between a man and a chimp, why isn't there a whole subset species between the two? Whereas when you look at it, given the development of agriculture in Asia Minor about 10,000 years ago where, let's say we were possibly "transplanted" as a species, you know, from the Garden of Eden? wouldn't that be just about enough time to account for the difference in "evolution" of the races? Don't you think? So here we are spreading like a vine -- through agriculture -- after having been transplanted from the Garden. Hmm ... While it's funny how the date I came up with for the Advent of Adam, was 7,443 BC or, about 9,446 years ago.There really isn't a huge difference between man and the other primates, and they came from a common ancestor, so there wouldn't be a missing link between humans and chimps. Again, you should explain where you gathered these dates from.

2. Feeling Estranged: And what of the feelings of estrangment, or the sense that we're somehow "separated" from nature? And yet it's a pretty broadly based assumption, and I think most people will readily say they feel a "distinct detachment" from nature. And what if we were "fallen creatures?" Don't you think this would be evidenced by the fact we are at odds with nature, in a constant struggle for supremeacy over it? How does that belie living in harmony with it? Is it possible evolution has run amok? You may feel it, I certainly don't. I'm an animal and proud of it. In addition, a gut feeling should be treated as too subjective to base any conclusions about history on.

3. Man-Made vs Artificial: And indeed it would seem man has done virtually everything possible to "recreate" nature to his own liking. Whooa ... wait a second. What does this have to do with being natural, where everything "natural" about it gets by-passed? Thus by tampering with it, and not allowing nature to "run its course," we have to deal with the side-effects: overpopulation, pollution, diminishment of resources, lack of natural diversity, etc. Doesn't this sound a bit like playing God -- which, is supposedly why we were kicked out of the Garden of Eden in the first place? Hmm...

Hence it would seem "our thinking" is outside of nature which, could be the very problem right there. Meaning, we really don't know what the heck we're doing! [;)]Beavers bypass nature when they build a dam, as do birds when they build nests. We consider their behavior natural, and I consider human building to be the exact same thing, on a larger scale. And, of course, references to an unsupported 'god' and 'eden'.

4. Nature of Addiction: If man were so in tune with his environment, then it would seem that all his basic needs should be easily satiated. Or for that matter, why would he require anything more than what was basic? -- which of course he doesn't. And yet why do we seem to be addicted to everything uner the sun? Why all the alcohol, the cigarettes, the drugs, the religion, pornography, the food, fancy cars, fancy houses, the latest fashions, music fanatics, sports fanatics? Why do we "worship" movie idols and what not? Why all the extravagance? Actually, this is easily explained by evolution. We want more than we need, because we thing of resourses the same way as food, that we should stockpile for a later time.

5. Spiritual vs Natural: So why do we seem to be so out of control? Could it be because we don't know how to live in harmony with ourselves, because we're spiritual beings and weren't meant to be a part of nature? Whereas through our addictions we try to conceal any possible "guilt feelings" associated with our fallen nature? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? Have you ever seen a monkey psychiatrist, a monkey doctor, or a monkey lawyer? Unless of course you wish to refer to us humans. [;)] Do you ever think a lion will doubt that it's lion? Or a fish doubt that it's a fish? It seems highly unlikely, otherwise -- much like us -- it would be in conflict with its environment.
So you see if we understood that our stay here was only temporary, and that indeed a spiritual reality does exist, then perhaps we would be less inclined to fulfill our every "material whim," and stop ravaging the damn planet!


Well, that's pretty much what I've touched on so far (and then some), and I honestly don't see how anyone can come across saying I have no foundation for what I have to say. Do you? [;)] [/B]

You ask alot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask alot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers.
The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have alot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.

With all the questions you have, I don't expect you'll have any more time to post, will you?[s(]

[Iacchus32]

Check this out Zero!

From the thread, The Battle of the Prophecies (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4986&perpage=15&pagenumber=3) ...

Originally posted by Another God
Does anyone have information about when, in history, the Jews have had all of their sacrifice capabilites taken away from them? By invasion, by slavery, by whatever. How often does this happen? Has it happened at all? etcYou asked for a specific time frame for when the daily sacrifice was taken away? Then this seems to be referring to that here. And yet, I'm not sure it's even the same prophecy? However, you might be intrigued to find out what I've discovered below ... and all I can say is wow! [8)]

Then I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had two horns: and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great. And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power. And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. (Daniel 8:3-14).Doesn't this kind of sound like the rise of Greece (the he goat) during the 6th century BC? Who, after the Jews were released and allowed to return to their homeland (beginning in 538 BC), got into a scuffle with Persia (i.e., the ram) and eventually conquered them in 479 BC (have a chapter in my book named after that number (http://www.dionysus.org/x0801.html) by the way) before entering and Hellenizing the Holy Land via the conquests of Alexander?

Whereas when you think about it -- "the Jews" -- who, didn't actually exist as a people until after The Captivity, have been under the dominion of someone else ever since their release. So in this respect they haven't been allowed to worship "their God" in the way that they deem fit, in which case you could say their daily sacrifice was taken away.

And, since the Jews were dispersed after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, you could say this condition has existed since just prior to their release from Babylon, let's come up with a date say, 543 BC -- which, if we extend by 2,300 years (remember the day for a year thing?), we come up with the year 1757 BC. And guess what? This is the very year that the Last Judgment -- as foretold in the book of Revelation -- was supposed to occur, and a "New Heaven and Earth" were formed (more so in the spiritual world), hence the establishment of the "New Church." And so it is the "Christian Era," which has existed since 543 BC, i.e., under the dominion of someone else (and remember, Jesus was a Jew), has now come to a close, and the Jews are no longer under its dominion.

All of which has been thoroughly detailed through the works of Emanuel Swedenborg (http://www.swedenborg.com/), the gifted Swedish scientist, theologian and, mystic. If you refer to the first two chapters of my book -- yes, here we are talking about my book again -- I go into further detail about it. While it also happens to be the same period that I speak about on my Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) thread. How strange? Hmm ... Maybe I can get you to take a look at it afterall? Now wouldn't that be something!


Chapter 1 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html) | Chapter 2 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html) | Chapter 3 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html) | Chapter 5 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html)

[Zero]

Quoting a book of fairy tales doesn't answer my specific questions. Nice try, though. Plus, nothing you posted to that thread makes any sense. If you already believe, ramblings about goats and horns will sound like whatever you want them to mean...can you PLEASE get back to natural selection?

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Quoting a book of fairy tales doesn't answer my specific questions. Nice try, though. Plus, nothing you posted to that thread makes any sense. If you already believe, ramblings about goats and horns will sound like whatever you want them to mean...can you PLEASE get back to natural selection? Would like to but I'm too tired. [zz)] Spent most of the evening working on this other post. Wasn't even aware that your post was here until after I posted the "Timeline Evidence?" post above. Will have to get to it tomorrow, Okay? [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Would like to but I'm too tired. [zz)] Spent most of the evening working on this other post. Wasn't even aware that your post was here until after I posted the "Timeline Evidence?" post above. Will have to get to it tomorrow, Okay? [;)] I'll be waiting...shall I attempt to secure some LSD, in order for us to be on the same wavelength?[g)]

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
I'll be waiting...shall I attempt to secure some LSD, in order for us to be on the same wavelength?[g)] Now why did you say that?

If you mean Lucifer, Satan and the Devil, and that's the drug of your choice, then I'll leave it up to you. [;)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Now why did you say that?

If you mean Lucifer, Satan and the Devil, and that's the drug of your choice, then I'll leave it up to you. [;)] Why would I waste my time trying to find things that don't exist? That's YOUR job!

I'll be waiting for your reply in the morning.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
OK, Greg, I'm going to buckle down...let's get some answers.

Where did you come up with the 10,000 year figure? What do you mean by 'rate of growth'? And where does perception of time fit into any of this?The date coincides with the Advent of Modern Man just after the Ice Age and the development of agriculture in Asia Minor. Also note that I had already come up with the date, and it was more a matter plotting it in accord with the events of history. If you read my Timeline thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) --which, nobody seems to want to do? -- this should pretty much answer how I came up with the dates.

As for the rate of growth, I'm referring to our arriving from a "natural state," and the onset of technology (development of agriculture), with its rapid acceleration and tremendous growth rate in population, to where it's practically seized control and we can no longer recognize what's natural anymore. In other words I'm speaking of this incredible transformation which has taken place since our arrival 10,000 years ago.


The length of recorded history would depend on lots of factors, not the least of which being that they didn't know we'd be looking back 7000 years later, so for the most part wouldn't have recorded things in a fashion that could survive that long. Where did you come up with the date 5143 BCE for a flood, and what evidence do you have for it?Again I would refer you to my Timeline thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817). Besides that, if there were a flood it would have to occur prior to 5,000 BC, otherwise we would have a clearer record of it. While here's the beginning of Ivan Seeking's thread, Believers in the lost Ark: Guardian, UK (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4702), which only seems to corroborate it.


"The explorer who discovered the Titanic beneath the Atlantic in 1985 is setting out on another underwater expedition to document Noah's flood. The Black Sea was originally a freshwater lake that in ancient times became inundated by the salty Mediterranean. Robert Ballard believes that this was a cataclysmic event that occurred about 7,500 years ago, and was possibly the deluge described in the Bible."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/...1015350,00.htmlAnd note, when you subtract 7,500 from 2003 you get 5497 BC which, is only a difference of 357 years, which is not much!


There really isn't a huge difference between man and the other primates, and they came from a common ancestor, so there wouldn't be a missing link between humans and chimps. Again, you should explain where you gathered these dates from.And yet there's nothing about the primates that suggest they live "outside" of their environment, and don't exist as an adaptation to the environment, as opposed to getting the environment to adapt to them, which is what mankind has done.


You may feel it, I certainly don't. I'm an animal and proud of it. In addition, a gut feeling should be treated as too subjective to base any conclusions about history on.Then how do you feel about being tied or "immersed" in the natural world? Is there anything about your world which is not "unnatural?" While I think the closest thing here would be if we all returned to subsistent farming (or such), although we would still be dependent upon technology, which I guess I'm saying we use as a crutch. Hey don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating this!


Beavers bypass nature when they build a dam, as do birds when they build nests. We consider their behavior natural, and I consider human building to be the exact same thing, on a larger scale. And, of course, references to an unsupported 'god' and 'eden'.I don't see what's so unnatural about chewing trees with your teeth and swabbing mud with your tail, both of which have clearly adapted to suit the purpose. While man on the other hand, says, "Well, I just came up this incredible idea, what do you say we get out the heavey equipment and tear up the joint? Forget about the consequences, what are they? Just do it!" And all because of a whim? Hmm ... Which is why I ask, what does this have to do with Natural Selection? And you can take this to mean I don't agree, Okay? Hence we come up with the notion of artifical or man-made. Indeed it is!


Actually, this is easily explained by evolution. We want more than we need, because we thing of resourses the same way as food, that we should stockpile for a later time.What? Man-made versus natural? You can take that to mean I don't think so.


You ask alot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask alot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers. Actually my asking questions is more a matter of technique, in part, because I don't typically rely on other people for answers, while it's also a means by which to "corral the answer" so to speak. It's like conducting any investigation really, where you ask a lot of questions in order to narrow in on the answer. Whereas by my askings questions here, I'm making you privy to the type of questions I've had to ask, while guiding you towards the answer (or conclusion). Maybe it's not the best technique? But, it works for me. [;)]


The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have alot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.It's like I said, the questions are designed to support the answer.


With all the questions you have, I don't expect you'll have any more time to post, will you?[s(] What do you feel like you're missing out on something? [;)]

[Zero]

*edit*

I'm done here...

[Iacchus32]

Sorry, it looks like I missed a couple of things here. I can assure you it wasn't intentional though. However, I somehow suspect you're not going to like what I have to say anyway?

Originally posted by Zero
[quote]You ask alot of questions, but you don't give us much in the way of support for your answers, if you see what I mean? You should really do some serious studying of what people who are experts in evolution, anthropology, and psycholgy have to say, and rethink all of this. You ask alot of questions; you should take a break from it and make an honest attempt at finding the answers. Well, you started this out by what seems to be your "major complaint" against me, so I thought I would try to give you a better idea of my approach. In which case I didn't catch the part below ...

As for these so-called experts, perhaps we should have them rethink what their doing and pursue "spiritual things" instead? Is there a difference here? Perhaps you should be reminded that this is the Religion Forum as well.


The reason why we say you have no foundation(besides you not having a foundation!) is because you have presented little but unsupported supposition. You have alot of ideas, but that isn't the end of things, it is the very first baby step. Now, you have to go find evidence to support your ideas, and be willing to toss them all in the trash if they are proven incorrect.And here, I just read the first part and continued with what I said above. It's like I said, the questions are designed to highlight the conclusion.

Also, if you undersood who I was personally, you would understand that I don't go around doing things arbitrarily. You would also know that I'm pretty observant, nor do I make a lot of mistakes. So you can take this to be a reflection of how I come up with my ideas.

Well, I don't know if that helps or not, but you can't say I didn't try. Thanks. [;)]

[Zero]

Instead of having 'questions highlight the conclusions', you might want to try evidence.
NOW I'm done here, don't bother to reply.[6)]

[Iacchus32]

Now there are a great many things in this Universe that we don't know about. But that does not mean they don't exist. There are "factual things" which we do know, and there are "factual things" which we don't know. Which is to say, a fact remains a fact, irregardless.

And yet it's entirely possible for one person or, perhaps a whole group of people (due to the "fact" we're all part of the human condition -- this is the key here [;)]), to ascertain a certain fact (or facts) that others are incapable of. And so the real issue becomes, at what point does a fact become knowable?

Indeed, it would be much easier if it could be accepted uniformly and by everyone. Then there would be no point to disagree. But what if there was a fact that only "one" person knew about, nor do I mean a fact specific to that one person, but a general fact that affected everyone? Does this mean the fact is unknowable or, not ascertainable by anyone else? Should it? If one person can ascertain it, then chances are others can ascertain it as well.

And yet what if it were one of those things which are not readily ascertainable, say like the notion of God? Of course this is probably why it's not widely accepted by everyone -- or, in the case of many who have accepted it, they may have accepted it "blindly" -- but should that have any bearing on whether or not God exists? Should it? The fact is, He either exists or He doesn't exist.

If this is the case, and God does exist, then there should also be "characteristic evidence" to support it. Or how else could you identify it? And yet the problem is, that unless you make the discovery yourself, being that it's not readily ascertained, you may not be able to associate the evidence with the facts. Although it's still evidence! In which case you may have all the evidence in the world -- which I suggest we do if we're speaking about God by the way -- but, unless one is able to make the association, nothing is going to happen.

So what does it mean? Especially when one person presents the evidence and another charges that there is no evidence, when it's really a matter of not being able to make the association? Hmm ... Is it anybody's fault really? I wouldn't think so. So why all the accusations then? Could it be because it has something to do with the notion of God, where the evidence could very well be right under our noses? ... Now that is a distinct possibility! [;)]

[Phobos]

Each person needs to research and weigh the evidences for him/herself. But be sure to pack along a set of good intellectual tools to figure out which are good and which are bad arguments.

[Iacchus32]

Just a couple of things from the thread, Just checking in on the fish (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5504&perpage=15&pagenumber=2), in case anybody wanted to get back on topic here ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"

While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...

And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.

Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."


Originally posted by TENYEARS
Iacchus32, I was going to say this 10 times before, but I did not but since you are aware of what I a refering to you would be able to continue the projection. In past evoulution, the amount and diversity of life was 10 fold of what it is today. The distinction rate is far beyond the rate of new species and of the species that are left the ability to for them to mutate over a period of time to adapt is beyond any curve. The rate of land consumption and encroachment of society has caused stresses beyond what is realized because it has not yet be thought about yet. Cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rats snakes and birds. That is what will be left. Oh, yes and farm raised fish which may be killed off due to the inability of natural selection to take it's course which will weaken the stock and cause it to have to be maniplated via chemicals, DNA, etc...

There is no symbiotic relationship.

There are things I know that I have not even spoken or alluded to on this forum.
Originally posted by Zantra
Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done. Doesn't it seem like a bit of paradox that that which is touted to be the most highly evolved species on the planet, is no better than the lowliest form of viral scum in terms of its impact? How is that possible? Isn't mother nature supposed to be elvoving further and further towards a higher standard of perfection? And so what does that do, make us freaks to the entire evolutionary process? Or, is it possible that we've been "put here" to fulfill some other purpose? Hmm ...


Originally posted by steppenwolf
why does it always come down to some problem with 'mother nature'? like something went wrong, what did hesse say? 'man is the failed abortion of mother nature' or something similar, it's poetic but so self centered. i'm sorry but what makes us the most highly evolved species? i have some flea friends who would stronly contest our inability to jump more then our height, and we can't even breathe under water? pathetic, we break so easily, look down at your wrist, veins showing through your pale skin, how easy it is to die All I'm suggesting is that maybe we're not "native" to this environment, that in fact we have done a piss-poor job of adapting so far, as you yourself seem to suggest. While the last thing I would do is blame it on mother nature. [;)]


Originally posted by Royce
Why are any of you surprised or puzzeled? We are nature, a part of nature and as any species respond to our environment just like any other species. In biology there is no such thing as a stable population. Species multiply under favorable conditions and die off under unfavorable conditions.There's nothing about our existence here that suggests we've adapted to our environment. For example take a beaver, which has developed a broad tail for swabbing mud and sharp teeth for chewing on trees, thus making him a "specialist" for building dams. There's nothing about man, the "naked ape," to suggest any specialized form of behavior, which has allowed him to evolve and adapt to his environment. Even the apes themselves, seem well suited to what mother nature has provided, and find no need whatsoever to live "outside" of her domain.

P.S. What is the first story in the book of Genesis by the way? Don't you think that might possibly have some bearing on this? [;)]Also, feel free to look into the Spiritual Timeline (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4817) thread, which seems to concur with the "Dawn of Civilization" which occurred about 10,000 years ago.

[I, Brian]

The point about adaptation is that our species is extremely adapatable. Rather than being very specialised to work in a specific environment only, such as the beaver, we are suited to many different environments. Our strength as a species lies precisely with this ability to wider adaption, rather than any specific and limited specialisations.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by I, Brian
The point about adaptation is that our species is extremely adapatable. Rather than being very specialised to work in a specific environment only, such as the beaver, we are suited to many different environments. Our strength as a species lies precisely with this ability to wider adaption, rather than any specific and limited specialisations. What that suggests to me is that we really haven't adapted at all. What kind of an adaptation is an adaption on a whim so to speak? Sounds to me like we want to have our cake and eat it too, rather than allow Mother Nature to its course and allow us to "truly adapt." And the environment is paying the price for it!

But then again, like I say, may there's a different reason for us being here?