Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

No one chooses what they believe


spartan max2

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

More people around here desperately need to read Plato. And of those that have, perhaps a second, and even a third reread is in order. Some cannot even think themselves out of a pager bag. And a couple seem incapable of understanding it's an enclosure with an opening on top, as they never look up.

I think Mr. Walker has an impossible task at hand here, and has spent way too much time and words on individuals that, individually, are only finding excuses upon excuses, rather than being gracious and admit defeat.

It would suffice to point out wise words, but only for the wise, as it's either lack of wisdom, or sense of pride. Those opposing you are not reasoning, they are disputing. Mr. Walker, just state what wise men say, and be done with that lot: This is my defense, and I must request you to meet me fairly. We are professing to reason, and not merely to dispute; and there is a great difference between reasoning and disputation. For the disputer is always seeking to trip up his opponent.

No matter how much justification is thrown out there, some are very fussy eaters and will not come to the table of discussion until they have what they like, and not what is good for them, truth. Therefore they just harangue, and haggle over the worth of the plurality of an individual term, without wanting to understand that the plurality without the individual can never add up to a population.

It's just another battle of words they are waging, and not a battle of reason.

And Evolution indeed has purpose. Even if man is a product of chance, chances are we purposely choose to believe what suits our fancy.

Darwin, On The Origin of The Species. An excerpt.

It may be doubted whether any one would have thought of training a dog to point, had not some one dog naturally shown a tendency in this line; and this is known occasionally to happen, as I once saw in a pure terrier. When the first tendency was once displayed, methodical selection and the inherited effects of compulsory training in each successive generation would soon complete the work ; and unconscious selection is still at work, as each man tries to procure, without intending to improve the breed, dogs which will stand and hunt best. On the other hand, habit alone in some cases has sufficed; no animal is more difficult to tame than the young of the wild rabbit; scarcely any animal is tamer than the young of the tame rabbit; but I do not suppose that domestic rabbits have ever been selected for tameness; and I presume that we must attribute the whole of the inherited change from extreme wildness to extreme tameness, simply to habit and long-continued close confinement. Natural instincts are lost under domestication: a remarkable instance of this is seen in those breeds of fowls which very rarely or never become “ broody,” that is, never wish to sit on their eggs. Familiarity alone prevents our seeing how universally and largely the minds of our domestic animals have been modified by domestication. It is scarcely possible to doubt that the love of man has become instinctive in the dog. All wolves, foxes, jackals, and species of the cat genus, when kept tame, are most eager to attack poultry, sheep, and pigs; and this tendency has been found incurable in dogs which have been brought home as puppies from countries, such as Tierra del Fuego and Australia, where the savages do not keep these domestic animals.  How rarely, on the other hand, do our civilised dogs, even when quite young, require to be taught not to attack poultry, sheep, and pigs!

Man is the animal hardest to domesticate/breed.

Plato, Laws. An excerpt.

But, before all this, comes the following consideration:–The shepherd or herdsman, or breeder of horses or the like, when he has received his animals will not begin to train them until he has first purified them in a manner which befits a community of animals; he will divide the healthy and unhealthy, and the good breed and the bad breed, and will send away the unhealthy and badly bred to other herds, and tend the rest, reflecting that his labours will be vain and have no effect, either on the souls or bodies of those whom nature and ill nurture have corrupted, and that they will involve in destruction the pure and healthy nature and being of every other animal, if he should neglect to purify them. Now the case of other animals is not so important–they are only worth introducing for the sake of illustration; but what relates to man is of the highest importance; and the legislator should make enquiries, and indicate what is proper for each one in the way of purification and of any other procedure.
 

Any Pink Floyd fan will surely agree on the applicability of this. There may not be any official teams on UM, but surely there is a line drawn in the sand, where we have us and them, and which is a plural of you and me.

 

I think I pointed this out quite succinctly in a couple of posts. It would be easy to walk away, but i have genetically evolved to be a teacher and so i find it hard to leave people in ignorance :) Besides, these correspondences are not read only by the proponents, but by others, who might be a tad more open minded  :( 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I think I pointed this out quite succinctly in a couple of posts. It would be easy to walk away, but i have genetically evolved to be a teacher and so i find it hard to leave people in ignorance :) Besides, these correspondences are not read only by the proponents, but by others, who might be a tad more open minded  :( 

I share your sentiments, to a certain degree, and about certain "individuals." I'm planting certain seeds too, of a different specie.

Plato, Phaedrus. An excerpt.

SOCRATES: Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than this,
and having far greater power–a son of the same family, but lawfully begotten?
PHAEDRUS: Whom do you mean, and what is his origin?
SOCRATES: I mean an intelligent word graven in the soul of the learner,
which can defend itself, and knows when to speak and when to be silent.
PHAEDRUS: You mean the living word of knowledge which has a soul, and
of which the written word is properly no more than an image?
SOCRATES: Yes, of course that is what I mean. And now may I be allowed
to ask you a question: Would a husbandman, who is a man of sense, take the
seeds, which he values and which he wishes to bear fruit, and in sober seriousness
plant them during the heat of summer, in some garden of Adonis, that he may
rejoice when he sees them in eight days appearing in beauty? at least he would
do so, if at all, only for the sake of amusement and pastime. But when he is
in earnest he sows in fitting soil, and practises husbandry, and is satisfied if in
eight months the seeds which he has sown arrive at perfection?
PHAEDRUS: Yes, Socrates, that will be his way when he is in earnest; he
will do the other, as you say, only in play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, danydandan said:

You can even decide to reject reality. So the statement that nobody chooses their beliefs is obviously false. The real question is; can everyone make that decision (or can everyone make a decision to change their beliefs)? I don't know, I think some people are too entrenched to do that for a number of different reasons.

There are a few different issues here.  One is overcommitment.  Any one of us can become too invested in an idea, even if it doesn't hold up to any critical scrutiny.  A classic example of this is how ex-sports identities feel they have lost their identity when they retired and become depressed and even suicidal.  This is much the same as what happens to people who are overcommitted to a cause that is seen to fail.

Then there is the issue of all the times people have assiduously ignored the occasions when their actions contradict their closely held beliefs, or when they have chosen to belong to an organization that has betrayed its core beliefs.  This is when congitive dissonance kicks in.

I recommend the last article on the 8 psychological traps for investors, because these mistakes can be made in any part of your life (by analogy), when you emotionally invest in a person or cause.

Psychology of fanaticism

11 Signs of Narcissistic Abuse

Cognitive dissonance

Champions of the lost cause

Depression in retired sports people

8 Psychological traps for investors

The fact is that anyone can choose to change.  The real question is why some people don't or won't, even when the "writing is on the wall" (please excuse the Biblical reference).  Some people would rather remain on the proverbial sinking ship rather than admit their mistake.  It is also worth pointing out that some individuals who are unable to change their opinions are actually victims of narcissistic abuse, and have had their own perspective undermined by a malignant narcissist or some other abuser.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to #325

I did not choose to believe it, at first. And yet, here it is, the Living Word that has soul, and knows when to speak and when to be silent. The image of the written word of God!

 

John 1:

The Word Became Flesh

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome a it.

6There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Matthew 26:

62So the high priest stood up and asked Him, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” 63But Jesus remained silent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

In reference to #325

I did not choose to believe it, at first. And yet, here it is, the Living Word that has soul, and knows when to speak and when to be silent. The image of the written word of God!

For all the towering rhetoric, words don't become flesh.  It's a silly idea.  Words are always and inevitably a product of flesh.  You can't expect words to spontaneously become a person, and nor do they.   The notion that spoken words existed before the rest of the cosmos is only meaningful if you live in a society where oratory and storytelling makes it seem logical because they are coming out of the mouth of a narrator.  That narrator however is, invariably, just a person who is speaking or writing persuasively.

Also, have you considered the weird cosmology inherrent in the idea that God is just a word?  Does that mean that the whole cosmos is in fact the arrangement of a series of words?  Where are the nouns and verbs?  What is the syntax?  Is there a glossary?  There is literally less than zero evidence for this cosmic grammar.  What there is arguable evidence for is Cosmic Mathematics.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

For all the towering rhetoric, words don't become flesh.  It's a silly idea.  Words are always and inevitably a product of flesh.  You can't expect words to spontaneously become a person, and nor do they.   The notion that spoken words existed before the rest of the cosmos is only meaningful if you live in a society where oratory and storytelling makes it seem logical because they are coming out of the mouth of a narrator.  That narrator however is, invariably, just a person who is speaking or writing persuasively.

Also, have you considered the weird cosmology inherrent in the idea that God is just a word?  Does that mean that the whole cosmos is in fact the arrangement of a series of words?  Where are the nouns and verbs?  What is the syntax?  Is there a glossary?  There is literally less than zero evidence for this cosmic grammar.  What there is arguable evidence for is Cosmic Mathematics.

I'm going to turn over your books to the Untouchables.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, danydandan said:

You can even decide to reject reality. So the statement that nobody chooses their beliefs is obviously false.

How do we tell the difference between someone who has rejected reality and one who simply doesn't have the same reality and hasn't come to the same conclusion as us?  I agree with Cormac that because of all the overwhelming evidence for evolution I cannot choose to not believe in it.  Lots of people aren't aware of that evidence, lots of people don't use rational thought processes consistently or understand the validity of the scientific method, some people believe there is a super-powered being who can do anything, and possibly related superbeings who dwell here specifically to deceive us, in this reality. 

What I believe for me seems to be subconscious.  I'm not sure how I go about just changing my belief given a current evidence set; how do we do that, just concentrate really hard and I can change my belief?  I'm not even sure I can choose to believe in subjective things, I can't choose to have a different favorite ice cream flavor or favorite rock guitarist.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Read up on the topic is your best bet. 

Good luck Wally.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

Micro evolution!!!!  Oooooooooooooh!!!! 

Remember, I never was really great at science and the like. So, I learned something right now. ;)   

In which, in how the few are arguing, that doesn’t make sense to what is actually making sense and is the case. (Well, I feel it’s the case *shrugs* ) 

I mean, like I said, I’m not on top of the science thing, but from what I remember in school, didn’t the individual one’s who weren’t born for certain life saving things, died?!?! 

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The Greeks used to have debates, and neither side would concede, but who won was decided by the audience. 

In this case, I think too many of the audience are themselves trying to jump into the debate, so it is impossible to say there is a winner.

I may as well throw in an OPINION. Evolution is the word used to describe the effect created by individual mutations that are beneficial, as those mutations become common in the breeding population.

You can't have evolution without individual mutation, OR without a sizable breeding population.

I would imagine, (and I could be wrong), that things that were individually inherited from possible mutations, were actually just small non-dominant, little glitches and things. Kind of like those rare disorders and/or other things that ‘pop’ up within generations. I personally, wouldn’t put that down as part of any type of evolution. 

Again, I could be wrong. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:
23 hours ago, danydandan said:

You can even decide to reject reality. So the statement that nobody chooses their beliefs is obviously false. The real question is; can everyone make that decision (or can everyone make a decision to change their beliefs)? I don't know, I think some people are too entrenched to do that for a number of different reasons.

There are a few different issues here.  One is overcommitment.  Any one of us can become too invested in an idea, even if it doesn't hold up to any critical scrutiny.  A classic example of this is how ex-sports identities feel they have lost their identity when they retired and become depressed and even suicidal.  This is much the same as what happens to people who are overcommitted to a cause that is seen to fail.

Then there is the issue of all the times people have assiduously ignored the occasions when their actions contradict their closely held beliefs, or when they have chosen to belong to an organization that has betrayed its core beliefs.  This is when congitive dissonance kicks in.

I recommend the last article on the 8 psychological traps for investors, because these mistakes can be made in any part of your life (by analogy), when you emotionally invest in a person or cause.

Psychology of fanaticism

11 Signs of Narcissistic Abuse

Cognitive dissonance

Champions of the lost cause

Depression in retired sports people

8 Psychological traps for investors

The fact is that anyone can choose to change.  The real question is why some people don't or won't, even when the "writing is on the wall" (please excuse the Biblical reference).  Some people would rather remain on the proverbial sinking ship rather than admit their mistake.  It is also worth pointing out that some individuals who are unable to change their opinions are actually victims of narcissistic abuse, and have had their own perspective undermined by a malignant narcissist or some other abuser.

I feel I agree with you on this. :yes:  (am I trying to compensate for disagreeing with you from before??!?! :o  ) Anyways, I have seen it, and I think I have had attempts in trying to push me into it. I wonder at a lot of it being the fault of peer pressure. 

For me, change can come from core honest belief. I can think one can feel they can change their belief, but I would want to know how they found that working for them. Does it stick? Does it do something to their psychic? In my instance, way in the past, it couldn’t. I found that I had an inner war with myself. When I’m now honest with myself, even to the worse understanding of myself, I’m still at peace, because I now can monitor my behavior and outlook to compensate. :) 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:

I'm going to turn over your books to the Untouchables.

I bet you're just bad at maths.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pettytalk said:
1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

For all the towering rhetoric, words don't become flesh.  It's a silly idea.  Words are always and inevitably a product of flesh.  You can't expect words to spontaneously become a person, and nor do they.   The notion that spoken words existed before the rest of the cosmos is only meaningful if you live in a society where oratory and storytelling makes it seem logical because they are coming out of the mouth of a narrator.  That narrator however is, invariably, just a person who is speaking or writing persuasively.

Also, have you considered the weird cosmology inherrent in the idea that God is just a word?  Does that mean that the whole cosmos is in fact the arrangement of a series of words?  Where are the nouns and verbs?  What is the syntax?  Is there a glossary?  There is literally less than zero evidence for this cosmic grammar.  What there is arguable evidence for is Cosmic Mathematics.

I'm going to turn over your books to the Untouchables.

I wouldn’t worry, Alchopwn, they can’t touch them. ;)  :P  

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:
On 7/20/2019 at 8:30 AM, danydandan said:

You can even decide to reject reality. So the statement that nobody chooses their beliefs is obviously false.

How do we tell the difference between someone who has rejected reality and one who simply doesn't have the same reality and hasn't come to the same conclusion as us?  I agree with Cormac that because of all the overwhelming evidence for evolution I cannot choose to not believe in it.  Lots of people aren't aware of that evidence, lots of people don't use rational thought processes consistently or understand the validity of the scientific method, some people believe there is a super-powered being who can do anything, and possibly related superbeings who dwell here specifically to deceive us, in this reality. 

What I believe for me seems to be subconscious.  I'm not sure how I go about just changing my belief given a current evidence set; how do we do that, just concentrate really hard and I can change my belief?  I'm not even sure I can choose to believe in subjective things, I can't choose to have a different favorite ice cream flavor or favorite rock guitarist.

IN which, I always argue about. What I read from you LG, is dead on, I think. I feel that the time or times, I have been ‘encouraged’ to believe something that I didn’t, were examples of how it doesn’t work that way. My inner self, that believed what I really believed was still there and warring with my outer self. I don’t see the honesty there. I feel strongly, that it hurts the individual in the long run. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Any Pink Floyd fan will surely agree on the applicability of this. There may not be any official teams on UM, but surely there is a line drawn in the sand, where we have us and them, and which is a plural of you and me.

We may be Poles Apart but it's not Us and Them, it's merely that before we shuffle off to the The Great Gig in the Sky we have Time to point out when someone has A Momentary Lapse of Reason.  Doesn't mean someone's a bad person, most people here are fine with the general attitude that you can invest yourself in Any Colour You Like and don't think their opponents have Brain Damage; ultimately just go ahead and Shine on You Crazy Diamond s as far as I'm concerned.  Yes, there are a lot of Echoes here and it may seem like One of These Days someone will really lose their temper, but we just need to Breathe and relax as we splash around in our communal Saucerful of Secrets.  Some people seem to have Empty Spaces in their reasoning, some people's understanding of topics appears to be Obscured by Clouds, and I may not have High Hopes that if I Keep Talking that I'll change their mind, but I can't say to anyone that I don't Wish You Were Here.  It's a skepticism board so it's going to seem like Welcome to the Machine if one argues for something but can't support it, such people might want to Run Like Hell away, but it's not personal, we just want to Let There Be More Light.

(sorry I'm just not going to be able to fit Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict into this, some Floyd is beyond my capabilities)

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

We may be Poles Apart but it's not Us and Them, it's merely that before we shuffle off to the The Great Gig in the Sky we have Time to point out when someone has A Momentary Lapse of Reason.  Doesn't mean someone's a bad person, most people here are fine with the general attitude that you can invest yourself in Any Colour You Like and don't think their opponents have Brain Damage; ultimately just go ahead and Shine on You Crazy Diamond s as far as I'm concerned.  Yes, there are a lot of Echoes here and it may seem like One of These Days someone will really lose their temper, but we just need to Breathe and relax as we splash around in our communal Saucerful of Secrets.  Some people seem to have Empty Spaces in their reasoning, some people's understanding of topics appears to be Obscured by Clouds, and I may not have High Hopes that if I Keep Talking that I'll change their mind, but I can't say to anyone that I don't Wish You Were Here.  It's a skepticism board so it's going to seem like Welcome to the Machine if one argues for something but can't support it, such people might want to Run Like Hell away, but it's not personal, we just want to Let There Be More Light.

(sorry I'm just not going to be able to fit Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict into this, some Floyd is beyond my capabilities)

Actually, I was trying to decide to use a lol smiley or the thanks one. I’m not a huge Pink Floyd fan, but I feel I’m married to one. I think this post is pure genius. Well done, LG, well done! :clap:  

Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
Well cone?!?! Wow............. need more coffee
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

  I'm not even sure I can choose to believe in subjective things, I can't choose to have a different favorite ice cream flavor or favorite rock guitarist.

So if a new super good guitarist comes out, it is impossible for them to be your favorite?

Or, if that person is your new favorite, then perhaps it was fated to be so?

No new ice cream flavor could turn your head? Or, if it did, it was fated to do so?

Is that the arguement? Fate?

Or, perhaps instinct?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would imagine, (and I could be wrong), that things that were individually inherited from possible mutations, were actually just small non-dominant, little glitches and things. Kind of like those rare disorders and/or other things that ‘pop’ up within generations. I personally, wouldn’t put that down as part of any type of evolution. 

Again, I could be wrong. 

To a degree that is true.

Imagine if a hairless thin fellow and a thicker hairy fellow like in Anchorage Alaska. If being thicker and hairier gave the one guy an advantage with the cold, genetics wise, he'd be more likely to survive long enough to have children. Over 20 generations, the hairier people would statistically come to dominate.

This isn't necessarily true in humans though, but the point is the same with animals, and plants. Those that have even a minor advantage will eventually be the predominate representatives of the population.

A minor change can lead to everyone gaining that change if it is useful. Even slight expressions in height, weight, hair amount...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

 

57 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would imagine, (and I could be wrong), that things that were individually inherited from possible mutations, were actually just small non-dominant, little glitches and things. Kind of like those rare disorders and/or other things that ‘pop’ up within generations. I personally, wouldn’t put that down as part of any type of evolution. 

Again, I could be wrong. 

To a degree that is true.

Imagine if a hairless thin fellow and a thicker hairy fellow like in Anchorage Alaska. If being thicker and hairier gave the one guy an advantage with the cold, genetics wise, he'd be more likely to survive long enough to have children. Over 20 generations, the hairier people would statistically come to dominate.

This isn't necessarily true in humans though, but the point is the same with animals, and plants. Those that have even a minor advantage will eventually be the predominate representatives of the population.

A minor change can lead to everyone gaining that change if it is useful. Even slight expressions in height, weight, hair amount...

 

Thanks for explaining it (and the nice example too :D ) It’s seems, that is what I thought. 

I feel, that it’s complicated when it comes to the human population, but it still boils down to what you just explained to me, right? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Thanks for explaining it (and the nice example too :D ) It’s seems, that is what I thought. 

I feel, that it’s complicated when it comes to the human population, but it still boils down to what you just explained to me, right? 

Well, humans use shelters and toold and fire, so a lot of environmental factors that drive evolution don't apply directly.

The weak don't just survive, but other humans give them free help. Such that despite low intelligence, or trollish appearance, humans can basically have as many children as they want. Those who tend to have advantages, such as wealth, power, fame, superb skills... tend to have fewer children with great resources. But when the "stupid" have 5 kids for every 1 of the "smart"... it doesn't take a genius to see the trend.

This is one reason I believe religion will never go extinct. The religious will always tend to have more children then the atheists.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well, humans use shelters and toold and fire, so a lot of environmental factors that drive evolution don't apply directly.

The weak don't just survive, but other humans give them free help. Such that despite low intelligence, or trollish appearance, humans can basically have as many children as they want. Those who tend to have advantages, such as wealth, power, fame, superb skills... tend to have fewer children with great resources. But when the "stupid" have 5 kids for every 1 of the "smart"... it doesn't take a genius to see the trend.

This is one reason I believe religion will never go extinct. The religious will always tend to have more children then the atheists.

I thought you were a religious ?

 

And yeah humans population is so large and we have such technology to keep everyone alive that we really stunted the evolution process in our species. 

Philiosphical humans will probably come to the point to where we artifically control our own evolution.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

No new ice cream flavor could turn your head? Or, if it did, it was fated to do so?

Is that the arguement? Fate?

Or, perhaps instinct?

Closer to instinct than fate I'd think.  Just because I don't choose my 'choices' doesn't mean they can't change as new information, or flavors, emerge. 

Most people's favorite flavor is what tastes the best to them.  What tastes the best to me is not at all under my conscious control, I can't rationalize or think or will my way into believing butterscotch even tastes good let alone have it be my favorite ice cream flavor.  I don't think that what I think is true is any more under my conscious control than that, except possibly that I have the will to learn more about a topic to see if my position changes.  To take something that is somewhat up in the air or undetermined, how does one think or will themselves to believe that aliens have visited the earth?  I don't think they have, it's possible though, but given that at this moment I have a certain set of information about UFOs what are the steps I need to take to make myself believe in alien visitation?  How do I choose to make that evidence more believable to me?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, creation is evolution and evolution is creation ,both intelligent. Man got real intelligent by the development of the ear drum, and how languages started  ":)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Well, humans use shelters and toold and fire, so a lot of environmental factors that drive evolution don't apply directly.

The weak don't just survive, but other humans give them free help. Such that despite low intelligence, or trollish appearance, humans can basically have as many children as they want. Those who tend to have advantages, such as wealth, power, fame, superb skills... tend to have fewer children with great resources. But when the "stupid" have 5 kids for every 1 of the "smart"... it doesn't take a genius to see the trend.

This is one reason I believe religion will never go extinct. The religious will always tend to have more children then the atheists.

I am reminded of the The movie, “ Idiocracy” 

I wonder if that makes a good example. *shrugs*

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

We may be Poles Apart but it's not Us and Them, it's merely that before we shuffle off to the The Great Gig in the Sky we have Time to point out when someone has A Momentary Lapse of Reason.  Doesn't mean someone's a bad person, most people here are fine with the general attitude that you can invest yourself in Any Colour You Like and don't think their opponents have Brain Damage; ultimately just go ahead and Shine on You Crazy Diamond s as far as I'm concerned.  Yes, there are a lot of Echoes here and it may seem like One of These Days someone will really lose their temper, but we just need to Breathe and relax as we splash around in our communal Saucerful of Secrets.  Some people seem to have Empty Spaces in their reasoning, some people's understanding of topics appears to be Obscured by Clouds, and I may not have High Hopes that if I Keep Talking that I'll change their mind, but I can't say to anyone that I don't Wish You Were Here.  It's a skepticism board so it's going to seem like Welcome to the Machine if one argues for something but can't support it, such people might want to Run Like Hell away, but it's not personal, we just want to Let There Be More Light.

(sorry I'm just not going to be able to fit Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict into this, some Floyd is beyond my capabilities)

Wow! I used the same tactic a few years back, but I combined song titles from various artists. Job well done! Have a cigar, boy!

But remember, we are all just another brick in the wall, and I did not intend to meddle between the arguing parties. But someone had to sound the division bell, as it just sounded like dogs of war barking at each other. 

Because I'm always lost for words, I cannot expect to better, nor even match your effort. Also, since I'm one of the few here without a team, as I'm marooned and don't want to hear any more music from the committee, nor want any more sorrow for myself, I'll just bring this to a close, as things left unsaid are sometimes best. But as far as teams, the final cut  will determine who goes ahead, and who is left behind at the trial.

But as far as us, let us raise the wine glasses and toast to one of the greatest bands of all time, Pink Floyd, something we can agree on.

I have to be honest, since you are one of the better stubborn heads around here, and tell you that I'm living on cloud nine. And from my perspective I prefer it. Therefore I'll stay here, as I can be whatever I want to be, and free to choose my own reality.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Interesting. I have read similar before.

However it doesn't really address the issue/claim that evolution only occurs at a population level, as mcormac insists, and is not a staged process involving mutations and genetic drift in individuals; which are then processed/sifted via natural selection into  those which promote survival/and those which do not  ( over quite long periods of time)  thus eventually bringing change to an entire population.

ALL of this is evolutionary change and thus evolution.

Not just the final evolution into a different species  

While increasing technology has allowed us to look more closely at all forms of evolutionary process from natural selection to genetic drift, these have been identified and closely studied for decades.

The human genome project  allows for a more detailed, comprehensive, and accurate picture, a t both the micro and macro levels of genetic evolution.

Hi Walker

What I am seeing in most of the articles is that they are referring to groups living in varying environments adapt due to stressors unique to that environment and that there are several individuals involved in that adaptation and not one unique individual in each group from which the adaptation is caused. 

jmccr8

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.