What is evolution, not what some think

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh I agree with you I think humanity needs a slap around the head for our arrogance in thinking we are the ultimate species.
I think the day we come when we discover we are not alone in the universe and I hope that will be the slap around the head we need to evolve into a better human.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Heh! You have more hope than I mr monkey. The way I see it, humans will have the first chance to dehumanize another intelligent race and actually not have to worry about that pesky human sympathy thing. I imagine humans will go out of their way to destroy the other life. Real demons?! Holy S#! We'd jump at the chance to kill them. Though I also kind of think that we aren't alone and that the universe is probably full of intelligent races just like us. It's probably a galactic game of intellectual evolution. Where instead of competing for resources, you are competing for dominance and intelligence. If there is anything I've discovered, it's that chaos is everywhere, why do humans assume that greater intelligence equals benevolence? That is just another arrogant assumption. Think about it, if humans could leave the planet and spend their whole lives staring into space, they will eventually lose all respect for life on earth. What incentive would humans in control (you know tptb) have to preserve nature in pursuit of resources and space to settle more humans? Humans have little care for nature while we are living on the planet, you think this attitude will improve when we don't have to live on it anymore?

Also, intelligence and technology tends to make its greatest leaps during warfare. This could just be another application of evolution to evolve life into a completely new direction. This could be occurring as we speak and we could as humans be entering a whole new evolutionary arms race once we cross into space. This could propel us to technological and intellectual levels that we could never dream of.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist... But I look across history and I don't see humans getting any "better" morally as technology improves. So I don't see humans crossing the space and contact barriers as anything different like others do. Though it may be humbling at first.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tsingtao
so there should be transitionals all around us today, right?

Correct. Every species on the planet (and probably the universe) is always in transition.

anyone have an idea which are in transition?

All of them.

or do all animals and plants transit at the same speed?

Just because they are all in transition, doesn't mean they transition at the same speed. Don't make egregious jumps in logic please. There are some species (like alligators or crocodiles) that haven't changed much in millions of years while others have had significant changes in that time.

how convenient.

i'm talking about the 1/2 wing/leg type of thing.

is there anything that just needs a couple more generations to turn into something else?

yeah, gators and sharks kinda put a dent in evolution. how bout the nautilus? centipedes and dragon fly's?

they just seemed to get smaller.

a reply to: tsingtao

There are plenty of half-wings: flying squirrels, flying snakes and sugar gliders are a few examples. Article about gliding and parachuting animals

As for half-legs, there are extant species of mudskippers and lungfish that cover many of the transitional stages from fins to legs. There are also transitional fossils showing the opposite development, from legs to flippers, in the case of cetaceans.

is there anything that just needs a couple more generations to turn into something else?

Yes, just a couple more generations and all the creationists will have turned back into monkeys.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh I agree with you I think humanity needs a slap around the head for our arrogance in thinking we are the ultimate species.
I think the day we come when we discover we are not alone in the universe and I hope that will be the slap around the head we need to evolve into a better human.

There's only one problem with your statement. Aliens as of today do not exist therefore humans ARE the ultimate species..

originally posted by: libertytoall

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh I agree with you I think humanity needs a slap around the head for our arrogance in thinking we are the ultimate species.
I think the day we come when we discover we are not alone in the universe and I hope that will be the slap around the head we need to evolve into a better human.

There's only one problem with your statement. Aliens as of today do not exist therefore humans ARE the ultimate species..

There's only one problem with YOUR statement. Probability is that aliens do exist somewhere in the vastness of the universe. And humans are not the ultimate anything.

a reply to: libertytoall

At what destroying everything around us?.
You just proved how arrogant humanity can be cheers you proved my point.

originally posted by: Freeborn

Why?

Personally I believe that belief in a 'God' is unprovable until either death or the advent of some sort of 'Judgement Day'.
Anything else requires an element of blind faith.

Exactly the same as disbelief in a 'God' is unprovable until death or the lack of a 'Judgement Day'

And as such I think its utterly irrelevant.

Youre confusing belief with knowledge....only a theists claim to know, some absolutely, that there is a god. And I agree that's blind faith. However you don't need to know something absolutely in order to reject a claim.

I don't care if there is a 'God' or not.
I will live my life by a moral code that I set myself - if 'God', this supreme omniscient, omnipotent entity does exist then I'm certain he'll judge me on my acts and deeds and not on whether I've adhered to some man written code or dogma.
If 'he' doesn't exist then I've lost nothing and I've tried to live a 'good' life.
No harm done.

If that's your personally philosophy, then great, fantastic

So really, who cares?

Well you brought up atheists and theists in an evolution thread so....

I'm not sitting on the fence, that's my belief and that's it - who are you to dictate what I can or can not believe?
And I'm certainly not 'looking down' on anyone - I simply don't agree with the opinions some people have expressed.
You don't dictate the rules or the criteria.

Logic dictates, and as you didn't answer 'Yes' you're not a theist, and that would make you a-theist, a none stamp collector if you will....

That's the problem with far too many people - Theists and Atheists - believe what I say no matter what.
Bollocks to that.
I try to think for myself - if I'm wrong then so be it, but it was my choice, my belief.

Congratulations, give yourself a slap on the back....?

Completely and utterly irrelevant.
Its an unprovable question so why waste time thinking or worrying over it?

Yep if we think a question is unanswerable, why bother even trying to answer it or even form an opinion on it right?

However, as you didnt answer yes, your not a theist, therefore an a-theist. Simples.

Utter bollocks.

A well thought out reply, however it doesn't change the fact that you're not a theist....

a reply to: Prezbo369

I would say he is an agnostic.

Iam an anti theist but I believe in God.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Prezbo369

I would say he is an agnostic.

An agnostic atheist yes, he does not claim to know one way or the other.

Iam an anti theist but I believe in God.

If you believe in a god you're a theist....

a reply to: Prezbo369

Nope.

en.wikipedia.org...

Iam an anti theist here from wiki.

it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion OR to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

I directly oppose organized religion.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Prezbo369

Nope.

Iam an anti theist here from wiki.

it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion OR to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

I directly oppose organized religion.

Me too.

But you're still a theist, as you have a belief in a god. Being against organised religion does not change this.

Perhaps anti-religious is a more fitting description?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Prezbo369

I would say he is an agnostic.

An agnostic atheist yes, he does not claim to know one way or the other.

Iam an anti theist but I believe in God.

If you believe in a god you're a theist....

Agnostic is a perfectly legitimate position.

Definition from dictionary:
a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If a definition is present in a dictionary it's perfectly legit to use it. That you don't like the definition or its existence is your problem.

originally posted by: vasaga

Agnostic is a perfectly legitimate position.

Definition from dictionary:
a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If a definition is used in a dictionary it's perfectly legit to use it.

You can be agnostic in regards to any claim, not just to the existence of gods. So to describe yourself as purely 'agnostic' is kinda meaningless.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Notice the OR..doesn't matter really that is the label I give myself.
My belief in God doesn't mean I ever pray or anything I will not claim I know God because no one does.
But I kinda think God to me is the universe which gave birth to me

An old wise dude told me last wek and I think this quote is amazing.

God begins where my imagination ends.

I also label myself a humanist because...

Humanity FTW!!!.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

Notice the OR..doesn't matter really that is the label I give myself.

It makes no sense though, how can you be a theist and an anti-theist?

I also label myself a humanist because...

Humanity FTW!!!.

FTMFW

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: vasaga

Agnostic is a perfectly legitimate position.

Definition from dictionary:
a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

If a definition is used in a dictionary it's perfectly legit to use it.

You can be agnostic in regards to any claim, not just to the existence of gods. So to describe yourself as purely 'agnostic' is kinda meaningless.

You're still attached to the same definition you're constantly using, which is that agnostic means 'lack of knowledge'. But that is not its only definition. In fact, the one who coined the term never used it that way, but as the definition that I posted.

You need to stop pretending that words are defined by their etymology. There's a reason language changes over time and that the same words can mean different things. Etymology is not some hard material object that we find in nature, and neither are words.

originally posted by: vasaga
You're still attached to the same definition you're constantly using, which is that agnostic means 'lack of knowledge'. But that is not its only definition.

It's the dictionary definition and if a definition is present in a dictionary it's perfectly legit to use it, no?

In fact, the one who coined the term never used it that way, but as the definition that I posted.

Yes but today it means something very different, there's a reason language changes over time and that the same words can mean different things....

You need to stop pretending that words are defined by their etymology. There's a reason language changes over time and that the same words can mean different things. Etymology is not some hard material object that we find in nature, and neither are words.

You just mentioned how i'm not using the word as it was originally coined, and then attempted to lecture me on how words change..........what??

a reply to: Prezbo369

You are entitled to use it as you wish. However, you are not entitled to force someone into calling himself an atheist when he can not identify as such. You are then forcing him to use your definition, rather than letting him pick his own from the dictionary.

So yes, what I meant is that you need to stop using it by force against someone else. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist go ahead. But don't force the label on someone else.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: Prezbo369

You are entitled to use it as you wish. However, you are not entitled to force someone into calling himself an atheist when he can not identify as such. You are then forcing him to use your definition, rather than letting him pick his own from the dictionary.

Atheist is the accurate description for someone who isn't a theist. When someone says that they're neither, I explain why impossible through basic logical deduction.

People can describe themselves however they want to, but it doesn't change the fact that they're doing it wrong.

You seem to have an irrational hatred for the word 'atheist'.....is not being one of you really that distasteful?

Seems a lot of theists hate that word, maybe thats why many people choose not to use it to describe themselves....

So yes, what I meant is that you need to stop using it by force against someone else. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist go ahead. But don't force the label on someone else.

It's an accurate description and i've explained and showed why.