WE are the dominate species on this planet. Whether or not we're special lies, in my opinion, in the belief there is life outside this solar system.
But saying over and over again that we're not special doesn't make it so.
Aww, poor Darwin a little butt hurt and can't take a shred of criticism but loves to dish it out. Good thing science isn't as sensitive as you are.
Of course, "evolutionist" is used in the same manner "creationist" is used...and that's pejoratively.
So what? No ones exempt from criticism...not even evolutionists, unless you think that your position is indeed infallible.
Aww, poor Darwin a little butt hurt and can't take a shred of criticism but loves to dish it out. Good thing science isn't as sensitive as you are.
Of course, "evolutionist" is used in the same manner "creationist" is used...and that's pejoratively.
So what? No ones exempt from criticism...not even evolutionists, unless you think that your position is indeed infallible.
WE are the dominate species on this planet. Whether or not we're special lies, in my opinion, in the belief there is life outside this solar system.
But saying over and over again that we're not special doesn't make it so.
Hey bro, if all you do is quote Dawkins all day long as he does, and link exclusively to his youtube videos like they're Gospel, then you don't have anything original to add...
Actually, the more accurate term would be "Biologist."
Not a single scientist uses the term "evolutionist." It was a term invented by those that invented the debate that doesn't really exist.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the entire basis of your side of the argument based off of a single 2,000 year old book that was compiled, edited, translated and arguably created entirely by man?
I'd wager that insects, bugs and bacteria are far, far better adapted to this planet as they represent an exponentially greater amount of biomass than humans, can exist in all of the most extreme climates that are known, and will certainly survive the next purging disaster.
The term I hear more than any is "evolutionary biologist", which is appropriate, in my opinion.
Yes, but bugs, plants, bacteria etc aren't running the affairs of this world. In fact, since we're the more intelligent beings, we are the dominate species based entirely on that fact.
My definition of dominance isn't the ability to adapt/survive -- I define it based on our abilities to control what goes on with impunity, as we can do now.
What does that even mean? Do we control the Affairs of Bugs, Plants, and Bacteria?
There are bugs, spiders, etc in the office I work in...yet, we control the building, who enters it, whether or not it gets torn down despite the bug population.
Let me as you, if we decide to nuke the earth, would bacteria, bugs, plants have a say in it?
You have to be trolling...again, and as usual.
WE are the dominate species on this planet. Whether or not we're special lies, in my opinion, in the belief there is life outside this solar system.
But saying over and over again that we're not special doesn't make it so.
Um, you misunderstand me, I'm not saying that humanity isn't the dominant species. We absolutely are but because we evolved to be. I'm saying it's arrogant to believe that we're dominant because some divine being wants us to be. I find it arrogant to believe that humanity is special in the eyes of some super being. Which is in juxtaposition to werepossum who said he finds believing no higher being exists is arrogant, I feel the exact opposite.
Ok, but I don't think it is arrogant because when I say we were created, then we have someone above us, and hence, we're NOT as smart as we think we are.
To me, its humbling to know we're nothing compared to someone more powerful and has much more wisdom that we'd need to rely on. I think its arrogant to say we don't need God or a higher being because at that point, you're saying human knowledge is the only knowledge. How is that NOT arrogant?
That's almost like saying "my knowledge is the ONLY correct knowledge".
In essence, that's what we'd be saying.
I don't consider holding human knowledge highly as arrogant because it took millenia of learning to get to where we are.
And there's tons that we don't know but that's why we search for it.
And it's not like we discount the possibility of life beyond this planet and even intelligent life, it's statistically quite possible considering the vastness of the universe. I just find think that we're special because God loves us more to be extremely arrogant.
Exactly.Ok, but I don't think it is arrogant because when I say we were created, then we have someone above us, and hence, we're NOT as smart as we think we are.
To me, its humbling to know we're nothing compared to someone more powerful and has much more wisdom that we'd need to rely on. I think its arrogant to say we don't need God or a higher being because at that point, you're saying human knowledge is the only knowledge. How is that NOT arrogant?
That's almost like saying "my knowledge is the ONLY correct knowledge".
In essence, that's what we'd be saying.
Ok, but I don't think it is arrogant because when I say we were created, then we have someone above us, and hence, we're NOT as smart as we think we are.
To me, its humbling to know we're nothing compared to someone more powerful and has much more wisdom that we'd need to rely on. I think its arrogant to say we don't need God or a higher being because at that point, you're saying human knowledge is the only knowledge. How is that NOT arrogant?
That's almost like saying "my knowledge is the ONLY correct knowledge".
In essence, that's what we'd be saying.
And in the grand scheme, we know nothing compared to all there is to know, as you eluded to below:
Sure, but the more we find out, the more questions will naturally arise, so we likely will NEVER get to the point where we know everything.
I don't believe there is life beyond this planet, but I am not closed to the possibility. Frankly, I don't have much reason to believe there is because, after all, we're just guessing and using numbers to quantify our guesses.
Math doesn't make beings appear, not matter how we "work" the numbers. I could reverse this and say we cannot discount the existence of God because Billions of people believe in Him, so statistically and based on the vastness of religious adherence, he exists.
Exactly.
Believing in G-d is an act of faith; it is inherently humble. There is something as much greater than myself as I am to an insect, something inherently beyond my understanding. Agnosticism is saying maybe there is a higher being, but I'm not convinced; it also is inherently humble as it professes a lack of knowledge as well as a lack of faith. Atheism is saying there is no god, which implies a huge level of knowledge considering that we've only gotten out of orbit by proxy and until recently had the macro-level physics of the universe exactly backward. (And as a historic movement, agnostics believed that G-d is inherently unknowable; don't get more humble than that.) Atheism is by far the most arrogant stance as it requires that one make a judgement about the existence of a being or beings who are by definition outside of our universe's physical laws. That's breathtakingly arrogant.
Don't understand the first. I will say that I have no problem with anyone living by the rules of a religion, I only have a problem with them enforcing those rules on others. As G-d is inherently beyond our understanding, we may well have it wrong. All the world's religions disagree on the details; we might well learn one day that G-d is indeed a multitude of interconnected intra-diminsional pink unicorns.I am firmly in the "agnostic" camp as well but do you consider that believing that any being that anyone comes up with that lives outside of our physical laws is "breathtakingly arrogant"?
If I claim that pink unicorns are intra-diminsional creatures whose farts are actually the missing energy in the universe, would you be "breathtakingly arrogant" in saying that I was full of shit?
Pony boy was correct? We're all burning.Don't understand the first. I will say that I have no problem with anyone living by the rules of a religion, I only have a problem with them enforcing those rules on others. As G-d is inherently beyond our understanding, we may well have it wrong. All the world's religions disagree on the details; we might well learn one day that G-d is indeed a multitude of interconnected intra-diminsional pink unicorns.
Doubtful.As for the second, I would say you're probably full of shit, but if you convince a significant portion of humanity to believe along with you then I'll take the matter under advisement.
Exactly.
Believing in G-d is an act of faith; it is inherently humble. There is something as much greater than myself as I am to an insect, something inherently beyond my understanding. Agnosticism is saying maybe there is a higher being, but I'm not convinced; it also is inherently humble as it professes a lack of knowledge as well as a lack of faith. Atheism is saying there is no god, which implies a huge level of knowledge considering that we've only gotten out of orbit by proxy and until recently had the macro-level physics of the universe exactly backward. (And as a historic movement, agnostics believed that G-d is inherently unknowable; don't get more humble than that.) Atheism is by far the most arrogant stance as it requires that one make a judgement about the existence of a being or beings who are by definition outside of our universe's physical laws. That's breathtakingly arrogant.