A Theory Conforms to the Evidence

[Jim Johnson]

Maybe we're evolving INTO God and maybe for him, time moves backwards. Stick that one in yer noggin'. Heh.

It's amazing that a logically absurd statement had already grown into a religion more than 100 years ago.

[KBCraig]

Maybe we're evolving INTO God and maybe for him, time moves backwards. Stick that one in yer noggin'. Heh.

Plenty of people have. They're called Mormons.

Dayumm! Beat me to it!

[J’raxis 270145]

Maybe we're evolving INTO God and maybe for him, time moves backwards. Stick that one in yer noggin'. Heh.

Man invented God.

And we've always aspired to become God. There are even a couple stories about that in the Judæo-Christian tradition.

[dalebert]

And we've always aspired to become God.

That's the crux of every sci-fi movie that comes out to terrorize people about some new technology. We're "playing God"!

electricity - Frankenstein
radiation - Godzilla
cloning - The 6th Day
I also saw an Outer Limits episode about nano-robots. Don't remember the name.
etc.

Those are just off the top of my head, but just put a little thought into it and you'll see that every time some really useful new technology comes out, someone tries to show how it's going to be the end of civilization as we know it, and there's always a theme of scientists trying to play God. If we were good people, we'd still be crawling around in the dirt and digging up tators. Technology is evil!

[Russell Kanning]

What's the theory from the video?

[dalebert]

Maybe we're evolving INTO God and maybe for him, time moves backwards. Stick that one in yer noggin'. Heh.

[kola]

What's the theory from the video?

i think the theory was about some old drunk guy named darwin and he thought there was bug who looked like the KISS band member and he had a really long tongue. He proposed that this KISS bug wore makeup and played guitar and could be the only creature who could drink the sweet nectar from the odd Madagascar lily.

Years later some wierd science dude sat in the jungle with a vid camera and mosquito spray and fell asleep. Sure enough the KISS bug emerged and out came that tongue. All the other female flowers wanted him and his long tongue but he went for Lily. He tickled her silly and flew off to catch his next gig.

so darwins theory was right. IMO, whoooppee! 

I would think that any small bug (without a long tongue) could fly into the very small tube of the lily and do the same thing.   

Kola

[FTL_Ian]

And we've always aspired to become God.

What if we already are?

[srqrebel]

And we've always aspired to become God.

What if we already are?

Indeed.

[J’raxis 270145]

And we've always aspired to become God.

That's the crux of every sci-fi movie that comes out to terrorize people about some new technology. We're "playing God"!

electricity - Frankenstein
radiation - Godzilla
cloning - The 6th Day
I also saw an Outer Limits episode about nano-robots. Don't remember the name.
etc.

Those are just off the top of my head, but just put a little thought into it and you'll see that every time some really useful new technology comes out, someone tries to show how it's going to be the end of civilization as we know it, and there's always a theme of scientists trying to play God. If we were good people, we'd still be crawling around in the dirt and digging up tators. Technology is evil!

It's the argument behind a lot of the environmental and "green living" movement, too. Some people, including myself, see such things as pragmatic and sensible ways of improving one's life (improving one's health, reducing waste, cutting costs, &c.), but others seem to have this "you can't mess with Nature!" belief behind it all.

[J’raxis 270145]

And we've always aspired to become God.

What if we already are?

We're getting there, but not quite.

[kola]

but others seem to have this "you can't mess with Nature!" belief behind it all.

i think there is a very fine line here.

the main thing to focus on is that if there is "mans improvements" one must look at what harm is being done. This is where many seem to take a slanted view and say "oh a little of this wont hurt"..."well a little of this and a little of that and a little ......... it adds up.

I am all for free-will and improvements but far too often the risk is just not worth the benefit.

ie i am all for windpower for energy but oppose nuclear plants for the same. And I do not think creating rain and/or altering the weather has any longterm benefit whatsoever. So yeah in that aspect "dont mess with Nature!

all "treehuggers" or "don't mess with nature" gurus  don't often share the same viewpoints, jraxi. You seem to think  folks who think like myself want to live like cavemen. Youre wrong and way to quick to judge...and bundle everyone into a neat little box.

I really dislike when people label others into groups.

Kola

[dalebert]

It's the argument behind a lot of the environmental and "green living" movement, too. Some people, including myself, see such things as pragmatic and sensible ways of improving one's life (improving one's health, reducing waste, cutting costs, &c.), but others seem to have this "you can't mess with Nature!" belief behind it all.

John Stossel did an excellent special report about this called "Tampering With Nature".

[kola]

hes a government shill.

i used to like him but he sold out.

kola

[J’raxis 270145]

but others seem to have this "you can't mess with Nature!" belief behind it all.

i think there is a very fine line here.

the main thing to focus on is that if there is "mans improvements" one must look at what harm is being done. This is where many seem to take a slanted view and say "oh a little of this wont hurt"..."well a little of this and a little of that and a little ......... it adds up.

I am all for free-will and improvements but far too often the risk is just not worth the benefit.

ie i am all for windpower for energy but oppose nuclear plants for the same. And I do not think creating rain and/or altering the weather has any longterm benefit whatsoever. So yeah in that aspect "dont mess with Nature!

My problem with your approach is that there's no logic or reason behind it.

People have tried to point out to you before that there is no meaningful difference between what you consider to be "natural" and "artificial." Humans are a product of nature, and anything we do is merely an extension of that. There is no meaningful difference between a complex chemical manufactured in a laboratory, and one manufactured by natural processes. There is no meaningful difference between humans building structures and animals or nature doing the same, it's just a matter of degree of complexity. Whenever people try to point this out, you either stop replying, ignore or yell at people, or storm off in a huff.

I myself have tried to point out to you more than once that a lot of the criticisms you level at modern medicine (e.g., the vaccine debate) are valid, but that you then engage in faulty inductive logic to conclude that the entire theory behind it is somehow dangerous or untrustworthy. You point out specific instances of dangerous vaccines, or corrupt, profit-seeking medical practices, and use that to paint the entire concept of "vaccination" or "Western medicine" as somehow inherently flawed. Ironically, in so doing, it is you who are engaging in a collectivist-thinking fallacy.

all "treehuggers" or "don't mess with nature" gurus  don't often share the same viewpoints, jraxi. You seem to think  folks who think like myself want to live like cavemen. Youre wrong and way to quick to judge...and bundle everyone into a neat little box.

I really dislike when people label others into groups.

...which I was being careful not to do by using terms such as some people and others. I wasn't trying to create collectivist-style groups or labels, and wouldn't say that "all" anyone believes in anything as a group.