Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: How Evolution Proves the Existence of God (continuation of 2008 thread)

  1. #1 How Evolution Proves the Existence of God (continuation of 2008 thread) 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1
    Your assumption is purely hypothetical & subjective in the sense that it negates the natural scientific dynamical objective evaluation of the initiation of the then biochemical/physical changes for the inducement of the process of life & replaces it with the a mystical induction theory after an imaginary entity of the wishful God to create life here on Earth or elsewhere in the universe.This is a complete antithesis of a proper scientific approach & to be should be discarded for good.Otherwise it will lead to the question of pre God who supposedly wished to create God himself & so forth to -infinity god which is imaginary.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,871
    Quote Originally Posted by bapis.545 View Post
    Your assumption is purely hypothetical & subjective in the sense that it negates the natural scientific dynamical objective evaluation of the initiation of the then biochemical/physical changes for the inducement of the process of life & replaces it with the a mystical induction theory after an imaginary entity of the wishful God to create life here on Earth or elsewhere in the universe.This is a complete antithesis of a proper scientific approach & to be should be discarded for good.Otherwise it will lead to the question of pre God who supposedly wished to create God himself & so forth to -infinity god which is imaginary.
    out of curiosity, why resurrect a thread thats 10 years old?


    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    a thread thats 10 years old
    An evolved adaptation for posted threads. Like an African lungfish, they remain alive whilst buried deep in the Archival mud of internet forums. They seem to no longer be prey for a statute of limitations nor do they appear susceptible to annual house cleaning cancellations. Instead they're always lurking, waiting to capture and consume the imagination of the unwary and careless. Ancient religious text sort of does the same thing

    Oh oh!!! Another victim
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    O-D
    O-D is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    5
    Post content deleted as sheer nonsense.
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; March 23rd, 2018 at 11:13 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,871
    Oh, look a spam link from someone that doesnt want to actually discuss here.

    Ignored.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    It amazes me that people are still busy at this “proof/disproof of God” thing. You cannot take a closed system of axioms, such as the natural universe, and, from the confines of this system, attempt to construct proofs/disproofs as to something that is by definition outside that very system, i.e. a supernatural entity. This doesn’t make any sense, which is of course why none of the very many proofs and disproofs is in any way convincing. The only thing we can prove here is that neither a proof nor a disproof can ever be forthcoming; in fact this should be trivially obvious.

    Complete waste of time. And that’s even before we get into epistemology.

    The other thing is of course - why bother at all? If you’re a true believer, then you don’t need proof. If you are a true disbeliever, then you don’t need disproof. The best position to take on this is no position at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    I agree for the most part, but where religion bullshit attempts to be taken seriously and hijack educational systems it needs to be fought. Taking "no position" does no one any favours...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    125
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    a thread thats 10 years old
    An evolved adaptation for posted threads. Like an African lungfish, they remain alive whilst buried deep in the Archival mud of internet forums.
    Where's the LIKE button?

    I am picturing posted threads burying themselves in the ground for metamorphosis, to emerge only every 13 or 17 years to complete their life cycle.
    This space for rent
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I agree for the most part, but where religion bullshit attempts to be taken seriously and hijack educational systems it needs to be fought. Taking "no position" does no one any favours...
    I meant taking no position in regards to proof/disproof of God.
    I agree that religion must not hijack any other discipline in an educational curriculum. But do note that this does not mean that religion cannot be taught as a separate subject alongside everything else; I see no problem with it (and no, I am not religious myself). The crucial thing is that each discipline must be genuinely and honestly identified for what it is - this is science, that is religion. So long as the boundary is clear, there is no issue, regardless of how we stand on these disciplines. It becomes a problem only when religion masquerades itself as scientific knowledge (“creation science” etc), and when science is portrayed as being merely a belief system, so that - for people who don’t know any better - the boundaries get blurred. That is an act of intellectual dishonesty, and must be actively opposed and corrected.

    In general, I think we need to be careful not to judge all of religion by the actions of a group of fanatics, such as evangelicals, jihadists etc. Saying that these things exist is just saying that anything can be misused for unrelated agendas. You also wouldn’t condemn all of politics as a discipline, merely on account of the existence of far-right/far-left extremists, would you?

    I see nothing inherently wrong with considering things transcendental or metaphysical, so long as they remain clearly labelled as such. It’s trying to disguise one thing as something else in order to serve a hidden agenda, that is causing the problem. When I went to school in Germany, we got taught both science and religion, and the distinction was made perfectly clear at all times. Some people tended towards one side, some people towards the other - and it was fine, there was generally no animosity, no “me vs. you”. The two disciplines don’t even consider the same basic questions, so there need not be an issue.

    All I’m saying is that it can be made to work, if done right. That “doing it right” is where our job lies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    ^Like
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I agree for the most part, but where religion bullshit attempts to be taken seriously and hijack educational systems it needs to be fought. Taking "no position" does no one any favours...
    I meant taking no position in regards to proof/disproof of God.
    I agree that religion must not hijack any other discipline in an educational curriculum. But do note that this does not mean that religion cannot be taught as a separate subject alongside everything else; I see no problem with it (and no, I am not religious myself). The crucial thing is that each discipline must be genuinely and honestly identified for what it is - this is science, that is religion. So long as the boundary is clear, there is no issue, regardless of how we stand on these disciplines. It becomes a problem only when religion masquerades itself as scientific knowledge (“creation science” etc), and when science is portrayed as being merely a belief system, so that - for people who don’t know any better - the boundaries get blurred. That is an act of intellectual dishonesty, and must be actively opposed and corrected.

    In general, I think we need to be careful not to judge all of religion by the actions of a group of fanatics, such as evangelicals, jihadists etc. Saying that these things exist is just saying that anything can be misused for unrelated agendas. You also wouldn’t condemn all of politics as a discipline, merely on account of the existence of far-right/far-left extremists, would you?

    I see nothing inherently wrong with considering things transcendental or metaphysical, so long as they remain clearly labelled as such. It’s trying to disguise one thing as something else in order to serve a hidden agenda, that is causing the problem. When I went to school in Germany, we got taught both science and religion, and the distinction was made perfectly clear at all times. Some people tended towards one side, some people towards the other - and it was fine, there was generally no animosity, no “me vs. you”. The two disciplines don’t even consider the same basic questions, so there need not be an issue.

    All I’m saying is that it can be made to work, if done right. That “doing it right” is where our job lies.
    That is a lucid description of my own position on this, exactly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post

    I meant taking no position in regards to proof/disproof of God.
    I agree that religion must not hijack any other discipline in an educational curriculum. But do note that this does not mean that religion cannot be taught as a separate subject alongside everything else; I see no problem with it (and no, I am not religious myself). The crucial thing is that each discipline must be genuinely and honestly identified for what it is - this is science, that is religion. So long as the boundary is clear, there is no issue, regardless of how we stand on these disciplines. It becomes a problem only when religion masquerades itself as scientific knowledge (“creation science” etc), and when science is portrayed as being merely a belief system, so that - for people who don’t know any better - the boundaries get blurred. That is an act of intellectual dishonesty, and must be actively opposed and corrected.

    In general, I think we need to be careful not to judge all of religion by the actions of a group of fanatics, such as evangelicals, jihadists etc. Saying that these things exist is just saying that anything can be misused for unrelated agendas. You also wouldn’t condemn all of politics as a discipline, merely on account of the existence of far-right/far-left extremists, would you?

    I see nothing inherently wrong with considering things transcendental or metaphysical, so long as they remain clearly labelled as such. It’s trying to disguise one thing as something else in order to serve a hidden agenda, that is causing the problem. When I went to school in Germany, we got taught both science and religion, and the distinction was made perfectly clear at all times. Some people tended towards one side, some people towards the other - and it was fine, there was generally no animosity, no “me vs. you”. The two disciplines don’t even consider the same basic questions, so there need not be an issue.

    All I’m saying is that it can be made to work, if done right. That “doing it right” is where our job lies.
    Man I could have used a guy like you at many a family gathering; especially that last one where we sat around a campfire and had a few (too many) pints.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    58
    I know Muslims who believe their religion is based on science. Such people should be avoided and better still, opposed. Under the name of Scientific Religion Muslims want to convert the gullible. It is now necessary to expose religious dogmas for what they are.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    58
    What is the scientific equivalent for God.? If there is none, you are dumb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    Ah, isn't it cute when idiots think they're being clever...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Ah, isn't it cute when idiots think they're being clever...
    I've been an idiot many times and this could be one of them....

    If I remember my history correctly, many clever people boarded/designed the Titanic thinking it was unsinkable yet didn't think about providing enough lifeboats in case it did sink.

    Is there any reason to think natural selection will never favor the idiot? My closest neighbor is as simple a man as you can get... Booze, women, cars and uneducated. He somehow landed a lower echelon job working for a border agency nearby. He's useless with tools, talks using a very basic vocabulary, has a million dogs(approx), divorced thrice with stupid kids always in trouble with the law etc. Dumb as shit yet he lasted 38 years with the same company.

    However when he was young he was talked into handing over a portion of his earnings to an investment firm as payroll deduction. He never looked at it for 38 years because as he would say to me, 'I don't understand any of it'. Don't have to tell you how well off that man is right now. Retired and living the dream. Only question is how long will it last now that he's spending it.

    My point is, even if Idiots are an anomaly of human evolution, natural events can unfold that favor their survival for whatever reason. Sticking with water...a savant and an idiot, neither of whom can swim take a trip on a leaky boat. Only one of them is wearing a life jacket. Who is the idiot? Who has a better chance for survival?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Ah, isn't it cute when idiots think they're being clever...
    I've been an idiot many times and this could be one of them....

    If I remember my history correctly, many clever people boarded/designed the Titanic thinking it was unsinkable yet didn't think about providing enough lifeboats in case it did sink.

    Is there any reason to think natural selection will never favor the idiot? My closest neighbor is as simple a man as you can get... Booze, women, cars and uneducated. He somehow landed a lower echelon job working for a border agency nearby. He's useless with tools, talks using a very basic vocabulary, has a million dogs(approx), divorced thrice with stupid kids always in trouble with the law etc. Dumb as shit yet he lasted 38 years with the same company.

    However when he was young he was talked into handing over a portion of his earnings to an investment firm as payroll deduction. He never looked at it for 38 years because as he would say to me, 'I don't understand any of it'. Don't have to tell you how well off that man is right now. Retired and living the dream. Only question is how long will it last now that he's spending it.

    My point is, even if Idiots are an anomaly of human evolution, natural events can unfold that favor their survival for whatever reason. Sticking with water...a savant and an idiot, neither of whom can swim take a trip on a leaky boat. Only one of them is wearing a life jacket. Who is the idiot? Who has a better chance for survival?
    Are you calling Humphrey Bogart an idiot? ( he could swim)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_African_Queen_(film)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Ah, isn't it cute when idiots think they're being clever...
    I've been an idiot many times and this could be one of them....

    If I remember my history correctly, many clever people boarded/designed the Titanic thinking it was unsinkable yet didn't think about providing enough lifeboats in case it did sink.

    Is there any reason to think natural selection will never favor the idiot? My closest neighbor is as simple a man as you can get... Booze, women, cars and uneducated. He somehow landed a lower echelon job working for a border agency nearby. He's useless with tools, talks using a very basic vocabulary, has a million dogs(approx), divorced thrice with stupid kids always in trouble with the law etc. Dumb as shit yet he lasted 38 years with the same company.

    However when he was young he was talked into handing over a portion of his earnings to an investment firm as payroll deduction. He never looked at it for 38 years because as he would say to me, 'I don't understand any of it'. Don't have to tell you how well off that man is right now. Retired and living the dream. Only question is how long will it last now that he's spending it.

    My point is, even if Idiots are an anomaly of human evolution, natural events can unfold that favor their survival for whatever reason. Sticking with water...a savant and an idiot, neither of whom can swim take a trip on a leaky boat. Only one of them is wearing a life jacket. Who is the idiot? Who has a better chance for survival?
    If the stupidity is exhibited after breeding (idiots tend to drop sprogs young ) it won't be selected against. Even bright people can occasionally become Darwin award contenders and idiots can get lucky though...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    Are you calling Humphrey Bogart an idiot?( he could swim)
    Been awhile since I've watched the movie. He and Kate worked great together. I'm sure both had idiotic moments in real life.

    Ph.... Idiots can and do get lucky. I would think an idiot's place in the gene pool is twofold. Yes they may be more apt at getting themselves killed but are just as lethal to non-idiots, maybe more so.

    Then I think of a person like Mme Curie dying of exposure to radiation. Did that make her an idiot?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,937
    No, just uninformed. Idiocy is relative to the information available...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No, just uninformed. Idiocy is relative to the information available...
    I'm guessing that at some point in the past, either early humans or one of our early ancestors did not have an IQ above idiot level. I'm also going to assume there wasn't an animal that ever existed with an IQ above idiot before them. For the one that did, that SOB survived and probably was an ancestor. Meaning that what we are today was totally dependent upon an idiot or the idiot gene surviving. So far the clever have survived a short blip of geological time whereas for billions of years, sub idiot managed just fine. Does that prove you don't have to be a genius to survive, just an idiot?
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; May 21st, 2018 at 06:36 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No, just uninformed. Idiocy is relative to the information available...
    I'm guessing that at some point in the past, either early humans or one of our early ancestors did not have an IQ above idiot level. I'm also going to assume there wasn't an animal that ever existed with an IQ above idiot before them. For the one that did, that SOB survived and probably was an ancestor. Meaning that what we are today was totally dependent upon an idiot or the idiot gene surviving. So far the clever have survived a short blip of geological time whereas for billions of years, sub idiot managed just fine. Does that prove you don't have to be a genius to survive, just an idiot?
    QED (quod erit demonstrandum)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    QED
    ambigui amici mei
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by parag29 View Post
    What is the scientific equivalent for God.? If there is none, you are dumb.
    If I'm reading this correctly, then the scientific equivalent for God is a cat.
    Cats demand worship. You will need to go down on your knees. They know what you are thinking.
    Physics even has its cat paradox. Could never have been a dog paradox.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,966
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No, just uninformed. Idiocy is relative to the information available...
    I'm guessing that at some point in the past, either early humans or one of our early ancestors did not have an IQ above idiot level. I'm also going to assume there wasn't an animal that ever existed with an IQ above idiot before them. For the one that did, that SOB survived and probably was an ancestor. Meaning that what we are today was totally dependent upon an idiot or the idiot gene surviving. So far the clever have survived a short blip of geological time whereas for billions of years, sub idiot managed just fine. Does that prove you don't have to be a genius to survive, just an idiot?
    QED (quod erit demonstrandum)
    Which will be to be demonstrated? When?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by geordief View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    No, just uninformed. Idiocy is relative to the information available...
    I'm guessing that at some point in the past, either early humans or one of our early ancestors did not have an IQ above idiot level. I'm also going to assume there wasn't an animal that ever existed with an IQ above idiot before them. For the one that did, that SOB survived and probably was an ancestor. Meaning that what we are today was totally dependent upon an idiot or the idiot gene surviving. So far the clever have survived a short blip of geological time whereas for billions of years, sub idiot managed just fine. Does that prove you don't have to be a genius to survive, just an idiot?
    QED (quod erit demonstrandum)
    Which will be to be demonstrated? When?
    Quando superabunt neologismi.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    Hey geo, I'm thinking your family is descended from a long line of slogan writers for the People's Front of Judea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    I am unrecognized in my own country.

    Tiocfaidh ár lá

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiocfaidh_%C3%A1r_l%C3%A1

    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    4,373
    Wiki tells us how to pronounce the expression but it looked like Egyptian hieroglyphics to me.

    Language evolves and today that expression has a modern day translation...' Let's discuss this over a pint'.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,954
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Wiki tells us how to pronounce the expression but it looked like Egyptian hieroglyphics to me.

    Language evolves and today that expression has a modern day translation...' Let's discuss this over a pint'.
    Let's hope.(looks like "Chuck E's in love" to me.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLiIe0KQ_lY
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Kota
    Posts
    2
    Wow what a nice information thanks for sharing this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Are you calling Humphrey Bogart an idiot?( he could swim)
    Been awhile since I've watched the movie. He and Kate worked great together. I'm sure both had idiotic moments in real life.

    Ph.... Idiots can and do get lucky. I would think an idiot's place in the gene pool is twofold. Yes they may be more apt at getting themselves killed but are just as lethal to non-idiots, maybe more so.

    Then I think of a person like Mme Curie dying of exposure to radiation. Did that make her an idiot?
    I would go further and say that evolution has no interest in the truth, only what is useful. Most lifeforms have very little "education".
    Becoming aware, objectively, of the human condition is an act which is not only anti-religious, but also against evolution. We are hard wired to accept group think and the authority of our dubious leaders, if this allows us to procreate and succeed.

    Nature does not give up it's secrets easily and we are only beginning to understand the various cognitive biases in the human brain. Those biases we do understand we often capitalise on to exploit others (marketing) rather than to help mankind or the planet
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Rapid evolution proves that evolutionary psychology is racist.
    By Martin J Sallberg in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 12:21 AM
  2. Existence proves intelligent design
    By Ascended in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: February 11th, 2013, 07:44 PM
  3. How Evolution Proves the Existence of God
    By williampinn in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 03:01 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 31st, 1969, 07:00 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •