Humans are animals

[2020hindsight]

repost of this one
"From nothing nothing comes, Something is, therefore something eternally was”
(just one of the-logical arguments out there
maybe not on of the theological ones)
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=189780&highlight=sylligism#post189780

 

[Woodchips]

Agree with the general thrust of your post, however that chap's creationist style attitude is far more common in the scientific community than you are letting on.

Hey Wayne,

Yea you're right! That attitude is quite common. But when scientists talk like that they sound no different to their religious counterparts in my opinion.

Basically the same attitude you ascribe to creationists (which is spot on) they ascribe to science.. i.e. start with the answer and they spend their time searching for evidence to back it up... some outright frauds with obvious commercial imperatives. The "process" was in the majority of cases designed with a specific result in mind.

Yea to some extent I think this is true also. Its just an unfortunate fact of life that in a capitalist world science is inevitably tied to profit. Most scientific research is linked to industry, industry wants certain outcomes, so industry funds science to find ways of achieving those outcomes. 'Investigation for the sake of investigation' is pretty much a thing of the past. But that doesn't mean that all standards are necessarily thrown out the window. They still must conform to acceptable forms of methodology if they are to get any credibility within the wider scientific community (I would hope!). In my experience the wider scientific community keeps the game fairly honest (most of the time). But I could simply be more of an idealist than I first thought!

WC, wow - where did that criticism come from lol

OK it was a bit left field I admit :. But I write my posts the way I would chat to my mates over a beer at the pub, completely honest and uncensored. People are obviously finding it a little aggressive so I think Ill work on that. But being critical within reason is a good thing, keeps us all honest.

With regard to that scientists CV, I was criticizing his usage of the word 'truth' with reference to the information that he had provided. Regardless of whether the specific detail of his youtubes is accurate (they're great from what ive seen), his wording in his CV gives the impression to the uninitiated that science is infallible, which it isn't. Thats all I was pointing out. You may shrug it off as just his wording, but I think its important the way in which science markets itself to the public.

As for what I believe, well genetics is my area of research so obviously I believe in evolution. I don't believe in creationism, or intelligent design because I can see critical flaws in the thinking behind those arguments. Which one is closer to the truth? I have no idea. I'm not even sure what truth is to be honest. All I know is that in this day and age science is the accepted explanation because it is by far more useful in manipulating nature. I think we tend to gravitate towards the most useful explanation at any particular time and we call it the 'truth'.

If people disagree, feel free to rip in!

WC :sheep:

 

[Happy]

Humans are animals

This is a statement to me; it doesn't need any proof.

We are 98% identical to Orangutans.
Probably high 80% to mice, rats and pigs.

 

[2020hindsight]

This is a statement to me; it doesn't need any proof..

Must admit I agree happy lol. - absolutely!

Not sure why science is getting such a grubbing here.

the youtubes posted in this post on "videos with a message" thread (at least first part) are a great example of undeniable scientific fact - surely.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198903&highlight=potholer54#post198903

"for 100,000 years men have looked up at the night sky and wondered - we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. "
ok - it's mainly about stars and the age of the earth - but surely that is linked to the rest of creation, and surely Genesis is immediately plunged into doubt. (and all that that entails with respect to evolution, Garden of Eden etc)

 

[wayneL]

Must admit I agree happy lol. - absolutely!

Not sure why science is getting such a grubbing here.

the youtubes posted in this post on "videos with a message" thread (at least first part) are a great example of undeniable scientific fact - surely.
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198903&highlight=potholer54#post198903

"for 100,000 years men have looked up at the night sky and wondered - we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. "
ok - it's mainly about stars and the age of the earth - but surely that is linked to the rest of creation, and surely Genesis is immediately plunged into doubt. (and all that that entails with respect to evolution, Garden of Eden etc)

2020

I'm not sure who is arguing for genesis here, or why you insist that it's either genesis or Dawkins.

* Science gets a drubbing because it presents theory as fact.

* You see this statement - "we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. " - is absolute garbage of the worst variety. Mankind is still guessing... a much better idea yes, but still guessing. There are so many holes in mainstream astronomical theory, and alternative theories challenging it altogether, that to claim "fact" is utterly outrageous.

* You will never be able to prove to the creationists that genesis is wrong, they won't listen, it's futile. (Never try to teach a pig to sing. It will frustrate you, and it annoys the pig. )

* We ain't plants. The fact we are animals is not even in dispute.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. You see this statement - "we are the first people in history to look up and not to wonder, not to guess, but to know. " - is absolute garbage of the worst variety. Mankind is still guessing... a much better idea yes, but still guessing.

2. creationists

3. We ain't plants. The fact we are animals is not even in dispute.

1. gee Wayne I still reckon you're misquoting these scientists.
misquoting their youtube posts whatever.
I mean it has to be in the context of his youtube.
He clarifies that there are things you can guess at if you wish (hence the closed box simile) -
then he makes a heap of scientific statements.

and my question then, of you or anyone else
are any of those statements wrong ?
I reckon no.

(PS he also says that we know this - "and we are still learning!" - he happily concedes what you criticise him about )


2. creatistists ? yeah ok, but 51% of americans believe the earth is less than 6K years old it sounds stupid when you or I say that - but , lol - that's what we're up against here (and what Dawkins is fighting)

in summary , you are right - unless we define our terms we're all wasting our time - I assumed that the thread is about creationists (whereby man is "above" animals) versus evolutionists.

3. and following on from that , you say it's not in dispute that we are animals - so whence the controversy implied in the thread title?. The only controvery I can imagine is between creationists and evolutionists.

4. you could ask people who come to this thread ...their opinion on ...

a) do they believe in DNA - who knows, a few bible belters might say no
b) that DNA evolves and has evolved from a simple one celled thingo protozoan whatever (you can probably ignore it's origin I guess)
c) and every now and again there is a milestone which is called a species
d) and why wouldn't man be just a species like any other animal
e) do we have a soul that differs from other animals
f) are we created in god's image where other animals are not
g) do we go to heaven where others do not
h) are we reincarnated where others are not (optional)
etc

i) further left field questions - maybe we'll come back as another type of animal (seriously optional)

But with the current thread title, I agree, most (aussies) would surely say "or course we are animals" - EXCEPT those very religious people who believe we are created in God's image ( or vice versa ?) , that we have a soul where animals don't - and old testament etc etc - Adam, Eve, Noah , etcetc - and in some states of the USA this would probably be the majority from what I can gather.

 

[Rafa]

2020, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder mate...
no ones ever suggesting that we are not animals... as wayne said... the fact we are animals is not even in dispute.

i see no controversy implied in the title of thread... the controversy is in your mind...Why... that is something only you can truly answer

And as for Dawkins, he is no more or less fundamentalist that those very people he is trying to disprove!

 

[2020hindsight]

2020, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder mate...
no ones ever suggesting that we are not animals... as wayne said... the fact we are animals is not even in dispute.
i see no controversy implied in the title of thread... the controversy is in your mind.
Why... that is something only you can truly answer

I'm perfectly balanced, m8 -
got a chip on both shoulders

Rafa - I think everyone is telling me that this thread (by contrast) only has one side , lol

I probably have a problem understanding a long conversation - that goes on for pages and pages - with heaps of posts - and now you tell me
lol
we've all been agreeing with each other
sheesh
gimme a bit of conjecture any day
adios amigos

 

[Sean K]

This is a statement to me; it doesn't need any proof.

Hi happy, I deliberately made it a statement to make more of impact I suppose. I was expecting the more 'outerworldy' to chip in a bit more perhaps.

There has been some outstanding discussion here about the nuances of what it is to be human. Most entertaining.

I was actually hoping for more chat down the mysical and spiritual lines. There are far too many people agreeing with each other for my liking! LOL.

I'll somehow find a way to discuss the possibility that we might be more than just a bunch of cells, or strings.

 

[wayneL]

Hi happy, I deliberately made it a statement to make more of impact I suppose. I was expecting the more 'outerworldy' to chip in a bit more perhaps.

There has been some outstanding discussion here about the nuances of what it is to be human. Most entertaining.

I was actually hoping for more chat down the mysical and spiritual lines. There are far too many people agreeing with each other for my liking! LOL.

I'll somehow find a way to discuss the possibility that we might be more than just a bunch of cells, or strings.

K,

I would bet there would be plenty that would enjoy that discussion, I know I would, but it's a bit dodgy on an open forum. Those with other agendas are extremely disruptive to that sort of conversation, as can be seen on this thread to a certain extent.

Are we more than just a bunch of cells. Based on my personal experiences, most definitely. But beyond that certainty, I wouldn't have a ****ing clue, just making a bunch of guesses.

 

[Sean K]

K,

I would bet there would be plenty that would enjoy that discussion, I know I would, but it's a bit dodgy on an open forum. Those with other agendas are extremely disruptive to that sort of conversation, as can be seen on this thread to a certain extent.

Are we more than just a bunch of cells. Based on my personal experiences, most definitely. But beyond that certainty, I wouldn't have a ****ing clue, just making a bunch of guesses.

Yeah, I agree. Perhaps what we could be talking about are the 'possibilities' to explain the 'known unknows' (thanks Don) which might be interesting. Perhaps after my next sharman visit I could add some colour.

 

[2020hindsight]

Yeah, I agree. Perhaps what we could be talking about are the 'possibilities' to explain the 'known unknows' (thanks Don) which might be interesting. Perhaps after my next sharman visit I could add some colour.

kennas and wayne
a) Science,
b) Metaphysical

SCIENCE
concerning thread titles
maybe the negative suggestion? lol - a thread titled "does anyone DISAGREE with the theory that we are no more special spiritually than the other animals" ...

(or
"does anyone DISAGREE with big bang theory?" for that matter)

If "modern" propositions are more likely than not - and those who post otherwise (who put forward less scientific "traditional" or even totally "unscientific" proposals, biblical whatever ) have to state their case (like the French courts under Rober Pierre) - the onus of proof might swing to the defenders of the older establishment traditional views ( from the bible or whereever) .

IT IS MUCH HARDER to justify said traditional faithbased stuff than modern scientific stuff that I would still call fact. (despite Wayne's disagreement) - big bang etc? - fact imo etc.


METAPHYSICAL
Other than traditional there is also ( or course ) the metaphysical and angels and "out-of-body experiences" etc - mmm , lol bit hard to prove them one way or the other.

I remain a 100% sceptic on the existences of angels I'm afraid - If Zimmerman started a church, I'd be the first to sign up. (but I concede that religious people may receive real beneft from them IF they believe in them - it's like chicken-and-egg for mine, - which came first ? the belief or the benefit. I mean I've never heard of a non believer getting help from angels )

I wouldn't sign up to this one for instance (angels etc)-
http://www.northwindsprod.com/links/angels.html

whereas this one is about expansion of consciousness, and I'd be more inclined to go there - EXCEPT that I'm pretty sure about my own beliefs - and I know I can learn more in this direction simply by meditating.
http://www.metaphysicalsociety.com/

Should I fall ill with say cancer, then the only "angel" that I see that I could call on to come to my aid would be one I could summon up from my own subconscious - just a simple sense of well being achieved with meditation - has been found to work in a couple of recorded cases .

THIS IS JUST MY FORM OF PRAYER.
One could argue that people get REAL benefit from prayer ( no argument from me there). BUT I would argue it's from within the body that the extra cavalry arrives - not external.

that the quote " we can do whatever we believe we can do - with God's help" -
has three superfluous words at the end (imo)

(PS as for "do we have a spiritual side?" - I think it's more about self hypnonsis than anything else - obviously others will disagree )

 

[wayneL]

IT IS MUCH HARDER to justify said traditional faithbased stuff than modern scientific stuff that I would still call fact.

2020,

True, but you are still stuck in a binomial contest. The discussion has moved on from there. You are considering point A verses point B on a two dimensional plane, whereas we can discuss the infinite number of points in an infinite universe of uncovered possibilities, both physical and metaphysical.

big bang etc? - fact imo etc.

Think about this. Your acceptance of big bang as fact has no basis other than "faith". There are serious holes in the theory and even competing theories such as the Electric Universe theory. Even the theory I made a mash of trying to describe. Therefore your standard of evidence is no better than the creationists in ascribing fact to events which cannot be proven. You merely have "faith" that it is true.

Perhaps there are concurrent physical and metaphysical factors at play. I don't know. But I know that I don't know, although I have my own "theories".

There is one thing I do know. No single theory fits all the known absolutes, therefore, we can't say any model of the origin of the universe is fact with even the remotest certainty. It's ALL theory.

 

[Rafa]

I'm perfectly balanced, m8 -
got a chip on both shoulders

LOL...

Kennas, i had no idea you were trying to be controversial...

I think WayneL summed it up the best...
Its not black and white and anyone who thinks that is a fundamentalist ... i.e a danger to society... and that goes for Mr Dawkins as well the usual suspects.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I wanted to be spiritual when I was younger so I read books about being spiritual.10 years on and I realize spiritualism is another `state of mind` or `way of thinking` or `path to be on`.We all have to believe in something (or someone) I suppose.Extreme, imaginative or simplistic.

 

[2020hindsight]

Think about this. Your acceptance of big bang as fact has no basis other than "faith". There are serious holes in the theory and even competing theories such as the Electric Universe theory. It's ALL theory.

Wayne,
You find and post the holes in it, I'll find and post the reasons that it's better than simple faith

 

[Flying Fish]

Yes humans are animals, and we fight to survive like any other living thing.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne,
You find and post the holes in it, I'll find and post the reasons that it's better than simple faith

You've missed the point. Big Bang is a theory, you said it was fact. On that basis, your faith is no different to Christian or any other faith.

What Big Bang?

The Big Bang is already dead! The unheralded "Galileo of the 20th century", Halton Arp, has proven that the universe is not expanding. The Big Bang theory is based on a misinterpretation of redshift. The redshift of a distant galaxy is measured in the light coming from that galaxy. Lines in the spectrum of that galaxy show a shift toward the red compared with the same lines from our Sun. Arp discovered that high and low redshift objects are sometimes connected by a bridge or jet of matter. So redshift cannot be a measure of distance. Most of the redshift is intrinsic to the object. But there is more: Arp found that the intrinsic redshift of a quasar or galaxy took discrete values, which decreased with distance from a central active galaxy. In Arp's new view of the cosmos, active galaxies "give birth" to high redshift quasars and companion galaxies. Redshift becomes a measure of the relative ages of nearby quasars and galaxies, not their distance. As a quasar or galaxy ages, the redshift decreases in discrete steps, or quanta.

The huge puzzle for astrophysicists is why a galaxy should exhibit an atomic phenomenon. So we turn to particle physics. This difficulty highlights the fact that quantum "mechanics" applied to atoms is a theory without physical reality. The weirdness of quantum theory has been attributed to the subatomic scale to which it applies. But now that we have quantum effects in something the size of a galaxy, this convenient nonsense is exposed. If Arp is right many experts are going to look very silly. His discovery sounded the alarm in some halls of Academe and since nobody likes a loud noise - particularly if they are asleep - the knee-jerk response was to attack the guy with his finger on the alarm button. Arp's telescope time was denied, papers rejected, and he was forced to leave the US to pursue his work.

Furthermore:

�The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality... That we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.� - H. P. Lovecraft

In a broadly interdisciplinary inquiry such as this, communication itself can pose quite a challenge. Typically, the greatest difficulties in communication will occur when one is questioning something already "known" to be true. On matters of underlying principle, the confidence behind established ideas can be so high that discussion itself may seem quite senseless. This difficulty is aggravated by fragmentation of the process by which information is gathered and evaluated. The specialization of intellectual inquiry carries with it certain risks when assumptions within one discipline rest upon prior assumptions in other disciplines. No one can be an expert on everything, and when considering possibilities outside one's personal expertise, it is only natural to defer to what specialists in other studies claim to know. But what are the consequences of this when theoretical suppositions, though perceived as fact, cannot account for compelling new fields of data?

Given the extreme fragmentation of established science today it is difficult to imagine that the enterprise as a whole could ever "correlate all its contents." Yet extraordinary strides toward that "someday" envisioned by Lovecraft may now be possible through a new approach - one in which electrical phenomena receive the full attention they deserve, and all appropriate fields of evidence are included. To some, the prospects may appear every bit as disturbing as Lovecraft imagined. But for those who instinctively seek out unifying principles, the new horizons will be at once breathtaking and hopeful.

This introduction will present a new "deep focus lens" for viewing the physical universe, from sub-atomic particles to galactic realms unknown before the Hubble telescope. The Electric Universe is a holistic answer to myopia* -that narrowing of vision which naturally accompanies the fragmentation of knowledge and learning. For those with the courage to see clearly, the required "unlearning" of fashionable ideas carries no real cost whatsoever. The terror Lovecraft envisioned is only the first rush of uncertainty, when ideas long taken for granted are thrown into question by facts and simple reasoning previously ignored. The "piecing together of dissociated knowledge" will only require us to confront the deep contradictions in things experts have long claimed to know. With the courage to see clearly, the adventure itself could well be "the most merciful thing in the world," adding new insights into the greatest dramas of early human history and vital perspective to humanity's situation in the cosmos. Lovecraft did not realize that the "terrifying vistas" are but a mirage seen through an open door. The truth is always unified, and as such it can only be friendly to those who seek the truth first. As we pass through the door, it is not fear that goes with us, but the exhilaration of discovery.

- Wal Thornhill / David Talbott

 

[2020hindsight]

You've missed the point. Big Bang is a theory, you said it was fact. On that basis, your faith is no different to Christian or any other faith.

thanks - I'll research that... if they are saying that red shift is wrong then ... mmm ... i might need some further research (sounds like a fringe dweller to me lol)

red shift is still how they predict distances to stars, yes?
and the distances all point to one thing - a central big bang.
The multiple coincidences are just too strong to ignore (according to some sources lol).

btw, and i concede, I was using the word "fact" loosely - i.e. "fact imo" - in the same way the 95% probability of steel being as strong as it is claimed is considered "safe" when an engineer designs a bridge for instance. (plus 5% probability of exceedence of loads).

I mean I know what a fact is - at least I think I do - lol
(not sure if anything is "a fact" if people want to be super pedantic - "Cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore I am " was the best Descartes could come up with to prove that he himself wasn't fiction , lol

but equally you are missing my point - that there is absolutely no evidence for most of the old testament other than faith - let's be super generous and say 5% is (woops) potentially consistent with scientific observations

so we are comparing 95% with 5% in my opinion.

but I'll do some more research.

meanwhile lol even Descartes comes in for a serve ....
and btw much of this is bulls eye relevant to this thread
(and btw he seems to believe that men are men, and "brutes are brutes" )

http://teachanimalobjectivity.homestead.com/files/return2.htm This is René Descartes (1596-1650). A French philosopher and mathematician who was called "The father of modern philosophy." Because he wanted to eliminate the uncertainties in philosophy, and make it more like the "certainties" of mathematics he proceeded to discard all preconceived philosophic notions and started from what he conceived to be a rock solid foundation. The only thing Descartes found certain was the fact he was thinking. He further felt that thought was not a thing-in-itself, and had to proceed from somewhere (viz., cause and effect), therefore since he was thinking the thoughts, he existed --by extension--also. Hence, "thought" and "extension" were the very beginnings from which all things proceeded, "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). His scrapping of previously accepted philosophies marked the beginning of the Man-centered universe beliefs that currently drive Western thought.

Anyone of a scientific bent knows that a theory is only as strong as it's foundations in established logic (Here's where the animal tie-in occurs so listen up). Descartes needed a way to vault Man to the pinnacle of God's creation as it wasn't enough to place him second-in-line after thought. Since Man wasn't the only seemingly independent lifeform on the Earth, Descartes needed a way to diminish other animate life. He found his answer in his theory of "automata." In essence he said, ". . .the greatest of all prejudices we have retained from infancy is that of believing that brutes think."

We assume animals think, says Descartes, only because we see them act as humans do on occasion, as when dogs do acrobatic tricks. Because men have two principles of motion, one physical and the other mental, we assume that when animals perform humanlike acts, their physical movements are caused by their mental powers. But Descartes saw no reason for attributing mental powers to animals, because all of their motion, or actions, can be accounted for by mechanical considerations alone, since it is "nature which acts in them according to the disposition of their organs, just as a clock, which is only composed of wheels and weights . . ." Thus, animals are machines or automata.
(Excerpted from: "Socrates To Sartre; A History of Philosophy by Samuel Enoch Stumph -- McGraw-Hill Book Company 1982)

It really is astounding that no one questioned Descartes "automata" theory considering his logic was flawed from the second he uttered it. After all, "clocks, wheels, and weights" are incapable of learning a new activity. They can only do what they were created to do.

I Think, therefore I am . . . NOT!
(The failure of Cartesian dynamics to define Man's superiority)

" 'Cogito ergo spud' -I think therefore I yam." -- A LaCarte (Denny's hometown menu circa 199?)
"I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam!" -- Popeye the Sailor Spud (apologies to Segar)

Popeye - I Yam What I Yam - Robin Williams Shelley Duvall
http://www.philosophypages.com/ph/desc.htm

 

[2020hindsight]

....5% is (woops) potentially consistent with scientific observations

(although lol - I'd challenge people to find those 5% on anything other than trivial stuff , like the sky is blue maybe

i mean lol - Hovind claims that dinasaurs are definitely mentioned in the old testament - except that they were called "unicorns" - yeah right lol

he also claims that men and dinasurs coexited (as they must have done according to bible). It is just so stupidly easy for a blind man to drive a bus through the gaping holes in creationism.