Gay marriage - It's not often the right looks to France for examples

Page 20 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
So when will all of the Democratic churches start approving of gay marriage?

I suppose it will require another 'Treaty of Nicaea'. But, given there exists so many different dogma among the Christian churches no democratic process would produce a majority opinion... So, both the Republican and Democratic churches will have to induce the Atheistic, Libertarian and Peace and Freedom churches to align with them and opt for a coalition where the first order of business would be to determine the divinity of the turnip.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
One only needs to look at how inconsistant Religion is. Why did all the miracles happen 6000 years ago instead of happening today? Why aren't they consistant? Why cure the cancer of one person who prays a lot and leads a good life and not another similar person? Its extremely inconsistant and passed off as his will.

Also from a design standpoint if humans were made in his image and animals weren't, why is it that we share so many traits with animals?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
572
126
One only needs to look at how inconsistant Religion is. Why did all the miracles happen 6000 years ago instead of happening today? Why aren't they consistant? Why cure the cancer of one person who prays a lot and leads a good life and not another similar person? Its extremely inconsistant and passed off as his will.

Also from a design standpoint if humans were made in his image and animals weren't, why is it that we share so many traits with animals?

How did this thread go from a protest in France against gay marriage to the existence of God?
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76
When one uses the existence of God to denounce the right to marry of same sex couples?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
Why can't you just admit you rely on Scientists to answer these questions for you?

That's a complete non sequitur. It has nothing to do with my observation that sometimes there are things we don't understand.

As for your question, who's denying it? We all rely on science to answer questions for us. But accepting those answers is conditional on reason, analysis and evidence. And new analysis and evidence is welcomed if it passes intellectual muster.

This contrasts with religion, where answers are accepted without evidence or reason, questioning is discouraged, and analysis and evidence are considered heresy.

You have no independent thought outside of what Scientists tell you to think..

Incorrect, also a non sequitur, and an illustration of a lack of understanding of the scientific method. The trifecta!

There are several ancient cultures that were able to predict both solar and lunar eclipses with good accuracy, which makes me believe they understood how they occurred..

You're ducking the issue, which is that many of them would not have understood and would have assigned these phenomena to the work of "gods", something we now know to be silly.

There's no reason that in 5,000 years we won't similarly have answers to questions that people like you answer with mythology.

The arguments for intelligent design have become more sophisticated due to the increase in knowledge on living creatures and the Universe.

They haven't actually become any more sophisticated. They've just gotten more deceptive. Even the name "intelligent design" is a deliberate fabrication intended to mislead people.

Oh I have no doubt that intelligent design has been used for religious and political purposes, and may even have had it's inception in such...

That's not to say that it's automatically worthless however as it does ask some valid concerns..

Yes, actually, it is. It is automatically worthless, because it is based on a fraud.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not dealing with some ignorant bible thumper. I am not a member of any Church or Religion..

Then why do you keep capitalizing the synonyms for God the way members of Abrahamic religions do?

You obviously belong to some religious belief system. So what is it?

Terrible analogy. Anyway, you insinuated that Creationism was unscientific and naïve. I then gave several examples of great scientists and thinkers who were Creationists.

Thereby proving that a few great scientists and thinkers were naive about creationism. Congratulations.

You have absolutely no idea how many current scientists and thinkers are creationists, so don't even pretend you do.. :rolleyes:

Here we have a nice encapsulation of the difference between science and.. whatever it is you are doing.

I very much do have an idea of how many current scientists believe in evolution versus creationism. The information is very easy to find. You could have found it if you wanted to -- but you didn't. This is the classic religious approach, used for centuries -- deny the existence of anything you don't want to admit to.

For your benefit:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]


Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience,[32][33] or junk science.[34][35] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]


In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[26]
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Right, so Copernicus, who was the first western thinker to formulate the heliocentric principle which went against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and Society, was obviously "brainwashed." D:

Uh, no, he was specifically NOT brainwashed BECAUSE he went against the RCC. Why would you even try to make such a silly argument?

In fact, I already said I was a Deist (just like Einstein) in post # 408, so I know damn well that Einstein didn't believe in a personal God..

Then why did you suggest that he did? You claimed Einstein believed in creationism, which is utterly preposterous.

I never denied that most ID believers believe that the designer is the Creator. However, it's one thing to believe and another to identify..

That's a non-response. I repeat what I said before: intelligent design is creationism is intelligent design. Everyone knows exactly what "the Creator" is supposed to refer to. This is about as opaque as a hooker asking a man at a bar if he wants to "have some fun", and the man claiming later that he thought she wanted to go play mini golf.

For your information, according to your precious Scientists the Universe had a BEGINNING. They call this event the Big Bang. Time, Space, Matter, Energy etc all had their origins with this amazing event.

As Alzan said, that's not really correct. If the Big Bang theory is correct, then the matter of what occurred before it is unknown (and, some say, unknowable).

Now, I'm sure you know all of this, so why are you asking me why you can't say "the Universe itself has no causal explanation and was always there?"

Because it could well have always been there in some form or another?

Duh! It has a causal explanation, because the Universe is material!
...
God is immaterial and thus not subject to requiring a cause..

This distinction between "material" and "immaterial" was something invented by creationists specifically to allow their God to always exist and the universe not to. One tiny problem: it's entirely arbitrary. There's no reason to believe that something material requires a casual explanation and something immaterial does not.

No matter how you try to slice it, the answer to "At first there was God" is always "Where did God come from?". And when the response is "God was always there", the response is always "Well, the universe could have always been there".

More on this below.

And once again, you have zero evidence that coded information could have developed on it's own.

Both false and irrelevant: research into abiogenesis is ongoing, and as I already said: "Lack of evidence of theory A does not constitute evidence for theory B."

It's an act of reason, based on facts I know about the Universe and Life.

I'll grant that you may well think so, as you strike me as more honest than the typical ID/creationist. But then people believe in all sorts of silly things.

And what if one day, Scientists decide that Intelligence undoubtedly played a central role in the creation of the Universe and of Life.

Whatever will you do with yourself then?

Examine the evidence and the reasoning, and update my understanding and viewpoints as warranted. What else would I do?

This logic is wrong. The Universe DOES have a causal explanation (the Big Bang) because it is material. God does not require a causal explanation because It is immaterial and not subject to causation.

Yes, I get it, you're trying to employ the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Unfortunately, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. The form of the argument is flawed, and the premises are easily refuted. (And please, don't quote William Lane Craig at me, or I will be forced to laugh.)

Because Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, much like matter and energy. And if it's immaterial, then that lends credence to the belief that the origin or source of the Universe was IMMATERIAL in nature......ie God.

Lovely theory. Now prove that "consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality". Good luck with that one!

It's quite simple. I'm asking whether or not you can tell if something is designed or not.

Usually I can. Not always.

It's relatively easy to find patterns and objects in nature that look like they were deliberately designed, but were not.

Nice try but I've seen that structure before so I know it's natural.

Nice evasion. The point wasn't that specific structure.

There's no natural force that could explain how atoms and molecules self combine into more complex forms, and gain consciousness..

Prove it.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Charles, quick question... Well actually it's a two part question:

Is evolution a process concerned with survival, and does it improve our species (speaking of humans here)?

Just wondering.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Is evolution a process concerned with survival, and does it improve our species (speaking of humans here)?

As the theory and related evidence goes, yes and yes.

EDIT: If you mean "concerned with" as "preoccupied with", then no.. not specifically. If you mean "concerned with" as "related to", then yes.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,071
5,597
126
Charles, quick question... Well actually it's a two part question:

Is evolution a process concerned with survival, and does it improve our species (speaking of humans here)?

Just wondering.

"Concerned"? No. Survival is a part of the process itself.

"Improve"? Sorta, yes, no. It only does so in the sense that it makes Survival more likely by increasing diversity.

Evolution isn't a Consciousness, it has no Goal or concept of Perfection, and it certainly isn't leading all species to some Ultimate destination.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
When this sort of question comes up, I always think of this quote from a play by George Bernard Shaw: "You think, because you have a purpose, Nature must have one. You might as well expect it to have fingers and toes because you have them."

As others have said, evolution has no concerns. It's not even technically a process. It is the accumulation of countless changes and decisions made by billions of creatures over billions of years. Changes that increase the chance of survival tend to be selected for; and changes that decrease the chance of survival selected against. Evolution is the net effect.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
I was wondering because I was thinking about this topic, and, quite honestly, wondering why we won't just let the process take over and stop adjusting our environment to suit us not just allow evolution to change us, know what I mean?

In addition, if its suits us just for survival, well... why do we enjoy life? What I mean is we don't need to see color or to taste a variety of food, or we don't need recreation to survive right? Yet we have all these things, really unnecessarily in order to live.

What I am saying in a nutshell, is we don't need anything but food, clothing, shelter to live. Yet, we have a variety of things to make life enjoyable.

Are you all saying a blind process gave us abilities to make life more than just about survival? I thought evolution was only about survival fitness, yet life is much more than that to us.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I was wondering because I was thinking about this topic, and, quite honestly, wondering why we won't just let the process take over and stop adjusting our environment to suit us not just allow evolution to change us, know what I mean?

In addition, if its suits us just for survival, well... why do we enjoy life? What I mean is we don't need to see color or to taste a variety of food, or we don't need recreation to survive right? Yet we have all these things, really unnecessarily in order to live.

What I am saying in a nutshell, is we don't need anything but food, clothing, shelter to live. Yet, we have a variety of things to make life enjoyable.

Are you all saying a blind process gave us abilities to make life more than just about survival? I thought evolution was only about survival fitness, yet life is much more than that to us.

We're changing ourselves faster than evolution could. We're evolving in a metaphorical sense faster than in a biological one, thanks to various kinds and implementations of technology.

That is not an indictment, criticism, or praise of anything... nor does it suggest a conclusion about evolution... it's just the way things are, at present.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,071
5,597
126
I was wondering because I was thinking about this topic, and, quite honestly, wondering why we won't just let the process take over and stop adjusting our environment to suit us not just allow evolution to change us, know what I mean?

In addition, if its suits us just for survival, well... why do we enjoy life? What I mean is we don't need to see color or to taste a variety of food, or we don't need recreation to survive right? Yet we have all these things, really unnecessarily in order to live.

What I am saying in a nutshell, is we don't need anything but food, clothing, shelter to live. Yet, we have a variety of things to make life enjoyable.

Are you all saying a blind process gave us abilities to make life more than just about survival? I thought evolution was only about survival fitness, yet life is much more than that to us.

Basically you are asking Why/How we enjoy Life.

I'll counter with: Why does a Dog enjoy life?
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
I should be working on my guide rewrite but these are good questions. :)

I was wondering because I was thinking about this topic, and, quite honestly, wondering why we won't just let the process take over and stop adjusting our environment to suit us not just allow evolution to change us, know what I mean?

It's hard to answer this. I'd say that the changes we are making are part of our evolution.

We've even really created a different sort of evolution through our societies. How do men and women choose mates today compared to even 100 years ago? Very different.

In addition, if its suits us just for survival, well... why do we enjoy life? What I mean is we don't need to see color or to taste a variety of food, or we don't need recreation to survive right? Yet we have all these things, really unnecessarily in order to live.

Some of these things may affect survival in ways that we don't understand, or that were applicable thousands of years ago but no longer are today so they seem "superfluous".

Also, evolution only selects for things that improve survival and against things that don't. Other things can happen or not and they don't matter. If tomorrow a mutant human was born who could live 200 years but also had horns growing out of his head, my guess is that in a few generations we'd all be living 200 years and wondering why we had useless horns growing out of our heads. :)

ETA: There's a much better real life example than the silly one above. It's even been brought up in this thread: the hypothesis that homosexuality in men may be a side effect linked to increased fertility in women in the same family.

What I am saying in a nutshell, is we don't need anything but food, clothing, shelter to live. Yet, we have a variety of things to make life enjoyable.

Are you all saying a blind process gave us abilities to make life more than just about survival? I thought evolution was only about survival fitness, yet life is much more than that to us.

But it's all intertwined. Much of what we do helps make life both more survivable and worthwhile. Sure, there's more to life than just living -- we're not insects or salmon.

Also, don't underestimate the enormous power that our intelligence and "man-made evolution" has had to affect nature:

1900-2000-infant-mortality-rate-graph.gif
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
We're changing ourselves faster than evolution could. We're evolving in a metaphorical sense faster than in a biological one, thanks to various kinds and implementations of technology.

That is not an indictment, criticism, or praise of anything... nor does it suggest a conclusion about evolution... it's just the way things are, at present.

All I was saying is that we have things not needed to live. We do. Yet, if its all about survival and nothing else, you really have to give me, as a person who believes in a creator, a better answer for us having these needless accommodations other than "it's just the way things are".

That won't satisfy you if you asked me why God allows evil. I am curious, have been thinking, and sincerely want to know.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
All I was saying is that we have things not needed to live. We do. Yet, if its all about survival and nothing else, you really have to give me, as a person who believes in a creator, a better answer for us having these needless accommodations other than "it's just the way things are".

Well, nothing is truly "needless" to us. Evolution may not depend on or need these things and comforts we make for ourselves, but someone, somewhere, at some time thought it was needed... or that someone would want it.

Necessity, whether real or imagined, is the mother of invention.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
It's hard to answer this. I'd say that the changes we are making are part of our evolution.

Fine. Animals, for instance, don't change their environments (i.e bulding heated houses, becoming doctors, creating medicines to combat illness) and they're part of the same process.

We've even really created a different sort of evolution through our societies. How do men and women choose mates today compared to even 100 years ago? Very different.

That may not have anything to do with evolution. We don't choose mates the same way becaues times have changed. Say for instance, now we have online dating...we didn't have that 100 years ago.


Some of these things may affect survival in ways that we don't understand, or that were applicable thousands of years ago but no longer are today so they seem "superfluous".

I don't think so, Charles. We don't need anything other than food, water, clothing, and shelter to survive. We don't even need to see color, drive cars, fancy houses, good paying jobs, computers, the internet... all these make life worth living or we'd just kill ourselves.

Also, evolution only selects for things that improve survival and against things that don't. Other things can happen or not and they don't matter. If tomorrow a mutant human was born who could live 200 years but also had horns growing out of his head, my guess is that in a few generations we'd all be living 200 years and wondering why we had useless horns growing out of our heads. :)

How can evolution "select" if it's not concerned with anything? You're assigning it intelligence when it doesn't have it.


But it's all intertwined. Much of what we do helps make life both more survivable and worthwhile. Sure, there's more to life than just living -- we're not insects or salmon

What I am saying is that life shouldn't be enjoyable if only survival is all that matters, unless you're saying evolution is a smart enough process to endow us with these abilites, and skip over animal life. A "blind" process doesn't work that way.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
What I am saying is that life shouldn't be enjoyable if only survival is all that matters, unless you're saying evolution is a smart enough process to endow us with these abilites, and skip over animal life. A "blind" process doesn't work that way.

It shouldn't? Says who?

We're the most intelligent species on the planet, with the highest degree of self-awareness. I don't think you can say so authoritatively that in order for evolution to be true, enjoyment and survival must be mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Well, nothing is truly "needless" to us. Evolution may not depend on or need these things and comforts we make for ourselves, but someone, somewhere, at some time thought it was needed... or that someone would want it.

Necessity, whether real or imagined, is the mother of invention.

I mean "needless" to survive. In order for humans to see the "need" as you say, evolution had to have given us the ability to think that way, YET, it's not intelligent, so how can it give us intelligence?

What doesn't have intelligence can't give it.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,071
5,597
126
Fine. Animals, for instance, don't change their environments (i.e bulding heated houses, becoming doctors, creating medicines to combat illness) and they're part of the same process.

Incorrect, many animals change their environment, like Birds who build nests


That may not have anything to do with evolution. We don't choose mates the same way becaues times have changed. Say for instance, now we have online dating...we didn't have that 100 years ago.




I don't think so, Charles. We don't need anything other than food, water, clothing, and shelter to survive. We don't even need to see color, drive cars, fancy houses, good paying jobs, computers, the internet... all these make life worth living or we'd just kill ourselves.

Really? Our ancestors killed themselves?

How can evolution "select" if it's not concerned with anything? You're assigning it intelligence when it doesn't have it.

Nope. No one is assigning it Intelligence. They are just describing how it works, which just happens to make it sound like it has "Intelligence" to you, but it does not.


What I am saying is that life shouldn't be enjoyable if only survival is all that matters, unless you're saying evolution is a smart enough process to endow us with these abilites, and skip over animal life. A "blind" process doesn't work that way.

According to you. I ask again: Why does a Dog enjoy Life?

Bolded
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
It shouldn't? Says who?

We're the most intelligent species on the planet, with the highest degree of self-awareness. I don't think you can say so authoritatively that in order for evolution to be true, enjoyment and survival must be mutually exclusive.

I'm using common sense. Not everything need a scientific explanation.

All we NEED to LIVE is food and water, and some shelter. The basics. That's it. That's all that animals have, right? They survive just fine without modern accomodations we have.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I mean "needless" to survive. In order for humans to see the "need" as you say, evolution had to have given us the ability to think that way, YET, it's not intelligent, so how can it give us intelligence?

Given how severely and often we're affected by our emotions, I'd say enjoyment is indeed necessary for our survival.

What doesn't have intelligence can't give it.

That's like saying something that is not salt can never become salt. And just as wrong. Sodium and Chlorine are, separately, not salt and totally toxic to us... but yet they can become something essential to our biological processes: salt.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,071
5,597
126
I mean "needless" to survive. In order for humans to see the "need" as you say, evolution had to have given us the ability to think that way, YET, it's not intelligent, so how can it give us intelligence?

What doesn't have intelligence can't give it.

The complexity of our Brains is what gives us the Intelligence we have. We are also not the only animal that has Intelligence, ours is just the most developed.

You are making the mistake of Assuming only Intelligence can give Intelligence. A common Creationist mistake.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,444
8,946
136
I'm using common sense. Not everything need a scientific explanation.

All we NEED to LIVE is food and water, and some shelter. The basics. That's it. That's all that animals have, right? They survive just fine without modern accomodations we have.

Each animal lives according to its gifts. If it doesn't, it dies, and something else evolves* to fill whichever ecological niche which was left behind with the departure of that species. Humans have opposable thumbs and more intelligence than most animals apparently (no particular other advantages that I'm aware of), so humanity used those gifts and thrived.

Humanity has pretty much grown beyond most chance environmental changes and we don't have to worry about the food chain** because of the various products of humanity's intelligence.

You mentioned colour vision earlier, I suspect colour vision was quite handy for spotting potential dangers (ie. "don't eat this particular colour of fruit/berry" or "mind that colour animal/insect"), and it still is. For example, I think you would think twice before drinking water or eating food which is an unexpected colour or smell.

* - or perhaps a string of other species becomes extinct as well, and the ecological niche left by that trail of destruction is filled by another set of species evolving to use a richer food source.

** - at least, being on the harsher end of the food chain.
 
Last edited:

GreenMeters

Senior member
Nov 29, 2012
214
0
71
I was wondering because I was thinking about this topic, and, quite honestly, wondering why we won't just let the process take over and stop adjusting our environment to suit us not just allow evolution to change us, know what I mean?

Something like 99.9% of all species that have existed are now extinct. Merely allowing evolution to take its course is no guarantee of survival. Therefore we use our capabilities for reason and foresight to adapt in ways not achievable through the more primitive forces of evolution. Though of course the development of complex brains that could so reason were themselves the product of evolution, so in some ways we are letting the process take over.

In addition, if its suits us just for survival, well... why do we enjoy life?

It's one aspect of a general will to survive, which almost as a tautology is beneficial for survival.

What I mean is we don't need to see color
Color vision has survival benefits. It's useful for foraging for fruits, prioritizing young, tender, light leaves over older, tougher, darker leaves, for breaking certain camouflages, recognizing edible flowers, recognizing poisonous organisms, among many others.

or to taste a variety of food
Complex taste has survival benefits. It's useful for distinguishing between similar foods, so that foods with higher nutrition can be prioritized. It's useful for detecting toxins or contamination.

, or we don't need recreation to survive right? Yet we have all these things, really unnecessarily in order to live.
Unnecessary, perhaps. But that doesn't mean anything. What matters is that they provide an advantage.

Are you all saying a blind process gave us abilities to make life more than just about survival?
Yes.

I thought evolution was only about survival fitness, yet life is much more than that to us.
I don't think you've really considered what "fitness" means.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I'm using common sense. Not everything need a scientific explanation.

You're not using sense of any kind.

All we NEED to LIVE is food and water, and some shelter. The basics. That's it. That's all that animals have, right? They survive just fine without modern accomodations we have.

Non-human animals also don't have emotions anywhere near as complex as ours or self-awareness on the same level as we do. That changes the list of "needs" considerably. Of course, if you were using common sense you'd know that already.