Are we some superior being's science project?

[BigDF]

Watching things unfold over the last few years I keep getting this spooky feeling that this might be another experiment by a superior being who keeps trying to come up with the right formula for success, however that may be defined. Given the theory of evolution and granting that I've never studied much about it, it seems like there have been several attempts to make something of this world and us. There are a lot of people out there expecting the world to end at some point in this decade and frankly I'm beginning to wonder about it myself. Anyone else having any thoughts along those lines?:geek:

[trish]

More likely we're some cosmic old biddy's house cats. She's pretty much checked out and we've got the run of the place.

[Stavros]

Watching things unfold over the last few years I keep getting this spooky feeling that this might be another experiment by a superior being who keeps trying to come up with the right formula for success, however that may be defined. Given the theory of evolution and granting that I've never studied much about it, it seems like there have been several attempts to make something of this world and us. There are a lot of people out there expecting the world to end at some point in this decade and frankly I'm beginning to wonder about it myself. Anyone else having any thoughts along those lines?:geek:


Setting to one side Trish's preference for cats over dogs, rabbits, goldfish, budgeriegars, and of course Parrots, I think you are wrong. In the 1960s at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis there was a rash of pop songs on the end of the world (Eve of Destruction, for example, see below); the Doomsday scenario has been with us since -well, doomsday, which after all for many people has been and gone. In the long term, the impact of climate change will be the issue that endures long after the 'Islamic threat' has gone the way of FARC, the IRA, ETA and the Black Panthers. It is, after all, about the world you live in.

Barry McGuire - Eve of Destruction - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntLsElbW9Xo)

[BigDF]

Oh, I'm sure I'm wrong about that and many other things as well. I was born in 1957 and I remember much of the 60's very well. There is a big debate in this country about religion that pretty much boils down to the Bible's version of how the world was created vs the theory of evolution. My thoughts on the debate are that if you look past the religious connection, the Bible can be thought of as a history book written by early man trying to come to grips with horrible natural disasters and wars. If you follow the evolution theory, there is no written record of what came before man.On the other hand, the idea that this was all created at once seems impossible given how much has been discovered about what the place was like before we got here.

My thoughts along this line are that before we showed up there were attempts to create this world by what we would consider a superior being, that perhaps did not satisfy the being. Sitting here at 2 AM trying to express this is very difficult. Any way, thank you Trish and Stavros for your replies.:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

[Stavros]

Like a lot of people in this country I am puzzled by the obsession that so many Americans have with religious explanations for life on earth -for many here 'Grand Design' is accepted as part of the religious beliefs of both monotheists and polytheists, but it doesn't work its way into politics in the way that it does there -Tony Blair's press spokesman Alastair Campbell when asked about Blair's religion said We don't do God.

Biblical studies has been a fascinating, but deeply controversial subject for centuries, because so much is believed to be at stake, but it might be better to stand back and view the texts that comprise the Bible as records of their times, as you have suggested; rather than as the literal word of God, which is nonsense. Like Greek Myths, people have needed to create a narrative of who we are, be it in cave paintings or eventually in written script; why we are the only species to be reflective in this way is also part of the debate about Creationism versus evolution. Although the Bible is concerned -mostly but not exclusively- with monotheism, there is a lot of evidence that across the ancient Middle East as in Greece, Asia, America, and Africa, people believed in many Gods, and that their perception of all life on earth as a single whole meant that earthly phenomenon such as the weather were perceived to be expressions of godly powers, powers beyond the control of humans. In Ancient Israel the god Yahweh had a wife, called Asherah, although she seems to have been erased from much of Jewish history -she was a fetility goddess, as most female deities have been and if you want to be purist about it, the notorious fruit of the forbidden tree is never actually named, and some believe Eve ate an olive not an apple, and that because the chronology of the bible is wrong, it is wrong to assume Adam and Eve were the first humans. And so on.

You say there is no written record of life before man, but that doesn't mean there is no record -the history of the American continent can be reconstructed from geology, biology and so on, and you can believe that it is all part of God's Grand Design or just an evolutionary fact which needs no further explanation.

Ultimately, it is about what you believe to be true, whether it is mainstream religion or no religion at all, if it comforts you to think there is a God what follows is part of your narrative, your explanation, and your experience of life. And even if there is a God, it doesn't follow as a necessary fact that God made the Earth; so the debate in the USA that sets Creationism against Evolution should be a pointless debate. Evolutionary science can prove how life developed and continues to develop, it can be used to confirm there is a God, it is used by some to prove there isn't one: there are too many unanswerable questions, but no lack of people convinced that they have the answers. Those who then seek to impose those answers on you, on me, and everyone else to my mind are obsessed and don't need to be. It has to be about personal choice.

[Prospero]

Funny I was tempted to post "Eve of Destruction" for entirely other reasons the other day.

[Stavros]

Funny I was tempted to post "Eve of Destruction" for entirely other reasons the other day.

Why?

[Bobby Domino]

"The End of the World" is something mankind has always grappled with and has overcome at every "attempt.". There are critical ebbs and flows throughout humanity where we have come close to the "edge" - the transition of civilizations, epidemics & plagues, and all-out wars.

I think humanity was closer to destruction during the end of the Greek, Persian, Roman civilizations in the West; the change in Chinese dynasties in the East; The Black Plague; Christian & Muslim imperialism in Europe & Africa; the colonization of Africa, South & North America & Australia; the Slave Trade; the desolation of Native Americans & 1st Nation peoples & Aboriginals; World War I & II, among many other tragedies & genocides. It all depends on what side you're on. The losing side definitely thought it was the end of the world and for some, they were right.

Since the end of the Cold War we are pretty safe. The amount of hijackings and urban bombings are nowhere near what they were in the '70's & '80's. The fact that America is now a target is the only thing that's changed. I don't see the termination of our existence other than an extra-terrestrial involvement.

[Stavros]

Bobby, I think your arguments would be dealt with by evolution on the basis that as humans have adapted to the environments in which they/we have lived, so we have been able to develop the technology to reduce or in some cases eliminate threats to life, particularly illness and disease, although there are people who interpret outbreaks of disease or natural disasters as 'punishment from God' -I understand Pat Robertson blamed the fires in Florida some years ago on the impact of gay people on the state -not very scientific but an explanation that at least says something about Mr Robinson, if not Florida.

There is also an argument that because we have through science created technological alternatives to evolution, humans have actually stopped evolving -our brains and our bodies will never change, possibly because we now use machines to do so much for us. And, with the destructive power of chemicals and other technologies, as well as greed and excess, we may actually be destroying rather than evolving the planet....
What BigDf is interested to know is whether or not there is an absolute power -God if you like- who created Earth but maybe lost control of it; or is playing a moral game, testing people as it were.

[BluegrassCat]

There is also an argument that because we have through science created technological alternatives to evolution, humans have actually stopped evolving -our brains and our bodies will never change, possibly because we now use machines to do so much for us.

As long as there is differential reproduction, and there certainly is now, evolution will continue. It may not fit the layman's term of evolution meaning progress, but changes in allelic frequencies in populations will most definitely continue for the foreseeable future. Even if we know who is reproducing the most today, we probably won't understand the evolutionary implications for quite some time.

[BigDF]

Bobby, I think your arguments would be dealt with by evolution on the basis that as humans have adapted to the environments in which they/we have lived, so we have been able to develop the technology to reduce or in some cases eliminate threats to life, particularly illness and disease, although there are people who interpret outbreaks of disease or natural disasters as 'punishment from God' -I understand Pat Robertson blamed the fires in Florida some years ago on the impact of gay people on the state -not very scientific but an explanation that at least says something about Mr Robinson, if not Florida.

There is also an argument that because we have through science created technological alternatives to evolution, humans have actually stopped evolving -our brains and our bodies will never change, possibly because we now use machines to do so much for us. And, with the destructive power of chemicals and other technologies, as well as greed and excess, we may actually be destroying rather than evolving the planet....
What BigDf is interested to know is whether or not there is an absolute power -God if you like- who created Earth but maybe lost control of it; or is playing a moral game, testing people as it were.You are, of course, quite right, and I am in awe of both you and Bobby Domino for the intelligence of your answers. Which makes me feel a little foolish in admitting the inspiration of this thought in me. There was a scene at the end of a movie, I think it was Men in Black with Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones that showed the Earth as viewed from space, then pulled back some to display it as it appears in our solar system, pulled back more and appeared as a marble and the other planets as marbles, which were then scooped up and deposited in a bag by someone who had been playing marbles.

That scene just popped up in my head the other night and sent my brain off along this tangent, possibly because I am experiencing insomnia and operating on very little sleep. I'll return you to your regularly scheduled programming right now.:Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:

[Stavros]

As long as there is differential reproduction, and there certainly is now, evolution will continue. It may not fit the layman's term of evolution meaning progress, but changes in allelic frequencies in populations will most definitely continue for the foreseeable future. Even if we know who is reproducing the most today, we probably won't understand the evolutionary implications for quite some time.

Curious, Cat: I wonder if this means that being transgendered might not be a 'chromosomal malfunction' (if this has any meaning as a term), but nature's way of evolving...or revolving, given that Plato on more than one occasion discussed (via Socrates) the idea that the gods originally created a being that was man and woman and only later separated it into two...so for some people, evolution must be, as it were...Alleluia

[trish]

Does a rock diverting the flow of water in a creek function as channel splitter, source of turbulence, an energy sink, a habitat for crawfish and lichen, a stepping stone? Were a heavy storm to wash the rock downstream, did the habitat or the stepping stone malfunction? I propose there is no such thing as a malfunctioning part of the universe which isn’t a malfunction relative to a point of view. So if Shaker’s have died out because they taught their children well that it is a sin to procreate, I don’t think it’s a malfunction from their point of view. If a rock slams into the Earth and destroys all life, or if we do it with a quick series well placed atomic explosions, it cannot be said that Nature malfunctioned, or that humankind malfunctioned. But if there were human survivors, they could (from their own perspective) say, “We messed up pretty badly.”

There’s another issue with calling the transgendered a “chromosomal” malfunction: it’s not known that to what extent the desire to transition is gene related.

[Bobby Domino]

(Sorry I took so long to reply. There were so many good points made by everyone, I wanted to answer them all at once :) )

I don’t believe in an absolute power therefore my concept of such an entity wouldn’t configure in any theories I may have about the creation of the planet and subsequent evolution of flora & fauna. With that said, to add to the discussion, if there is an absolute power, were all the materials to create Earth on hand or were the main elements available to create Earth as other materials were added in over time? To make a culinary analogy, is the “chef” baking bread or is the “chef” preparing a sauce. In other words, once the dough is made it can no longer be altered once placed in the oven. The result is a product of the initial combination & ratio of ingredients (losing control); whereas, a sauce can change flavor, viscosity and texture by adding other ingredients thereby changing the ratio of ingredients (testing).

How much of a hand does a (universal) creator have, only at the beginning or since the beginning? Do we now impose our social morality and our systems of logic on His thought process? If we use Aristotle’s method of classification, whereby one species is superior to another from the viewpoint of the most intelligent species, why should we be able to understand an even higher intelligence?

Why were dinosaurs erased from the face of the Earth? Was that an attempt by the creator to start over? If so, why leave fossils? Are fossils a warning from the creator that we could suffer the same consequence? If anything fossils confirm the theory of evolution, a process towards resiliency.

Evolution has no direction, (to echo Bluegrass) no sense of progress, only a course of action. Technology and urban centers have affected evolution. We don’t walk as much; our toes are useless and will most likely be the first things to morph – first become webbed, then fully fuse together but we will still retain out joints for thrust. Our skin is not as exposed to extreme weather patterns, hence we don’t need body hair or any hair for that matter. On the animal side, an urban species will evolve. There have been theories that rats & cats will form a new “inter-species.”

(I'm having lots of fun, btw!!!!)

[hippifried]

If you heathens continue to blaspheme, I'm gonna have to tack on some serious Pergatory time.

[Stavros]

There’s another issue with calling the transgendered a “chromosomal” malfunction: it’s not known that to what extent the desire to transition is gene related.

I agree with this, and I did put the phrase in inverted commas -I did read once about some young Thai men who, seeing the money that ladyboys were making, opted for a temporary life as a ladyboy -transitioning as an economic necessity, not even a lifestyle choice. Ten years later the breasts are gone, they are married with children, and so on. What would be interesting to know is what proportion of transexuals who were not born intersexed (for example) and who went on to have SRS were satisfied 10 or 20 years after the experience, compared to the those who were born intersexed. How one could ever get accurate research on it however, I don't know.

Whether or not truth is relative is a problematic concept...

[trish]

Whether or not truth is relative is a problematic concept... True enough (paradox intended). My point is not that truth is relative (I think that is isn't) but that whether something is malfunctioning depends upon what one takes the function to be. A bucket malfunctions when it leaks, unless its not a bucket but a make-shift shower. Ascriptions (if that's the word) of function become especially problematic when there is no intended function.

[hippifried]

Whether or not truth is relative is a problematic concept...

Nah... Only if you try to overthink it. Everything's relative. Truth is situational. That's why it gets buried deeper & deeper the harder you look for it. It's not problematic, just abstract. Of course, under my own criteria, none of this is necessarily true either. Damn... That's a problem.

[BigDF]

Nah... Only if you try to overthink it. Everything's relative. Truth is situational. That's why it gets buried deeper & deeper the harder you look for it. It's not problematic, just abstract. Of course, under my own criteria, none of this is necessarily true either. Damn... That's a problem.Ok, so another source of inspiration that led this line of thought for me. Back in 1985 I read novel titled Illusions by a talented and creative author named Richard Bach. Those of you unfamiliar with the name will most likely recall his most famous work: Jonathan Livingston Seagull subsequently made into a movie with the same name. At any rate, Mr. Bach narrated a journey with a man of mysterious power and intellect who explained to him that the world he saw around him was nothing but illusions conjured up by his own mind and that while these seemed real enough to him, an expansion of the mind would allow him to see that indeed they were nothing but illusions and that he could move beyond his own narrow little world into a higher state of being.

Your last statements,hippiefried remind me of the end of the book: "It could be that none of this is true," which has stuck with me over the years because of the after note by Mr. Bach who stated that his publisher had to be convinced that a book could end with a comma rather than a period.

For reasons I have stated elsewhere on this forum, I spend a lot of time contemplating my continued existence and the reason for it. With no job to go do and being unable to follow my avocation for any length of time I have a tough time understanding why I'm still hanging around. By all rights, I should have died several years ago, but I just keep on going for some reason, although it's hard for me to find a justification for this.

[trish]

BigDF, you're here to enjoy yourself. Your existence is experienced by others. You lend them your voice, your stories, your experience, your kindnesses, guidance, support and you show them how human beings accept the same in return. More than once (in fact just about every day) I'm happy to see that you have weighed in on one issue or another and have given a human face to the issues upon which others just tend to pontificate. Don't ever doubt your value to those with whom you interact, it's intrinsic and obvious. And it doesn't come from a god, it comes from you and those around you.

[Stavros]

Sensitively written, Trish, I agree with what you say.