Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: a human world?

  1. #31
    Boll Weevil cuppajoe_9's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,644
    Blog Entries
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Redzeppelin View Post
    That comment (or a variation of it) has been made numerous times by various posters (some more tactful than others) on this forum and the philosophy forums - I doubt you will find that I have responded with similar intensity.

    Either way, no point is worth this kind of bickering. I am sorry to have offended you and will try to avoid doing so in the future. I have been guilty of pursuing my point at the cost of our relationship, and there is nothing more important than in maintaining good relationships - not even an argument is worth such a cost. Please accept my apology.
    Ok. Sorry I blew up.
    What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
    - Gertrude Stein

    A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
    - Virginia Woolf

  2. #32
    A Guy
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Near Boston
    Posts
    971
    Quote Originally Posted by kandaurov View Post
    OCEAN, n.
    A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

    from The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

    I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?
    I don't know if anyone already said this, but I just saw this thread and thought it was worthwhile.
    To answer the question: no. I believe (and so do most other Christians, especially the more conservative ones) that the world was created by God as a statement of facts about Himself and to contribute to His greater glory. If you say that sounds selfish (it would seem so, at first glance), consider that any person you know who has done things to make themselves look good is imperfect, and does not deserve praise. But God is perfect, and He does deserve praise.
    Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.--Romans 1:7

    Please check this out:
    http://vocm.org

  3. #33
    Novella MaryLupin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    307
    Blog Entries
    11

    In a grand act of resurrection...

    Quote Originally Posted by kandaurov View Post
    OCEAN, n.
    A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills.

    from The Devil's Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce

    I was just wondering, do you think the world was created for man?
    Some people said yes. Some people said (to paraphrase) because the world works to support us it must have been created for us.

    Some people disagreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by kilted exile View Post
    Using this logic however, it would be just as acceptable to say the world was made for bunny rabbits.
    Some people think that humans evolved to fit the earth's reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 View Post
    No, we were 'desinged' for it.
    Here's what I wonder: What if the earth wasn't made for us rather god was made for us?

    Have a look at this video and tell me what you think.

    This is the book he is talking about.
    I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.


  4. #34
    Jai Keshava NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,286
    Blog Entries
    451
    Plankton in the ocean provides most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, so maybe we need that water. And what's with the no fur thing? What if we were headed towards evolution into the water, but stayed on land.

    Did you know there has been a wide variation of oxygen on Earth, up and down 30 or 40%? Too much more or less and we wouldn't be able to live.

  5. #35
    Novella MaryLupin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    307
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by NikolaiI View Post
    Plankton in the ocean provides most of the oxygen in the atmosphere, so maybe we need that water. And what's with the no fur thing? What if we were headed towards evolution into the water, but stayed on land.
    There was such a theory. Elaine Morgan wrote a book called The Acquatic Ape Hypothesis in which she discusses the bodily evidence for a period of time spent adapting to water. It is based on the work of Alister Hardy.

    Hardy was a really interesting guy. He was a marine biologist who believed that religion is a biological impulse but he also believed that it was an impulse that reflected a genuine aspect of reality. There is a research site that is dedicated to exploring what that reality might include. He wrote a book called The Biology of God that looks interesting. I haven't read it though. Have you?

    Quote Originally Posted by NikolaiI View Post
    Did you know there has been a wide variation of oxygen on Earth, up and down 30 or 40%? Too much more or less and we wouldn't be able to live.
    Yep. Here, read this. It's kind of technical though.

    Cool isn't it, the extent of the changes on earth? I used to live in eastern Washington State. It is arid there, cold in the winter and hot in the summer, but it used to be vastly different. At one time there were arctic foxes but now it is too hot. At another time there were magnolia trees but now it is too cold.
    I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.


  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
    We are human and we control the earth. We manipulate nature.
    I don't think it's very self-evident that humans control the earth, whatever that means. Granted, we are quite aware of many phenomena that enable us to survive and adapt, but I'd hardly consider that to be a position of power. Any use of the word "control" turns out to be a farce, and is doubly so for this statement, if only based on the fact that humans are not separate from nature to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9 View Post
    To put it another way: the chances of drawing any given hand of bridge in a particular order is one in trillions. But to cite this as evidence that the deck is stacked would be evidence of insanity, because if you didn't draw that hand, you would have drawn another equally unlikely one. Mr. Ross is making a similar fallacy. If the universe wasn't the way it is now, it would be some other way. If it happened to be a way that didn't support us, we wouldn't be talking about it.
    Agreed, post hoc/reverse reasoning fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redzeppelin View Post
    I don't think so; the deck of cards in bridge is a specified entity, containing a certain number of cards with a certain number of suits; the deck cannot help but produce certain results, and there are configurations it absolutely cannot produce due to its clear limitations.
    The only "configurations" it cannot produce are when there is a duplicate and when the configuration is greater than 52 cards. Any combination otherwise is permitted. These, of course, are self-evident, within the defined scope of playing cards. I'd like to know what limitations you have in mind; I can't think of how logical impossibilities like these help your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Redzeppelin View Post
    Since the question is whether or not the earth was designed for humanity, the fact that the planet just happens to have the 128 necessary things for human life against astronomical odds makes the suggestion of ID reasonable (not convincing to you, I'm sure, but reasonable).
    This hardly implies a design for humanity. Whether or not a planet "just happens" to have these said 128 things is purely a question of probability and not divine intervention. Agreed, the odds are astronomical, but such fascination with them is the same phenomenon as what's already been discussed with the deck of playing cards. To be impressed by the sight of a royal flush is rather silly, as it completely neglects that any other five card combination is equal in likelihood. The probabilistic difference between AsKsQsJsTs and 7h9sJs2d2c and any other five cards is zero. The only reason the royal flush, or for that matter earth, is so great is because people assign a tremendous amount of value to it.

    But, as we know, there has been more than one royal flush in history, and an astronomer by the name of Frank Drake endeavored to estimate how many "royal" planets there are:

    -------------------------------

    The Drake Equation was developed by Frank Drake in 1961 as a way to focus on the factors which determine how many intelligent, communicating civilizations there are in our galaxy. The Drake Equation is:
    N = N*fp*ne*fl*fi*fc*fL

    The equation can really be looked at as a number of questions:

    N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

    Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
    Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion. (Ralph: Website is sort of old, it's more like 300 billion)

    fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

    Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
    Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

    ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

    Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
    Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

    fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

    Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
    Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

    fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

    Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
    Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

    fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

    Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
    Answer: 10% to 20%

    fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

    Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?
    Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

    When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

    N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

    --------------------------

    http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious..._equation.html Go ahead and try it yourself, when I did it in college I got 300.

    And better yet, there are about 125,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe...

    Quote Originally Posted by Redzeppelin View Post
    The math makes its case.
    Yeah, it does.

  7. #37
    Why would there by land if it was created for sea creatures?

    Gen 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." ... Gen 1 then goes on to talk about how God divided the waters and created a heaven and dry land... Maybe the world is mostly water b/c it was all water, and then seperated, instead of land split up with water in btw... ???
    That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, wherby they lie in wait to decieve; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ. Ephesians 4:14-15

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Bookworm4Him View Post
    Why would there by land if it was created for sea creatures?

    Gen 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." ... Gen 1 then goes on to talk about how God divided the waters and created a heaven and dry land... Maybe the world is mostly water b/c it was all water, and then seperated, instead of land split up with water in btw... ???
    Maybe it has something to do with plate tectonics, or Earth's mantle coming out of holes of the crust and cooling to form land...

  9. #39
    Novella MaryLupin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    307
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph View Post
    Maybe it has something to do with plate tectonics, or Earth's mantle coming out of holes of the crust and cooling to form land...
    One thing I find really cool about earth history is that visible life (i.e. fossils) has only been on the earth for 500 million of earth's 4550 or so millions years and yet there were (living) things processing carbon at nearly 4000 million years ago. In that earth, all the way up to 2800 million years ago (or so) probably had a red or orange sky and almost no oxygen. Life then used carbon and hydrogen and what we breathe (oxygen) was its waste product. The air was mostly carbon dioxide. In other words, for the majority of earth's life, its environment would have been poison to us. And here is where it gets really interesting. The long period known as the Protoerozic was full of change. These creatures were slowly poisoning the atmosphere (by producing oxygen) and the earth itself was internally reforming. The lithosphere is literally sliding around on the deeper asthenosphere with its "stuff" (liquid Earth/rock) oozing up in the cracks between the big slabs of crust. Of course this is still happening, and like that early life we are now poisoning our atmosphere with carbon dioxide. I love nature's cycles. The only thing a little distressing is that we seem to learn no better than did cyanobacteria. Oh well. Maybe the next earth will produce creatures that can.

    I just find this whole thing, the immense age of the earth and the vast environmental differences of which it is capable immensely comforting and enormously interesting but of course it kind of puts a damper on the idea that it was created for human beings.
    I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.


  10. #40
    Vincit Qui Se Vincit Virgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,355
    Blog Entries
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph View Post
    I don't think it's very self-evident that humans control the earth, whatever that means.
    Oh no? Next time you sit on a toilet and flush, consider you have controled nature. Next time you get on an elevator and take it to the 50th floor, you have controled nature. Next time you eat something raised on vast farm, you have controled nature. Next time you walk around a city filled with concrete buildings and sidewalks and tar roads, you have controled nature. Next time you get in a car and drive through a road that has been cut out of a forest, you have controled nature. Next time you take a trip on an airplane, you have controled nature. Next time you turn on your electric lights or your gas oven or your microwave, you have controled nature. Frankly the list is endless, but I'll leave you with one more. Next time you wipe your *** with toilet paper made from trees, you have controled nature.

    Granted, we are quite aware of many phenomena that enable us to survive and adapt, but I'd hardly consider that to be a position of power.
    When bunny rabits can make toilet paper to wipe their asses, or steel beams to build 50 story structures, then they can say they are free to control nature. Until that happens there is only one being on this planet that has the power to do that, and that is man. Take a trip one day to a paper mill, where trees are turned into saw dust by the power of machines (which by the way were designed and built by man), and then reformulated into paper, all so you can wipe your ***, then you will get a first hand view of how nature is controled by man.

    Any use of the word "control" turns out to be a farce, and is doubly so for this statement, if only based on the fact that humans are not separate from nature to begin with.
    Really? I take it then that you live in a cave without electricity and winter heating and summer air conditioning. I take it you don't sleep on a bed and don't watch TV and don't play on the computer.

    These environmentalists make me laugh. They criticize modern society and yet they enjoy all the comforts it presents, and then have the gall to say that man is no different than any animal.
    Last edited by Virgil; 08-05-2007 at 05:34 PM.
    LET THERE BE LIGHT

    "Love follows knowledge." St. Catherine of Siena

    My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/

  11. #41
    Sweet farewell, Good Nite
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,336
    i dont think "control" is necessarily a good word to describe it, virgil, even though your point is taken. nature is not indifferent to the extent humans expropriate natural resources for the fueling of those technologies you mentioned. when you use the word, control, you neglect natural resistances, as in, say, of the statosphere in its role of the green house effect. there are many others. global warming is a function of such resistance. controlling energy in your definition presupposes we can control outcomes and consequences. not the case.

    surely machines were built by man, but humans still haven't quite figured out how to control fresh air and clean water, nor the stars and moon, which give me more pleasure than those machines and buildings ever will.

    as far as your last point about environmentalists making you laugh because they are hypocrites, that's like laughing at god-loving people because they criticize others for being immoral when they can't get their own lives in order. hypocrisy writ large, no? the way i see it, people are trying to find their way. true, many environmentalists are as you say, but there are just as many who are responsible, who have resisted the powerful and brought about the EPA, the Clean Water/Air Act, Kyoto Protocol (even though it didn't pass), fuel-efficient cars, Goldstar products, etc. also consider that the nine-to-five lifestyle is a one-size fits all. the system is quite unfriendly to those who would rather walk or bike to work. rising real estate costs promote suburban sprawl, which ensnares people in the first place.

    maybe if there wasn't so much resistance out there toward environmentalism, we could refashion the present consumptive habits to one in which all people wouldn't have to resort to those "comforts" which are more the case necessities in this sad modern life.

    the world is not black and white. nor is nature owned. when it decides to turn off, it will, and there won't be a damn thing men with "power" will be able to do about it.
    Last edited by jon1jt; 08-05-2007 at 06:50 PM.
    "He was nauseous with regret when he saw her face again, and when, as of yore, he pleaded and begged at her knees for the joy of her being. She understood Neal; she stroked his hair; she knew he was mad."
    ---Jack Kerouac, On The Road: The Original Scroll

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryLupin View Post
    I just find this whole thing, the immense age of the earth and the vast environmental differences of which it is capable immensely comforting and enormously interesting but of course it kind of puts a damper on the idea that it was created for human beings.
    Yes, only recently is it noticeably different than any other rock in the galaxy. Good post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Virgil View Post
    Oh no? Next time you sit on a toilet and flush, consider you have controled nature.
    Nature behaves in a determined way and we utilize it, I hardly see how that is controlling nature. I granted earlier that we understand enough phenomena to utilize nature's predictability in order to make our lives easier, to so speak, but that hardly suggests a degree of control over the forces which govern us.

    When bunny rabits can make toilet paper to wipe their asses, or steel beams to build 50 story structures, then they can say they are free to control nature. Until that happens there is only one being on this planet that has the power to do that, and that is man. Take a trip one day to a paper mill, where trees are turned into saw dust by the power of machines (which by the way were designed and built by man), and then reformulated into paper, all so you can wipe your ***, then you will get a first hand view of how nature is controled by man.
    The only first hand view I am getting is your puerile fascination with feces and its removal. Are you even reading what you write?

    Really? I take it then that you live in a cave without electricity and winter heating and summer air conditioning. I take it you don't sleep on a bed and don't watch TV and don't play on the computer.

    These environmentalists make me laugh. They criticize modern society and yet they enjoy all the comforts it presents, and then have the gall to say that man is no different than any animal.
    I hardly see how this is a suitable reply to what I wrote about considering man as a part of nature. It's not clear how you have license to make such a distinction, seeing as though what comprises "man" is food once produced by nature. Surely you're not meaning to suggest that you, a sack of organs, are capable of turning nature into non-nature by merely producing a ****...

    The fantastic irony lies in this exact sort of solipsism, the painfully vocal regurgitation of your basest and most immediate thoughts that you claim man is incapable of having; the self-righteous manner in which you bolster your cunning, or rather, your common ability to utilize the cunning of those that have actually improved society, is simultaneously comical and insipid. Nevermind with a response, as I'll surely skip it and move onto the next.

  13. #43
    Novella MaryLupin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    307
    Blog Entries
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by jon1jt View Post
    nor is nature owned. when it decides to turn off, it will, and there won't be a damn thing men with "power" will be able to do about it.
    New Orleans is a testament to that I suppose. One of the most technologically advanced societies in the world and New Orleans is still a disaster. Amazing what a little blow can do to our sense of control.
    I've always found it rather exciting to remember that there is a difference between what we experience and what we think it means.


  14. #44
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by MaryLupin View Post
    New Orleans is a testament to that I suppose. One of the most technologically advanced societies in the world and New Orleans is still a disaster. Amazing what a little blow can do to our sense of control.
    Well...to most people's sense of control. Presumably there are always going a be a few hubristic flat earthists still going on about our power when a third of the planet's flooded.

  15. #45
    Vincit Qui Se Vincit Virgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    20,355
    Blog Entries
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by jon1jt View Post
    i dont think "control" is necessarily a good word to describe it, virgil, even though your point is taken. nature is not indifferent to the extent humans expropriate natural resources for the fueling of those technologies you mentioned. when you use the word, control, you neglect natural resistances, as in, say, of the statosphere in its role of the green house effect.
    I was about to concede this point but after thinking about it, no I think I'm using the word control correctly. I control my dog. That doesn't mean I change my dog into something like a rabbit. It means I manipulate him to respond to my will. Same thing with nature. I don't change the laws of nature by my engineering efforts. I control them to respond to my will.

    surely machines were built by man, but humans still haven't quite figured out how to control fresh air and clean water, nor the stars and moon, which give me more pleasure than those machines and buildings ever will.
    Give us time. Rome, that great civilization that set out to control nature, wasn't built in a day.


    as far as your last point about environmentalists making you laugh because they are hypocrites, that's like laughing at god-loving people because they criticize others for being immoral when they can't get their own lives in order.
    If you read my first post in this thread, on the first page I think, I said this has nothing to do with religion. Whether God exists or not, man has the power and will and right (because no one can stop us) to control nature.

    maybe if there wasn't so much resistance out there toward environmentalism, we could refashion the present consumptive habits to one in which all people wouldn't have to resort to those "comforts" which are more the case necessities in this sad modern life.
    I used to consider myself an environmentalist, probably when you were no older than a child. Something has happened to environmentalism in the last decade or two that has pushed them into whacky extremism where in essence they are pushing to reduce man to a mere animal and end increases in standards of living. I used to be and still am in favor of clean water and air and setting aside land for parks to preserve nature and wildlife. That is the environmentalism I grew up on. All that I list there is man in control of nature. Today's environmentalism positions man as subserviant to nature, as you can see by all the responses here. The philosophic distinction is significant.

    the world is not black and white. nor is nature owned. when it decides to turn off, it will, and there won't be a damn thing men with "power" will be able to do about it.
    A nice statement, but I don't know. People still own their property, national borders are clearly established, and I don't see anything that the natural world, other than the end of the world, can do to change that. These are human political arrangements, again man controling nature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Dr. Ralph View Post
    Nature behaves in a determined way and we utilize it, I hardly see how that is controlling nature. I granted earlier that we understand enough phenomena to utilize nature's predictability in order to make our lives easier, to so speak, but that hardly suggests a degree of control over the forces which govern us.
    Read my response to Jon above. Man controls nature.

    The only first hand view I am getting is your puerile fascination with feces and its removal. Are you even reading what you write?
    You know perfectly well why I chose that specific example.

    I hardly see how this is a suitable reply to what I wrote about considering man as a part of nature. It's not clear how you have license to make such a distinction, seeing as though what comprises "man" is food once produced by nature. Surely you're not meaning to suggest that you, a sack of organs, are capable of turning nature into non-nature by merely producing a ****...
    Like I said, man controls nature to set up farming, and now mass production of farming, where far less people in the history of the world are starving to death. That is controling nature to man's will.

    The fantastic irony lies in this exact sort of solipsism, the painfully vocal regurgitation of your basest and most immediate thoughts that you claim man is incapable of having; the self-righteous manner in which you bolster your cunning, or rather, your common ability to utilize the cunning of those that have actually improved society, is simultaneously comical and insipid. Nevermind with a response, as I'll surely skip it and move onto the next.
    So you mean you really do live in a cave and don't use electricity and modern comforts. Then I apologize.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaryLupin View Post
    New Orleans is a testament to that I suppose. One of the most technologically advanced societies in the world and New Orleans is still a disaster. Amazing what a little blow can do to our sense of control.
    Sorry that's a fallacious argument. All that proves is that man can make mistakes in design. There are places like the Netherlands that are even further below sea level than New Orleans and still control nature to their satisfaction.
    LET THERE BE LIGHT

    "Love follows knowledge." St. Catherine of Siena

    My literature blog: http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. We Need A Revolution In Literature!
    By WolfLarsen in forum General Writing
    Replies: 251
    Last Post: 01-10-2012, 06:56 PM
  2. From Vacant Space To The Present Human Form
    By dattaswami in forum Religious Texts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-08-2006, 10:31 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-13-2006, 02:04 AM
  4. My perfect world
    By Trey14 in forum Poems, Poets, and Poetry
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-04-2005, 03:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •