Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[HundertzehnGustav]

If i was supposed to answer briefly and dead serious, the answer is a loud YES.
i am not talking about IQ or Facebook, about fast cars or nukes, concorde or dynamite, banalities in the larger picture. Not about Religion, Politics or worldwide communication and recording of data in various forms (images on caves to the latest SSD...)

Humans have left the system, the nature, have outgrown its intended place on this planet. They imagine things waiting for them after life, think big thoughts about parallel lifes and universes..., yet sometimes deny the same things to their dogs and kettle.

humans have grown a massive ego.

It may be a short term evo-lution, like a local, tactical victory, a triumph of performance and complexity, all weak and relative in the face of mother nature.

But in the long term, humans are not doing themselves a favor by evolving and using technology.
Therefor moving backwards because nature is still stronger than us.

As a race we are evolving. But like all things, the results of our evolution will bring us to a dead end. (in my opinion)
Is that enough to say "de-volution?"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The question may be, are we evolving or devolving as a race.
Maybe we're a lower life form than those previous.

We are an ultra-modern, self-writing AI-simulation software code running on a very old hardware that bases on an archaic BIOS.

The archaic BIOS is our problem. It is what sends us bluescreening.

The hardware is the reason that needs the AI-software learning how to update it.

The AI software is what is going CTD time and again because of the primitive BIOS.

So what we are is a new software experiment by the evolutionary coders that has led them into a dead end because they have neither the hardware nor the BIOS to make effective and lasting use of this new software.

What I mean is abstract intelligence coupled with our amount of individual self-awareness seem to be unique and seem to be a first on this Earth. They are young concepts still, and their value, from an evolutionary POV, still has not been proven. Possible, that the experiment will run out and will be replaced by something different, so that the features defining us will never be tried again.

Whale sharks are almost unchanged in design since over 400 million years. That makes me think (the first dinosaurs appeared around 230 million years ago, and went over the cliff around 70 million years ago).

[HundertzehnGustav]

like our minds are faster than our biological updates?
might be...
if we could get rid of this bio mass that we need and feed...
and replace with either no body (ghost style) or integrate our minds into our networks, replacing AI by our own intelligence, therefor making the networks and server farms our own.
and the physical part can be dealt with by roboters... controlled by human minds from within the networks.

[Skybird]

No, more like our survival instincts from eons ago helped us back then, but today seal our doom for they collide with our reason and insight into what needs to be done in the changed environment today. We want to solve problems of the present by the instincts designed for situations long time ago.

Those situations may return again, however. After our fall.

[HundertzehnGustav]

may return... more like: after our fall we hope to still have these instincts as backup instructions for survival.

I am convinced for no appearent reason that a "fall" lies ahead. Whatever shape it might have how ever it will manifest itself.

That will be the moment where we (have to) get back into the system nature, instead of trying and proclaiming to dominate it.
Is that an evolution? an evolution WITH our surroundings, instead of like today evolution disregarding our surroundings?


random questions:
Is the Human of today his own God, when he looks back at his past (and making the same mistakes time and again, wars) and when he is amazed by his achievements? (percieved achievements... facebook )

Is the thought and concept to have been created by a God, and to have won the battle against the T-Rex (&Co) not a form of Arrogance that is typically human, as it portrais ourselves to have survived these beasts, and all those that came after them, up until now?

Is this "painting ourselves as Victors" not almost the same as "proclaiming us bigger better and more badass than the rest of nature..." proclaiming us GOD ourselves?, just one tiny little bit?

Yes, it is late... nap time.
these thoughts confuse my stupid mind.
Humans... silly humans, aren't we.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I'm not saying that I would have it any other way, I'm simply saying that when "non-believers" talk about not wanting special exemptions for religious speech, this is often the kind of thing they're talking about: people who not only want the freedom to express their religious beliefs, but the freedom to be exempt from an open expression of disagreement with those beliefs, or from the fairly predictable consequences of stating something as a universal truth that simply cannot be backed up by anything other than "because I believe it."

This is not what I was talking about. I don't believe that any one should be exempt from criticism if they make their beliefs known. Period.

This is what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Skybird

So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

This seems to me to go beyond mere criticism of someone's beliefs. It appears that he wants to deny people the right to freedom of expression. If it isn't he made no attempt to say so.

Someone (may have been you) mentioned how it would feel for an atheist to not have the freedom to say out loud in public that he is an atheist.

I did say that. It was in response to the above quote.

-but as Skybird already noted most atheists don't make a point of publicly announcing their disbelief on a regular basis, in the average social interaction it typically only happens in response to someone else bringing the subject up for discussion.

Here I would have to disagree with you. Atheist's have websites, blogs, TV shows etc. They have organizations and they hold conventions. And they write books, some which have been best sellers. They are freely expressing their beliefs all the time. And they should be able to. Shouldn't every body have this right? Actually they do. It's the law in your country and mine as well as Skybirds. If he isn't saying that then I would apologize but he would have to clear the air in regards to his demands to keep it "to keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it,"

In the realm of science it's even trickier, because science has definable standards. "I believe in God" vs. "I don't believe in God" is one thing and everyone may agree to disagree and part friends. But "I believe the Bible and have the science to back it up" is another thing entirely, if they can't back it up according to the standards that apply to scientific investigation they are not exempt from criticism because religious belief is also involved.

I believe there is a Creator being and I would call myself a Christian, but I am not what you would call a fundamentalist. I do not think that religion should be the basis for scientific thought. They are two completely different disiplines. Nor do I believe that the earth was created in six days. Nor do I believe that a human would have much of a chance against a T rex. I love science and try to keep up on the latest advancements. I miss my calling. I think I would look good in a lab coat.

[Skybird]

The "fall" will most likely be caused by global war over sweet water, food, farming land, resources, ideological dominance (most likely not politically but relgiously motivated); or natural desaster, cosmic desaster, or a global epidemic outbreak. Starvations and depletion of even the most basic natural resources like firewood, fishes to fish, animals to hunt, also are within the possible. I refer - once again - to Jared Diamond: Collapse. Not the only book on these issues I know - but the best book on these issues that I know. That's why I recommend it again every couple of months.

The manifestation of the fall will be a collapse of the higher functions and structures of human civilization, in reverse sequence of their construction. From supranational bodies back to regional structures, from regional structures back to tribal structures. First communication and traffic, internationally, break down. Trade breaks down. Since resources are no longer traded, local economic crisis. Collapse of fiscal and economic systems. Collapse of states' authorities. No army, no police anymore, no law, no system to replace these. Anarchy. Tribal communities. Fewer people. Much fewer people. If mankind goes e3xtinct, it will be a longer process, most liekly (ignoring biological or atomic wars, meteor strikes and such obvious killer events, and even these would take months and years to come to full extinction effect, except maybe getting hit by a stellar radiation stream from the sun or a distant pulsar or something like that).

How did we get to discussing this now...?

[HundertzehnGustav]

Freedom of expression?

The churches built all over europe, as an example... are.. a form of freedom of expression by the believers?

i have rarely seen an atheist build some kind of... church or some such large protruding building.

because that would be "shoving our point of view into the face of the people living around you"

nor are there courses on how to become a good atheist at school... that young ones have to attend, no questions asked, no options given.
That would be "shoving our POV in the face of others".
church, religion, believers do that.


nor do nonbelievers have a head of nonbelievers, leading the pack.
nor do the nonbelievers have some sort of guidance book and a set of rules to follow lest ye rot in hell, scumbag!
That would be "shoving our POV in the face of others".
see the media coverage of the new Pope...

...shoved in my face for days without end, and barely a way to avoid it.
like a sickness that only time, and a focus on other things can cure.

nor do nonbelievers shove their nonbeliefs all over the globe by killiing believers for the good of their cause.
...i bet religious people still do that, all over the globe.

far as i can tell, nonbelievers see believers and simply do not care.
because nonbelievers mostly gave up believing for a reason, and therefor have made some sort of choice.

Religion... is the absence of choice. It gets in my face and on my nerves like Propaganda gets in the face of a North Korean Farmer.
has gotten in my face as a kid... religion based education, religion-based lifestyle, religion based rites, habits and whatnot.

religion has had its fair share of "Freedom of expression" with me.

...largely overstepping boundaries in a quite agressive fashion.

But news is good!

At least in the domain of building "(Christian) religion-in-our-face" churches... we are making progress.
A church not far from me was torn down because it was old, ground moved, and could not be repaired, it was simply not worth the hassle.
http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/news/story/19402102

Mare Norstum...
http://www.heise.de/open/artikel/Mar...he-221951.html
a Christian Church re-used to support the new church of bits and bytes... google says hello.
still a church (from one malheur to another), but no bellringing, no propaganda except for students that are interested in visiting the place.


Belgium...
unused church converted to a shop for expensive stuff...
http://www.zonebattler.net/2008/08/2...und-zurueck-3/


freedom of expression is one thing - getting on the nerves and into the lives of people is another don't you think.

[HundertzehnGustav]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The manifestation of the fall will be a collapse of the higher functions and structures of human civilization, in reverse sequence of their construction.

How did we get to discussing this now...?

Something like that, yes.
how exactly it will be... time will tell.
I am scared it might happen in my lifetime.
But the last 30 years that i was here things have not gone bust on a global level, so i may just make "the run to my grave" without whitnessing such a dead-end scenario.

it is interesting. such thoughts have haunted me since i was a kid of 8, 9 something... wars, nukes and natural disasters, but most of al, human arrogance.

civilization is just the icing on the animals we atill are.
That i hope we still are, in that case.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You just advocated for the first steps towards it, and spend a whole posting to deny that. All what you implied and posted, says "religious people's practice first and unlimited, all others have to live with it and have to step back where they fell affected".

That is religious tyranny, plain and simple. Of course you will continue to claim the opposite you are meaning/saying/thinking, I know I know. But you contradict yourself.

You just edited my quote to change the meaning. That's a good debating tactic. What I said quite plainly was that religious freedom is part of the package that includes freedom of speech and opinion. What I said.

No doubt, but where there is "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general" there is almost always freedom of religion. Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not caring for the parties you tthrow in your household. But when the noise becomes such that me and nweighbvours cannot sleep, cannot live our own life without needing to realise your party day in day out, cannot play pour own TVs and radios without simultaneously participating in your show, then I come over and kick you around until you stop messing up our lives becasue you want to have party "your style".

Why don't you stop using these vague stories and say exactly what you mean? Are you afraid I won't understand it or are you afraid to say it?

Keep thy religion to thyself.

Where your religion claims it must be aggressively spread and offensively preached, it becomes an aggressor and invader. And that is where tolerance ends

Skybird if you can give one single example of where I have done anything like this please feel free to post it. If you can't you should stop saying it. You are obviously speaking in generalities but you are directing it at me as if I am doing this. I consider that a cheap shot.

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.

That's all we need.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by u crank

I believe there is a Creator being and I would call myself a Christian,

Why don't you move to the Vatican, your natural homeland, you Buddhist Taliban? You certainly like stoning women to death, and commit genocide on all kafirs and gojims.

Ups, I am sorry, I am just a cowardly fencewalker, who doesn't dare to take a stand, and want to keep all doors open if I meet a deity after death...

I hope one day I will learn that binary thinking is the only true philosophy of the intellectual superior. Anything else is just dogma, indoctrination or sitting on a fence, nobody else who holds some thoughts has made up their mind.

666 Greetings, Reverend Penguin

[HundertzehnGustav]

we all will find out "in due time" if what we believe or do not believe is "da truth"

in this life or the next. :P

[August]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

we all will find out "in due time" if what we believe or do not believe is "da truth"

in this life or the next. :P

If the Atheists are right nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. No matter how much a person believed in God or didn't we all end up as worm bait.

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

[August]

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav

we all will find out "in due time" if what we believe or do not believe is "da truth"

in this life or the next. :P

If the Atheists are right then nothing happens in the afterlife. When we die that's it. A persons thoughts and life experiences vanish with the electrical impulses of the dead brain matter. No matter how much a person believed in God, or didn't, we all end up as worm bait and our passions, believes, likes and dislikes, arguments and debates are all left for the living to take up in their own minds if they choose to.

On the other hand if theists are right then something will happen in the afterlife and the Atheists will find themselves with egg on their faces. Not to mention probably have to face some sort of fallout from an angry god over their rejection of him and their smug comments over the years about how stupid believers are.

One or the other.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

You just edited my quote to change the meaning. That's a good debating tactic. What I said quite plainly was that religious freedom is part of the package that includes freedom of speech and opinion. What I said.



Don't put words in my mouth.



Why don't you stop using these vague stories and say exactly what you mean? Are you afraid I won't understand it or are you afraid to say it?



Skybird if you can give one single example of where I have done anything like this please feel free to post it. If you can't you should stop saying it. You are obviously speaking in generalities but you are directing it at me as if I am doing this. I consider that a cheap shot.



That's all we need.

Lalala.

U_crank, you started over religion having the right to do what it wants for reasons of freedom of religious practice. You implied by that that the freedom of religion is of higher meaning than the freedom of others not needing to be bothered, touched, effected by it. You denied that freedom of religion also must mean freedom from religion - for those not wishing to have anything to do with it. This says something about you and religious people sharing this sense of bigotry, and that is what I call it for sure: bigotry, double-standards, privileged 1st class freedoms for religion, and second class freedom for those not sharing religion, but being expected to fall back so that religion can freely practice as it wants. And religious ALWAYS wants more and more.

I have nothing more to tell you. I think I made my arguments clear enough, here, and in other threads. Your religion has to stop where you start to expand your freedom at the cost of mine and that of others.

In Germany, the Friday before Eastern has a law that forbids people dancing and listening to9 music ion restaurants, discos, even if thes eplaces wopuld make sure that outside it cannot be heared or seen, not to bother those people who for religious reasons want all world becoming silent like a grave and no joy being enjoyed by anyone. Tell me why the of people over here are banned from living their lives as they want if they do not interfere with people'S doing inside private homes or inside their temples. Tell me why all people are submitted to obeying a religious demand that THE MAJORITY and especially the younger ones do not share in belief, with the huge majority being critical of the churches and not literally believing in the miracle tales of the bible anyway. It is state-enforced legalised religious discrimination. The right way would be: discos make sure their music and fun is not so loud that it interferes with what goes on in churches and private homes, and churches make sure that their demands are mandatory only for those joining the mass and sharing the belief.

But no, that is not good enough. ALL must be forced to give ground to more freedom for religion, and less for private persons. Religion must be pushed. It demands special recognition. Special status. Exceptions from the state's laws. Privileges. It demonised those opposing it and attacks and offends them. And when the attacked defend themselves and defend their freedom and strike back, then sudeenly religion starts preaching "respect!" and "watch your mouth!" Heck, the new pope on his first appearance after being voted into office demonised all people not sharing the theistic believe in a deity as godless people who pray to Satan. Where is the respect, the humane tolerance, the peacefulness there? The Catholic and Protestant churches assist their worse and most intolerant enemy, Islam, because for the only reason that Muslims also believe in a single deity. Chgristians get killed by the many thosuands every years by Muslim progroms and mass killings around the world. They remain silent about that. They compliment the ideology motivating this barbary as "respectable" and sharing "the same belief in the one creator". Why they do it? Becasue even a hotile theist believer is better to them than somebody not allowing them to isse control mover their kinds and freedom. a killing Islam is better than a peaceful atheism. Andf finally: the church would authorize the same crimes if it still would be in power like it was in the medieval. Our freedoms and morals today have not been formed because of the churches, but in bitter fights and painful conflicts against the bitter resistance of the church. History shows us why it is a bad idea to let religion come back to those powers again. It would lead us back into hate, intolerance and inhumanity.

Religion is not and never was about freedom and equality. Religion is about total control, and expansion, and subjugation. It is about poisoning the minds of already the weakest and most defenseless: our children, to get their thinking under control from earliest age on: brainwashing. Instead of letting people chose, it wants them to submit. Instead of freedom, it wants conformity.

Always was. Is now. Always will be. Heck, it's religion.