Good question, Papa Bear. How do we define highest? I would say we are the highest due to our high potential for good but at the same time our inherent potential for evil is also the highest.
Are We the highest form of life in the universe?
- Thread starter passport
- Start date
- Status
I think I agree with you except with one issue- the definition of "will." If you extrapolate the behaviorist model to our brain (ie, computer) than you cannot hold a person accountable. Their background forced the choice. I 100% agree that background and experiences have a profound amount of impact on who we are- but that is just it. Who "are" we. If we are simply the results of genes and experiences, then we could simply solve the problems of the world through science- eradicate bad jeans, manipulate surroundings. We could have a utopia. Why does humanity seem to be going the opposite way? Why do some people overcome awful beginnings while others do not? Why do psychologists do studies that rarely have 100% accuracy. Even my little lab rats would vary their responses and occasionally one would respond way out of line. Sure, I can't hook up to a machine and show a "will", but psychologists still can't figure out these variations. In short, I definitely think our experiences and genes have a profound amount of impact on our choices, but I still see enough variety in them to indicate that there is another unaccounted force. I am choosing to call that a "will."
ref
ref
You're very much mistaken and need t
io do some research.
Everywhere the fossil record has been examined, the same patterns are shown.
Any half-competent geologist can tell when sections have been displaced or overturned. The patterns are still there.
So-called polystrate trees are easily explained, if you like. They grew through the strata. Or actually, I misspoke. Polystrate tree fossils are nearly always found in areas that have experience rapid depositon, such as river deltas or the lower slopes of volcanos.
You can look as long as you like, but you will not not an example of the fossil record that doesn't exhibit the patterns I've described.
Transitional fossils are numerous and no big deal. If you like, when I get home, I'll break out my books and give you a dozen or so to look up.
I think you are agreeing with me Gary, but I missed your point.
So I assume you reject all the advantages of these tools and live your life in the wilderness without modern conveniences or weapons? Oh, wait...you have a computer.
"Higher" is a relative term that is different to everyone.
The fact that we have argued this simple question for 5 pages and are furthur from a decision than before proves we are not the 'highest".
We only THINK we are... I wonder what my cat thinks ??
We only THINK we are... I wonder what my cat thinks ??
If you are in the woods and stumble upon an angry Black bear, he is the highest form...
If you are packing, then YOU are the highest !!
Case closed
If you are packing, then YOU are the highest !!
Case closed
No, because people can learn outside of their experience. People know not to stick their finger in a fire, or stand in front of a bus or jump off a bridge (
A good example is a clash of cultures. What is perfectly accepted by one culture is a serious offense in another. Which is wrong?
We are a chemical soup that is constantly changing. One day we feel good, the next bad. Why? Various reasons, but the stimuli will change our behavior. Computers do the same thing over and over as long as they are fed the same information and voltage/current/hertz. Change any of those and watch what happens.
i love looking for indian artifacts here in NC.. its one of my favorite hobbies since i was a kid.
hey mark, every look for them while you were here in NC?
hey mark, every look for them while you were here in NC?
Perhaps the fact that we are wondering if we are the highest form shows we are not.
Carbon dating is only reliable to something less than 50K years, and likely only reliable to 5K years.
Here are some links to some of the problems Carbon and C-14 in particular:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v10i10f.htm
Evolutionists use other radioactive isotope decay with much longer half lives in adjacent rock formations to fossils often to arrive at age.
BTW, cave dwellers and Egyptians are not "ancient" on the supposed evolutionary time scale, but actually very modern history in those terms.
I like this guy in that he seems to have a very comprehensive study on most of the different sides that he has been debating for a long time.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/index.html
Here he presents that evolution has been a very good and predictive theory.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html
"To look at the courts to what is truth and right is silly at best."
There is no 'scientific debate' on creationism, there is only fundamentalist dogma. It is so obvious that EVEN THE COURTS acknowledge it, which shows how little scientific credibility there is regarding creationism. Creationists have literally has their day in court to make the case that their dogma has a scientific basis, and it has been repeatedly rejected.
It is no different than the Flat Earth Society demanding that their beliefs, based upon their 'scientific findings', be taught in public schools in place of or along side earth science.
There is no 'scientific debate' on creationism, there is only fundamentalist dogma. It is so obvious that EVEN THE COURTS acknowledge it, which shows how little scientific credibility there is regarding creationism. Creationists have literally has their day in court to make the case that their dogma has a scientific basis, and it has been repeatedly rejected.
It is no different than the Flat Earth Society demanding that their beliefs, based upon their 'scientific findings', be taught in public schools in place of or along side earth science.
That's the problem with Democracy... You have groups like the Flat Earth Society...
Just for the record, on my high school debate team I was on the evolution team. I still think things evolve....and change....back then I didn't believe there was a G0D in any sense.....Now? G0D has some pretty cool blueprints, but the workers get off course, real fast, all the time. People do change.
"Are We the highest form of life in the univers"
Certainly I am ( not we..I )
PB
Certainly I am ( not we..I )
I understand evolutionists refuse to debate Dwayne Gish because if they do, they lose.
As long as people's money is taken and given to government schools, they will want a say in what is taught in those schools. The solution is to abolish government schools. Is the USA a socialist state? What the *** do we have government schools for? The founding fathers of this nation would start another revolution over that (and many other things the government does) if they were here now.
1sttruck,
So, are you saying that you believe everything the courts have ruled on had scientific debate and the one with the best debaters or most popular, er most scientific evidence, always win? Unfortunately, topics such as this have a religious-like, i.e. "I believe so that's enough", backing to them on both sides.
So, are you saying that you believe everything the courts have ruled on had scientific debate and the one with the best debaters or most popular, er most scientific evidence, always win? Unfortunately, topics such as this have a religious-like, i.e. "I believe so that's enough", backing to them on both sides.
I personally believe that U.S. Americans are not the highest life form in the Universe....
You sound VERY certain about this. There absolutely is no proof of the above. Belief without proof is.....faith.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,591
I feel some global warming in my liberal pants.
- Status
Similar threads
