Existence of God (split from old thread)

[Berzerker]

Oh, I can't wait to see how you're going to explain this, since it makes no sense at all.

Eugenics is a human endeavor, and the intention is to control human reproduction - who can and cannot have children, or an attempt to control what traits the offspring have.

Evolution has nothing to do with eugenics, other than if you mean artificial selection.

you made sense of it

 

[Valka D'Ur]

you made sense of it

You said "evolution is eugenics."

That's nonsense. I corrected you, so kindly don't pretend that my post is what you meant all along.

 

[Berzerker]

Oh, I can't wait to see how you're going to explain this, since it makes no sense at all.

Eugenics is a human endeavor, and the intention is to control human reproduction - who can and cannot have children, or an attempt to control what traits the offspring have.

Evolution has nothing to do with eugenics, other than if you mean artificial selection.

You said "evolution is eugenics."

That's nonsense. I corrected you, so kindly don't pretend that my post is what you meant all along.

Was the bolded part your correction? Artificial selection is evolution is eugenics. But you said evolution has nothing to do with eugenics - except when it does have something to do with artificial selection. You corrected yourself...

 

[warpus]

Eugenics is a set of beliefs.

Evolution is a set of laws of nature best described by the scientific theory of that name.

 

[Berzerker]

eugenics - the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.

what science?

Evolutionary science...and people have been doing it for eons without even knowing about Darwin. From arranged marriages to the simple rules of attraction, eugenics is written into our biology.

 

[warpus]

So it's an application of science, and not a science in itself. If it were a science it would have its own scientific theory and so on.

It's a set of beliefs and practices

 

[Synobun]

Evolutionary science...and people have been doing it for eons without even knowing about Darwin. From arranged marriages to the simple rules of attraction, eugenics is written into our biology.

Wait. Do you think arranged marriages are based on who's the prettiest or smartest?

 

[Berzerker]

So it's an application of science, and not a science in itself. If it were a science it would have its own scientific theory and so on.

It's a set of beliefs and practices

based on evolutionary science

Wait. Do you think arranged marriages are based on who's the prettiest or smartest?

there are many factors parents consider

 

[Valka D'Ur]

eugenics - the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. Developed largely by Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, it fell into disfavor only after the perversion of its doctrines by the Nazis.

what science?

Evolutionary science...and people have been doing it for eons without even knowing about Darwin. From arranged marriages to the simple rules of attraction, eugenics is written into our biology.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I realized that you could have been talking about artificial selection, but were unsure how to express it. But in terms of natural selection, evolution and eugenics are not the same thing. Eugenics can have an effect on evolution in terms of artificial selection, if we choose to breed some trait out of the gene pool, but unless the trait is 100% detrimental to the survival of the species, it's a risky thing. You never know if you might need that gene later on.

Arranged marriages have to do with power, money, political favors, business mergers, and so on. The attractiveness of the potential spouses is rarely a consideration, at least not for the ones doing the arranging. That's how you get teenage girls marrying men old enough to be their grandfathers, or two people who feel nothing toward each other, but the marriage is meant to consolidate power or a financial empire.

 

[sophie]

based on evolutionary science

""""""""""""based"""""""""""""

*number of quotation marks severely edited for brevity.

 

[Agent327]

You do have a knack for stating that science has the final answer in what has been observed and what has not yet been observed.

You do seem to have a knack for not comprehending the words you read. In this case I said nothing of the sort, as usual.

What is this complete idiocy ?
The observable universe is the only thing science can work on, it doesn't mean it's all that matters. There is tons of ideas and theories about the part of the universe which can't be observed, and a big part of science is pushing the boundaries of what can be observed.

I'd say a small part of science is pushing those boundaries. And the result, as usual, will be that we'll have a slightly bigger observable universe. And 'tons of ideas and theories about the part of the universe which can't be observed' aren't part of that, as far as I'm concerned. People are, of course, free to hold their own opinions on that, but I count it as sci fi. In the example of a multiverse: that will not advance our knowledge about the universe any more than the question How many angels can stand on the point of a needle? Meanwhile the actual universe keeps expanding, so relatively, you might say, we'll actually know less than before. A paradox, perhaps.

The observable is universe not the universe. We have no idea how big the universe is, that's the whole point in specifying when you say "observable universe" vs "universe"

It's highly unlikely that the universe ends where the observable universe ends. I mean, it could, but we can't really confirm either way.

The universe doesn't 'end'. And obviously, 'the universe' is not 'the observable universe'. But scientifically speaking it is. The limit of things we can have knowledge of is the observable universe. Beyond it is where the facts end and speculation begins. In the end though, we just don't know. One can try to extrapolate beyond that, of course. But we only have the one universe to extrapolate from. No ideas about multiverses or what other cosmological speculations cosmologist may think of can change that. Possibly, at some point in the future this may change. Who knows.

 

[onejayhawk]

You do seem to have a knack for not comprehending the words you read. In this case I said nothing of the sort, as usual.

Pot, meet Kettle.

I'd say a small part of science is pushing those boundaries. And the result, as usual, will be that we'll have a slightly bigger observable universe. And 'tons of ideas and theories about the part of the universe which can't be observed' aren't part of that, as far as I'm concerned. People are, of course, free to hold their own opinions on that, but I count it as sci fi. In the example of a multiverse: that will not advance our knowledge about the universe any more than the question How many angels can stand on the point of a needle? Meanwhile the actual universe keeps expanding, so relatively, you might say, we'll actually know less than before. A paradox, perhaps.

ALL of science is pushing the boundaries. The rest is engineering. The rest of your paragraph is nonsensical.

The universe doesn't 'end'. And obviously, 'the universe' is not 'the observable universe'. But scientifically speaking it is. The limit of things we can have knowledge of is the observable universe. Beyond it is where the facts end and speculation begins. In the end though, we just don't know. One can try to extrapolate beyond that, of course. But we only have the one universe to extrapolate from. No ideas about multiverses or what other cosmological speculations cosmologist may think of can change that. Possibly, at some point in the future this may change. Who knows.

Now you are arguing his case. If pushing the boundaries does not entail speculating and extrapolating, what do you think it does entail?

J

 

[timtofly]

You do seem to have a knack for not comprehending the words you read. In this case I said nothing of the sort, as usual.



I'd say a small part of science is pushing those boundaries. And the result, as usual, will be that we'll have a slightly bigger observable universe. And 'tons of ideas and theories about the part of the universe which can't be observed' aren't part of that, as far as I'm concerned. People are, of course, free to hold their own opinions on that, but I count it as sci fi. In the example of a multiverse: that will not advance our knowledge about the universe any more than the question How many angels can stand on the point of a needle? Meanwhile the actual universe keeps expanding, so relatively, you might say, we'll actually know less than before. A paradox, perhaps.



The universe doesn't 'end'. And obviously, 'the universe' is not 'the observable universe'. But scientifically speaking it is. The limit of things we can have knowledge of is the observable universe. Beyond it is where the facts end and speculation begins. In the end though, we just don't know. One can try to extrapolate beyond that, of course. But we only have the one universe to extrapolate from. No ideas about multiverses or what other cosmological speculations cosmologist may think of can change that. Possibly, at some point in the future this may change. Who knows.

I hate to burst your universal bubble, but we will never see beyond this observable universe, unless we can travel faster than it is expanding. That is the whole point of it taking 14 billion years to expand thus far. If our math is correct, or all the other assumptions we have thrown into the equation. The biggest assumption knowing the size of the universe 14 billion years ago. If there is indeed an edge to what is obseved, and the universe does go beyond that point, we do not have a clue how big it is or if we can travel to a distant point that gives us another perspective on the actual size and age. Or as some theorize what can be observed is just the edge of a singularity that is just one in a universe of universes.

When it comes to natural and artificial evolution are not humans and human thought just part of the same natural evolutionary process? There is no distinction as natural and artificial as they both are part of the same materialistic evolution of nature. There is no design in the process, just evolutionary patterns that are deceptions in the minds of those going through the process of natural evolutionary outcomes. To think that Trump is just the evolutionary outcome of 90 years of liberal persuasive naturally occurring thought processes.

 

[onejayhawk]

Don't forget the other direction. Is there a foundation to all the subatomic particles? Chaos theory says maybe, but no clue what it looks like. Gravity is still poorly understood. You can name the people advancing the theory on Mordecai Brown's pitching hand.

J

 

[Valka D'Ur]

To think that Trump is just the evolutionary outcome of 90 years of liberal persuasive naturally occurring thought processes.

Whut?

 

[Berzerker]

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I realized that you could have been talking about artificial selection, but were unsure how to express it. But in terms of natural selection, evolution and eugenics are not the same thing. Eugenics can have an effect on evolution in terms of artificial selection, if we choose to breed some trait out of the gene pool, but unless the trait is 100% detrimental to the survival of the species, it's a risky thing. You never know if you might need that gene later on.

How are they different?

Arranged marriages have to do with power, money, political favors, business mergers, and so on. The attractiveness of the potential spouses is rarely a consideration, at least not for the ones doing the arranging. That's how you get teenage girls marrying men old enough to be their grandfathers, or two people who feel nothing toward each other, but the marriage is meant to consolidate power or a financial empire.

There are many considerations, including the wealth and power to ensure a better chance for the kids. All other things being 'equal', would you want your kid to marry into wealth or poverty? If the wealthy person is genetically healthy and compatible a parent has even more reason to arrange the marriage.

""""""""""""based"""""""""""""

*number of quotation marks severely edited for brevity.

The guy who came up with it was Darwin's brother. How is he wrong?

 

[warpus]

The universe doesn't 'end'. And obviously, 'the universe' is not 'the observable universe'.

I mean, then we totally do not disagree that the universe is not the same thing as the observable universe. Which seemed to be our disagreement initially.

How do you know that the universe doesn't end btw? Maybe it's finite, we have no idea.

based on evolutionary science

Pan seering an atlantic salmon fillet is based on chemistry and the scientific principles behind that. Does that mean that it's a science in itself, then? Obviously not

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How are they different?

That's already been explained to you.

There are many considerations, including the wealth and power to ensure a better chance for the kids. All other things being 'equal', would you want your kid to marry into wealth or poverty? If the wealthy person is genetically healthy and compatible a parent has even more reason to arrange the marriage.

Granted, I would not want any hypothetical kid of mine to marry into poverty. But the ultimate decision is up to the individuals getting married.

 

[Agent327]

I mean, then we totally do not disagree that the universe is not the same thing as the observable universe. Which seemed to be our disagreement initially.

How do you know that the universe doesn't end btw? Maybe it's finite, we have no idea.

I think the difference is whether you look at it philosophically (the universe) or scientifically (the observable universe). Plato may have an idea about how Ideas constitute the real universe, but what does that actually tell us about the universe? The universe does and does not have an end. It has an end in the sense that it ends (as all things have an ending and there's no reason to suppose that the universe is an exception to that rule), but not in the sense of an expanding universe.

So, plenty of ideas.

I hate to burst your universal bubble, but we will never see beyond this observable universe, unless we can travel faster than it is expanding.

Hence we speak of the observable universe. (So I'm not sure what bubble was burst here.) It's quite correct that faster than light travel is impossible. But we don't observe via travel into the universe, generally. Since this is mostly dependent on light sources, the speed of light is the limit. So objects moving away at close to that speed will rarely become visible. (And anyway, anything we 'see' outside the solar system is light years in the past. But that's also the interesting thing: looking outward we are looking at the past of the universe.

 

[warpus]

The universe does and does not have an end. It has an end in the sense that it ends (as all things have an ending and there's no reason to suppose that the universe is an exception to that rule), but not in the sense of an expanding universe.

That doesn't make any sense. Just because something is expanding doesn't mean that it does not have an end. I can think of a plethora of counter-examples right off the top of my head and 0 actual examples of what you are describing.