Geek Out On This

[Sad Max]

Not sure what you mean. We've had people change their sigs and avatars, too.

“Evolution has no scientific basis. The foundation of the model is based upon flawed assumptions, and in light of current scientific data, one has no choice but to reject the model entirely.”

This is neither a scientific argument, nor allusion to one. This is a presentation of a religiously-rooted, faith-based position. Which I am absolutely not complaining about - but whether it's in the form of a sig, or the form of a post, it's been around for a long time and I don't think anyone objects. So why object to a conversation, that elaborates beyond the format of a sig?

Look, I understand that the mods have every right and obligation to mod, and that DVXuser's purpose isn't to be a forum for creationist debate. All I mean to say, is that I don't think we've crossed any line that hasn't already been crossed.

But if, as a mod, you think this ought to be dropped, heck, I'll drop it.

 

[Mark Harris]

The first sentient life in the universe. The first to venture into space, both physically and electronically.

Who's to say we're not that species? I don't know that we are, but it's certainly possible.

Gotcha.

I guess what I wonder when I think about the universe, is, are those things in any way special? You're taking an anthropomorphic view of the universe to assume that it matters if we've been to space, or are sentient. If it matters to the universe.

In terms of evolution, it remains to be seen if those things will aid us in being a successful species. I'm reading a great book right now about the Y chrom, and he goes into great detail about certain lizards that have done away with sex. They only have females and give birth to females without sex. In evolutionary terms, this has helped that species succeed and survive.

And I just wonder if our big brains are necessarily a good thing. I know that sounds silly on the surface, but it's just to say that if you think us being sentient is special, you're taking and anthropomorphic view of the universe and to me it's far from certain that us having big brains is any more significant to the universe than say bacteria being found on Titan.

 

[Sad Max]

Arthropods include extremely ancient, tremendously survivable and ubiquitous species that outnumber us to the tune of, what, 1000 to one? 10,000 to one? More?

Now *that* is success, for a species. And they do it, with hardly any brains at all.

 

[David Jimerson]

Gotcha.

I guess what I wonder when I think about the universe, is, are those things in any way special? You're taking an anthropomorphic view of the universe to assume that it matters if we've been to space, or are sentient. If it matters to the universe.

In terms of evolution, it remains to be seen if those things will aid us in being a successful species. I'm reading a great book right now about the Y chrom, and he goes into great detail about certain lizards that have done away with sex. They only have females and give birth to females without sex. In evolutionary terms, this has helped that species succeed and survive.

And I just wonder if our big brains are necessarily a good thing. I know that sounds silly on the surface, but it's just to say that if you think us being sentient is special, you're taking and anthropomorphic view of the universe and to me it's far from certain that us having big brains is any more significant to the universe than say bacteria being found on Titan.

Just speaking in the normal context of what people mean when they speak of us being "alone" in the universe -- usually referring to other life with our type of intelligence, and probably most seem to assume that a lot of it is more advanced.

But you're right -- our kind of intelligence can turn out to be a net negative in terms of species survival, and you can name any number of ways where it could result in our demise. This isn't too different from saying that the greatest survival trait the bovine species ever developed is being tasty to humans.

 

[David Jimerson]

“Evolution has no scientific basis. The foundation of the model is based upon flawed assumptions, and in light of current scientific data, one has no choice but to reject the model entirely.”

This is neither a scientific argument, nor allusion to one. This is a presentation of a religiously-rooted, faith-based position. Which I am absolutely not complaining about - but whether it's in the form of a sig, or the form of a post, it's been around for a long time and I don't think anyone objects. So why object to a conversation, that elaborates beyond the format of a sig?

Look, I understand that the mods have every right and obligation to mod, and that DVXuser's purpose isn't to be a forum for creationist debate. All I mean to say, is that I don't think we've crossed any line that hasn't already been crossed.

But if, as a mod, you think this ought to be dropped, heck, I'll drop it.

I don't think any of the mods ever thought of that sig line that way. I didn't, and no one else mentioned it.

If it's meant to be an incitement to a religious debate, then you're right; it's not appropriate.

 

[Sad Max]

That sig impresses me as a day-glo red flag. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Anhar_Miah]

Well I'm glad that you don't have a problem with me, now may be my tone come of as being harsh, it was not meant in that manner.

I felt that you was having a dig at all theists, but if you was talking about a select group of people, then thats a different matter. I can not speak on behalf of others.

As for the signature as pointed out it has never caused any problems either on this forum or any other forums of which I am a member of.

Saying that, does it attact attention? yes most certainly it does, I'm quoting myslelf based on factual conviction as already explained before (in other posts in the past).

I totally do not mind if you disagree with my points, of course the world is full of different world views, we need to accept these and respect them.

Now many people do approach me, and in fact many have done so in private, and accordingly I have given full explanations as required.

As for the topic of science and religion, many people specifically in the West, sadly have a separated world view due to historic reasons, and without delving into the long European history of how science and religion became separated.

Put simply currently mainstream Western view is that science and religion is somehow incompatible. However this is not the de-facto worldview position, in the Eastern Hemisphere science and religion have no problems at all, not now, not in its history either.

Are you aware of the Islamic history and the contributions it made in all the sciences and mathematics? In fact it is not an understatement when it is said that the Islamic civilization gave birth to modern science, but sadly mainstream Westerns are unaware of such history, partly because many have gone to great lengths to distort the true history especially after World War 1.

Ok, please don’t think I’m trying to “school” you, or putting you down, its not like that, but I encounter many such misunderstandings (alot of which is falsely mainstream view, very sad but true).

Finally one fact that you should bare in mind, the model of Darwinian evolution is also based upon materialist philosophy NOT a scientific one, and as an intelligent person as your self I am sure you are well aware that materialist philosophy is one of the bedrock of Atheism, which is also a belief system.

I’m doing my masters soon, and hope to do my Ph.D. probably in biology, and I also believe in a creator, does that mean when I graduate the dean is going to reject my science-hood because you can ONLY be a scientist OR a believer but not both?

Thank you for listening, hope you don’t take offense

Anhar