And on that note, I think I will close the thread a little early, because I’m noting a very long load time now. Thanks everyone for comments. It’s been a very interesting thread.

Everest is more then 10M years/old [according to the datation of evolutionist geology]

I know the goofy theory (there’s that word again) being referenced, but this restatement was wonderful – “evolutionist geology” is completely meaningless when not used as a slur, “datation” is a word with specific meaning that is being used incorrectly, and saying Mt. Everest is 10 million years old absent context is silly. All told, that statement isn’t even a good presentation of the underlying argument, which is completely silly to begin with. I don’t think it even qualifies as horseshit – it seems to occupy that realm somewhere between horseshit and syntactical dadaism, except dada implies a self-awareness that appears lacking here.

A little late in the thread, but John, thanks so much for this. You’ve substantially contributed to my non-productivity for the day.

I am reminded of the old joke about the guy who offers the woman 1 million dollars for sex; she accepts. Then he offers her 100 dollars. She says “What do you take me for, a whore?” He says “We’ve already established that, now we are just haggling on price.”

Of course, what I am talking about are the chances of humanity on this planet. Extinction is almost assured, from a long point of view. We will eventually die out – at least this specific model. When, who knows. Will we get to the stars and seed them with our presence assuring our continued survival in some form? Will we burrow underground and become mole men if the sun goes out? Will we blow up the earth, and the remnants of humanity cling to the shattered fragments to eventually orbit a different star and become a New Earth? Maybe. Maybe not. A long enough view can extrapolate pretty much anything.

But if we don’t make some behavioral changes in ourselves soon, I suspect we won’t have that long view to take. We can extrapolate our current future to be rather short if we don’t start acting more in concert with nature and each other instead of what we currently do.

I don’t know if I am optimistic or pessimistic about humanities survival. I read science fiction for a reason, though, and not just to see stuff blow up – I like the ideas set forth about where society might go were it allowed to continue. Of course, if we take a starting point, using the ideas of natural selection we extrapolate, but humans have proven again and again that they need not act in any manner except how they choose at any moment, which makes a fair extrapolation almost impossible. To wit, we know how grass will act, we know how animals will act, we know how geologic formations will act (even if we don’t always know the mechanisms of all of these actions), but the only thing we can truly know about humans is that we have no way of truly knowing anything about eventual behavior, though we can certainly make an informed guess – humans will hate and fight and kill and love and help and destroy and create; and hopefully our generation and our kids generation and their kids generations won’t be the last, ad infinitum.

And in that context, that is our nature.

Okay, God, I believe in you, always did… but God damn it (sorry), my idea was right too. Knew it all along. Sure, I was ashamed to share it for a while, and I made some mistakes, but I was one man in a backward time. How many transoceanic trips can one man make? How many species can he catalog and draw with fine detail? How can one old man prove the fundamental scientific thought addressing the development of life without the advantage of observing cosmic time?

So can you leave me alone and let me go back to being dead? Or at least swing me by Mary’s for a quickie?

I think we probably agree in general but see the particulars differetnly. I would certainly agree that humans are not a harmonizing element, though short of depressurizing Earth (evidence suggests Mars had a reasonably established atmosphere once but it certainly doesn’t now, so I don’t discount the possibility of similar results happening here), on a long enough time span I think even our impact can be rectified. Life has crawled back from far worse than we can throw at the planet at the moment, nukes withstanding, so I am optimistic (which isn’t an excuse not to alter our behavior, just that either way I hope long term life will go on).

@Harvard

I really wish you could reflect on how close minded you come across, because it mirrors the close mindedness of those you seem to hate against the most. It isn’t stupidity to ignore the comments of someone who comes across as a caustic ass to you; its rational behavior. What you are doing is removing any credibility you might have to that person, and losing any respect they might show you and your words out of courtousy. You might as well not talk to them at all. Seriously, don’t even bother. Not because they are unaproachable because of their faith, but because you make them unaproachable with your attitude.

Errr, no. Attacking creationism has plenty of scientific basis. There is tons of evidence that the world is more than 6000 years old. It’s not simply “belief” – and there’s nothing close-minded about it.

Creationism and God are not the same thing. If you think that you are grossly misinformed. I have intentionally seperated the two in my posts because belief in God is not dependant on creationism (what the hell, why am I having this conversation with BOTH sides). Your previous comments were clearly an attack on the concept of religion in general, as well as the specific beliefs in both Jesus and God. It was not a targetted attack at creationism, and I think you have a very flawed understanding if you can’t differentiate the two.

We don’t need to “spread” it like an evangelist would spread “the word of God.” It does quite OK by itself.

Our society is where it is because of our scientific and technological understanding. Promoting this understanding is essential to the continual prosperity of this country. It has a tangible benifit to society in just about every aspect possible. Intellectual resources are more benificial to an economy than physical resources. The spread of knowledge and understanding is one of the most noble undertakings a person can strive for because it is providing the gift of empowerment both of the individual and of the society.

The existance of evolution is not based on belief, in that you are correct. Whether I acknowledge it or not doesn’t mean it isn’t happening around me. The point of spreading understanding of evolution isn’t to make sure it succeeds as an idea, but to make sure we continue to succeed as a society. Your approach is as much a tool for ignorance as any close minded religious idea, because you don’t care about spreading understanding, just letting your irrational hate be known.

Seriously, it’s a waste of time trying to educate people who don’t have the inclination for it. I think it’s much more productive just to dismiss them and concentrate on reality.

If you think it is such a waste of time trying to educate close minded people, do you somehow think it a good use of time to let them know you hate their belief and that you think they are morons?

Personally I am of the opinion it is worth trying. Thankfully people like Galileo and Darwin agree (perhaps worth noting, individuals like Martin Luther King also believed such, even if his message concerned a different subject). At the very least, even if someone who doesn’t accept evolution can be presented it in such a way that they understand it, then they are more likely to be tolerant of it, and by extension its presence in society as well as those who hold it (for the same reason I try my best to understand their perspective). The presence of tolerance alone is benificial to society.

Though I suppose it is obvious I disagreed with your sentiment, otherwise I wouldn’t spend time trying to discuss the subject with you

Atheists and scientists are usually much more open-minded,

Scientists typically are, but there is nothing inherent in atheism that makes it such. It isn’t that you are absent a belief, but rather that you believe there is no God or supernatural elements. This makes you inherently close minded to any possibility of either, and when presented with any evidence for it you would discount it rather than consider it. I’m not knocking you here for that, I happen to be an athiest as well and recognize there are things I am not prepared to accept based off of my belief. My point isn’t to say you are wrong for believing such, just that it does come down to a belief, which means you aren’t truly open minded (a true agnostic is the only one who could claim that, and true agnostics are incredibly rare).