The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 12:49 (5610 days ago) @ David Turell

Dr. Turell,
> > My REAL view--is that we bring in outside assumptions (deities) if and only if all possible other alternatives have been completely exhausted. Though I can only guess at your case, I just don't think that complexity + a paradigm shift in humanity are enough to invoke a designer. 
> 
> But I do. - Of course you do! I just don't know why, or rather, don't understand why you're willing to actually take a position on this issue. - I mean, we both agree--fully--that the existence of a creator is truly an unfalsifiable claim, and its something of a... problem to adopt such positions, especially concerning the wealth of undiscovered information about the universe. - 
> But I have studied chaos and understand your points, but even though chaos has an underlying organization doesn't mean that it can make life and its underlying code.
> - Well no--I'm not trying to oversimplify it, but it is a fact that in the last 30 years the mathematics of chaos demonstrated to us that extremely complex phenomenon could follow some very unintricate and simple rules. - And though I'll be seen as nitpicking, *true* chaos is entirely random and non-deterministic. The "chaos" of "chaos theory" isn't. - We both agree that science is the means with which truth is discovered, so that's why I do find it difficult for anyone to *rationally* adopt a position such as yours. Before I would adopt such a position I would have to posit a mechanism such that the supernatural could interface with the natural. - 
> You are right but we medical folks watch amazingly complex life under attack. The truth is doctors don't cure anything. We just give the body time to catch up with the onslaught. 
> - This I know well. Mucho on the years in a hospital pharmacy. - > My form of belief is not really comforting. I agree with Adler that God possibly cares about us 50% of the time.
> - Not the kind of comfort I was thinking of. Mine would best be described as romanticism. - > - > Remember H. sapiens have been around 200,000 years with a big brain case 10% smaller than Neanderthals. The theory is that we have had language about 50,000 years. We know from archeologic study of the N's they stayed relatively primative, with an unknown ability for speech (brain-wise, but their laryngeal anatomy was pretty good for it). - Interesting--and true--but isn't the theory currently that neanderthals are not part of our ancestry? I remember very distinctly that they think that H. sapiens destroyed neanderthals. Which if you know anything about mythical traditions is a good suggestion of the 'giants' that exist in both Norse/germanic mythology as well as the nephilim in the judeo-christian tradition.