Not a God, a creator.

[arthwollipot]

What criteria would you use?

 

[Lonewulf]

What criteria would you use?

Do I really need to explain? Sheesh.

Influence. If you have a lever big enough, you can move the world; that lever would be obviously superior to a lever that could lift a pebble.

I can wipe out a whole slew of insects using poison, bombs, and other weapons. Insects don't even have the intelligence required to even know that they need to fight back for their own survival.

Humans can go to space. Insects can't.

Humans can willfully influence the world. Insects can't. They can influence the world, but not willfully, and definitely don't do much individually. Ten humans can research a major scientific discovery, 10 insects get stepped on unintentionally by me daily, on average.

So, why should population size be the only criterion for superiority or "The Age of <blank>"? Do you have any particular reasons as to why population = superior, even with a lack of influence?

Just remember how superior insects are when humans colonize space...

 

[arthwollipot]

There are more species of bacteria than there are of any other organism on earth.

Bacteria exist in more locations on Earth than any other organism.

Bacteria adapt to new circumstances better than any other organism.

If it weren't for bacteria, the Earth would be filled with the dead corpses of every other creature in existence.

And far and away the most important, if it weren't for bacteria, humans (and other organisms) would not be able to influence anything because they'd all be dead.

If you want influence, check out how bacteria influence the world. It's possible that the earth wouldn't even have a breathable atmosphere if not for the influence of bacteria.

Anyway, this is all off-topic. On with the show!

 

[Tricky]

Population size/weight is the only thing that matters? Not sure I agree.

What criteria would you use?

Food chain! Food chain! Rah rah rah!

 

[qayak]

Just remember how superior insects are when humans colonize space...

Both have already lost the space race. Bacteria aboard space probes won.

I wouldn't bet humans will ever colonize space.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

Both have already lost the space race. Bacteria aboard space probes won.

I wouldn't bet humans will ever colonize space.

Near space perhaps, Mars and the moon. And humans may make it possible for bacteria to. If it is riding on the rockets.

 

[cyborg]

What is it with humans and their need to personify everything?

 

[arthwollipot]

It's all about the humans, isn't it?

 

[cyborg]

That's what they seem to think.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

No, he's making a light-hearted comment on my humorous free verse.

But really, my poem is not just a joke. It has meaning that is appropriate to this thread. Do you want to discuss it?

Hell no. Why would I help you fit me for a "fool's hat?" You say light-hearted, I may not think so. Do you honestly think I read that thing? You must know that a nasty letter can only bother you if you read it. Don't do it. You have to read a little of it to see what it is, but you don't have to read the rest. Spare yourself the experience. If they call you on the phone, hang up.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Through the mini-universe we can see that having a creator, and not having a creator (atheist view) look the same. It is the concept of God, especially in the image of man, that gets in the way.

Well, that is, of course correct. I have sometimes had discussions with deists (I will assume you are basically a deist), and some of them have been going down that path as well.

It turns out that if you start defining God based on the observable universe, you end up with a definition that is, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from atheism.

Basically you end up with a definition like this:

God = The unverse + X

Where X is some hypothetical and unobservable extra.
However, this hypothetical and unobservable extra is unnecessary for explaining the universe. All it serves is to provide a distinction between the atheist and the deist, the difference beingthat the deist assumes it exists.

Hans

 

[cyborg]

Put another way god becomes an impotent word that tells us nothing.

Choosing to personify the universe does not make the universe like a person.

 

[Lonewulf]

There are more species of bacteria than there are of any other organism on earth.

So?

Bacteria exist in more locations on Earth than any other organism.

Bacteria adapt to new circumstances better than any other organism.

And?

If it weren't for bacteria, the Earth would be filled with the dead corpses of every other creature in existence.

And humans can make the earth be filled with dead corpses of every other creature in existance, willfully. Bacteria can't decide, 'cause they're stupid.

And far and away the most important, if it weren't for bacteria, humans (and other organisms) would not be able to influence anything because they'd all be dead.

Bacteria has it's place. But are you saying that humans are meaningless? That they've accomplished or done nothing?

If you want influence, check out how bacteria influence the world. It's possible that the earth wouldn't even have a breathable atmosphere if not for the influence of bacteria.

And humans can modify and change it, or destroy it, willfully. Bacteria cannot do that.

Both have already lost the space race. Bacteria aboard space probes won.

Uh, okay, if you say so.

Somehow, hitching a ride on a human-made shuttle is "beating them to space" in your world...

I wouldn't bet humans will ever colonize space.

And you will probably lose that bet, and I'll be laughing.

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?

 

[D'rok]

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?

I like humans. Especially when they're in a vindaloo with mango chutney.

 

[wollery]

Is it a requirement to hate humans to be on this board? Or do you guys just do it because it's the "cool" thing to do?

It's not about hating humans, it's about pointing out that considering humans to be in some way "more evolved", or "superior", or "more important" than other forms of life is only valid from a particular viewpoint, and from other viewpoints other forms of life can be seen to be "superior".

Bacteria "won" the space race from the point of view that they were the first terrestrial organisms to leave the Earth's atmosphere. They are "more successful" from the point of view that they inhabit a far wider range of habitats than any other organism. They are "superior to humans" from the point of view that they existed long before we did, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. They are "more important than humans" from the point of view that they are essential to life on Earth, whereas we are not.

Conversely humans "won" the space race from the point of view that we were the first organisms to create a means to leave the atmosphere. We are "more successful" from the point of view that we can create means to live in habitats that we would not naturally be able to survive in. We are "superior" from the point of view that we can wilfully alter our surroundings to make them more comfortable for our lives, and have developed the abilities to subjugate almost all other organisms for our own purposes. We are "more important" from the point of view that we hold the fates of all terrestrial organisms in our hands.

Similar arguments can be made for insects, sharks, cephalopods, arachnids......

In point of fact, there's no such thing as a "superior" life form in terms of the whole picture. Yes, we could destroy all the insects, or all the bacteria, or all the other animals on earth with our "intelligence", but that would actually be a very stupid things to do, because they are all utterly essential to our own lives. Also, there's no such thing as "more evolved" since organisms evolve to fill a niche, and if they have no further pressure to evolve will not do so - such is the case with sharks, crocodilia, horseshoe crabs, coelocanths, and several types of insect and bacteria. We are just another part of the complex system of life on this little rock, no more, no less, and certainly no more or less important than any other part.

 

[Tricky]

Hell no. Why would I help you fit me for a "fool's hat?" You say light-hearted, I may not think so.

You won't know if you don't read it. Yes, it is poking fun at you, but gently.

Do you honestly think I read that thing?

Probably you scanned it. It's very short. Most people read all the posts in the threads they start.

You must know that a nasty letter can only bother you if you read it.

Not true, especially in forums. You could have someone say, "What did you think of that letter somebody wrote about you?" In fact, this very thing happened here. Sackett referenced the poem and you responded in a way that sounded distinctly like you were bothered. You said:

Now what the hell is wrong with you? Oh wait. Are you saying that what I said makes as much sense as what you just posted? I just can't believe that you just didn't have anything else to do.

But I'll summarize it anyway and you can read it or not as you choose. The poem points out that trying to speculate on whether or not humans could be like gods is a tad premature since gods (and flying spaghetti monsters) would first have to be shown to exist.

 

[nescafe]

I like humans. Especially when they're in a vindaloo with mango chutney.

Mango Chutney?

 

[D'rok]

Mango Chutney?

I love the Internet.

 

[lightcreatedlife@hom]

It's not about hating humans, it's about pointing out that considering humans to be in some way "more evolved", or "superior", or "more important" than other forms of life is only valid from a particular viewpoint, and from other viewpoints other forms of life can be seen to be "superior".

They are more "more evolved" "superior" and "more important" in reference to what I be talking about.

Bacteria "won" the space race from the point of view that they were the first terrestrial organisms to leave the Earth's atmosphere. They are "more successful" from the point of view that they inhabit a far wider range of habitats than any other organism.

Knowing this, humans will probably add "purposely" sending them off into space, to them going anyway.

They are "superior to humans" from the point of view that they existed long before we did, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. They are "more important than humans" from the point of view that they are essential to life on Earth, whereas we are not.

I salute them. They do a great job in forming the foundation for more complex life.

Conversely humans "won" the space race from the point of view that we were the first organisms to create a means to leave the atmosphere. We are "more successful" from the point of view that we can create means to live in habitats that we would not naturally be able to survive in. We are "superior" from the point of view that we can wilfully alter our surroundings to make them more comfortable for our lives, and have developed the abilities to subjugate almost all other organisms for our own purposes.

Who said we were racing? Why can't we be working towards a common goal, spreading life?

We are "more important" from the point of view that we hold the fates of all terrestrial organisms in our hands.

Similar arguments can be made for insects, sharks, cephalopods, arachnids......

We are the only ones who know it. That is something new. Knowing has added another level to the process.

Also, there's no such thing as "more evolved" since organisms evolve to fill a niche, and if they have no further pressure to evolve will not do so - such is the case with sharks, crocodilia, horseshoe crabs, coelocanths, and several types of insect and bacteria.

I have heard where some bacteria can "hypermutate" and you are saying that some can turn it off. How did they do that, if the lifeform has no input to the process?

 

[Belz...]

Let's say that science was advanced enough to put all it knew about the creation of life, into a box. There they tweak the constants, the forces, whatever, enough to recreate the universe. Though, because of the scale of the creation, in relation to their creators, they would be unable to personally interfere in the lives of their creations.

Life would be left to evolve in the box to the point we are now. Where they reach the point where they "feel" and actively "explore" their connection to the process that created them. Only, some of them would be wrong about a "God" "puppeting" their lives, living forever, or being all powerful. But, they would be right about being part of a universal, purposeful, plan driven by unseen forces.

Gosh, not you again.