Splash
No.1 The Smiths
No.3 The Sex Pistols
No.10 Take That????
What happened?
on a lighter note......what do you think?
here's my top ten.
1) beatles.
Splash
No.1 The Smiths
No.3 The Sex Pistols
No.10 Take That????
What happened?
it struck me, as i guess it has a lot of people, that there are so many threads from both americans and the rest of us that seem to descend into america bashing.
i thought it might be quite nice to have a thread solely (and i mean solely - if this just turns negative i will call foul) on what we think is great about america.
as a brit who has lived and been over a number of times there are many parts about america that i think are great and thought is would be healthy to have a positive thread for a change.. so a starter for ten (with a few gross generalisations thrown in):.
It struck me, as I guess it has a lot of people, that there are so many threads from both Americans and the rest of us that seem to descend into America bashing. I thought it might be quite nice to have a thread solely (and I mean solely - if this just turns negative I will call foul) on what we think is great about America. As a Brit who has lived and been over a number of times there are many parts about America that I think are great and thought is would be healthy to have a positive thread for a change.
So a starter for ten (with a few gross generalisations thrown in):
I realise that is only eight but thought I would save a few back. The more I think about it the more I think American's should be thankful they live where they do (although I know most of you are )
the entire time i was gone it was nagging at me.
i hadn't been previously baptized, so leaving wasn't that big a deal.
now i'm back in the swing of it, going to all meetings and field service.
I thought the same when I first read it Mr Woods. Thought I would see how it panned out but he has not come back to post again. Very dull.
we have so many hearing the voice of jesus on the forum i thought i would start a thread for everyone to be able to share what they head from jesus or any other diety they hear from.
i'll kick it off.
i heard several messages to share today already.... "man the weapons console, mr. chekov".
<Gary Linekar but it was better with Des Lynam, Terry Venables and Jimmy Hill>
first of all iam a agnostic.
i,am curious, you who are atheist.
what or how do you deal with a life or death situation.
I often go into a fox hole when it is christian hunting season. The critters always crawl deeper and deeper into the hole they have dug themselves into though.
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Ninja. If the only evidence for evolution was the tiny drift in a genetic pool for a particular breeding population of organisms I would grant you that this would not be strong evidence that evolution by natural selection explains all the diversity in species. It would be evidence for it, just not conclusive evidence. The genius (or fortune) or Darwin was to actually be able to reach this conclusion with even less evidence than this as he had no understanding of genetics. If Darwin had not been around then it is likely we would still have exactly the same theory of evolution that we have today because all the empirical evidence since then points to broadly the conclusion he reached.
Reminds me of the conversation I had on the train with a Christian early in the week (which I may post on)
Christian: "Well, god exists whether you believe in him or not"
Me: "Well evolution happened for billions of years before there was anyone around to believe in him"
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Some really good posts here. simon17 - I think it is very interesting that we will be the first known organisms to with the ability to change our own genes to modify them for our environment. Still evolution - but evolution by conscious selection. Who knows how that will pan out.
Agree with the comment about whether consciousness and self awareness are unique to humans. I am inclined to think not as it appears some animals exhibit behaviour that is very close to that exhibited by ourselves. But that is still an anthromoporhic view of the world. If what we call consciousness is a behaviour on a continuum rather than a discrete trait if it is beneficial for our environment we can expect to see this aspect of human nature becoming more developed and complex. What this means for human evolution I couldn't even begin to imagine any more than my pet dog can imagine what it is like to be a human (I am guessing - she seems to know a bit too much at times).
Is it truly beneficial from an evolutionary stand point and will aid our long term survivial and will appear in other organsims? I guess it will entriely depend on the challenges presented by the environment in the future.
King Soloman: BTW, evolution is largely a non-directed venture
I agree but disagree. It is not directed in the sense that there is no master plan of any description trying to move an organism from A to B. However, direction is provided by selection pressures, whether from the environment through natural selection or through man. But given man is just part of the environment the selections we make on which genes to propigate in a particular species are really only natural selection anyway. I guess the problem is that the word 'direction' implies an agency controlling something, which is why we try to shy away from it when talking about evolution.
To go back to the OP, I think that there is no need for the presence of a deity to drive evolution, and that if there was a deity controlling which genes are propigated he goes around things in a pretty disorganised way.
thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.
the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.
it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.
Twitch
All extinct life was successful in that it initally replaced something "inferior"
Agreed with everything you said but pulled this out because it is interesting. Evolution has no concept of 'inferior' or 'superior' - unless it is theistic. Evolution by natural selection merely selects organisms with genes that code for proteins that are best at coping in the environment at any given time. Inferiority is an anthropomorphic view of the evolutionary process. There is no reason to suspect that consciousness is anything but an evolutionary cul-de-sac that will never be repeated. The majority of biomass on the planet are simple organisms with relatively few genes and have changed relatively little over 100s of millions of years compared to the genetic codes of large 'more complex' organisms that have an average species life span of I think 1.5 million years. This suggests that natural selection favours the small and 'inferior' far more than the large and 'complicated'.
This is unsurprising. A large species like a human has 23000 genes that work in a complex network with the ability to pass genes on only occurring slowly. Such species cannot cope with environmental change very well compared to animals with far fewer genes and rapid reproduction cycles. It will be interesting to say whether our apparent self-awareness actually makes our extinction quicker as our environment changes rapidly or prolongs our presence as a species.
Good topic Crofty.
well after 3 crap jobs here in the uk i have secured 2 job offers in 2 days from australia !
one in queensland and the other in nsw hunter valley.. wage is better in nsw and relocation cost's/flights covered etc.. will be on 100k aud as a senior radio engineer for the state emergency service radio upgrade by motorola tetra/p25 for the fire and rescue service.. .
i have been working on this for over 12 months as some of you know, we have a 457 visa sposored by the employer and will be able to get pr after 2 years.
Maitland is one of the nicer towns. I used to live in Cessnock. Went back a couple of years ago and it had changed a lot for the better. The whole hunter valley has. It is a big coal mining area as you probably know and a few areas are a bit grim but then you can say the same for everywhere. Cessnock has all the vineyards and has designs on being very posh. It gets hot. And I mean hot. You better get into rugby league as well.
well after 3 crap jobs here in the uk i have secured 2 job offers in 2 days from australia !
one in queensland and the other in nsw hunter valley.. wage is better in nsw and relocation cost's/flights covered etc.. will be on 100k aud as a senior radio engineer for the state emergency service radio upgrade by motorola tetra/p25 for the fire and rescue service.. .
i have been working on this for over 12 months as some of you know, we have a 457 visa sposored by the employer and will be able to get pr after 2 years.
Where in the Hunter? - I used to live there.