[-Rudy-]

You're all going to die. Your bodies are going to rot in the ground.

Sorry, but that's the sad truth.

As for your spirit? Who knows..? I'd love to come back to this world as a pair of Eva Longoria's underwear though.

[Kyoseki]

Originally Posted by WinstonWolf

Thus denying evolutions main tenet of survival of the fittest, by allowing the unfit to breed and piss in the gene pool for another generation.

Yeah you're right, we should have just let say, Stephen Hawking die...

Advancing society is more important than advancing as individuals, natural selection can only take you so far, because it's based entirely upon environmental conditions, a species only has to evolve to the point where it's able to tolerate those conditions.

Unless the conditions change, there is no longer an impetus for change.

As technology progresses we can replace natural selection with artificial selection (not as scary as it sounds) - we can cure birth defects and hereditary diseases in a single generation without eugenics or similarly distasteful and immoral approaches.

Originally Posted by WinstonWolf

When most of our contemporary problems are solved, why not; until then it is a waste of resources.

In case you missed it, the Universe is essentially made from energy, understanding how to extract and harness that energy just might help a bit.

Pure science always gives rise to engineering, as soon as mankind dreams it, we usually build it.

Originally Posted by WinstonWolf

I think a lot of mankind's problems are due to the rabbit like breeding of the unfit.

There have been a few other people who thought like that who were allowed to gain positions of real power; it rarely ends well.

[War Eagle]

Interesting correlation but that's about it. While statistics can point out relationships between multiple factors the numbers alone don't explain why those relationships exist.

[jb4]

Originally Posted by WinstonWolf

Thus denying evolutions main tenet of survival of the fittest, by allowing the unfit to breed and piss in the gene pool for another generation.


When most of our contemporary problems are solved, why not; until then it is a waste of resources. I think a lot of mankind's problems are due to the rabbit like breeding of the unfit.

I don't think 'fittest' means what you think it means in this context...

he called it "survival of the fittest," with "fit" meaning best adapter - not necessarily the biggest and strongest. Correctly understood, though, natural selection is survival of the fit enough. It is not, in fact, only the individuals who are most perfectly suited to the environment that survive; reproduction, after all, is a matter of degree, with some rabbits (or humans or spiders or oak trees) reproducing at higher than average rate, and some at lower than the average rate. As long as an individual reproduces at all, thought, it is fit, even if some are fitter than others

http://books.google.com/books?id=03b_a0monNYC&pg=PA37&dq=%22survival+of+the+fit+enough%22&sig=3MzPHIVm2LR7jIB-AahJeAjsqyo

we are not pinnacles of evolution, no species is. we're just good enough to get by

[WinstonWolf]

I think nature gives mankind's less intelligent members a greater breeding instinct to offset the natural disadvantage they are at. Any trip to an ER will prove that. But without disease, and Hyenas/ Dingos carrying their babies off in the night as a balance, they can now all grow and starve, because we have denied nature it's mechanisms.

[BLS33]

Originally Posted by WinstonWolf

I think nature gives mankind's less intelligent members a greater breeding instinct to offset the natural disadvantage they are at.

You clearly don't understand how natural selection works. Larger brain mass and higher intelligence was selected in our early ancestry, it is how we came to be. Humans clearly cannot compete with most animals on a physical level when it comes to getting food and things like that so we needed to be smart. Nature doesn't give breeding advantages to stupid people, sex drive is under hormonal control and I don't think you can conclusively show that dumb people have a higher likelihood of larger testosterone output. Artificial selection caused by human intervention may allow stupid people to propagate, nature surely doesn't.

[LibertyBell]

[QUOTE=jb4

or it could literally mean what it says (according to some it [i]has[/i] to mean what it says) - so if there can't be reconciliation over this mundane passage, how can there be for the totality of scripture



Everyone interpretes the bible differently, but you also need to use common sense when doing so.(no offense)
You have interpreted the passsage '"Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.", as--once you are a non-believer/sinner, you can't get into heaven even if you are 'born again' later in life.
But, if you have read the Bible you will know that Jesus turned a lot of people away from sin. Why would they do that with no reward at the end? Wouldn't they be the 'born again christians' of their day?
So, now knowing this, you have to look at the passage again and clearly see it makes no sense the way you (jb4) interpreted it to be.

[kiksroks]

[QUOTE=LibertyBell;5337388]

Originally Posted by jb4

or it could literally mean what it says (according to some it [i

has[/i] to mean what it says) - so if there can't be reconciliation over this mundane passage, how can there be for the totality of scripture



Everyone interpretes the bible differently, but you also need to use common sense when doing so.(no offense)
You have interpreted the passsage '"Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.", as--once you are a non-believer/sinner, you can't get into heaven even if you are 'born again' later in life.
But, if you have read the Bible you will know that Jesus turned a lot of people away from sin. Why would they do that with no reward at the end? Wouldn't they be the 'born again christians' of their day?
So, now knowing this, you have to look at the passage again and clearly see it makes no sense the way you (jb4) interpreted it to be.

clearly jb4, clearly...

[RockWoRM]

Originally Posted by jb4

if you can't keep up, why bother participating

funny! :

or it could literally mean what it says (according to some it has to mean what it says) - so if there can't be reconciliation over this mundane passage, how can there be for the totality of scripture

or U don't know what your talking about and/or U are not putting it into context and/or U don't know what the scriptures mean in the first place and/or U don't know the rest of the Bible says and/or U are not willing to look and/or U are over rationalizing???
Could be anything. Hard to say. I really do'nt know... I have a hard time keeping up!

[jb4]

Originally Posted by RockWoRM

funny! :

or U don't know what your talking about and/or U are not putting it into context and/or U don't know what the scriptures mean in the first place and/or U don't know the rest of the Bible says and/or U are not willing to look and/or U are over rationalizing???
Could be anything. Hard to say. I really do'nt know... I have a hard time keeping up!

considering I've never actually seen you type out 'you' I'm going with the later....