kumquatq3

I'm diggin the weather add-on they added. Good stuff.

France? WTF?

Long time no..um...see

You keep talking about the individual, which is fine (people see things in lots of ways), it just makes me think I'm not getting my point across tho. Not because you don't agree, but because your not addressing my point. It doesn't destroy "self", it does but thats not the point, it helps ensure that the gene lives on and survives via another replicator (host). The gene, by the mother nursing her child, has helped insure it's future survival in the gene pool. and talking about people complicates it as well, as I've noted. Here are two book reviews, I barely glanced at them, but they should do a more complete job than I can right now: http://educ.queensu.ca/~science/main/profd...ooks/PDBRCT.htm http://users.bigpond.net.au/marshan/book7.htm

Sorry about them Rams Not anymore Colts>Denver Denver>Pats Pats>Colts AFC rock, paper, scissors

No, your right, as I said I'm realllly rushing (note the drastic increase in spelling and grammer errors, I mean, more than normal). Dawkins arguement is that humans are the lone being to over come their genetic coding. Intelligence and all that. Again, rushing, "unnatural" is the wrong term. However, if the genes have programmed her to be "altruistic" to the child so that the genes may continue on...is that "unselfish"? On the surface that's how it appears, the act however, is driven by her gene's selfish motivations.

Sure, I was providing some non-intelligent (in any sense that humans are aware of) organism that DOES act in an altruistic manner. So it is perfectly possible for altruism to spontaneously occur in nature. Is this evidence of the hand of god? Or just another permutation out of the infinite variety of survivability traits available? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only on the surface. Remember, the books called the "Selfish Gene" From article: Aka their DNA and such continue on, even when the "host replicator" dies off. I'm going to just quit for now, because I am obviously not getting my point across in these rushed burst. I just want to say that Dawkins is part of a group who argues evolution on a genetic level, not on the individual or group level. It's about the gene's survival. EDIT: Altruism, if evolution was on the individual level, would poss serious problems to theory of evolution. After all, if the "best" of a species kills itself for a weak one that violates what evolution is about. Then you get evolution for the group and that fails to....and I'm going to be soooo late with these papers...**** me.....

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Again, looking at it from the individual level. This will have to wait to tues, as I'm trying to finish two papers for a midnight deadline tonight + class all day tomorrow, however: You could argue that, but that wouldn't prove that humans arn't always naturally self-interested (Remember, Dawkins argues that human intelligence may be able to overcome such gene self-interest). It may be argued that it is counter-intuitive that the life guard risk his own life to safe that of another's (he is being paid btw). So, if that is counter-intuitive, what drives him to do it? Hint: Think genes! Aka Dawkins argue that altruism isn't natural, is cultural. Hence the term "meme". as I said, it's deep, and me rushing through it isn't doing it justice at all.

Dawkins is not credible as a thinker then, if he would argue that there are no altruistic facts. He might have many necessary arguments for his viewpoint, but he would not have sufficient counterpoints against the well-established arguments that altruism, in fact, exists. We went over this with Rand some time ago in the gaming forum. I knew I shouldn't have brought it up, as I'm not about to write an essay to defend it, nor did I state it perfectly, I'm sure. However, just because you decided something in a gaming forum doesn't make it so. I do believe you're looking at altruism from a individual level, which is not where Dawkins makes his argument for both evolution and the "selfish gene". The book is called the "Selfish Gene", here is one of those nibblet thingys, not his words: AHumans, via being super dupper smart, can be altruist in theory. Just as we can do alot of things contrary to our instincts because of our intelligence.

3 gods violates the 1 god principle

LOL, small problem tho Since he is all powerful, technically he can hide something from himself, but then....if he didn't know where he hid it or what it is he hid, he no longer knows everything. This means he violate Omni-potent status and the universe implodes or something.

3 TD passes at the half, 18/22 passing at the half, 202 passing at the half, 9.2 yards per pass I post the half stats, because at 41 points at the half, he will get pulled pretty soon. O, 41 points at the half = new franchise record...and no defensive points Did he get a free ride today? " That's 6/7 games played by Rex with MVP numbers. please keep your humble apology brief :cool:

Would that not violate omnipotent status? He/she/it could automatically make the ones that make him best, as he already should know what suits him best. He/she/it knows everything.

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous books attacks the point. I don't have the time to spell out the argument, but basically he sees evolution as about the genetic level. Rather the group or individual. ...I don't think that makes sense as is, but I don't have time for 3 page paper.

sadly, if anyone goes, I'd say Jin. Eko can't die. Lone black man left on the show.

K, well, the IGN article also notes that "This game crashes far too frequently." So there is obviously something going on

The whole thing? The demo or the game?

Crappy too. She basically stole the presidency twice. "He's doing you a favor. You need the support of the military" She irks me.

Evolution is simply incompatible with certain religions, at least, the as far as the leaders of those religions would argue. As for Darwin, he was "agnostic" like Einstein. While he was unsure about a "god", maybe even outright believing in some sort of god (again, possibly in a far different way than many might take that), they seemed to be fairly sure that the "God" of the bible (hence the religion) was off. Darwin in reply to a letter: "I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God". They, however, were not against faith in general. At least, not to my understanding of it. Anyone see it another way? Along those lines, as an atheist, I have no beef with the "god" of Einstein, a sort of force that kicked everything off but doesn't watch mankind and isn't "active" in our day to day lives. Likely not omni-potent either. The general spirituality that means you just think there is something grander than ones self (essentially animism) isn't what I see as what Dawkins is talking about.

IGN gives it a 7.0 http://pc.ign.com/articles/742/742365p1.html They gave MOO3 a 9.2, so this game must cause physical pain on their scale.

It seems your view is fast becoming one of a snow wall

What's the problem with nonliteral interpretations? Don't freak out when somebody puts something forth that's more than a fundamentalist strawman for you to tilt at. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nothings "wrong" with it. I'm fine with it if their all metaphors. Wasn't the point of that post either. However, if all the miracles if the stories are just metaphors (Jesus rising from the dead is really a metaphor for the religious spirit being renewed or something) than what are you really left with? And is it still sacred? If it's all metaphors, do the metaphors end, and the faith begin at some point?

I'm kinda curious here, how so? Because, on the surface, it's not evolution if it is "guided" by god (tho I'm prolly getting your meaning wrong).

Kor might send you some if you ask. Apparently he's got some to spare!

Maybe there's a god. Maybe it's the best way to deal with the unknown. Hard to say. Ideas? I have no specific argument here.