# A World without People



## Abu Bishr

Hi Guys

Earlier today I put up a thread, but it was research-based so it got deleted. I hope I have a little more success with this one.

The aim of this thread to is to get us to muse and reflect on what the world would be like without human beings (whether our demise be brought about through natural disaster or through our own destructive devices). How central or detrimental are humans to the world? Would the world be a better a place if there were no humans? With the humans gone all their problems and sorrows will also be gone, but so also will their joys and happiness, and so also will their legacy in the form of this civilization that has been built up over who knows how long. Gone also will be our devastation and destruction of the environment. Does this also mean that Good and Evil will also be gone (if we accept that they don't exist in and of themselves)? 

On another level (religion aside), who would make sense of the Universe? I recently watched a documentary on Discovery Channel about the Universe, and towards the end the commentator remarked: "It was as if the Universe invented a way for *us* to know it". Is the Universe then unknowable without us? Is it necessary for us to know the Universe, does it require our knowledge of it?

There is a myriad of other questions, but these will more than suffice.

I'd like to know your own reflections on the issue.


----------



## ireney

I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't really understand what you are saying. I world without humans would be a world without humans. It would be different since there wouldn't be any humans. And since all that we call culture and civilisation are human things, why would a dog care if they are gone?
If someone believes in life after death of course they will always live within those who live after death. If not, as I said, who cares?

From my point of view there is not Good and Evil deserving a capital so it would be a world without humans  

As for the "_as if_ the Universe invented a way for us to know it" a) note the "as if" b) we tend to view everything from an anthropocentric point of view. Why not do the same for the Universe? If there are extraterrestrials maybe they will try to make sense of the Universe. Or maybe they don't/would not care. I don't know. Saying that the Universe requires our knowledge of it is considering it a logical entity that wants to communicate with us.

P.S. Of course if you believe D. Adams there are always the dolphins


----------



## cuchuflete

What if someone opened a Culture forum to discuss differences between cultures of people, and no people were available to participate, having all turned into dolphins?  Would there be cultural content in the very framework of the unpopulated forum?

What if all the balls in the world suddenly disappeared?  No tennis games, no golf matches, no rowdy football/soccer fans killing cops or rioting, no lacrosse, no ping pong with or without diplomacy, no endless baseball games, no muddy rugby players, no elegant cricket matches, no kids pretending to be Indianapolis Colts or Chicago Bears.  Would there be a desire for sport?

What if the universe closed for winter vacation during the universal winter, whatever that may be?  Would mud turtles still discuss anthropology while waiting for food to swim by?

The metaphysical implications of questions such as these could lead one to choose reincarnation as a jar of peanut butter.

Who says the Universe needs making sense of?  Is the universe so egocentric that it needs people to meditate on meaning of the universe?  Why not ponder breathing air conditioned air in an air conditioned air conditioner factory?


----------



## CrazyArcher

The world will do fine (reminds me of "Children of Men"). In a couple of centuries, little evidence of human existence will be left, and the Earth will just get back to its normal evolution.
Will it be a better place? Define what is "good"... Good for whom? For blue whales - probably yes. In terms of "good" and "evil", I can't state an opinion, because I consider these terms artificial, so without humans that will maintain them in their minds, there will be no distinction.


----------



## .   1

CrazyArcher said:


> The world will do fine (reminds me of "Children of Men"). In a couple of centuries, little evidence of human existence will be left, and the Earth will just get back to its normal evolution.


Which is to produce another dominant life form not dissimilar to us.
Volcanos are the means by which The Earth seeds it's surface with life.
The Earth is far too fecund to not support intelligent life.
It is my belief that any planet capable of supporting life is doomed to endure the effects of that life on the planet.
In the case of The Earth that life is based on oxygen and carbon but the end result of a highly fertile world is intelligent life.

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

. said:


> Which is to produce another dominant life form not dissimilar to us.
> Volcanos are the means by which The Earth seeds it's surface with life.
> The Earth is far too fecund to not support intelligent life.
> It is my belief that any planet capable of supporting life is doomed to endure the effects of that life on the planet.
> In the case of The Earth that life is based on oxygen and carbon but the end result of a highly fertile world is intelligent life.
> .,,


Ok, given that there are differnt kinds of 'intelligence',
wisdom not necessarily being one of them.
So it would seem then, that the Earth would get a few
million/billion year break from us or 'anything not too dissimilar' to us? Maybe quicker, since we'll start
'all over' from a higher level of evolution - cockroaches.

P.S. I only hope they will appreciate all the thought we have
put into getting to this point!


----------



## french4beth

> The aim of this thread to is to get us to muse and reflect on what the world would be like without human beings (whether our demise be brought about through natural disaster or through our own destructive devices). How central or detrimental are humans to the world? *the world existed without us, will exist once we're gone  *Would the world be a better a place if there were no humans? *define better?  *With the humans gone all their problems and sorrows will also be gone, but so also will their joys and happiness, and so also will their legacy in the form of this civilization that has been built up over who knows how long. *also some questionable "legacies" such as genocide, pedophilia, wars, etc. will be gone *Gone also will be our devastation and destruction of the environment. N*ature does a pretty good job of reinventing itself; but don't forget, energy doesn't go away, it just changes; e.g. after a forest fire, there is much regrowth *Does this also mean that Good and Evil will also be gone (if we accept that they don't exist in and of themselves)? *good and evil are human inventions; it seems to me that in nature, it's survival of the fittest, with no judgements involved (good & evil don't apply)*
> 
> On another level (religion aside), who would make sense of the Universe? *why try & "make sense" of it? why not enjoy it as it is? *I recently watched a documentary on Discovery Channel about the Universe, and towards the end the commentator remarked: "It was as if the Universe invented a way for *us* to know it". *very interesting!  *Is the Universe then unknowable without us? Is it necessary for us to know the Universe, does it require our knowledge of it*?nope - it's been around a long time, and will be around long after we're gone *


I've also seen a timeline that chronicles the earth's creation, etc.; if you think of the earth's history in terms of a 1 year period, humans didn't come on the scene until after 11:59pm on December 31st - in other words, the world was around a long time before any humans appeared!


----------



## TRG

There is a school of thought that is preoccupied with all of the worlds problems caused by humans and seems to wish for a world in which there were fewer and perhaps no humans or, if there were humans, they only had primitive cultures and therefore did not represent a threat to the earth or each other. It's sort of a death wish for what we now call "modern civilization". Fortunately, there's probably less than 1000 of such people in the entire world, but they all show up to protest whenever there is a meeting of the G8.


----------



## .   1

I am one of them but I don't go to stupid rallies. What's the point.
The proof of the pudding for me is that my country supported an entire civilisation that remained virtually unchanged for something in the order of Fifty Thousand, that's a five followed by four zeros, Years (50,000 years), ten times longer than The Pyramids of Giza have existed, and still had a completely inhabitable place to live.
They lived a charmed life and were described by First Fleeters as the most happy and contented people on the face of the planet.
A mere Two Hundred Years later we are standing on the brink of collapse.
Two hundred is one two hundred and fiftieth (0.004%)of the time that Koori people had in this place and we've sucked it almost dry.
The U.S.A. is the same.
Our advanced civilisation is writing cheques that our decendants may not be able to pay.
Many people rush from the cradle to the grave.
See Harry Chapin's 'Cat's in the Cradle' for a lyric opinion on our rush and nervous haste.
Fathers work too hard when their kids are growing up hoping to give the kids a good materialistic life so the kids miss the dad and the dad promises himself that he will stop to smell the roses but he just keeps treading the corporate mill and eventually his life is over and he has just enough time to see his son ignore his grandson and his father and he dies in debt to the bank.

The unrestrained joy of such an existence escapes me and the planet is paying the price of keeping all the lights on all night in all the offices in all the major cities in the world so that we can bask in the reflected glow of our own foolishness.

.,,


----------



## Bonjules

TRG said:


> There is a school of thought that is preoccupied with all of the worlds problems caused by humans and seems to wish for a world in which there were fewer and perhaps no humans or, if there were humans, they only had primitive cultures and therefore did not represent a threat to the earth or each other. It's sort of a death wish for what we now call "modern civilization". Fortunately, there's probably less than 1000 of such people in the entire world, but they all show up to protest whenever there is a meeting of the G8.


Yes, TRG, and it makes hardly any difference if there are
1ooo, 1ooooo, or a million or what they do or not do. Mankind is like a huge freight
train or a mega-mega oceanliner. Once it gets going,
it will take a long time to stop or turn around. We are truly one with the animal world, which is why we are acting like the microbes. Or, as Pogo says....


----------



## danielfranco

I just wanted to mention that the commentator on the show was probably trying to say (without actually saying it) that he agrees with Brandon Carter's Anthropic Principle, but the "weak" flavor of it, which seems a bit tautological.

But, the world without humans?
Well, please refer to: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus... And, why not? Heck, we'll mention Pluto and his sisters, too.

Wait... That doesn't quite work as a comparison... Hmm... Ah, yes! Earth would still be probably chock-full of lifeforms. In the highest mountains, in the deepest oceans, on the ground and under it. Earth would still be a planet crawling with messy, smelly, slimy, and aggressive life-forms.

I don't know that any intelligent life-form would rise anew (has it ever, ha-ha?) because that seems to be some sort of emergent-behavior accidental doohickey, but I think life would still abound and carry on.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> I don't know that any intelligent life-form would rise anew (has it ever, ha-ha?) because that seems to be some sort of emergent-behavior accidental doohickey, but I think life would still abound and carry on.


It is possible that Chimpanzee is just waiting for this scenario.
There is ample evidence to suggest that we are not evolved from the only intelligent primate family tree.
We apparently coexisted with Cro Mangnon and Australopithecine Robustus and Homo Habilis among others yet we came out on top so if the dice are thrown again it is inevitable that someone will come along to fill the void.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

Ah, but those guys were also humanoid or whatever you wanna call the Homo family. They were just different [*gulp*] actual races of humanoids.
It seems some paleobotanists have suggested that the mammals on this planet seem to be here on this planet on a sort of "trial subscription", but that in a couple million years there probably won't be any mammals left on the planet.

So long, and thanks for the fish, apparently...


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> Ah, but those guys were also humanoid or whatever you wanna call the Homo family. They were just different [*gulp*] actual races of humanoids.


Yes that is true but it is thought that they did not necessarily have a common recent ancestor and had arisen independently.
It would appear that the humanoid shape is a most general purpose, non specialised configuration to support the incredibly energy consuming large brain required for higher intelligence on land and that the opposable thumb is the key.
Once we are gone another basically humanoid will arise and eventually will develop the opposable tnumb and the whole scenario will be replayed.

To answer the original question with the presumption that we would not be replaced by a highly developed species I consider that the world would be much like parts of Africa.  The fang would be long and the claw red.

.,,


----------



## Abu Bishr

. said:


> It would appear that the humanoid shape is a most general purpose, non specialised configuration to support the incredibly energy consuming large brain required for higher intelligence on land and *that the opposable thumb is the key*.
> .,,


 
I said "religion aside"  . If evolutionists are to convince creationists they will have to do much better than the "opposable thumb theory" which to me at least (and no offence intended) is more akin to a "leap of faith" or to an "age-old piece of religious dogma" that evolutionists are clinging to and have passed on from one scientific generation to another  . But then again the evolutionists might not be out to convince the creationists rather they are just merely trying to explain to themselves how intelligent beings evolved from non-intelligent ones without recourse to supernatural being. Whatever the case may be, the direction of evolution (based on evolutionary theory) appears to be upwards to highly intelligent and more complexedly formed beings (See "Ascent of Man" by Bronowski). But then again why should evolution tend or ascend towards intelligent beings? From an evolutionary perspective, I think, it is merely arbitrary that intelligent beings who can make sense of the Universe (based on mathematics and physics) should exist. Another theory of evolution that gives purpose and direction to the whole process is "Creative" or "Emergent Evolution" of the Bergsonian kind, but then again this would be mixing up science with non-science, and would belong more to realm of philosphy and religion.

If it's true that the Universe invented a way for us to know it, then maybe the Universe was waiting for us to come along so as to make sense of it, after all our brains seem to be built and adapted to understand the physics and maths on which and according to which the Universe operates, or again is all of this just a human construction of reality i.e. we read physics and maths into a world in which - in reality - there exist no physics and reality?


----------



## Fernando

In a world without humans, cows will produce metan. The greenhouse effect will warm the Earth, ice caps will melt and all life in Earth will be destroyed.

Thousands of years later, Vulcano unhabitants will settle, until they will destroy each other in a nuclear war.


----------



## Mate

Abu Bishr said:


> But then again why should evolution tend or ascend towards intelligent beings? From an evolutionary perspective, I think, it is merely arbitrary that intelligent beings who can make sense of the Universe (based on mathematics and physics) should exist.
> 
> 
> 
> You think that based on ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's true that the Universe invented a way for us to know it, then maybe the Universe was waiting for us to come along so as to make sense of it, after all our brains seem to be built and adapted to understand the physics and maths on which and according to which the Universe operates,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would concur with the anthropocenctric theory (click): _"...According to *anthropocentric theory* of environmental ethics the moral duties we owe to the natural world are derived from our duties to each other as human beings. This theory views the whole system of standards and rules governing our conduct with regard to natural environment as grounded on human needs and interests alone..."_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or again is all of this just a human construction of reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most likely in my view. Evolutionary theories explain brilliantly how we came to be what we are.
> And so far I think that nobody has a reasonable explanation on why we are here.
Click to expand...

 
Mateamargo


----------



## Mate

Fernando said:


> In a world without humans, cows will produce metan. The greenhouse effect will warm the Earth, ice caps will melt and all life in Earth will be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> No Fernando. The large amount of domestic ruminants supported by our environment is there just to fulfill human needs. If such a need is a real need or just another human abuse, well that's another question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of years later, Vulcano unhabitants will settle, until they will destroy each other in a nuclear war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Vulcano? I'd like a Mars Attack better. Those Martian critters are so funny  .
Click to expand...

 
Mateamargo


----------



## cuchuflete

Abu Bishr said:


> I said "religion aside"  .


  And obviously you absolutely had no intention of sneaking in a religious diatribe, because the point of the thread is to discuss pink carnations, appropriately placed in fine crystal vases, precariously perched on the backs of killer whales who subscribe to the Bergsonian theory of ping pong.   That's just to put things in perspective, and highlight the opposable thumb aspect of bogus reality theories superimposed on methane producing (farting!) cows, which are real.   
There is something about honest questions, cleanly and directly presented, that is appealing.
The lack of human subterfuge is a worthy goal, according to the flimptfreenerist theory of evolution, thus leading to the ineluctable conclusion that the universe needs an oil change, a new fan belt, and spark plugs, to counteract the theosophical gobbledygook that infests the sub-cutaneous array of pseudo-metaphorical irrationality causing strife amongs pickle producing
beings, and resulting in tub-thumping hedonistic indifference.




> If it's true that the Universe invented a way for us to know it, ...


 then clearly, the
generally accepted indifference of cockroaches to using a backhand, overhead-spin shot in ping pong is overrated.    The anthropomorphic notion of the universe as having invented anything, or giving a flying fig about a minority of the life forms that pollute it, suffers from the pathetic fallacy,
a sore molar, and three ingrown toenails.  Botox injections are part of the accepted regimen for
such cases.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Mateamargo said:


> You think that based on ???


 
I think that based on the Principle of the Excluded Middle. The evolutionary process is either purposive or arbitrary, I think it is not the former, therefore I think it has to be the latter (arbitrary).


----------



## Mate

Abu Bishr said:


> I think that based on the Principle of the Excluded Middle. The evolutionary process is either purposive or arbitrary, I think it is not the former, therefore I think it has to be the latter (arbitrary).


 
Thank you Abu. 

Until this last clarifying post I thought that your position was the contrary.

Mate


----------



## Abu Bishr

I'm sorry if the way I've put things has caused confusion. Up to date, I have not stated my position (which incidentally is a religious one as is clear from my posts in other threads). I've merely stated how I think the evolutionary process is according to non-Bergsonian evolutionists. I've thought of expanding the thread to include the views of organized religions, but I don't think the occasion is calling for that, not yet. I find Creative Evolution very interesting but I myself don't subscribe to it. I'm particularly interested in how people who do not subscribe to organized religion answer the socalled Big Questions in Life, if there is such a thing, and engage some of these answers, and point out in these answers what I perceive to this, that or the other, and then see how my interlocutor responds to it. At the end of the day, I just want to know what people think about these matters to see for myself where I might stand in relation to them.


----------



## Cache

Abu Bishr said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Earlier today I put up a thread, but it was research-based so it got deleted. I hope I have a little more success with this one.
> 
> The aim of this thread to is to get us to muse and reflect on what the world would be like without human beings (whether our demise be brought about through natural disaster or through our own destructive devices). How central or detrimental are humans to the world? Would the world be a better a place if there were no humans? With the humans gone all their problems and sorrows will also be gone, but so also will their joys and happiness, and so also will their legacy in the form of this civilization that has been built up over who knows how long. Gone also will be our devastation and destruction of the environment. Does this also mean that Good and Evil will also be gone (if we accept that they don't exist in and of themselves)?
> 
> On another level (religion aside), who would make sense of the Universe? I recently watched a documentary on Discovery Channel about the Universe, and towards the end the commentator remarked: "It was as if the Universe invented a way for *us* to know it". Is the Universe then unknowable without us? Is it necessary for us to know the Universe, does it require our knowledge of it?
> 
> There is a myriad of other questions, but these will more than suffice.
> 
> I'd like to know your own reflections on the issue.



If the world would not have people living in it, it were be peaceful, in contrast to what is now.

Have you realised human beings is the only specie who kill each other?

:S

Without minding about natural disasters, as global warning, we are destroying our planet


----------



## .   1

Abu Bishr said:


> I said "religion aside"  . If evolutionists are to convince creationists they will have to do much better than the "opposable thumb theory" which to me at least (and no offence intended) is more akin to a "leap of faith" or to an "age-old piece of religious dogma" that evolutionists are clinging to and have passed on from one scientific generation to another  .


I'm not interested in convincing a creationist of anything.
To answer your question based on your terms requires something like anauthor to finish a novel with, "And then the little boy woke up.  It was all just a bad dream."

In a universe where an interventionist God existed, presumably created in the image of a more evolved interventionist GoD who was the reflection of an even more senior interventionist GOD, God would intervene with His little packets of magic fairy dust or incandescent frog spit and 'bing' another group of His images out of lumps of clay and ribs ripped out of previous attempts to inhabit His Earthly Paradise knowing neither death nor disease nor sorrow and unless God paid more atention than He did on His previous botched attempt then God would immediately condemn his creations to a life of suffering and torment on the off chance that they can enjoy themselves after they have finished living the test He would then set to seperate His success stories from His failures and then he would send one of His most irritating creations to lie in His name by asking tricksy tricksy questions to continually push His religious barrow while making damn sure to not actually say God but to hide even that with a pissy little euphamistic G-d therefore consigning the name of his Lord And Saviour to the same dunce corner as words like fuck.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Abu Bishr said:


> I'm sorry if the way I've put things has caused confusion. Up to date, I have not stated my position (which incidentally is a religious one as is clear from my posts in other threads). I've merely stated how I think the evolutionary process is according to non-Bergsonian evolutionists. I've thought of expanding the thread to include the views of organized religions, but I don't think the occasion is calling for that, not yet. I find Creative Evolution very interesting but I myself don't subscribe to it. I'm particularly interested in how people who do not subscribe to organized religion answer the socalled Big Questions in Life, if there is such a thing, and engage some of these answers, and point out in these answers what I perceive to this, that or the other, and then see how my interlocutor responds to it. At the end of the day, I just want to know what people think about these matters to see for myself where I might stand in relation to them.



I doubt the sincerity of that remark, as the thread was obviously begun until false pretenses.
If there were no humans on this planet, there would be less duplicity, and far fewer attempts at 
proselytizing, which would be a very good thing.

The BIQ Questions in Life?  Ha!   Every religion and sect and tribe has its very own definitions of what these are, and the answers are dictated by the way the questions are phrased.


----------



## RAPHUS CUCULLATUS

Abu Bishr said:


> I said "religion aside"  . If evolutionists are to convince creationists they will have to ...


 waste time confusing
science and voodoo, which humans are better at than some other species.
Has a creationist ever been known to be convinced of anything other than its own righteousness?


----------



## .   1

RAPHUS CUCULLATUS said:


> Has a creationist ever been known to be convinced of anything other than its own righteousness?


Virgin birth, talking to the dead, the ability to effect minds over vast distances, reanimtion, immortality, mind control, magic...

.,,


----------



## Benjy

I fear this thread is deviating rapidly. Let us remember the topic, lest it be closed 

Thanks,
Ben


----------



## Abu Bishr

At least now we know what YOUR real views are on religion. Why did'nt you just state your views clearly in the first place instead of first doing a character assisination of me and then accusing _me_ of duplicity. For people that are supposed to be objective minded you "defend" your views with an almost religious fanaticism. Your response to my criticism of the "opposable thumb theory" is almost as if it is an article of faith. Your entire response has just confirmed that for me.


----------



## .   1

Abu Bishr said:


> At least now we know what YOUR real views are on religion.


When have I ever indicated anything other than what I just said?
I do not pose tricksy questions with a hidden agenda to prove that my non religion is better than your religion.  I am not critical of you for holding your religious views.  That is totally your right but it is not your right to constantly pepper threads with sly, snide little snippits about the superiority of your particular imaginary friend as opposed to some other person's imaginary friend.
Any discussion that comes down to 'a leap of faith' will do nothing other than strain my credibility muscle.
Why is grass green?  
A scientist can give me the answer involving different materials and their ability to absorb or reflect visible light.  This answer is verifiable through experimentation and is able to be repeated by others.
A priest tells me that the grass is green because Little Baby Jesus likes it that way and that I can not comprehend the mind of God so I must take 'a leap of faith' to understand why grass is green.

Thanks for yelling the YOUR bit at me while you were whispering your real intentions to only yourself but you can not seriously think that you are not totally transparent to a person who can read.

The Earth is too fecund to not support a dominant life form of some shape and political bent and that protoplasm is will consider itself to be people.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Abu Bishr said:


> At least now we know what YOUR real views are on religion. Why did'nt you just state your views clearly in the first place instead of first doing a character assisination of me and then accusing _me_ of duplicity. For people that are supposed to be objective minded you "defend" your views with an almost religious fanaticism. Your response to my criticism of the "opposable thumb theory" is almost as if it is an article of faith. Your entire response has just confirmed that for me.



Just on the off chance that this may have been sent my way--

If you wished to open a thread to discuss creationism vs. evolution theory, and try to reconcile
views that are perpendicular, rather than parallel or in opposition, you could have done so.  You could also have used Search, to find other existing threads on the topic, and appended your views.
Instead, we have had a transparent subterfuge, lots of diversionary statements, and then, once others had already attempted to discuss the supposed topic stated in the first post, we find that there is a hidden motive—albeit badly hidden.

The earth can very well do without dishonesty, from whatever life form, and of whatever belief system.  

Is "the Universe" an aware entity? Is it a system? Does the loss of any species cause it to hurt?
Sure we can speculate about any and all of that. We can do so openly and honestly, as best we may be able, on the basis on any belief system we may happen to adhere to.  Or we can play games.


----------



## .   1

Abu Bishr said:


> I think that based on the Principle of the Excluded Middle. The evolutionary process is either purposive or arbitrary, I think it is not the former, therefore I think it has to be the latter (arbitrary).


A mate of mine just translated this for me and it appears that you are claiming to believe in an arbitrary evolutionary process or did you get yourself all twisted up with your own duplicity and double negation and hoist yourself on a petard of your own invention?

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

Abu Bishr said:
			
		

> The aim of this thread to is to get us to muse and reflect on what the world would be like *without human beings*



That was the stated thread topic.  Accordingly, any discussion about human evolution seems totally off-topic, and out of place in this particular thread, doesn't it?

If there are no humans in the world we have been asked to muse about, they won't be doing any evolving.
They also won't be getting created, as that too would violate the stated thread topic, which is about a 
human-free zone.  Right?

2+2≠7 under either evolution theory or creationism, so neither of those topics has diddly squat to do with this thread.


----------



## Abu Bishr

cuchuflete said:


> Just on the off chance that this may have been sent my way--
> 
> If you wished to open a thread to discuss creationism vs. evolution theory, and try to reconcile
> views that are perpendicular, rather than parallel or in opposition, you could have done so. You could also have used Search, to find other existing threads on the topic, and appended your views.
> Instead, we have had a transparent subterfuge, lots of diversionary statements, and then, once others had already attempted to discuss the supposed topic stated in the first post, we find that there is a hidden motive—albeit badly hidden.
> 
> The earth can very well do without dishonesty, from whatever life form, and of whatever belief system.
> 
> Is "the Universe" an aware entity? Is it a system? Does the loss of any species cause it to hurt?
> Sure we can speculate about any and all of that. We can do so openly and honestly, as best we may be able, on the basis on any belief system we may happen to adhere to. Or we can play games.


 
I have to say that you people read so much into what I might or might not have intended with my thread as if to be almost clairvoyant. When I opened my thread, I thought let me see how people think about certain issues from a slightly different perspective (A World without Human Beings), to see what people come up with. Who says that I have to put things down in black and white. How did I know what was going to be discussed? Did I know that someone was going to mention something about the opposable thumb, did I? You guys are giving me more credit for the outcomes of threads that I'm worthy of. Not even .,, knew how his thread on "Jesus loves Osama" was going to turn out. Honestly, what was he thinking when he opened that thread? 

Now, I did'nt know that challenging these views is off-limits. Since when are scientific theories such that they cannot be challenged? Popper's Falsification Principle encouraged scientists to put their theories to the test, because in this way science develops stronger theories. You might argue, well scientific theories cannot be falsified by religious dogma, only through empirical studies and experimentation, but discussing this would take us into the realm of the Philosophy of Science.

Now, when I said what I said about the "opposable thumb" I was merely inviting .,, to explain this theory in its strongest form or resort to another theory to explain how human intelligence evolved. I admit that my language was somewhat inflammatory, but my point was merely to show that scientists can also cling to theories as if they are religious beliefs. Is this true, Yes or No. I, honestly, did not expect a barrage of insults and people reading my intentions and accusing me of hidden agendas, and prosletyzing. Give me an example in of where I was prosletyzing. I don't need to prosletyze when I believe that I can argue my point rationally and logically without resorting to religious dogma. 

I'm willing now to debate with you these issues rationally and logically without recourse to religious texts, if you so want. To tell you honestly, I'm disappointed with your response as it is founded almost wholly on suspicion.


----------



## cuchuflete

My reply is in Post #33.


----------



## Abu Bishr

. said:


> A mate of mine just translated this for me and it appears that you are claiming to believe in an arbitrary evolutionary process or did you get yourself all twisted up with your own duplicity and double negation and hoist yourself on a petard of your own invention?
> 
> .,,


 
I suggest that you don't go ahead with this argument, because it will just expose your ignorance on this matter. I suggest that you revisit the posts from which you culled this one, and then you'll learn that you can't take things out of context. If after this post you insist to bark up this alley, then well, you leave me no choice. By the way, I think your friend did a good job under the circumstances -i.e. in interpreting it outside its context. I have no issue with him.


----------



## Abu Bishr

cuchuflete said:


> That was the stated thread topic. Accordingly, any discussion about human evolution seems totally off-topic, and out of place in this particular thread, doesn't it?
> 
> If there are no humans in the world we have been asked to muse about, they won't be doing any evolving.
> They also won't be getting created, as that too would violate the stated thread topic, which is about a
> human-free zone. Right?
> 
> 2+2≠7 under either evolution theory or creationism, so neither of those topics has diddly squat to do with this thread.


 
Well, nobody was talking about humans evolving. They already "evolved" into intelligent beings. The discussion was about Chimpanzees evolving into intelligent beings. It will be their turn once the humans are gone. Tell me how on earth could I have predicted this according to my agenda?


----------



## Abu Bishr

cuchuflete said:


> My reply is in Post #33.


 
Don't give me this. Engage my post in full.


----------



## cuchuflete

Your post in full is an attempt to excuse a load of off-topic writing.  As such, it too is off-topic, as would be an extended reply.  Read post #33 again.  It explains why your prior posts and post #34 are off-topic.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Read my post 37 and you will see why you're wrong.


----------



## cuchuflete

I don't really care if creationism was dreamt up by a chimpanzee, however evolved, or by some higher life form. It has nothing to do with the thread topic you proposed. Neither does human evolution.  Whether those two views can coexist or are opposed is a fine topic for another thread, and unless you wish to apply them to tarantulas and crayfish, they have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, as proposed by you.

If other life forms—in a world without people—create forums, I wonder if they will look kindly on devious shenanigans masquerading as rational discourse.  Maybe they will eventually create their own version of _Planet of the Apes_, to espouse conflicting right and wrong ideas about how they came to be the dominant species.
Maybe they will bicker about thumbs.  Maybe they will invent codswallop that tautologically justifies itself by reference to what some may believe, in all sincerity, to be divinely inspired writings.  Maybe some of them will evolve to the point of inviting others to discuss mangoes, when what they really have in mind is attracting an audience to tell about breadfruit.


----------



## Abu Bishr

Just tell me if I get it. Others can discuss at length evolution on a thread which apparently I intended for something else, and if I, for example, turn around and challenge evolution, then I've sort of exposed my real intention?


----------



## cuchuflete

If your real intention was to discuss what you said you wanted to discuss in post #1, why are you spending so much time talking about anything and everything else but the topic in post #1?

Your words do more to raise questions about your motives than they do to address the thread topic.


----------



## ireney

*The topic's question has been answered by quite a few forum members. However it seems that the thread either had or somehow developed an off-topic religious agenda. Since the discussion has strayed "irrevocably" from that which was stated in the original question to be the subject, the thread is closed.*


----------

