Pastelland Forum

Research in abiogenesis is the research of the how. Abiogenesis isn't "herp derp life from non-life, yeah that sounds about right!" They probably are never going to be able to conclusively prove that something happened, but it is pretty likely they will one day find a way life could originate. Life is chemistry after all, it must be possible, even if it didn't happen that way.

Of course scientists are looking into the "how," and sure, Science Fiction may become reality and we could raise the dead and all that good stuff, but not in our lifetime. The way things are going, it'd be miraculous if they could conclude if abiogenesis is a reality.

But I would still want the Creator rather than the Creation any day.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:Truth be told, there got to be something on the other side. We humans are too complexs, too beaityful, too great to just die out like a ordinarry object,

What is complex to you? How do you define it? Is it quantitative? Is there a limit on how complex something must be in order to merit an afterlife?

Because to me, complexity is a relative human construct. A concept we created so we could compare the relative difficulty that comes with comprehending certain things- on an individual basis. For instance, some of my friends here at my college campus thing derivatives were kinda easy. I do not think derivatives are easy and I feel a little bit worse about myself every time they say that. There is no set quantity on how complex derivatives are in calculus, because it's relative. Heck, the same applies to beauty. Just switch the words out and read the last bit again.

As far as we know, the Universe doesn't conform to human concepts. It operates on principles that don't usually make sense or come to us with anything resembling relative ease, and is quite counter-intuitive (see: wave-particle duality). The only way the Universe could operate in accordance to human constructs such as complexity or beauty is to imply that the Universe thinks, and therefore, invoking God.

Anteroinen wrote:Basically what should be done, although I don't really think non-hunting civilians have legitimate reasons to have guns.

I think one of my biggest problems with the legislation being passed about the American legal system right now is that- not only does it not at all relate to the slowly deteriorating educational and mental health care in America, but also because they never seem to consider (at least not from what I've heard), that whether or not you think the average citizen should be allowed to own a gun, the guns are already out there and circulating. Even if legislation passed, completely repealing the second amendment and the recall of weapons started, there would still be guns out there. Worst of all, a recall would have the least effect on outlaws, removing the arms from law-abiding citizens and leaving criminals untouched.

That's not even considering the fact that some elected (arguably so if you want to get into some real deep-shit political debate here) officials simply do not understand what a gun even is. I suppose, however, that I digress. This is more related to the legislation regarding gun control, and not the actual concept itself.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:But I would still want the Creator rather than the Creation any day.

As someone who is just entering adulthood and tasting it's freedoms and responsibilities for the first time, I can attest that the Universe does not give a rat's anus what you want. You have to take whatever it is you can, and discipline yourself not to be frustrated when you are denied.

The fact that so many guns are out there is a good point too, and that they are so ingrained into the rural culture in the states that you would literally have a revolution on your hands if you tried to take them away. I'm serious, regardless of how high an ideal we set for getting rid of guns, the practical matter is that those who hunt and kill predators as a part of their daily life form a very large part of the population here in the states, and I can guarantee that if we did try to create legislation to take their guns, there would be hell to pay.

Personally, I'm borderline anarchist: I think it is the job of individuals to govern themselves and aid each other. We are all responsible for governing ourselves through self-education and self control, and if we do this then centralized government is largely unnecessary and governing would be in the hands of every person and is decentralized. I do think some issues are best handled at a larger scale, but I would prefer as much as possible be handled locally. I think the last 100 years of US history has shown that a large central government just creates a siphon for greed and corruption. All that to say that I don't want the only people in the country to have guns to be the government. I don't trust a large centralized government to have a monopoly over anything. If the whole culture were to abandon the use of guns, that would be one thing, but so long as the government is carrying, I want common people to carry as well.

On the after life/value of human life issue, it is interesting the spread of opinions we have. There is, of course, no objective way to determine any of these opinions, nor whether there is or is not an after life. I think we can learn from each other's perspectives on this issue. I often wonder if belief in after life, and how you view the value of humanity, if it is all simply a matter of an individuals personality, as in they believe what they do about these issues based simply on what their need is to believe, what their character expects of the world.

Redafro wrote: I think the last 100 years of US history has shown that a large central government just creates a siphon for greed and corruption.

This statement is a bit of a jump--the United States isn't the only country with a large central government, and in order for this to be a reasonable thing to say, *most* of those countries would have to also display an unusually high frequency of greed/corruption/etc. in the government.
Furthermore, why just the last 100 years? There have been plenty of pretty terrible people in the U.S. government before that.

Redafro wrote:On the after life/value of human life issue, it is interesting the spread of opinions we have. There is, of course, no objective way to determine any of these opinions, nor whether there is or is not an after life. I think we can learn from each other's perspectives on this issue. I often wonder if belief in after life, and how you view the value of humanity, if it is all simply a matter of an individuals personality, as in they believe what they do about these issues based simply on what their need is to believe, what their character expects of the world.

I find its closely related to upbringing. Not just the parents' role, but also friends, environment, political atmosphere, etc. These factors pull together to create the person's first perception of the world, a perception that provides the foundation for the changes that follow. This makes changing opinions difficult, as often a person's entrenchment in a belief is a result of that belief's role in their metaphorical foundation. Changing one thing often requires the reevaluation of other beliefs that currently confirm the belief that is being changed.

Before I build off this metaphor anymore, summary; upbringing has a strong influence over the individual personality, which shapes beliefs. Now that I've summed it up it sounds rather elementary. I wonder if I could make a statement about the color of the sky sound deep and complex.

Now that I've summed it up it sounds rather elementary. I wonder if I could make a statement about the color of the sky sound deep and complex.

Yeh Doc. Brown, you been watching too much Internet Porn. Either that or you been smoking toenails.

I don't trust a large centralized government to have a monopoly over anything.

It's not that bad. Finnish government has a government-granted monopoly over alcohol and betting, for instance, and that's working out pretty fine.

EDIT: What any government needs though, is transparency.

WorldisQuiet5256 wrote:

Now that I've summed it up it sounds rather elementary. I wonder if I could make a statement about the color of the sky sound deep and complex.

Yeh Doc. Brown, you been watching too much Internet Porn. Either that or you been smoking toenails.

Seriously, what the fuck, WiQ

It was a joke.
Raxas signature is

"What happens in the future, doc?"
'"The internet, Marty! There's free pornography in the future! An endless supply of free porn!"

The smoking toenail came from my math teacher tough.