Evolutionary superiority

I guess I'm in over my head here cause I can't make this : fit with this: See here: I ask, "isn't time just a relative measurement?" As in the time it takes a planet to rotate is a day. Is time truly static? If space time bends and curves then the time it takes to get from A to B can change, rite? I'm not sure how these questions are bizarre.To me they seem natural questions to ask. Are they bizarre cause you can't answer? Why is it valid to ask why it's here but not how it got here or from where it came?How bout this question:" If there is a beginning ( T=0 ) how did it begin? " Is that bizarre?

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Yes, that was a bit ambiguous. Try reading: "space-time can indeed bend and curve" as "space time can indeed have bends and curves in it".

Bad tense on my part, sorry. Should have said:

quote:

---

the possibility that space-time is bent and curved gives rise to what we call 'expansion'.

---

The cone is 'bent' and 'curved', in the sense that it is obviously not simply flat. And it is this curved shape of our cone space-time that gives rise to the expansion of the circles, as we move along the axis of the cone away from the apex. It is space-time that is static. Time is not space-time. Yes, this is generally true. If you are close to the Earth, it will appear to take 24 hours to rotate. This is longest it will ever appear to rotate. But it can rotate in a much shorter time! All you have to do is go for a quick journey at close to the speed of light and come back, and you will see the Earth has made a complete revolution in less time than 24 hrs. How much less depends on the speeds you experienced on your journey. You can make the time arbitrarily small, assuming you can survive the accelearions and decelerations required to give you that speed.So the time between two events depends upon the path you choose between those events. But the simplest path (i.e. staying with whatever you are measuring) will always give you the longest time. Not quite - if you have point A on the cone at T=4, and event B at T=6, then the maximum time between events A and B is 2, but the actual time you will experience travelling from A to B will depend upon your chosen path across the cone from A to B. The actual curviness of the space-time along your path as you travel between A and B will affect the particular time you measure between A and B. No, they are essentially meaningless, and missing the point. Because 'how it got here' implies time, and 'from where it came' implies space. But space and time are the very things you asking about! The 'beginning' just marks one end of the time dimension. It is not the beginning of space-time. The reason for why the Universe exists is not found by looking further back in time, in the same way as looking for the reason a ship exists is not found by looking back towards the stern, although in both cases, some clues may be discerned in that direction.Space-time is a timeless 4d entity, not a 3d object bound by time with a beginning and end in time, and this is the cause of the confusion.Do we just believe this because we think it sounds cool? No, this is what the mathematics of Special Relativity and General Relativity tell us. As previously mentioned, they have already proved themselves the most successful theories of all time, despite how non-sensical they sound. So when they tell us something just as non-sensical about the nature of existence, we tend to put away our preconceived ideas and listen... they may just be right.

I get what yer sayin, Now, instead or a time machine lets just accelerate the rate of rotation. A day remains a day, still 24 hours, it just don't take as long to happen. This is what I was asking.Time, as most people understand it,( if they understand it at all.) is relative to surroundings. If you decelerate all the relative motion are you not expanding time? If you accelerate all the relative motion are you not compressing time? If all the surroundings are accelerating how can the accelerations be measured?In this manner, is not time expanding?Like so: Cause if the universe is expanding so is the distance between A and B. No?All this is way off topic but it was kind of a stupid topic anyway.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

I will admit those who hold a Naturalistic world view free of religious belief do tend to think of themselves as intellectually superior. Cocky, Arrogant, Condescending? At times, yes, some can come across this way. With that being said, I have never heard of a Naturalist calling for an Inquisition or a Crusade to forcibly put down those who hold differing world views.Most religions have at their core a belief that the adherents are special and unique and they tend to elevate themselves above others. History has shown such a mind set can lead to very bad things.On a personal level, most Christians I know are decent people who just hold a different world view. At times, however, they can come across with a superiority complex and can be very exclusive.To give you an example of what I mean:My Cousin's Baptist Church has an annual ski outing to Vermont and for the past 4 years I have assisted the church with Instruction. I am an avid skier and former instructor and was offered free lodging and lift tickets
for the 4 day trip in exchange for my service. My time is scarce and is devoted mostly to school, so I was really looking forward to the trip over the President's day holiday. The week before, I was told that my services would no longer be needed. When I asked why, I was gently told that some of the parents of the kids that were attending objected to my presence, as I was not a Christian and member of the church. These people all knew me as trustworthy and responsible.Not only did this make me feel badly, it also changed my personal views on some things. I was offering a service to the group to enhance their enjoyment of a sport; I wasn't there to discuss religion. Perhaps they got tired of their attempts at converting me and that's why I was asked to come along to begin with. Who knows.

Grizz,This: is bold.And this is is not the way I would do things.You say but that don't make it true, however this likely is Uh ya. Me too. Couldn't that be said about any kind of "people" ? Sounds like you had a good ride for a few years, you know, free vacation and all. Now it over. Can't they offer their tickets to any one they want? Are you entitled?Your story may reveal more of you than them. No?

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

I don't think hes was complaining about the loss of the ski tickets as the prejudicial attitude of "some of the parents."

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

With this sentence you blow your entire arguement out of the water: well done.

Bluescat or was he complaining about the loss of tickets because of the attitude? Regardless, this is a church group, not a random gathering. Is it so terible to be "discriminating" about who you associate with. Do you hang out with just anybody that comes around or are you more selective? If I just showed up at your door would you let me in? (I wouldn't.) (unless I had my guitar)This is a social event for families of a common belief system. It doesn't seem completly unreasonable for some folks to wanna stick with their own kind so to speak.Seems to me that there is a common thread amongst humans, to stick to their own kind.Do battle with the rest.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

Larni, Thank you. Do you mean my argument that evolutionists feel superior? Let's see.... if all kinds of people can and do feel superior then, um, evolutionists are people right? So then it is not inaccurate to say evolutionists feel superior. So it seems in attempting to blow my arguement ut of the water" you got all wet.
Nice to talk to you again.
I'll be back soon.

---

The years tell what the days never knew.

What?:The following is to be read in the voice of Stewie Griffin gradually getting higher and higher and higher:You got a good line in play ground logic, there. Does play ground logic do it for you? Get a kick out of play ground logic do you? Gonna apply that logic to all kinds of stuff? Got more stuff to apply that logic too? Got a few non sequitur based evaisions going on, there? Any sign of sophomore logic? Hidding away, somewhere? Maybe all alone? Waiting to come out?So what you really should have written as your title for this rip roaring thread was: some people feel superior.Well blimey, you may just be right.

Westerners typically get more education higher wages than Africans. So does this mean that they are more valuable than Africans?If the value of a human being is based on their education and wage than yes that is correct. If when asking what value people have is determined by what use and consequence they may be to you or the economy this is good for some.Good for those work in trafficking human beings for the sex industry. notable examples being Thailand. These sex slaves should serve their masters well because they earn more.This means that rich economies can exploit poorer economies because they are of more value; they are better than the poor?I'm pretty sure that you do not hold any of the scenario's that I have have given as good ones to reflect a humans value. But if you treat a person as a means to an end these real, common, examples and if you believe that a persons worth is based off their economic value good things to do. Hey its pushing the economy so whos to complain. The girls? Hey they don't have a high prospect of getting an education.My point is that value that is based on your level of education promotes injustice - If you accept that justice is that people get what is their due and that it unjust for someone to get punished for something not of their causing.People have value because they each are unique and have dignity.
---------------------------------------------------------------
One mind less, one world less. - George OrwellEdited by VirtuousGuile, : No reason given.Edited by VirtuousGuile, : No reason given.

I think the point is that more educated people can make more money (in general) for themselves and the company they work for. The worker has to sell her skills and the more sort after the skills are the higher the wage (in general).Education is often the way to aquire these skills.This will of course promote injustice, but them's the brakes. I'm never going to get a job as a steeplejack: I'm afraid of heights. Is it an injustice that I would not be able to get a job as a steeplejack?I think not.The world will always throw up people more capable than others in situations where that capability can be put to good use.The whole point of this thread is Hill Billy having a go at people he/she thinks are being snooty or using fancy words.Now if the fancy words were (to you) everyday words you would wonder what his problem is, no?Even if you did not understand such words you would likely just look them up, no?No one is saying that educated people are worth more than less well educated people in moral terms: there is no suggestion that if you had 20 people and for some reason you had to kill 10 of them that you would give them a pop quiz to see who gets the chop.The very nature of the world dictates that people who can achieve more tend to.

He hit a hot button. The issue is if value is determined by ones usefulness to the economy, then their value as a person is based on what they can give to the economy - or rather they have no value as a person. BTW. Those girls are typically sold or kidnapped into the sex industry under the age of 10.Yes, this isn't an appropiate forum to discuss equilty, justice, oppurtinty, fairness and values.Now about superiority. I have noticed a trend where people who are surrounded by like minded people, tend to be more likely to be disrespectful towards others when dealing with point of views that they disagree with.Everyone has jargon or terms that are specialized to what they do and often even to their circle of friends.For instants in terms of a car a stroke is the length that the piston goes up and down. Its not a magical word; it has a meaning.I remember when my first year at University people used big fancy words. I have to admit they did impress me at first. But I learnt quickly that if someone used a term that I didn't understand to ask them what it meant. I learnt that Big words didn't mean big brain. Gee its taken measurable self control not to get into it .

They are more valuable to some people in the market place yes - as such Westerners are also more expensive so value-for-money is sometimes to be had elsewhere...presumably in sectors that don't require the blessings of the West. The point of my post was the last line. Whether or not someone is more valuable than another really depends on the criteria in use and the criteria in use generally depends on who is using it and when. I was refuting the claim that by asking who do they consider themselves more valuable to? Obviously if 'evolutionists' mean 'evolutionary biologists' then we might get pragmatic answers such as 'the economy' or 'the university of X' or 'people with disease'. You might get personal answers such 'my family' or 'my husband'.So yes, many people infer some value in education. There is nothing wrong in doing so - it can even spur people to help spread the general level of education as many scientists (not just biologists/evolution specialists). However, I don't value my fiancée less because she doesn't have a pHD since I don't pay her to work in a research lab.The underlying direction was straightforward, inferring value in some quality (or lack thereof) does not infer 'superiority' just because the person doing the inferring also happens to have that quality. That could well be the case of course, but it isn't necessarily the case - and so the argument "Evolutionists feel superior." comes crumbling down as a special case. All people are equally vulnerable to feeling superior about having whatever qualities they think they possess that should be valued. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.