dimreepr

Of cource not but how does this argue my point? I didn't say the system shouldn't be in place just that idea's will be lost. (edit) The point being that ethics has it's place and shouldn't be used where it can only hinder.

Firstly please don't make the mistake that our prehistoric ancestors were less intelligent than ourselves we just have more education than they did. I think Gods evolution went something like this: The tribe's leader has a problem to solve, how to control the tribe? He knows the problems that uncontrolled people can do. Hunt one animal too much and it disappears for example. He has a light bulb moment and thinks I know I'll scare them into not doing that. He invents the spirit world and assigns different spirits for different everyday things that need careful handling and so reduce the excess' we humans can go to. A moral compass if you will but we humans are scallywags and will insist on inventing new things and as a consequence the list of spirit's increase. This means they become less and less credible to the young of the tribe. The tribe is getting bigger and bigger and the young always ask bloody stupid questions that, by accident, reveal a fundamental truth. The current tribe leader (a clever bugger) decides that too many spirit guardians, is just too confusing, especially as the number of new inventions begin to increase. He decides the simplest way to achieve this is one spirit guardian and so God becomes that guardian.

Not really how do you know it works for the medical profesion? How many ideas has the system prevented?

Any censorship on ideas will, given enough time, lead to an idea being dismissed that would have lead to a, for instance, cancer cure. Even in your example it is just possible that the research in this area would give a researcher an idea that branches off and becomes benefitial to humanity.

Maybe but it did work for a while.

I hate to ask but as so often repeated in this thread, numbers please...

How can you tell which idea will lead to a cancer cure and which will lead to the death ray?

I have to agree, Jesus was real, however insted of devine. I think he had a huge intellect and realised the only way to solve the problems of the day was to re-invent the excisting religion, around himself. In challenging the authorities, he new his death was inevitable and so wove this into the myth he new he was creating. A very great man.

Isaac Asimov touched on this idea in his foundation series, psychohistory is an elaboration of this idea.

Hadn't thought of having a signature, untill now. Watch this space...

Interesting read thank you

I'm from England so I feel your pain...

I joined this forum because I thought I had a brilliant idea that should be shared with the science community. Sadly I was wrong but it did get me thinking, if I am unable to recognise my own incompetence, can anyone?If, for instance, a doctor miss' a diagnoses through lack of knowledge and is later correctly diagnosed. Would the doctor recognise his/her incompetence and seek the knowledge he/she lacks or would he/she simply shrug and say with a sheepish grin "oops missed that one" and carry on with the day. From what I have observed of human nature I would say the latter is most likely. In industry whistleblowing or flagging up incompetence is more likely to be met with hostility, than rewarded for the potential savings this act could make. How much damage is this phenomena secretly doing to our society?

Does it really matter whether the phenomena is man made or naturaly generated it does have a consequence for us so shouldn't we prepare for the worst?

Ok so why would the creator over design the eye?

I didn't argue Islam is not religious just that it's scientific community was at least equal to that of Christianity.

I have experience in this area having a very young girl make very very obvious sexual advances, just short of acually asking me to have sex. She is very atractive and I was very flattered but how could I? It did however get me thinking. Why should this have been wrong? As previously stated sex doesn't have to mean penetration. She clearly wanted to explore her sexuality. so why would it have been so wrong for me to allow her to do so?

Your belief is quite irreleveant here, but even if your statement, that the eye hasn't changed for this period of time only establishes the fact that need is necasary for evolution to work.

Surely this depends on the moral attitude of the leader, I believe, from your reply that you have a good moral compass. Given that this is my opinion of what a good moral is. If the leader in question has a corrupt moral outlook then, I believe, he/she would use any method he/she could find to suppress any ideas that could challenge their leadership.

Thanks you've been very helpful. Could you reccomend a suitable book that is around the 3rd/4th years degree level please.

Your completly correct. Unfortunately democracies greatest asset is also its greatest enemy.

Thank you for destroying this hypothesis, I'm afraid I really don't have the time or means to read books easily. Could you please summarise the reason, just to finally rid me of this question. Thank you in advance.

The fact, that every atom in the universe occupies a different energy level and that changing the eneregy level in one atom will change the energy level for every atom in the universe. This connectivety is what informs the idea.

Why would evolution over design the eye, evolution responds only to need.