Evolution v Creationism

[Kadagar_AV]

ATPG>>> I applaud your first post...

ajaxfetish>>>

I know you guys have carried on along this line, but this is the point where it's easiest for me to address. Science does indeed rely on certain assumptions about the nature of the universe: assumptions which cannot be proven, however difficult it may be to imagine them being wrong.

Yes AND no. "Rely" is the wrong word to use. If we would all one day wake up and realise that we are all someones imagination then science could deal with it. Again, science is neutral. Change the facts and science will change with it.

religion however is static, why else would religion have fought against science so hard?

There is some assumptions such as: "I think, therefor I exist". These are NOT universal TRUTHS, but something we can universably agree on. Religions assumptions is something the world as a whole can NOT agree on. No matter what religion you choose you will always belong to a minority.

So to compare the basic assumptions of religion and science is not doable. And they are def not on an equal footing.

This makes no sense to me. Why should I need to prove my religion to you? What does it matter to you? I hate fish. Do I need to prove to you that fish are abominable, or can't I just hold that as a personal opinion, even express it in a public setting, and be tolerated for it? I have no interest in proving your pink invisible unicorn belief wrong. I really don't care whether you believe in them.

If I was proselytizing you, or trying to convince you my faith is correct, then I could see a reason for you to take issue with me. But just refusing to tolerate me for my mindset?

Where did you get that from? You might want to re-read what I had written.

My point was: religion is based on faith *am I repeating myself, I think I am*. If you want a scientific debate, you will have to leave faith out of it.

We can either have a discussion where you base your arguments on a faith in god, and I base my arguments on the belief in a invisible pink unicorn... Or we can decide to leave faith out of the debate and instead back our arguments up with scientific arguments.


Rhyfelwyr>>>

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested.

Science can never prove that a faith is wrong. And since creationism is based on faith, science can't prove it wrong. Science can only adress the scientifical claims creationism makes, however, science can never attack the foundation of creationism (and have no intent on doing it either).

If some people want to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, or in God, or Allah, or Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box and so on, fine... Science has nothing against it! In fact, very many scientists belong to one religion or another.

Do you think I am a Christian because I read the Bible and it convinced me, or instead that I became a Christian and then felt compelled to read the Bible?

Who cares? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This topic, creationism versus evolution, at least focuses on two different specific theories, but the underlying argument is the SAME. Faith does not rely on evidence, and exists in spite of evidence. Science is a different animal entirely, but some compare the two as equals and call one a scientific theory when it is not, and the other a religious theory when it is not. Because we are comparing apples to unicorns, there will be no common ground, no consensus, and no forward progress for the human mind. The discussion was a dead end before it began... religion is not science and religious theories are not based in science and cannot be compared to science. They are different things.

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

[Kadagar_AV]

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

Such as?

"there is a creator?"... or?

[Ironside]

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

And they are also often forgetting the most important thing to remember about science: Most hypothesies will be wrong and are always incomplete (due to not being sure about ever reaching THE correct answer), thus you can find flaws in the theories. But usually it's a modification that's needed and not the complete rewriting that creationists wants to.

For example, it would probably surprise most people to learn that fossil evidence strongly indicates evolution follows a quantum/logarithmic, not a linear time scale, as most theories would have predicted.

Personally, it makes perfect sence. It is how life acts: It always tries to adapt, no matter how the deck is stacked (the genes). So rapid changes gives rapid adaptation. There's also some quite fresh research about the expression of genes, that's very influencial and flexible. Shows signs of Lamackism for example. Wouldn't surprice me if that's a major part of the development of new species.

[Reenk Roink]

Maybe I misunderstood, but I think Reenk Roink was simply arguing that the metaphysical preumptions which creationism makes does not mean that science cannot be used to prove it, as Kadagar suggested. I don't think Reenk was suggesting so much that evolution has dubious foundations, rather that creationism's own foundations does not mean that science cannot be applied to it.

Having said that this is complicated so I could be totally wrong.

No this is indeed part of my position.

My interest at this point is about the demarcation from science from creationism, the problems that exist with certain criteria.

No, I believe Crandaleon and reenk have it right. Evolution and creationism both make testable claims that rely on assumptions. So instead of going on about how they are incompatible, and there can be no common ground, why not evaluate the testable claims made by creationism?

Exactly!

This whole discussion isn't about the correctness of the assumptions anyway, I merely pointed the metaphysical assumptions of naturalism and realism to make the point that when a system (I hesitate to say theory because I must speak of creationism here and some people get mighty riled up about that) is said to be testable and falsifiable, it is NOT speaking about the testability and falsifiability of the metaphysical assumptions it rests on.

This is why I haven't bothered to address Kadagar anymore, who I think sees me as some sort of creationist and believes I am using the bible when I haven't even so much as referenced it until now.

Or Askthepizzaguy who despite noting my denials of things attributed to me sees my position as some kind of radical skepticism and makes me out as having the claim that science and religion are the same because neither can be proven.

[Reenk Roink]

And that evaluation has already concluded that creationism is wrong, unless "God did it" is a valid argument. Occationally they do have a relevant point, but it's often clouded by either going into "you're wrong thus I'm right by default" or having no valid alternative explaination (after all, science is about trying to get the most correct answer, getting THE correct answer is impossible) or one that can easily be debunked by some more research on the subject.

Yes! The best way to proceed against creationism is to show that its claims have certainly been put to the test and falsified.

For example, young earth creationism's claim on the age of the earth has not held up very well against the testing. Is this not more convincing then saying creationism is not testable and occupies a whole other division than science?

[Kadagar_AV]

reenk roink,

A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

reenk roink,

A) Do you agree that creationism as a model totally fails if you remove god from it?

B) Do you agree that the idea of a god is un-testable and a matter of own belief?

Simple yes/no answers is quite ok :)

Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)

[Rhyfelwyr]

My view is brainwashing.

So I brainwashed myself?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm not trying to prove creationism I'm just asking how strong the evidence for evolution is.

1) Life is self-replicating

2) This replication has variants through mixing (sex) and mutation

3) Not all life replicates at the same rate


Voilà. Neither of these three maxims is in much serious dispute. Just take it from these three. One can even deem '3' superflous.
It follows that evolution is one of the strongest, most elegant explanatory theories of science.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar, how carefully have you read the thread?

Simple answer on a scale of 1 to 10 3 is quite ok :)

I fail to see your point?


Rhyfelwyr, are you american?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Creationism could be exactly the same as normal science, if you explain the Big Bang by "God did it". You can also dispute there was ever a Big bang, there are alternative theories, however all science seems to point at an origin of the universe and even precious fractions of a second thereafter, mathematically speaking.

The only claim creationism can make that's any different from actual science is how, and the order in which, things were created. The how is God; that's not exactly testable, is it? And in which order, that's not quite testable at this point either, but we do have strong evidence from the fossil record, from observing thermodynamics and gravity and the current motion of planets, stars, and the galaxies, the redshift, and all other physical phenomena which seems to lead to the conclusion that events happened along a path very similar at the very least, if not exactly like, current Big Bang theory and the resulting explanations about the motion and settling of objects in the universe.

What claim, Rhyfelwyr, Sasaki, anyone.... what claim does creationism make besides God did it? Is there a specific dispute with evolution or big bang? If they are saying everything poofed into existence 6000 years ago involving a supernatural deity, there is no evidence of that; it's pure belief. If they are saying it happened millions or billions of years ago but the process has been sped up by God, there's no evidence of that either. Some believe in an inflationary period of the universe based on math, but that didn't last very long in the cosmological sense.

Creationism covers a wide variety of theories, from the plausible (Big Bang, but not in the Godless sense... Big Bang being evidence of God's existence ) to the implausible (Biblical creationism from 6 to tens of thousands of years ago, with God creating creatures specifically in a certain order which seems to have been disproved by the fossil record and many other things that we think about evolution of cells and organisms) so perhaps we should... define our terms.

*scary violin noise* *shower stabbing scene from Psycho*

If creationism is just current scientific theory, but coupled with "I think God is the reason behind the science" then whatever, that's valid enough. But if you say "Scientific findings by the majority of scientists are wrong because my religion says.... plus this theory by a religious scientist which has been discredited or can never be proven says..." then it's not science, it's religion.

[Strike For The South]

I didn't get shot into an acidy hole, beat out 100 million look alikes, force my way into an egg and lose my tail to get shot out of said hole and then immedaitly worry about the meaning of life and why we are here. I'm going to secs and booze have fun playing Plato.

[InsaneApache]

So I brainwashed myself?

So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal?

[Pannonian]

So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal?

I prefer a Navaros-type Jew, ie. someone who used to be a Christian, but decided the New Testament was heretical and that the Old Testament was the way to go. I'd vote for him in an election, just to see what kind of government policies he'd propose.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyfelwyr, are you american?

Yes. My repeated claims to being Scottish, the order of flags in my sig, are all lies. Further, Methuselah made up the myth that I am Welsh, and later Cornish, just to further hide the fact that I am in fact American.

OK sorry for being sarcastic but I have a sore head, no I am not American.

1) Life is self-replicating

2) This replication has variants through mixing (sex) and mutation

3) Not all life replicates at the same rate


Voilà. Neither of these three maxims is in much serious dispute. Just take it from these three. One can even deem '3' superflous.
It follows that evolution is one of the strongest, most elegant explanatory theories of science.

I wasn't arguing against that, and so I probably haven't defined my terms as ATPG suggested. Creationism as I used the word meant that God put people on the earth at some point seperate from the animals, and so we don't have any ape-like ancestors. No need for it to be just 6,000 year ago either, or the other stereotyped young earth creationist stuff.

So are you trying to tell me that you woke up one morning, having never heard of christianity, never been exposed to the bible and decided that it would be nice if you became a christian?

Why not a hindu/moslem/buddhist/zoroastran/b'haism/scientologist/moonie/jew/sikh/jainism/baal?

For a start, only Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, but I'm not Jewish) offer the idea of a God anything like the one I imagine. Islam is about weighing up your good against your evil, meriting entry into Heaven by good your works. Christianity is about admitting you are sinner and no man could ever deserve to see Heaven - I know which one is appropriate for me at least.

Also, from your point of view, cultural influence is hardly equal to brainwashing.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I wasn't arguing against that, and so I probably haven't defined my terms as ATPG suggested. Creationism as I used the word meant that God put people on the earth at some point seperate from the animals, and so we don't have any ape-like ancestors. No need for it to be just 6,000 year ago either, or the other stereotyped young earth creationist stuff.

1. Why is our DNA 98 percent compatible with a chimpanzee? And the evolutionary ancestors of the chimpanzee still related to human DNA to a gradually lessening degree?

2. Why are our bodies covered in hair, why do we have similar blood, brains, bone structure, internal organs, why are we mortal, have animal-like instincts, fears, impulses, etc?

3. Why does the fossil record show modern humans appearing around the same time many of the other genus Homo went extinct?

4. Do you not see the connection between modern man and Neanderthalus?

5. Why did God create all these other species and why are they not mentioned in the Bible?

6. If God created all species without the use of evolution, why are new species evolving constantly, and throughout the billions of years life has been on this planet? Why does it not mention the GRADUAL creation of all species, and why does the Bible get the order of creation all wrong according to all scientific evidence?

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Seems to be an endorsement of evolution to me. Now, is it really so strange that if God created all creatures this way, he could create man the same way, using basically the same parts and DNA as a chimpanzee? Why are ALL the other species on this planet related to one another through genetics and evolutionary processes, but not human beings, yet that's what the evidence shows?

Why would God choose man to be the only living being not descended from the primordial form of life? Why, if that is so, is he so similar, not unique in size or strength or speed, and so enslaved to his desires, his passions, his fears and prejudices, excepting through education and training to overcome it?

Man existed once as a wild, barbarous, hunting animal without a spoken language or form of laws or religion or philosophy, according to all evidence to date. Man also co-existed with other now extinct examples of the genus Homo, and the spread of Man seems to be the reason they were wiped out. But their fossils exist, and they exist at the same time as Man, and they are even more closely related to Man than the chimpanzee.

But don't take my word for it. Please, check into what science has to say about evolutionary biology, especially where it relates to man, since that seems to be your dispute.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah I always wondered why people used that Genesis verse to say animals don't evolve, doesn't really suggest that at all.

I don't read too much into the DNA similarities. Bananas share 50% of our DNA but we don't consider them to be half human.

Still, I am trying to look into this to try to understand evolution better...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't read too much into the DNA similarities. Bananas share 50% of our DNA but we don't consider them to be half human.

I'll take that argument and run with it.

What makes them so different, on the cellular level? Since we are multicellular organisms and DNA exists on a cellular level, look at the cells.

They are about 50% of what you'd expect to find in a human cell. Maybe better. See the nucleus, see the ribosomes, see all the same parts... except for that cell wall on top of the cell membrane. And the photosynthetic properties of certain plant cells. So, yes there are differences in morphology; in the extreme. But on the cellular level... they are about 50% of what you'd expect to find in a human, and that explains why 50% of their DNA (as you say) is the same. I'm not sure that's the exact figure.

They aren't half human, they are 100% banana. However, their DNA makes them still part of the family of DNA-based multicellular life forms from Planet Earth. That makes them related to us, however distantly. We eat them... much like other animals eat other things they have a common ancestor with. Birds eat other birds. Mammals eat other mammals. People eat monkey brains. Just because we eat them, that doesn't mean we are so different from them that we are a totally alien life form from a separate family of God's creation. He made us basically the same way, and gave us a little bit more intelligence and so forth, if He was responsible for us being created at all.

Notice how plants evolve. Humans have even created new species and hybrids of plants. They did the same with animals; see the dog and the wolf. We've domesticated animals for thousands of years and just in that frame of time, we've seen new species created by... intelligent design coupled with evolution. Imagine!

But! New species are created all the time through random chance and natural selection. Look at bacteria, viruses, and new adaptations of plants and animals since humans started altering the environment, temperature, and acidity levels, among other things. That didn't happen by design, it happened through an unrelated event and natural selection. And species mutate rather randomly on their own as well.

Even human beings are known to be born with genetic mutations, as we call it. Imagine how the various "races" of human came to be... men from africa moved to the north, gained more body hair, and lost their melanin, and survived much better under those conditions. We weren't always white, you know. Others gained even darker skin and lost more of their body hair. They adapted better to those conditions. Some developed fatty deposits around their eyes, others developed in certain other ways. But we are still human beings and to me there's no difference between black and white skin or blonde or black hair, curly or straight. We're all in the family of man, the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

If human beings went to different isolated planets and procreated, eventually you'd end up with different species. Notice the larger difference between Caucasian DNA and Native American DNA than say, others. Those genetic pools were isolated from one another and didn't intermarry. Had this gone on for millions of years, enough differences might have made us incompatible to mate with one another, much like various species of birds once started as one species and then morphed through adaptations and natural selection into several different kinds which can no longer even physically mate with one another due to behavioral patterns, isolation, or different morphologies. It's all well documented and observable, repeating phenomena, which human beings are not immune or excluded from. We've been changing since we arrived here. You look much different from your ancestor of just 200 years or 1000 years ago... very different in terms of skeletal structure. People are taller now, for example, ever so slightly. That trait has been naturally selected for, and even today, shorter people have more difficulty finding mates than taller people.

women typically describe their ideal man as "tall, dark, and handsome". Some describe it in other ways, but short is not typically the ideal trait, and it is therefore not selected for. As such, over time, the species is getting progressively taller. Other traits, like native american ancestry, are being slowly diluted into the rest of the population, and they aren't procreating at the same rate as others. The bottom line is that down the road, the human race will be taller, darker skinned, and more homogenous. You can basically kiss being "white" goodbye. I'm white and I say good riddance... it's fun being unique but I prefer racial inequality and divisiveness to go away. By the time it happens, everyone who once thought about racial pride will be long, long, long dead, and no one alive at the time will even consider race to be a factor. They might notice some slightly darker or lighter skin, but since we will all be a shade of mocha, it's not going to bother them that much. African Americans have an increasing amount of white in them, as well as other races. And white people are increasingly procreating with hispanic, asian, and african people. Eventually we will be one big happy family. It will take more time in racially intolerant and homogenous cultures, however the path towards ending racial prejudice and intolerance is one we will always walk, in an inexorable evolutionary path towards a united homo sapiens sapiens "race".

And then, we will colonize other planets and there actually will be differences again. There might be such a thing one day as "Martian DNA" or "Jupiter's Moon DNA" or human DNA in other star systems. Provided we overcome our intolerance and ignorance of one another, I'd say that could potentially be a good thing, as it would ensure the survival of mankind for a long time, hopefully.

And... I think I've derailed myself quite fully now. Righting the train...

DNA is an impressive design, or a very impressive spontaneous accident. Whatever it is, you share it with a Banana. You're not completely dissimilar, therefore, to a banana. You're also made out of the same stuff, carbon, as Diamonds. So, "shine on, you crazy diamond", seeing as you're also atomically related to Diamonds, and made of the same matter as the rest of the twinkling lights in the heavens.

You're a child of the stars themselves. I think that's pretty spiritual, myself. And if God did create all this, it's very beautiful. But it does appear that he used evolutionary processes and at least something SIMILAR to the Big Bang to accomplish it. Why would he make it appear otherwise? A test of faith? Why put dinosaurs in the ground, etc, create them and then destroy them? What's the point?

He either used evolution, or he makes mistakes. The second one seems to be in direct contradiction of everything you've been taught about him, so I would go with the first option.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

We are biological robots...but not "just" biological robots.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We are biological robots...but not "just" biological robots.

What do you mean?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What do you mean?

Soul implies that there is some part of us separate from our biological body and mind--but that's a problematic claim. But, we are more conscious that any other animal, so I wouldn't say "just".

[Askthepizzaguy]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

Okay, but where, and why a different starting point? Is it because of the Bible, or because of the idea of being related to other life forms on this planet is somehow distasteful? It's not 100% proven, so you can believe what you like. But why, I ask, do you think humans are special? Other than being intelligent and moral?

I'd argue that a well trained, and well-loved, canine companion is fairly moral, loyal, and intelligent. Dolphins are the same way. There are other, lesser forms of intelligence and morality in this world, and it occurs naturally in animals. Like mothers who instinctively guard their young, in spite of their other instinct to survive. It might be un-intelligent instinct but it's also the morally correct thing to do. Other animals eat their children, and I'm not so sure that's the moral thing to do. And which species survived and became the dominant species? The human being, who is intelligent, moral, and loves their children and does not eat them.

Seems morality is naturally selected for!

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

I'd like to think so too, maybe we do have a spirit form. But in this mortal shell, we are operating "just biological robots" as our mode of transportation and corporeal existence. When we die, the homo sapien that we are dies, not our soul. So isn't that shell... just a biological robot? One that breaks down and stops functioning?

Consider if you have a soul, yes maybe we do. I consider our existence to be very much not confined to our little weak mortal bodies. An everlasting soul? I don't know. But I do know our mortal flesh is not divine or godlike, and it is nothing more than an animal. A biological robot, if you will. I command this robot, just as I command my computer to type things. it's just a shell for your consciousness to float around in. When it is gone, you either disappear and get a new one, or your consciousness is gone as well. I'm not sure which, and since I can't stop it from happening, I don't really care. It will happen, then I will find out.

We are biological robots...but not "just" biological robots.

Ah... indeed. I believe that we are something more, I just know not what.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ah... indeed. I believe that we are something more, I just know not what.

The problem with saying "robots" is that our robots suck

We would be very complex robots...but clearly there is no metaphysical "me" inside my body/mind anywhere making choices. So in that sense we are just robots.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah don't get me wrong our bodies are just biological machines, I would gladly trade mine for an armoured electronic machine with a jet pack and rocket launchers any day.

But I do think there is more to us that just our bodies and brains. Or maybe our brains could be said to be our consciosness/soul. Hmm... any thoughts?

[Kadagar_AV]

Once again I didn't say evolution has/does not happen, maybe we humans just had a different starting point is all.

It's not surprising our bodies share so much DNA with bananas, its the building block of all life. But then, I like to think there is something which humans have that a banana does not... some kind of soul/consciousness. If we don't, we are really just biological robots.

what's so scary about being related to the rest of the world? And exactly what properties does humans have that animals don't?



I have seen a giraffe mother who refused to leave her dead baby. She was aware of the fact it was dead, but she was grieving. She stayed at the body some days after her flock had went on, protecting her dead baby from raptors.

Gorillas has been known to have sex out of love. They even sue the missionary position, looking each other deep in the eyes as they have sex, then stroking and kissing each other before doing it all again...

I'm just curious, what separates us from the animals? Cars?

We have evidence of grief, love, hate, jelousy, valour, bravery and so on from the animal world...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah don't get me wrong our bodies are just biological machines, I would gladly trade mine for an armoured electronic machine with a jet pack and rocket launchers any day.

But I do think there is more to us that just our bodies and brains. Or maybe our brains could be said to be our consciosness/soul. Hmm... any thoughts?

Our brains being our "soul" is certainly the simpler explanation (why suppose the existence of some sort of ephemeral personality or "ghost in the machine"?) and I believe the correct one. For example, when someones brain is damaged, their personality changes. How can damaging just the physical part damage the soul? And how can the soul affect anything in the mind if it isn't made of substance? The greek's theorized that it "curved atoms" or something like that but that seems like a huge stretch to me.

Seems more accurate to say "we don't have souls, but it's better to act like we do". Especially since that's our natural inclination...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't understand why people talk about emotion as a human trait that seperates us from animals, to me it just looks like animal instinct at its worst. I'm a bit of a stoic.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm just curious, what separates us from the animals? Cars?

Well, do animals have cars?