PDA

View Full Version : 1.3 Million Years Old



Pages : [1] 2 3

Memphis Mike
03-27-2008, 04:58 PM
A human jaw bone has been found in Spain that's 1.3 million years old.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341889,00.html

How could this be possible when the world is only around 6,000 years old?;)

CK 17
03-27-2008, 05:03 PM
Don't you know carbon dating is a fraud. I think it says that in the bible somewhere. . . . .Oh wait a minute. The link is for fox news. It must be true.

S/V Laura Ellen
03-27-2008, 05:05 PM
A human jaw bone has been found in Spain that's 1.3 million years old.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341889,00.html

How could this be possible when the world is only around 6,000 years old?;)

Must be a hoax. Really, how could they know it was 1.3M years old, no-one here today was around back then to confirm the story.:D

God, must have put it there to test our faith.:D

Keith Wilson
03-27-2008, 05:05 PM
Oh, lordy, Mike don't do it. Fish in a barrel, and Honda's a nice guy with a sense of humor even.

Cuyahoga Chuck
03-27-2008, 05:06 PM
Shhhh! You wanna' get those Ben Stein crazies on our necks again?

Memphis Mike
03-27-2008, 05:13 PM
"The link is for fox news. It must be true."

Exactly.:D

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-27-2008, 05:14 PM
It gets worse - Ullapool (http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/08032615.htm)

paladin
03-27-2008, 05:16 PM
probably female......

ishmael
03-27-2008, 05:19 PM
There are anomalies that call into question the geologic record as taught.

I studied geology rather intently, for a good year with a good professor. I buy the story, still. It seems the best explanation. But there are odd things. A three thousand year old battery in Bagdhad, for example. Modern appearing human foot prints in mud that is a million years old. How did they get there? Is the dating off, always a possibility.

Humans were created, by genetic manipulation, by beings who have transcended our physical understanding. Why they made us remains a bit of a mystery, and I wish they'd explain matters. I've got more than a couple hot questions to ask them.

doorstop
03-28-2008, 12:54 AM
probably female......

and probably still flappin'!

TimH
03-28-2008, 01:10 AM
Rofl!!!

Yeadon
03-28-2008, 01:15 AM
that was quick ... you guys pretty knocked out every possible joke within very few hours.

now then, considering the fact that the world is but 6,000 years old, why has this story not yet been retracted?

boylesboats
03-28-2008, 02:08 AM
Must be from Ice Age era
Little info here... http://www.dmns.org/main/minisites/iceage/ia_indepth/index.html

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 10:07 AM
If you don't believe the world is somewhat over 6,000 years old, that's fine, but don't try to force me to believe that it isn't. We both have evidences to seem to further our points; we both have evidences that seem to crush the competition. All that ever happens is endless banter that eventually degrades to "I'm right, and you're wrong because you're stupid!"

Look, NO ONE in here is stupid, we just see things differently... We all have the same information to start with, we just take the conclusions to different places. And don't say "Well there's more information to prove my point than to prove YOURS!" Good grief, I've delt with more mature kindergarteners while teaching Vacation Bible School...

If there was ANY foolproof evidences of ANYTHING then would we not all be convinced? The fact is, you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty about anything from this physical world we're bound to. If there is so much as a hint of uncertainty then there is reason to doubt and further question stuff. It's that way in our court system isn't it? We're basing people lives on that idea - if there is ANY doubt, then you can't leave it be without asking further questions, without probing deeper.

We will NEVER know everything about this vast universe - where we came from, where we're going... People have gone crazy or worse trying to find answers to all our questions. I think in a way we're not meant to know everything. If we did, wouldn't it lessen the splendor of our lives? There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but don't be so consumed with the desire to find answers that you forget to enjoy life.

Yes, my personal views are that everything came from God, and for the purpose of God's glory and pleasure... In my view, science is a wonderful tool to use to discover how things work, in some ways it unveils just how marvelous this creation really is, in other ways, it just creates more questions. Science will never be able to describe to me how things work in the spiritual world, so that will always be somewhat of a mystery. Paranormal things do exist, and do happen, (prayer for example - I know, that could start a whole new topic "The prayers of a righteous man avails much...") it seems science may be reluctant to admit to such things because of the difficulty in describing them. But science is wonderful for helping us discover the physical world we live in - I just feel that it is somewhat limited in scope. It's limited because humans who use it are limited...

In the end, we just have to fess up to the fact that we will NEVER know everything there is to know. What is experimental may not always be true, and what is true may not always be experimental.

S.V. Airlie
03-28-2008, 10:13 AM
Carbon dating!

Popeye
03-28-2008, 10:17 AM
If there is so much as a hint of uncertainty then there is reason to doubt and further question stuff.

like it's a magic show or something , cut it out willya :rolleyes:

James McMullen
03-28-2008, 10:18 AM
Look, NO ONE in here is stupid. . . . ..

That's a powerful statement, but I have tons of evidence to PROVE you're wrong! :p

For examples, just consult the posts of anyone who has ever disagreed with me. :D

Kaa
03-28-2008, 10:25 AM
Look, NO ONE in here is stupid, we just see things differently... We all have the same information to start with, we just take the conclusions to different places.

No, I am sorry, that doesn't fly.

You are arguing for equivalent legitimacy of modern science and biblical literalism and it just isn't there. See, if biblical literalism is correct, large swaths of science go out of the window -- practically all geology, huge chunks of physics, a lot of biology, etc. etc. And these parts of science that *must* be wrong if the Earth is 6,000 years old, they are interlinked with other parts, have been tested, produce practical results every day.

Your claim is, basically "Who you are going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" :-) And when a chorus of "Eyes!" replies, you say "Oh well, but your position is no better than mine". But it is.

Kaa

Popeye
03-28-2008, 10:29 AM
if jesus was here on earth today , he'd kick some butt

S.V. Airlie
03-28-2008, 10:32 AM
if jesus was here on earth today , he'd kick some butt

And some would just turn the other cheek.:p;)

Popeye
03-28-2008, 10:36 AM
you know , it could be we are being farmed like livestock and harvested for genetic material , there is a lot of evidence found in the testimony of people who have experienced alien abductions

i'm just saying , it is possible , right honda

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 10:49 AM
Popeye:
Does mocking the testimony of those who wrote the Bible somehow make you feel good? You know, you can say whatever you want and belittle things that you apparently don't know much about, but I feel that you are truely insulting something that is very holy. You may not believe in it, but don't be childish to the point of insulting it for the sake of humor.

Popeye
03-28-2008, 10:53 AM
the bible is fine

it's the literal interpretation that scares the shyt out of people

Memphis Mike
03-28-2008, 10:58 AM
I believe Adam and Eve were tiny crustaciens {sp?} that emerged from the ocean millions of years ago and evolved into what is now man so the bible isn't entirely wrong. There indeed was an Adam and Eve.

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 11:01 AM
Popeye:
So I ask you seriously then, where do you draw the line between what is to be interpreted literally and what should be interpreted figuratively? The Bible is full of literary devices such as personification and word imagery, but it is also a book full of eye witness personal accounts that relate literal narration. Do you simply discount stories such as the feeding of the 5,000 as figurative simply because you don't believe in miracles, or do you see it as a literal story with a much, much deeper meaning?

Interpreting the Bible as the literal Word of God isn't what scares people as you say, what scares people are miracles - and the implications they imply.

Popeye
03-28-2008, 11:19 AM
where do you draw the line between what is to be interpreted literally and what should be interpreted figuratively?

brain function allows me to discern reality

Uncle Duke
03-28-2008, 11:21 AM
what scares people are miraclesWhat scares me are people who do not acknowledge that science is a process of experimentation and discovery where the results are independently verified through repeatability, and who try to force-fit philosophical analysis of old texts into that model.
What also scares me are the people who insist that science is no different than faith-based text definitions simply because science admits (cheerfully!) that not all is known.

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 12:03 PM
Uncle Duke:
I've never denied nor disagreed with your definition of science, and I'm not force fitting anything into it either. Why are you trying to dissolve the possibility of spiritual things simply because you have not seen it or you can't experiment with it?

Popeye:
The fact that your brain is functioning is certainly good news, but brain function in and of itself isn't enough to draw a line between figurative and literal - or reality as you call it. But if brain function represents your discerning ability, does that mean that only certain people with "x" level of intelligence or ability can decide what is reality or not? More intelligent people can come up with complicated definitions of reality, but even an idiot knows the difference between his own imagination and what is experiential. (Even though experience may not be the best determination of reality either)

Popeye
03-28-2008, 12:14 PM
brain function .. isn't enough to draw a line between figurative and literal

ok houdini , i have stopped thinking , am i cured now ?:D

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 12:25 PM
Popeye:
If you're bent on ridicule then so be it because it's apparent that is the only language you know. Our brain function only defines how we experience reality. Brain function does not define what reality is, or there would be a different definition for every person on earth. Ergo, there must be a different sort of rules to determine where the dividing line is between figurative and literal - a set of rules that is not depentant on a person's beleif, and not dependant on experientialism.

Nanoose
03-28-2008, 12:35 PM
So I ask you seriously then, where do you draw the line between what is to be interpreted literally and what should be interpreted figuratively? The Bible is full of literary devices such as personification and word imagery, but it is also a book full of eye witness personal accounts that relate literal narration.

As you know, HS, a number of things are involved in interpretation. But genre and context are 2 of the biggies. Also, scripture interpreting scripture is essential - putting one verse/thought in the context of what does all of scripture, Genesis through Revelation, reveal about it.

So, as John tells us God is spirit, any use of personification in regards to God is understood to not be literal.

Considering genre and Jewish life in 1st century Palestine, the gospels mean what they say.

Also, all truth is God's truth, honda. We cannot ignore the truths we learn about his creation from other disciplines. All that physics, astronomy, biology and geology tell us about him only deepens and strengthens my faith. How amazing it all is! The finely tuned balance that lets anything be here at all.....I find it all overwhelming and cause for deep worship.

Are there limits to what the realm of the physical sciences can tell us? Absolutely! We don't try to apply them where they simply don't apply. But that is not reason to disregard what they do tell us either.

Many things we like to think are 'either/or' are in reality 'both/and'. Not all, but many. We need to remember that very few are the 'either/or' issues of orthodoxy and hold to those few very tightly....we need to hold the rest with open hands, and to acknowledge, as you did, that much of it will never be known this side of eternity.

One last thought, and this is regarding Genesis. Moses wasn't there at the beginning of the universe to write an eye witness account of what happened. Genesis was written to a people out in the wilderness for going on 40 years and coming out of 400 years of slavery in Egypt...with all Egypt's gods/understandings. It is written so they would understand that God is one, not many, and that He made all things good, and that He wants to be in relationship with his creation. We need to keep that context in mind when considering the meaning of Genesis 1.

Uncle Duke
03-28-2008, 12:48 PM
Uncle Duke:
I've never denied nor disagreed with your definition of science, and I'm not force fitting anything into it either.
Please re-read - I never said that you did. I was simply stating that what scares me is NOT miracles, and explaining what it is. People who want "Intelligent Design" taught in Science class instead of Philosophy or Theology, for example, scare me because they are purposefully disregarding the things which make science, well, science.

Why are you trying to dissolve the possibility of spiritual things simply because you have not seen it or you can't experiment with it?
Again, please re-read. Nothing I said disregards things of the spirit or spirituality itself. In fact, it does not even address those things.
Thanks for letting me clear that up.

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 01:07 PM
Nanoose:
I appreciate the words, but I actually intended that question pointedly to Popeye to draw out of him how he draws the line between the figurative and the literal. (I've been a theological student for many years now, I know how to interpret the difference) See, I wrote that after he said: "the bible is fine, it's the literal interpretation that scares the shyt out of people." I also agree with what you said about science, it's a wonderful tool to use to discover how things work that unveils just how marvelous this creation really is. (of what we CAN learn of it that is)

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 01:12 PM
I think I'm getting a blister on my finger from going *bidditybidditybidditybidditybidditybidditybiddity bidditybiddity*

Nanoose
03-28-2008, 01:12 PM
(I've been a theological student for many years now, I know how to interpret the difference)

Yes. And that is why you believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Honda_Shadow
03-28-2008, 01:37 PM
Nanoose:
Geneologies are carefully kept in the Bible - all that's required is simple counting. I've studied the Bible for almost 30 years, yes, that is where my findings take me. If you, as a Christian don't believe that the earth is young, then what do you do with "God created man in His own image." The implications of that one sentence are incredible. I heard one pastor once say "Maybe you did come from lower forms of life - you ought to know your kinfolk better than I do!" (Yes, it was told as a joke, not intending insult)

I've got to go do some field work, apparently the guys are having issues with ceiling heights in a bonus room that I've got to straighten out.

Nanoose
03-28-2008, 01:40 PM
Hmmmm....and again, as you are undoubtedly aware, in Jewish lit, geneologies don't always include every 'step' in the line, correct? e.g. saying Jesus is from David doesn't indicate directly, but indicates from the line of? Therefore, the geneologies are understood to be 'incomplete', right? You're aware of that?

Uncle Duke
03-28-2008, 02:08 PM
Nanoose:

that is why you believe the earth is 6000 years old?Honda_Shadow:

Geneologies are carefully kept in the Bible - all that's required is simple counting. I've studied the Bible for almost 30 years, yes, that is where my findings take me. If you, as a Christian don't believe that the earth is young, then what do you do with "God created man in His own image." How is it decided when to support literalist interpretations and when to support figurative interpretations?
To me this seems like deciding the answer first, before deciding the best means to determine the answer...if you are going to start with the un-discussable premise that the Bible is literally true, then any discussions of alternative readings are moot.

Nanoose
03-28-2008, 02:35 PM
Honda - some recommended books for your reading pleasure:

1. "A Matter of Days", Hugh Ross, IVP, 2004

2. "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief", Francis S. Collins, Free Press, 2006

I'd like to hear your thoughts on these. Neither is a long/difficult read. Both written by conservative evangelical Christians. Let me know what you think.

TimH
03-28-2008, 02:37 PM
I believe the earth is only 40 years old.
The rest of its just a scam.

BrianY
03-28-2008, 03:14 PM
[quote] The fact is, you cannot prove anything with 100% certainty about anything from this physical world we're bound to. If there is so much as a hint of uncertainty then there is reason to doubt and further question stuff. [\quote]

This argument, although technically true, is pointless and absurd. When you first get up in the morning and put your feet down on the floor, do you know with 100% certainty that the floor is still there? Do you know with 100% certainty that it didn't change into an enormous sponge cake over night? No you don't - as you say, nothing can be known with 100% certainty. Yet, you put your feet down and stand up without a thought because your experience with the workings of the world and the preponderance of scientific evidence gather through the ages all suggest that floors do not spontaneously disappear or turn into sponge cake.

Science doe not deal in certianties - but it doesn't NEED to. Science tells us what it most likely to be true given the evidence we have at this point in time. It's a way of evaulating probabilities and filtering out the likely from the unlikely. There are an infinite number of possibiliites for any scenario and science cannot determine with absolute certianty which possibility is 100% probable. Religious folks like to point this out as weakness of the scientific method, but it is only a "weakness" if you are foolish enough to assume that all possibilites are equally probable.

This is the difference between faith and science. Only the faithful have certain knowledge - your certianty that God exists, for example. Even so, we all accept that scientific knowledge - that which we know about the world and how it operates - is extremely reliable. We could not function otherwise. It is scientific knowledge - as opposed to faith - that tells us that gravity will keep us on the ground, that the water we drink will not turn into cantelopes in our stomaches, that the rules of physics and reality we know operate on a consistent and highly reliable level. If we accept this way of knowing and the certianty it gives us about everything else in our lives, why not for the age of the earth?

Uncle Duke
03-28-2008, 03:29 PM
Very nice post, Brian.
Raises a good question (at least in my mind...). What are the distinctions between 'faith', 'belief' and 'knowledge' and where does 'certainty' play into it?
Saying that "only the faithful have certain knowledge" implies that 'certainty' can be based on non-provable things, no? One may have full faith and belief that the Bible is a literal document but that belief, in and of itself, doesn't make it true.
I believe that if I hold a rock at arms length and then open my hand, that it will fall - believe it to the point of being certain. The distinction is that my certainty is based on thousands or millions of repeatable examples with exactly zero different results.
It seems to me that the 'certainty' in the falling rock example is a higher form of 'certainty' than belief in Biblical literalness.

Kaa
03-28-2008, 03:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Kaa

Tylerdurden
03-28-2008, 03:34 PM
I figure once we all stop killing each other we can come up with a plan to settle this once and for all.
I frankly don't give to ****es who is right on either side of the argument. More than likely both sides are wrong.

Nanoose
03-28-2008, 03:34 PM
Saying that "only the faithful have certain knowledge" implies that 'certainty' can be based on non-provable things, no?

The challenge appears to be around "non-provable".

Provable in the scientific sense means one thing. We cannot transfer that definition, however, outside the realm of science. That's where we get into trouble. It works very well there, but we need to remember its place.

'Provable' beyond the material takes on different meanings. For instance provable historically....provable psychologically....etc.

We have no difficulty with 'provable' in the hard sciences. In the soft sciences and metaphysical realm, the definition needs to change.

Uncle Duke
03-28-2008, 03:44 PM
Thanks, Kaa - very interesting link. I thought this was particularly relevant:

According to one particularly permissive form of foundationalism, a belief may count as foundational, in the sense that it may be presumed true until defeating evidence appears, as long as the belief seems to its believer to be true.
In this model the literalness of the Bible is a foundational belief since the believers believe it to be true, and since it can't be dis-proven.
Or am I reading that wrong?

Pierce Nichols
03-28-2008, 04:13 PM
Oh, lordy, Mike don't do it. Fish in a barrel, and Honda's a nice guy with a sense of humor even.

The position deserves to be mocked, regardless of whatever admirable qualities its exponents may possess.

Pierce Nichols
03-28-2008, 04:19 PM
If you don't believe the world is somewhat over 6,000 years old, that's fine, but don't try to force me to believe that it isn't. We both have evidences to seem to further our points; we both have evidences that seem to crush the competition. All that ever happens is endless banter that eventually degrades to "I'm right, and you're wrong because you're stupid!"


Believing the Earth is 6000 years old is really no different than believing the Apollo missions were faked or the Earth revolves around the Sun. You've got a right to believe it... and every rational person has a duty to mock you mercilessly for it.

Nanoose
03-28-2008, 04:21 PM
Why on earth would any position ever deserve to be mocked?

Flying Orca
03-28-2008, 04:23 PM
the soft sciences and metaphysical realm, the definition needs to change.

Yeah, mostly because it's impossible. ;)

CK 17
03-28-2008, 04:38 PM
If you don't believe the world is somewhat over 6,000 years old, that's fine, but don't try to force me to believe that it isn't.

Although I do enjoy oking at those who believe such things, i really dont care what you believe. If you want to limit your imagination to whats in the bible, go for it.

What i take issue with is school boards voting to teach this drivel and radical judges wanting to chisel the ten commandments into the sides of court houses. To me, thats the real issue.

S.V. Airlie
03-28-2008, 05:25 PM
I have finally figured out that Honda Shadow and ljb5 are twins. One went into politics and the other joined the church.
There is no way that either one will look at any alternative other than what has been vetted either by the church or the Democratic party.

I hope the remain in they're respective fields and don't join hands.

Memphis Mike
03-28-2008, 05:30 PM
There is only a one percent margin of error with current dating technology.

"There is only a 1% chance of error with current dating technology.
Every few years, new geologic time scales are published, providing the latest dates for major time lines. Older dates may change by a few million years up and down, but younger dates are stable. For example, it has been known since the 1960s that the famous Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, the line marking the end of the dinosaurs, was 65 million years old. Repeated recalibrations and retests, using ever more sophisticated techniques and equipment, cannot shift that date. It is accurate to within a few thousand years. With modern, extremely precise, methods, error bars are often only 1% or so."


http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

glenallen
03-28-2008, 05:31 PM
Why on earth would any position ever deserve to be mocked?

Because some positions are so wrong-headed that they themselves are a mockery of everything reasonable.
Take, for example, Honda's position that the universe is less than 7,000 years old.
That position deserves to be mocked, laughed at, ridiculed, pooh-poohed, discouraged, and not taught in public schools.
That position mocks reason and science and deserves whatever it gets.
ga-ism #92! :D
PS...I don't think Honda should be mocked, just his position. At this point after 30 years of theological study, Honda can't help himself.

Sam F
03-31-2008, 07:31 PM
Why on earth would any position ever deserve to be mocked?

To mock means "to treat with contempt or ridicule".
I suppose that some positions - say the NAMBLA position deserves contempt. No doubt you'd agree.
While someone who decries NAMBLA, but whose position insists that a more permissive society is a good thing deserves ridicule.
While someone who holds being Nice as a great good and who mocks others deserves both contempt and ridicule.:D

glenallen
03-31-2008, 07:55 PM
Don't you hold "being Nice" as a great good?
You generally seem to be Nice to a person, while at the same time showing contempt and ridicule for his ideas and notions. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Can't we tell Honda that his beliefs suck but at the same time his attention to his work and his family are admirable?

skuthorp
03-31-2008, 08:07 PM
I wouldn't presume to tell Honda that his belief's suck or ridicule him for them. I think he's wrong, he thinks, no - knows he's right. The 2 positions are incompatible. That's fine as long as neither side is forcing their belief on the other.
I do have problems with the teaching of such unscientific beliefs as science. The latest position seems to be that 'god' is outside the system. Outside of time, physics, chemistry, as creator not governed by any of the physical rules of the universe that he supposedly created. I don't think that is a tennable position for any other than the hardest of hard-line literalist religious. And yet they live in the world, compromised by reality whilst denying it. A strange position indeed.

WX
03-31-2008, 10:39 PM
Religious belief is far scarier than walking outside at night and looking at the vastness of the Universe. If you want to believe in God then fine, I don't mind. Just look closely at the birthplace of the 3 main religions and ask yourself...how come after 2,000 years, they are still fighting? Why is it that God once flattened an entire city because they were bonking each other and idolizing the golden calf, yet he didn't stop Hitler or Stalin or even something smaller like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? You have got to ask yourself...what's the point?
Give me Evolution any day, I can live with that.

S B
03-31-2008, 10:49 PM
I think they are all wrong, there is nothing in the Big Bang theory, Creation, the Bible, or any other explanation for the universe, that accounts for the existace of Hockey. When someone can explain why the world evolved hockey players, I will be ready to listen.

skuthorp
03-31-2008, 11:03 PM
"Just look closely at the birthplace of the 3 main religions and ask yourself...how come after 2,000 years, they are still fighting?"

Competition and politics, the fight for dominance and power. It's part of our species make-up. Religion seems part of the make-up, explanations for things unfathomable like the stars and the sun, part of the communal glue that enabled the species to be the dominant one. But as usual the reason for success is often the reason for ultimate disaster.
And it doesn't make it true, though if religions weren't so aggressive it wouldn't matter a jot. Not to say that religion isn't a good thing for the local community though, I just wish we weren't so bl**dy tribal!

Now Hockey players. Scary all right. After being banned from netball for breaking an opponents leg my sister took up hockey. Ankle tapping, tripping, she beat up a guy on a train who exposed himself. Very scary!

S B
03-31-2008, 11:14 PM
But it's not people fighting over who owns God. No war has ever been fought over religion. Religion is the tool used used to create fear and hatred and to insite the masses to smite the enemy for other reasons. Usually greed and power.

Nanoose
03-31-2008, 11:51 PM
The human misuse of religion and the existence of God are very different issues.

S B
04-01-2008, 12:09 AM
The human misuse of religion and the existence of God are very different issues.
Yes I agree.

George.
04-01-2008, 07:12 AM
If there was ANY foolproof evidences of ANYTHING then would we not all be convinced?

No. Witness the existence of "educated" people who believe the Earth is at the center of the universe, or even that it is flat. Witness the millions who question whether the Holocaust ever happened.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 12:24 PM
Religious belief is far scarier than walking outside at night and looking at the vastness of the Universe.

A non sequitur, isn't it? In any event, neither is particularly scary.
But "religious belief" is hardly limited to the religious - after all, today's Scientism is riddled with superstition* and can't claim much superiority over anything.


If you want to believe in God then fine, I don't mind. Just look closely at the birthplace of the 3 main religions and ask yourself...how come after 2,000 years, they are still fighting?... Give me Evolution any day, I can live with that.

Since the Nazis and the Communists were/are ardent Darwinists and were themselves responsible for the greatest mass-murders in history, I'm afraid that "living with Evolution" was obviously not an option for those who didn't get with the program.
If you want to claim superiority of your beliefs you'll need some better reason.

*as for example the widespread belief in spontaneous generation despite evidence to the contrary.

Kaa
04-01-2008, 12:28 PM
...after all, today's Scientism is riddled with superstition* and can't claim much superiority over anything.

Don't know about "Scientism", but regular science can certainly claim superiority.

To repost,

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg

Kaa

Keith Wilson
04-01-2008, 12:29 PM
. . . the Communists were/are ardent Darwinists . . . False. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko)

glenallen
04-01-2008, 12:57 PM
How about the widespread belief in the spontaneous generation of God, Sam? Doesn't that bother you?

Chris Ostlind
04-01-2008, 01:32 PM
Why on earth would any position ever deserve to be mocked?

Because, without mockery, said person will soon believe that they should be teaching their un-mocked opinions as fact... to your children. If you have kids you also know this; enough un-checked BS in a kid's life and they soon will shove it back at you as their truth.

Not only is that very difficult to undo, but while the un-doing is going on, you forever lose that time to do something like real teaching.. and loving.

Now, maybe I'm kinda goofy this way, but I like my kids to have a fully versed running start at this BS pile we call civilization... from MY responsibly parental perspective, that is.

Interestingly enough, one of my kids rolled-in from school one day with the story under his hat about the 6 thousand year old planet and he asked me about it.

Interestingly enough, I know the person who planted said story in his head. I asked the chap if he ever had an x-ray for a medical condition. He says, "why, yes, for a broken arm in my teen years". I asked him if he trusted said x-ray as a clear and accurate representation of his internal structure. Again, a yes was given.

So, I'm thinking... isn't it curious, that the same dude can rely on an x-ray and its predictable radiation benefit to mankind, but not carbon dating when it runs smack into his precious belief system.

Yes, I said to my son, there are those whose opinions should be mocked. Quietly, if they own your grades in that class, but mocked, nevertheless.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 01:55 PM
False.

Sorry Keith but this "False." stuff just isn't working for you.


Trofim Denisovich Lysenko:

That's OK if all you have is low cards. Let's face it Lysenko isn't a major player... in anything.
Tell you what, I'll pull an Ace from my deck:


Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.
Karl Marx on Darwin's Origin of Species

Presumably Herr Marx knew what he was about on the subject of Marxism.

And Keith, there's more where that came from. ;)

Sam F
04-01-2008, 01:59 PM
How about the widespread belief in the spontaneous generation of God, Sam? Doesn't that bother you?

Oh dear! Glen, the "spontaneous generation" of God isn't a problem and, AFAIK hasn't ever been considered as such since at least the time of Aristotle. You've got some serious catching up to do!

Hint: Follow the chain of causation back as far as you can and tell me what you find.

TomF
04-01-2008, 02:04 PM
turtles?

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 02:05 PM
all the way down.

Kaa
04-01-2008, 02:07 PM
Oh dear! Glen, the "spontaneous generation" of God isn't a problem and, AFAIK hasn't ever been considered as such since at least the time of Aristotle.

Heh. "What caused God?" is not a problem per se, but a perfectly good answer to the prime-mover "proof" of God's existence. Since it's so obvious, nobody spent much time debating it since Ancient Greeks. So?

Kaa

Sam F
04-01-2008, 02:08 PM
Don't know about "Scientism", but regular science can certainly claim superiority.

To repost,...

But Kaa that's no repost. Your cartoon is at best a stumble.
The attitudes the cartoon represents IS Scientism.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 02:08 PM
Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is a book which contains the basis of natural history for our views.
Karl Marx on Darwin's Origin of SpeciesPresumably Herr Marx knew what he was about on the subject of Marxism.

And Keith, there's more where that came from.Ho hum. And Adolf Hiltler was raised Roman Catholic. Presumably Herr Hitler knew what he was about on the subject of Nazism.

SO WHAT?

Sam F
04-01-2008, 02:09 PM
turtles?

No it's an Ox. :D

S.V. Airlie
04-01-2008, 02:12 PM
Sam F.. debunked

Exaggeration of Darwin's Influence
However, the depth of the influence, if any, would certainly seem to be greatly exaggerated by a number of religious fundamentalists who seek to paint Darwin's ideas as incredibly dangerous. There is no mention of Darwin or evolution in The Communist Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto) and the only reference to Darwin in Das Kapital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital) amounts to short footnotes on technological specialization in manufacturing and industry.
Despite the lack of specific reference to Darwin in Marx's work, in The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harun_Yahya) writes: "Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, adapted Darwin's ideas, which deeply influenced him, to the dialectic process of history."
Yahya also writes: "Marx revealed his sympathy for Darwin by dedicating his most important work, Das Kapital, to him." [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influences_on_Karl_Marx#_note-11)
This last bit is a common misconception that arose from a letter from Darwin to Edward Aveling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Aveling), (who later became the lover of Marx's daughter, Eleanor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Marx)). Aveling had written to Darwin about wanting to dedicate his book to him, but Darwin declined and Darwin's response became mixed with Karl Marx's papers when Eleanor Marx inherited her father's papers from Engels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels). The letter was published in 1931 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931) in the Russian Communist magazine, Under the Banner of Marxism, which went on to suggest that the enclosures referred to in the letter might have been chapters from Das Kapital that dealt with evolution. It was not until 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975) that Aveling's letter to Darwin was discovered, debunking this myth

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 02:14 PM
No it's an Ox. :Dhttp://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m253/rebus1971/funny%20more/Close-View-of-a-Braying-Donkey-Phot.jpg

Kaa
04-01-2008, 02:17 PM
But Kaa that's no repost.

It is. This image has been posted to this board before.


The attitudes the cartoon represents IS Scientism.

LOL. Do tell Sam, is it the Holy Spirit which animates that mysterious contraption that allows people all over the world to read what you type at your table? People who built it -- that thing which works -- did they get some special dispensation of grace? did they pray extra hard? or -- just maybe -- did they do science?

Kaa

Sam F
04-01-2008, 02:19 PM
Sam F.. debunked

Exaggeration of Darwin's Influence
...Marx revealed his sympathy for Darwin by dedicating his most important work, Das Kapital, to him."...This last bit is a common misconception that arose from a letter from Darwin to... Edward Aveling(who later became the lover of Marx's daughter...

No much of a debunking.
Did I mention Aveling? Or Marx's daughter? Or does Darwin's response to Marx make any difference one way or the other?
No in all cases.
Try again.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 02:31 PM
That's no repost...

It is. This image has been posted to this board before.

It sure has and repetition hasn't improved it.
But I meant to write riposte. :D


Do tell Sam, is it the Holy Spirit which animates that mysterious contraption which allows people all over the world to read what you type at your table? People who built it -- that thing which works -- did they get some special dispensation of grace? did they pray extra hard? or -- just maybe -- did they do science?

Kaa

This has been reposted before:
"On the contrary my dear Kaa, science doesn't work for everything.
This is so obvious that it in other times it would scarcely need saying.
Unfortunately, these "post-modern" days it does bear repeating.
It is illusion and nothing else to make the blanket statement: "science works".
For the purposes of determining whether God exists, of if love exists, or if an idea exists, or if anything non-material exists, science not only doesn't work, it's completely useless.
It "works" like a socket wrench does for reading a book."

You didn’t have a riposte then and you don’t have one now. Reposting silly cartoons - especially ones that do positive damage to your alleged non-Scientism, only makes matters worse.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 02:32 PM
The rest of us got the point, Jamie. No need to try again. Best to ignore him.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 02:44 PM
Not that any fact would change SamF's beliefs one iota, but the fact is that Marx was the first to point out the striking resemblance between Darwin's theory and the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism.

Kaa
04-01-2008, 02:46 PM
"On the contrary my dear Kaa, science doesn't work for everything."

My dear Sam, do you see the word "everything" in that cartoon?

Kaa

TomF
04-01-2008, 02:48 PM
For the purposes of determining whether God exists, of if love exists, or if an idea exists, or if anything non-material exists, science not only doesn't work, it's completely useless.
It "works" like a socket wrench does for reading a book.
Wow. We entirely agree on that statement.

Now take the next step.

Religious doctrine is equally unsuited to exploring the testable, repeatable, nuts-and-bolts physical workings of the material world.

On the other hand, religious doctrine can be very helpful in helping to figure out the morality of what research to pursue, or what to do with what we find out ...

Can you say "non-overlapping magisteria?"

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 03:04 PM
The Creationist/IDers are fond of the Marx/Darwin fable:

Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) assures us that "it is well known that not only the early Communists, such as Marx and Engels, were atheistic evolutionists, but also that all the leaders of Communism since have been the same" (The Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974, p. 42). In his The Long War Against God, Morris claims that "Marxism, socialism, and communism, no less than Nazism are squarely based on evolutionism" (p. 83). He assures us that "Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin's. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species" (History of Modern Creationism, 1993, p. 54). The fable has passed on into the common currency of the Creationist movement here in the United States. For example, A Walk Through History, a 1994 video issued by the Institute for Creation Research, features John Rajca (then the curator of the ICR Museum of Creation and Earth History) teaching the following to a group of schoolchildren: "Karl Marx here, [points to picture of Marx] wanted to dedicate his book on communism, Das Kapital, to Darwin because he said this is where he got his ideas for a political system." To many anti-evolutionists, Darwinism is inescapably linked with Marxism, both ideologies supporting each other, and evolutionary thinking making communism possible.

Such connections between Darwin and Marx have been effectively refuted by historians for over thirty years. The myth of the link between the two figures was created after Marx's death by Friedrich Engels' graveside oration to Marx, and supported by later Marxists such as Filippo Turati, Edward Aveling & Ludwig Büchner as putative evidence for the 'scientific' nature of their worldview. In particular, it has been proven that a letter evidently written by Darwin to Marx, apparently asking that Marx not dedicate the second volume of Das Kapital to him, was in fact addressed to (Marx's son-in-law) Aveling asking that his A Student's Darwin (1881) not be so dedicated. Darwin was opposed to Aveling's vehement anti-Christian rhetoric and wished not to have his name associated with such radicalism. (See Ball 1979 J. Political Theory 7:469; Colp 1982 History of Political Economy 14:461; Carroll & Fuer 1976 Annals of Science 33:386).

Darwin, Marx and Bad Scholarship (http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/12/darwin_marx_and_bad_scholarshi.php)

Keith Wilson
04-01-2008, 03:30 PM
Let's face it Lysenko isn't a major player... in anything.Ignorance. The ideas of Lysenko (a sort of hare-brained neo-Lamarckian mishmash supposedly more compatible with Marxist theory than Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution) dominated Soviet biology during the middle of the 20th century. Anybody who disagreed - well, you know what happened. He's the reason Russian biology was decades behind everybody else.

peb
04-01-2008, 03:53 PM
Ho hum. And Adolf Hiltler was raised Roman Catholic. Presumably Herr Hitler knew what he was about on the subject of Nazism.

SO WHAT?

Tom, that is a really weak response. To make it work, you will have to find a quote of Hitler's that says that Roman Catholicism is the basis for Nazi views on history.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 04:04 PM
My dear Sam, do you see the word "everything" in that cartoon?

Kaa

"Science
It works, Bitches"
See any exclusions in that Kaa?
Any subtly? Any nuance?
No? Neither do I.
The point remains secure. If you agree with that cartoon you are a believer in Scientism.
You are now welcome to clarify your position and/or repudiate that silly cartoon.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 04:06 PM
Ignorance. The ideas of Lysenko ...... are not those of Kark Marx.

Man! I wouldn't want to play that hand.
Is there anything else you've got?
Or do we need to go into Mao's favorite books? ;)

Sam F
04-01-2008, 04:09 PM
Tom, that is a really weak response. To make it work, you will have to find a quote of Hitler's that says that Roman Catholicism is the basis for Nazi views on history.

It works as well to say Hitler was German...
Or, as the Feminists would say, that Hitler was a man...
Which is to say it's not much of an explanation and certainly not causal of either his behavior or his ideology - both were thoroughly anti-Christian.

Keith Wilson
04-01-2008, 04:11 PM
Of course, the entire argument is useless. Darwinian evolution, like all science, is about phenomena in the physical world; a description of what happened and how it happened. Like every other scientific theory, it won't tell what is the right thing to do. If someone uses it as a justification for a political or philosophical system, good or bad, - laissez-faire capitalism, Nazi genocide, or the fundamental brotherhood of all creatures - it has absolutely zero connection to the truth or falsehood of the theory.

Kaa
04-01-2008, 04:16 PM
"Science
I works Bitches"
See any exclusions in that Kaa?

Exclusions of implications atwitter in your mind?

If I say "I can speak", does it mean I can speak every language on Earth? If I say "A knife is a useful tool", does it mean it's the proper tool to use in any situation possible?

Strawman, Sam. Bunch of straw tied up, and not very neatly at that.


Any subtly? Any nuance?

I believe you lack the proper appreciation for the subtlety and the nuance of the "bitches" reference :D


The point remains secure. If you agree with that cartoon you are a believer in Scientism.

LOL. BURN THE WITCH!

But do tell -- are you asserting the opposite -- namely, that science does NOT work?

Kaa

peb
04-01-2008, 04:21 PM
But do tell -- are you asserting the opposite -- namely, that science does NOT work?

Kaa
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Like a lot of other things in life, since we are a fallen race. I think your question implies that you think it always does. Your question illustrates SamF's position quire well.

Kaa
04-01-2008, 04:24 PM
Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Like a lot of other things in life, since we are a fallen race. I think your question implies that you think it always does. Your question illustrates SamF's position quire well.

Well, no, I don't think my question implies any such thing. Do note that it was SamF who started all this nonsense about "no exclusions" and "work for everything". As I said, a bunch of straw, tied together not all that neatly.

kaa

Keith Wilson
04-01-2008, 04:26 PM
. . .since we are a fallen race . . Maybe this is the heart of the trouble. Examination of the empirical evidence shows that we didn't "fall'" from anything, certainly not some imagined state of perfection. Rather, to the best of our knowledge, we arose from the humblest of beginnings, literally from the slime, to our present imperfect state.

Nanoose
04-01-2008, 05:02 PM
Maybe this is the heart of the trouble. Examination of the empirical evidence shows that we didn't "fall'" from anything, certainly not some imagined state of perfection. Rather, to the best of our knowledge, we arose from the humblest of beginnings, literally from the slime, to our present imperfect state.

We need to remember what information is capable of telling us, and what it is not. Empirical, 'scientific' information is incapable of answering this moral question.

Keith Wilson
04-01-2008, 05:15 PM
I disagree. It is not fundamentally a moral question (i.e. what's the right thing to do?). It is a factual question about what happened, which can be answered by empirical methods, although we may or may not have enough information to answer it.

glenallen
04-01-2008, 05:31 PM
We need to remember what information is capable of telling us, and what it is not. Empirical, 'scientific' information is incapable of answering this moral question.

What moral question?
Please ?

glenallen
04-01-2008, 05:34 PM
turtles?

Exactly!
Billions and billions and billions and billions of Turtles!

peb
04-01-2008, 05:59 PM
Maybe this is the heart of the trouble. Examination of the empirical evidence shows that we didn't "fall'" from anything, certainly not some imagined state of perfection. Rather, to the best of our knowledge, we arose from the humblest of beginnings, literally from the slime, to our present imperfect state.

You have your reason why we can't get anything right all the time. I have mine. There is not scientific evidence for either.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 06:00 PM
Tom, that is a really weak response. To make it work, you will have to find a quote of Hitler's that says that Roman Catholicism is the basis for Nazi views on history.Well.... what I think is really weak is the assertion that Origin of the Species is the basis for Marx's view of history. This is a myth that continues to be pushed by the Creationist/ID anti-evolution crowd and is constructed whole-cloth from an off-hand comment made by Marx in a letter to Engels:


The mythology centers upon a notorious, if understandable, scholarly error that once suggested far more affinity between Marx and Darwin (or at least a one-way hero worshiping of Darwin by Marx) than corrected evidence can validate. Marx did admire Darwin, and he did send an autographed copy of Das Kapital to the great naturalist; Darwin, in the only recorded contact between the two men, sent a short, polite, and basically contentless letter of thanks. We do know that Darwin (who read German poorly and professed little interest in political science) never spent much time with Marx's magnum opus. All but the first 105 pages in Darwin's copy of Marx's 822-page book remain uncut (as does the table of contents), and Darwin, contrary to his custom when reading books carefully, made no marginal annotations. In fact, we have no evidence that Darwin ever read a word of Das Kapital.

The legend of greater contact began with one of the few errors ever made by one of the finest scholars of this, or any other, century--Isaiah Berlin, in his 1939 biography of Marx. Based on a dubious inference from Darwin's short letter of thanks to Marx, Berlin concluded that Marx had offered to dedicate volume 2 of Kapital to Darwin and that Darwin had politely refused.

This tale of Marx's proffered dedication then gained credence when a second letter, ostensibly from Darwin to Marx but addressed only to "Dear Sir," turned up among Marx's papers in the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam. This letter, written on October 13, 1880, does politely decline a suggested dedication:

"I Shd. prefer the Part or Volume not be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honor) as it implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing."

This second find seemed to seal Isaiah Berlin's case, and the story achieved general currency. (To my embarrassment, and as a reminder of how long these essays have been running in Natural History, I repeated the tale in one of my first columns ["Darwin's Delay," December 1974]--subsequently corrected in the reprinted version of my book Ever Since Darwin.)

To shorten a long story, two scholars, working independently and simultaneously in the mid-1970s, discovered the almost comical basis of the error (see Margaret A. Fay, "Did Marx offer to dedicate Capital to Darwin?" Journal of the History of Ideas 39, 1978, and Lewis S. Feuer, "Is the `Darwin-Marx correspondence' authentic?" Annals of Science 32, 1975). Marx's daughter Eleanor became the common-law wife of the British socialist Edward Aveling. The couple safeguarded Marx's papers for several years, and the 1880 letter, evidently sent by Darwin to Aveling himself, must have strayed into the Marxian collection.

Aveling belonged to a group of radical atheists. He sought Darwin's official approval, and status as dedicatee, for a volume he had edited on Darwin's work and his (that is, Aveling's, not necessarily Darwin's) view of its broader social meaning (published in 1881 as The Student's Darwin, volume 2 in the International Library of Science and Free-thought). Darwin, who understood Aveling's opportunism and cared little for his antireligious militancy, refused with his customary politeness but with no lack of firmness. Darwin ended his letter to Aveling (and not to Marx, who did not treat religion as a primary subject in Das Kapital) by writing:

"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science."

Nonetheless, despite this correction, Marx might still have regarded himself as a disciple of Darwin and might have sought the company of a key Darwinian in the younger generation--a position rendered more plausible by Engels's famous comparison (quoted earlier) in his funerary oration. But this interpretation must also be rejected. Engels maintained far more interest in the natural sciences than Marx ever did (as best expressed in two books, Anti-Duhring and Dialectics of Nature). Marx, as stated above, certainly admired Darwin as a liberator of knowledge from social prejudice and as a useful ally, at least by analogy. In a famous letter of 1869, Marx wrote to Engels about Darwin's Origin of Species:

"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

But Marx also criticized the social biases in Darwin's formulation, again writing to Engels, and with keen insight:

"It is remarkable how Darwin recognizes among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labor, competition, opening up of new markets, `invention,' and the Malthusian `struggle for existence.' It is Hobbes's bellum omnium contra omnes [the war of all against all].

Marx remained a committed evolutionist, of course, but his interest in Darwin clearly diminished through the years. An extensive scholarly literature treats this subject, and I think that Margaret Fay speaks for a consensus when she writes (in her previously cited article):

"Marx ... though he was initially excited by the publication of Darwin's Origin ... developed a much more critical stance toward Darwinism, and in his private correspondence of the 1860s poked gentle fun at Darwin's ideological biases. Marx's Ethnological Notebooks, compiled circa 1879-81, in which Darwin is cited only once, provide no evidence that he reverted to his earlier enthusiasm."

To cite one final anecdote, the scholarly literature frequently cites Marx's great enthusiasm (until the more scientifically savvy Engels set him straight) for a curious book, published in 1865 by the now (and deservedly) unknown French explorer and ethnologist Pierre Tremaux, Origine et transformations de l'homme et des autres etres (Origin and transformation of man and other beings). Marx professed ardent admiration for this work, proclaiming it "einen Fortschritt uber Darwin" (an advance over Darwin). The more sober Engels bought the book at Marx's urging, but then dampened his friend's ardor by writing: "I have arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to his theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism."

I had long been curious about Tremaux and sought a copy of his book for many years. I finally purchased one a few years ago--and I must say that I have never read a more absurd or more poorly documented thesis. Basically, Tremaux argues that the nature of the soil determines national characteristics and that higher civilizations tend to arise on more complex soils formed in later geological periods. If Marx really believed that such unsupported nonsense could exceed the Origin of Species in importance, then he could not have properly understood or appreciated the power of Darwin's facts and ideas.

"A Darwinian Gentleman at Marx's Funeral - E. Ray Lankester" by Stephen Jay Gould (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_7_108/ai_55698600/print)

To repeat: Marx made an off-hand remark about Origin of the Species in a letter to Engels. As Jamie pointed out, there is no mention of either Darwin or evolution in The Communist Manifesto, and Darwin is mentioned only in a few short footnotes in Das Kapital.

But hey.... continue to spin on if that floats yer boat.

George Jung
04-01-2008, 07:00 PM
So what yer saying is..... Darwin was Marx's Muse. Right?

sawcutmill
04-01-2008, 07:01 PM
and the world is still FLAT! damn it!

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 07:05 PM
So what yer saying is..... Darwin was Marx's Muse. Right?An evil muse. Pure... unadulterated... evil. Bwaaaahahahaha!

Sam F
04-01-2008, 08:13 PM
But do tell -- are you asserting the opposite -- namely, that science does NOT work?

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Like a lot of other things in life, since we are a fallen race. I think your question implies that you think it always does. Your question illustrates SamF's position quire well.

Yep, it does work extremely well for some things.

Oh btw, Kaa do read my repost - the one addressed directly to you now posted twice. If you had done that you'd have never have asked the question above. In asking, you only illustrate your fairly obvious intention that "science works, bitches" was an absolute statement.
As per my invitation - you're welcome to start clarifying ... and perhaps reflect on an ill chosen cartoon.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 08:19 PM
On the contrary my dear Kaa, science doesn't work for everything.
This is so obvious that it in other times it would scarcely need saying.No kidding? You have an astounding grasp of the obvious. No doubt Kaa agrees.

You are on top of your game today.

P.S. RE: "An ill chosen cartoon." No one would expect you to like the cartoon. After all, you were the butt of the joke.

peb
04-01-2008, 08:25 PM
No kidding? You have an astounding grasp of the obvious. No doubt Kaa agrees.


He agrees now, only after SamF pointed out his silly position that he took with his cartoon. His cartoon "it works, bitches", was pretty absolute. He can deny itnow all he wants, but that was his original position.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 08:27 PM
Oh please. :rolleyes:

Sam's condescension may impress you but it leaves the rest of us unmoved. Don't forget that Sam is a HUGE fan of junk science. The rest of us do not forget.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 08:36 PM
Of course, the entire argument is useless. Darwinian evolution, like all science, is about phenomena in the physical world; a description of what happened and how it happened.

Yes, it does serve as today's creation story, but enough about mythology...


Like every other scientific theory, it won't tell what is the right thing to do. If someone uses it as a justification for a political or philosophical system, good or bad, - laissez-faire capitalism, Nazi genocide, or the fundamental brotherhood of all creatures - it has absolutely zero connection to the truth or falsehood of the theory.

Who ever said that because Nazi's, Communists and Social Darwinists were believers in Darwinian Evolution that it had anything to do with the theory's truth or falsehood?
No Keith, there's no link, nor did I make one.
However, I'll take your post as an implicit retraction from your oft repeated and equally repeated failure to insist that some statement is "False". (*) Such assertions have been to date, always groundless and completely factually unsupportable.
As a reminder of the context, what I responded to was:
"Give me Evolution any day, I can live with that. "... by noting some discomforting facts about those who believe in Evolution's "truth":


Since the Nazis and the Communists were/are ardent Darwinists and were themselves responsible for the greatest mass-murders in history, I'm afraid that "living with Evolution" was obviously not an option for those who didn't get with the program.
If you want to claim superiority of your beliefs you'll need some better reason.

I'm afraid that if you want to claim any superiority over... say... Honda's Fundamentalism, it would be advisable to drop your own superstitions first.


* You really should stop doing that. ;)

Kaa
04-01-2008, 08:43 PM
He agrees now, only after SamF pointed out his silly position that he took with his cartoon. His cartoon "it works, bitches", was pretty absolute. He can deny itnow all he wants, but that was his original position.

Cute. I am now having people tell me what my original position was :D


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tesla_coil.png

:D

Kaa

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 08:43 PM
Of course, the entire argument is useless. Darwinian evolution, like all science, is about phenomena in the physical world; a description of what happened and how it happened.

Yes, it does serve as today's creation story, but enough about mythology...You see, peb? Sam does not even bother to append a smilie. Evolution by natural selection = mythology sez Sam.

And the rest of us are supposed to take him seriously? Nope. I see more cartoons in his future.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 08:47 PM
http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/try_science_shirt_300.jpg

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 08:52 PM
Since the Nazis and the Communists were/are ardent Darwinists and were themselves responsible for the greatest mass-murders in history, I'm afraid that "living with Evolution" was obviously not an option for those who didn't get with the program.


Who ever said that because Nazi's, Communists and Social Darwinists were believers in Darwinian Evolution that it had anything to do with the theory's truth or falsehood?
No Keith, there's no link, nor did I make one.That was a good one! Thanx for the giggles, Sam!

It's not about whether it is true or not -- though Sam rejects the science and calls it "mythology" -- it is about how EVIL it is! That's why you bring up commies and nazis.... right Sam?

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 09:02 PM
It's EVIL I tell you!

Sam F
04-01-2008, 09:04 PM
So what yer saying is..... Darwin was Marx's Muse. Right?

Maybe somebody is but I'm not.
It doesn't fit the chronology:

Communist Manifesto published 1848
Origin of Species published 1859

What I am saying is that the Materialism inherent in Communism dovetails nicely with the Materialism inherent in Darwinism.
The two are a good philosophical fit for each other - though Marxist-Leninism is not nearly as Darwinian as Nazism which came after Darwin

glenallen
04-01-2008, 09:08 PM
"That's why you bring up commies and nazis....right Sam?"

Yep!
If Sam were as honest and moral as he'd like us to believe, he'd just go ahead and attribute all that EVIL to it's proper source, SATAN!
But that would make him appear too Fundamentalist Christian rather than Orthodox Catholic, a subtle distinction which only Sam appreciates.

Sam F
04-01-2008, 09:08 PM
Cute. I am now having people tell me what my original position was :D


http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tesla_coil.png

:D

Kaa

No one is a mind reader obviously, but based on the evidence of your new cartoon posting, my conclusion about your earlier cartoon is quite secure.
Really Kaa if you insist on denying the evidence you yourself presented, what is one to think?

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 09:10 PM
What I am saying is that the Materialism inherent in Communism dovetails nicely with the Materialism inherent in Darwinism.Why use the word "Darwinism?" Why not use the word "science" instead? Works just as well....

Of course science is inherently materialistic. So what?

Poor Sam. Longing for the good old days of the thirteenth century.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 09:14 PM
It's EVIL I tell you!

Sam F
04-01-2008, 09:16 PM
"That's why you bring up commies and nazis....right Sam?"

Yep!
If Sam were as honest and moral as he'd like us to believe, he'd just go ahead and attribute all that EVIL to it's proper source, SATAN!
But that would make him appear too Fundamentalist Christian rather than Orthodox Catholic, a subtle distinction which only Sam appreciates.

Awww Glen, you should know better. I was just being nice by locating the horrors that some of Darwin's true believers perpetrated in dead (or dying) ideologies. Ain't no Commies or Nazis here. Right?
So why do ya'll get so bent out of shape at the mention of an inconvenient truth. Deal with it.
I could have been more current by pointing out the racism of some of Darwin's true believers... take scientist Jame Watson (you know, the structure of DNA co-discoverer)


There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it soinherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa... all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours -- whereas all the testing says not really.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 09:19 PM
...if you insist on denying the evidence you yourself presented, what is one to think?That you are delusional?

Sam F
04-01-2008, 09:20 PM
Of course Kaa... you could, instead of posting cartoons, state your actual belief. Yeah, I know... it's a bunch of... like you know... work.
But it won't kill you. Though I admit, it's a bunch easier to hide behind silly pictures.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 09:20 PM
I was just being nice by locating the horrors that some of Darwin's true believers perpetrated in dead (or dying) ideologies. Ain't no Commies or Nazis here. Right?
So why do ya'll get so bent out of shape at the mention of an inconvenient truth. Deal with it.
I could have been more current by pointing out the racism of some of Darwin's true believers... take scientist Jame Watson (you know, the structure of DNA co-discoverer)Yep. Delusional.

Tom Montgomery
04-01-2008, 09:22 PM
Of course Kaa... you could, instead of posting cartoons, state your actual belief. Yeah, I know... it's a bunch of... like you know... work.
But it won't kill you. Though I admit, it's a bunch easier to hide behind silly pictures.I've got a feeling that Kaa has reached the same conclusion that a number of us have reached. I see more cartoons in your future.

Kaa
04-01-2008, 09:29 PM
But I like cartoons! :D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/large_hadron_collider.png


Kaa

Keith Wilson
04-01-2008, 09:31 PM
And to think I once took the fellow seriously. Ah, well, live and learn.

Jesus and Mo in the bar:

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-03-06.jpg

skuthorp
04-01-2008, 09:38 PM
Interesting all this, again. It just emphasises that there is no point of contact between SamF at least and the diverse group of other or un-believers. From a given point the thoughts and beliefs (or un-beliefs) are so divergent that you rapidly end up not being able to communicate coherently with each other.
I've given up bothering as SamF's pronouncements have no relevance to me at all. But It' nice to see your'e still about

Pierce Nichols
04-01-2008, 10:04 PM
Kaa: I approve of your taste in cartoons. :)

S.V. Airlie
04-02-2008, 06:39 AM
It works as well to say Hitler was German...
Or, as the Feminists would say, that Hitler was a man...
Which is to say it's not much of an explanation and certainly not causal of either his behavior or his ideology - both were thoroughly anti-Christian.

Actually he was Austrian... To some, there is a difference..:rolleyes:

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-02-2008, 07:10 AM
Germany is a very mobile thing - more an idea than a geographical location.

Today's test - Spell Danzig

George.
04-02-2008, 07:16 AM
...Marx was the first to point out the striking resemblance between Darwin's theory and the ideology of laissez-faire capitalism.

If he did, he was wrong... again.

The theory of evolution by natural selection describes how nature functions. It does NOT conclude that this leads to the greatest good, or the common good, or "good" at all. In fact, evolution works through death and pain and suffering, as much as through success.

The equivalence would be an objective description of how an unregulated market works, without trying to argue that it always leads to the best outcome for the most people. Sometimes it leads to the "common good", sometimes to monopolies, nasty externalities, and other negative outcomes. There is no ideology in such a description.

George.
04-02-2008, 07:20 AM
Germany is a very mobile thing - more an idea than a geographical location.



Think barbarian invasions, jus prima noctis, and differential survival of the offspring of the powerful. We are all Germans, all of us with European blood... ;)

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-02-2008, 07:35 AM
Think barbarian invasions, jus prima noctis, and differential survival of the offspring of the powerful. We are all Germans, all of us with European blood... ;)

Ye might want to ask Gareth about that.

Popeye
04-02-2008, 07:39 AM
so the bible creates a mythic history for my family , since i am literally descended from one of the twelve tribes of israel

no argument , just pointing this out

Popeye
04-02-2008, 07:47 AM
If you're bent on ridicule then so be it because it's apparent that is the only language you know.

h-s ; would it be fair to say bible literalism tends to make a mockery of science ? :confused:

Chris Coose
04-02-2008, 07:55 AM
My daughter said "Hey dad look at this!" I looked over at her and if I could have imagined her with a bunch of hair on her face, she'd have looked exctly like a monkey.
dubbya makes practically no contortions to demonstrate for us just exactly what has happened in the past couple billion years.

Bruce Taylor
04-02-2008, 08:06 AM
http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa291/BDSTaylor/hamster.gif

Keith Wilson
04-02-2008, 08:23 AM
Spell DanzigGdańsk?

Keith Wilson
04-02-2008, 08:45 AM
In fact, evolution works through death and pain and suffering, as much as through success.Which is precisely why the religious should embrace it, since it provides the only coherent answer to the otherwise impossible problem or theodicy. From Epicurus:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?However, it turns out that trouble, much of what what we see as evil - pain, starvation, hardship, suffering, and death - is necessary to drive evolution. Darwin solved their most intractable theological problem, but the Believers don't realize it.

Sam F
04-02-2008, 08:45 AM
But I like cartoons!

Kaa
So do I Kaa, but they're hardly a substitute for reasoned argument.
On the other hand, perhaps your posting of cartoons instead of your own thinking serves another purpose...
http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/9884/17236mistakes1221080loso8.jpg

Sam F
04-02-2008, 08:48 AM
It works as well to say Hitler was German...


Actually he was Austrian... To some, there is a difference..:rolleyes:

Really? Are you telling me that the elected chancellor of Germany wasn't even a German citizen?
Please explain!

Sam F
04-02-2008, 09:05 AM
If he did, he was wrong... again.

IIRC Marx, later in life, did observe that Darwin's theories tended to reflect the social mores of his own society - which is obviously correct.


The theory of evolution by natural selection describes how nature functions. It does NOT conclude that this leads to the greatest good, or the common good, or "good" at all. In fact, evolution works through death and pain and suffering, as much as through success.

A good brief description.
Or as Darwin said:

...as more individuals are produced than can possibly survive, there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life. It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms... In looking at Nature, it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations always in mind never to forget that every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers; that each lives by a struggle at some period of its life; that heavy destruction inevitably falls either on the young or old, during each generation or at recurrent intervals...
While some may find this less frightening than religion, it's hard to imagine how this vision of "nature, red in tooth and claw" which inevitably ends in our personal destruction can be comforting.

James McMullen
04-02-2008, 09:09 AM
"Science works, bitches!"

Here's a empirical observation: Sam, you're Keith Wilson's bitch. On every point he consistently trumps you in coherence, relevance and sheer intellectual ability--not to mention the sneaky element of all that factual data that supports his statements. Good job, Keith! I admire your persistance in the face of unyielding absurdity.

This horse stopped running quite a while back. . . .but flog away, boys! Flog away!

Sam F
04-02-2008, 09:34 AM
Which is precisely why the religious should embrace it, since it provides the only coherent answer to the otherwise impossible problem or theodicy.

Now that's your religion - no doubt about it.
But why expect any Christian to embrace your Theological Naturalism? You'll have to make a much better case than that.


From Epicurus: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?


However, it turns out that trouble, much of what what we see as evil - pain, starvation, hardship, suffering, and death - is necessary to drive evolution. Darwin solved their most intractable theological problem, but the Believers don't realize it.

It also turns out that it turns out that there's no such thing as evil in Evolution so you've solved the problem by defining away evil entirely.
Not much of a solution, is it?

Keith Wilson
04-02-2008, 09:50 AM
Missing the point completely.

S.V. Airlie
04-02-2008, 09:59 AM
It works as well to say Hitler was German...



Really? Are you telling me that the elected chancellor of Germany wasn't even a German citizen?
Please explain!

Read this.. Please note Austrian Born.. makes him Austrian I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Sam F
04-02-2008, 10:04 AM
Missing the point completely.

No doubt!
And speaking of missing the point - it has been my observation for many months that the Secular view can only be held with either a deliberate or unconscious self-contradiction. As a very recent confirmation of that point, we have two quotes from the same source:


However, it turns out that trouble, much of what what we see as evil - pain, starvation, hardship, suffering, and death - is necessary to drive evolution. Darwin solved their most intractable theological problem, but the Believers don't realize it.
... which is in plain contradiction of...

Of course, the entire argument is useless. Darwinian evolution, like all science, is about phenomena in the physical world; a description of what happened and how it happened. Like every other scientific theory, it won't tell what is the right thing to do.

On the one hand, science "won't tell what is the right thing to do" while on the other hand, "it's solved [Christianity's] most intractable theological problem"!
Oh my!
No doubt a point has been missed and perhaps it starts with the rule of non-contradiction.

Popeye
04-02-2008, 10:04 AM
i didn't know hitler was from australia

y'know , the more i hear about the guy , the more i don't like him

George.
04-02-2008, 10:04 AM
Then again, Austria was part of Germany in Adolf's worldview...

Sam F
04-02-2008, 10:06 AM
Read this.. Please note Austrian Born.. makes him Austrian I think.

Hitler was a German citizen.
That makes him German, does it not?
Sorry lad, you've got no point to make.
If you are determined to nit pick, do pick some other nit to pick.

George.
04-02-2008, 10:07 AM
Yes, Sam, you are indeed missing the point:



much of what what we see as evil


We also have come to see the exhaust gases of a diesel engine as a bad thing - but objectively speaking, they are simply a byproduct of the engines functioning.

Sam F
04-02-2008, 10:09 AM
Then again, Austria was part of Germany in Adolf's worldview...

Today Austria, tomorrow the WORLD!

George.
04-02-2008, 10:14 AM
Today Austria, tomorrow the WORLD!

Deutschland uber alles in der Welt.

Osterreich (Austria) means "southern kingdom". The rest of Germany would be the "northern kingdom," presumably.

Sam F
04-02-2008, 10:17 AM
Yes, Sam, you are indeed missing the point:


Much of what we see is Evil

We also have come to see the exhaust gases of a diesel engine as a bad thing - but objectively speaking, they are simply a byproduct of the engines functioning.

Then the point is there's no such thing as evil - right?
It's simply a byproduct of the [Evolutionary] engines functioning.

George.
04-02-2008, 10:26 AM
Then the point is there's no such thing as evil - right?
It's simply a byproduct of the [Evolutionary] engines functioning.

Right. Evil is a subjective experience, just like beauty. One man's evil is another man's God's work - witness the Inquisition, for instance.

Sam F
04-02-2008, 10:29 AM
Right. Evil is a subjective experience, just like beauty...

Then I certainly have not missed the point.

Keith Wilson
04-02-2008, 10:30 AM
No contradiction. You've got it backwards. Some philosophical, political, theological, or sociological ideas may be inspired by or based on Darwinian evolution. These ideas may be right or wrong, good or evil. This has absolutely no relevance to whether the theory of evolution is correct or not, since it is a description of events in the physical world that exist independently of anything we may think about them.

OTOH, evolution allows you (if you wish) to explain and give a purpose to otherwise purposeless and inexplicable trouble and suffering. Lacking a better term, I'll call it natural evil, to distinguish it from human behavior. Evolution allows one to do this without assuming a malevolent or impotent God.

No contradiction.

George.
04-02-2008, 10:40 AM
OTOH, evolution allows you (if you wish) to explain and give a purpose to otherwise purposeless and inexplicable trouble and suffering. Lacking a better term, I'll call it natural evil, to distinguish it from human behavior.

Why the distinction? Human behavior is natural and evolution-driven, even when it harms other humans.

Kaa
04-02-2008, 10:46 AM
So do I Kaa, but they're hardly a substitute for reasoned argument.

Your notions of reasoned arguments are too limited :D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/nihilism.png

Kaa

Nanoose
04-02-2008, 10:56 AM
We also have come to see the exhaust gases of a diesel engine as a bad thing - but objectively speaking, they are simply a byproduct of the engines functioning.

Context is necessary for meaning, isn't it....

Bruce Taylor
04-02-2008, 10:56 AM
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/3/37/Sinfest-NoToKnowledge.gif

Sam F
04-02-2008, 10:58 AM
No contradiction. You've got it backwards. Some philosophical, political, theological, or sociological ideas may be inspired by or based on Darwinian evolution.

But Keith you said: "Like every other scientific theory, it won't tell what is the right thing to do". So how is a theological theory of... say, evil, not telling what is the right thing to do?
Sorry Keith but once again you're caught by your own contradictions.


These ideas may be right or wrong, good or evil. This has absolutely no relevance to whether the theory of evolution is correct or not, since it is a description of events in the physical world that exist independently of anything we may think about them.

But Keith, I've already agree with you that it “has absolutely no relevance to whether the theory of evolution is correct or not”. Didn't you notice?
All I've done is take your principle: a scientific theory won't tell what is the right thing to do and apply it consistently. How does such a theory, which won't tell what is the right thing to do, serve (as you claim) as a basis for theology? - Specifically Christian theology. Remember? You stated that Evolution had "solved [Christianity's] most intractable theological problem". The Problem of Evil, let me remind you, is precisely in knowing what the right thing to do is.


No contradiction.

Nope. You've got a contradiction so knotty even Alexander couldn't cut you out if it.

Keith Wilson
04-02-2008, 11:08 AM
You really don't understand, do you?

The idea that evolution gives a purpose to natural evil, to otherwise meaningless suffering, is not a scientific idea. Science is not about meaning or purpose. OTOH, all philosophical/religious ideas take our knowledge of the world, our experience, (which includes science) as a starting point, as raw material with which to build. As our knowledge increases, our ideas about philosophy or religion may change.

No contradiction.

Nanoose
04-02-2008, 11:12 AM
As our knowledge increases, our ideas about philosophy or religion may change.

Which is why theology needs to be continuously 'done', and 'done' in community.

And, our understanding changing - hopefully growing (remembering the limits of human capacity) - will always be different than the fundamental question on God's existence/nonexistence.

Tom Montgomery
04-02-2008, 11:15 AM
Sam.... Were not you untroubled by the deception practiced by the producers of Ben Stein's Creationist/ID film? Didn't you consider two men sneaking into a pre-release screening to be a greater offense than the lies told to gain their cooperation in the filming? It seems you struggle with the concept of simple right and wrong. Best to leave the question of evil to responsible adults.

Sam F
04-02-2008, 12:32 PM
You really don't understand, do you?

Sure I do. I know a glaring contradiction when I see one.
For instance…
The idea that evolution gives a purpose to natural evil, to otherwise meaningless suffering, is not a scientific idea.

You bet it’s not. But you said science, via the theory of Evolution, could solve the problem of evil, Christianity’s “most intractable theological problem”.
One does not solve problems by pretending they don’t exist!
Nor does one solve them by defining them out of existence.


Science is not about meaning or purpose.
A dubious notion, at best. If science weren’t about meaning, you’d have no business talking about it and doing so would be to no purpose.


No contradiction.

As demonstrated, your position is riddled with contradiction:
You claim that science “won't tell what is the right thing to do”, while at the same time, you claim that science has solved Christianity’s most intractable theological problem – the problem of evil. And evil is, if nothing else, about what the right thing to do is.
So Keith, you're trying to have it both ways and it is simply impossible.

Kaa
04-02-2008, 12:44 PM
:D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/words_that_end_in_gry.png

Kaa

Popeye
04-02-2008, 01:31 PM
http://findthebesthere.com/dagwood1_082506.jpg

Keith Wilson
04-02-2008, 01:54 PM
:D More Jesus and Mo:

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2006-03-29.jpg

Tom Montgomery
04-02-2008, 03:22 PM
Hitler was a German citizen.
That makes him German, does it not?
Sorry lad, you've got no point to make.
If you are determined to nit pick, do pick some other nit to pick.Jamie has probably noted how often you play fast and loose with the facts. Fact-checking SamF is an education in itself!

FWIW: Adolph Hitler was born in 1889 in Austria. He became a German citizen in February 1932. In January 1933 he was appointed Chancellor. He was proclaimed Fuhrer in 1934. Austria was annexed in 1938. He died in 1945. By my count, he was an Austrian citizen for 50 years (if you count the seven years of annexation).

So he had dual citizenship, though I imagine he considered himself an "Aryan" first and foremost.

Tom Montgomery
04-02-2008, 03:37 PM
http://evolutionoftruth.com/images/evolution.gif

Nanoose
04-02-2008, 03:53 PM
Not sure why this "us vs. them" mentality lingers. Fundamentalism, on both sides probably.

Both/and is viable.

Tom Montgomery
04-02-2008, 03:55 PM
I Believe In Evolution, Except For The Whole Triassic Period

BY STEPHEN JOSSLER 

MAY 30, 2007 | ISSUE 43•22

I consider myself a rational person. When I have a question, I turn to science and logic to find the answer. Regarding the origins of life, science tells us that humans evolved from single-celled organisms to our current form through a process of natural selection that took billions of years.

This much is clear to anyone with any background in modern thinking. We can look at the fossil record and trace many of our genetic traits back to ancient species. In fact, scientific reasoning can explain nearly every stage of life from the Big Bang to the present day. I say "nearly" because the period that scientists claim lasted from roughly 205 to 250 million years ago, commonly known as the Triassic period, was quite obviously the work of the Lord God Almighty.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not one of those religious nut cases who denies that evolution is real. Of course evolution is real, just not during the "Triassic period."

This so-called Triassic period saw the formation of scleractinian corals and a slight changeover from warm-blooded therapsids to cold-blooded archosauromorphs. Clearly, such breathtakingly subtle modifications could only have been achieved by an active intelligence.

The secular Triassicists would have you believe that these changes were just the result of millions of years of nature favoring certain genes over others in order to adapt, the same way evolution worked prior to the Triassic. Obviously, that doesn't make any sense. Think about it: I'm supposed to believe that the same process that we know slowly changed us from simple bacteria into highly advanced reptiles over the course of the Paleozoic era is also responsible for turning us into highly advanced reptiles with different body lengths? Do these people ever pause to think how ridiculous they sound as they advance these theories?

For a half-dozen million years, life advanced from prokaryotes to primitive fish to mammal-like reptiles via natural selection, and we're supposed to believe that that just continued happening? I don't think so. Isn't it much more likely that a formless, invisible deity intervened, temporarily stopped the course of evolution, and shaped each and every trilobite over a period of six days? Of course it is, at least to any objective observer.

So, if you follow my reasoning to its logical end, the only sound conclusion is that, at some point, God paused evolution and stepped in, made a few modifications, and boom! Pterosaurs. There is simply no way evolution alone could be responsible for the giant leap between archosaurs and other, different archosaurs with better developed hip joints and slightly differently shaped teeth.

Everything about the Triassic period points to divine involvement. Let me ask you this: Could some kind of random genetic chance make the population of shelled cephalopods grow significantly? No, of course not. So the only logical explanation is that there was an infinite and all-knowing cephalopod creator who modified their mollusk foot into a muscular hydrostat that eventually, on the sixth day, became a tentacle.

So, when I tell you that after the Paleozoic era, Ceratodon lungfish became relatively common, it naturally follows that someone created that lungfish by hand and then took out one of its lungfish ribs and combined it with the dust of the Earth to create a female lungfish.

In the beginning, there were a few billion years of speciation and gene drift. And then nothing. And then, God made the lungfish and the trilobites, the ichthyosaurs and ammonoids with more complex suture patterns. He also made a couple new ferns.

And the Lord saw that these slight modifications were good, and allowed evolution to resume as normal in the Jurassic period and on up to the present day.

Now that I've inarguably proven the truth, we need to take a stand against these pseudoscientists who are misrepresenting 300-million-year-old fossils as 230-million-year-old fossils and claiming the Earth is 44 million years and 51 weeks older than it really is.

We need to get the Triassic period expunged from our public schools' evolutionary textbooks. I don't want my children to be exposed to this blasphemous Triassic garbage, and I assume you don't want your children to be, either. They need to know that God is watching over them always, and that he has a plan for each and every one of them—a nonlinear, probabilistic plan he set in motion more than three billion years ago with single-celled organisms, ended with a group of small, lizard-like herbivores, infused with a bunch of miracles, and then restarted.

We can no longer ignore the empirical evidence.

I believe in evolution except... (http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/i_believe_in_evolution_except)

Tom Montgomery
04-02-2008, 04:11 PM
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

AUGUST 17, 2005 | ISSUE 41•33

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

New "Intelligent Falling" Theory (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

glenallen
04-02-2008, 04:22 PM
My head hurts!
From laughing! Thanks, Tom!

Nanoose
04-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Serious question, now...after all this kibutzing around...:rolleyes:

Please explain to me the origin of life as theorized/understood/proven demonstrably true (whatever) by those in the sciences.

Many thanks.

SamSam
04-02-2008, 06:45 PM
Originally Posted by Tom Montgomery http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1803876#post1803876)
Ho hum. And Adolf Hiltler was raised Roman Catholic. Presumably Herr Hitler knew what he was about on the subject of Nazism.


SO WHAT?


Tom, that is a really weak response. To make it work, you will have to find a quote of Hitler's that says that Roman Catholicism is the basis for Nazi views on history.
I can't seem to find any of his quotes that say anything but that he was highly religious. Then again, this site has a slight bias...
http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerQuotesGodReligion.htm

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941
The fact that the Curia is now making its peace with Fascism shows that the Vatican trusts the new political realities far more than did the former liberal democracy with which it could not come to terms. ...The fact that the Catholic Church has come to an agreement with Fascist Italy ...proves beyond doubt that the Fascist world of ideas is closer to Christianity than those of Jewish liberalism or even atheistic Marxism...

- Adolf Hitler in an article in the Völkischer Beobachter, February 29, 1929, on the new Lateran Treaty between Mussolini's fascist government and the Vatican
The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgment of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism is hostile to religion is a lie.

- Adolf Hitler, speech to members of the Nazi Party on the Nazi-Vatican Concordant, July 22, 1933
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

Flying Orca
04-02-2008, 06:49 PM
Please explain to me the origin of life as theorized/understood/proven demonstrably true (whatever) by those in the sciences.

The short answer is, we don't know. And we're cool with that. :)

Nanoose
04-02-2008, 06:52 PM
Wow! You're COOL with that?!?!! Amazing. A worldview that can't answer one of life's fundamental questions would be hardly 'cool' enough for me....but to each his own.

Pierce Nichols
04-02-2008, 07:58 PM
Deutschland uber alles in der Welt.

Osterreich (Austria) means "southern kingdom". The rest of Germany would be the "northern kingdom," presumably.

Eastern kingdom, actually.

Pierce Nichols
04-02-2008, 08:01 PM
Wow! You're COOL with that?!?!! Amazing. A worldview that can't answer one of life's fundamental questions would be hardly 'cool' enough for me....but to each his own.

Some of us don't require supernatural teleology to give our lives meaning. I mean, really, isn't sailing good enough for that purpose?

Nanoose
04-02-2008, 08:06 PM
Who said anything about giving life meaning?

Flying Orca
04-02-2008, 08:11 PM
Wow! You're COOL with that?!?!! Amazing. A worldview that can't answer one of life's fundamental questions would be hardly 'cool' enough for me....but to each his own.

Well, from my point of view, the alternatives can't answer ANY fundamental questions... the way I understand the term "answer". ;)

I like having some robust evidence-based answers and a demonstrably successful method for finding more; I don't like the idea of looking to mythology (I was going to say fairy tales, but they certainly have some mythic value) for answers to fundamental questions.

SamSam
04-02-2008, 08:20 PM
Wow! You're COOL with that?!?!! Amazing. A worldview that can't answer one of life's fundamental questions would be hardly 'cool' enough for me....but to each his own.
As if your "worldview" makes any sense whatsoever. Why do you feel it is so imperative to have an answer to a question like that?

glenallen
04-02-2008, 09:06 PM
As if your "worldview" makes any sense whatsoever. Why do you feel it is so imperative to have an answer to a question like that?

Cuz if she has no answer it means she does not accept the Answers written in the Book that say God did it! And she cannot or will not reject that simplistc mythology.
I know she's gonna be peeved with me for putting words in her mouth.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 01:41 AM
Wow! You're COOL with that?!?!! Amazing. A worldview that can't answer one of life's fundamental questions would be hardly 'cool' enough for me....but to each his own.

Fundamental questions are those which have to be answered - those where getting the answers wrong leads to death - or in darwinian terms "Failure to reproduce" examples include:

What is for lunch?
Can I cross the road now?
Is that mating material?

Michael Beckman
04-03-2008, 02:43 AM
The most relevant cartoon possible:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/regarding_mussolini.png

Seriously, this thread has been an example of Godwin's Law for some time now.

seanz
04-03-2008, 03:23 AM
Serious question, now...after all this kibutzing around...:rolleyes:

Please explain to me the origin of life as theorized/understood/proven demonstrably true (whatever) by those in the sciences.

Many thanks.

No.

You wouldn't like it.

It may also offend other people with deeply felt religious beliefs.


But just in case..................

Here is a short introduction to the explanation of life on Earth.

The Theory of Evolution is the only non magical explanation for life on Earth.

Well you didn't like it last time either........

Tom Montgomery
04-03-2008, 04:06 AM
Not sure why this "us vs. them" mentality lingers.

http://www.glarkware.com/productcart/pc/catalog/main-chip.jpg

Tom Montgomery
04-03-2008, 04:09 AM
Fundamentalism, on both sides probably.No need to be a fundamentalist to be dogmatic. Right Sam?

Rational Root
04-03-2008, 06:44 AM
How about the tree rings.

You look at tree rings, They show patterns indicating good years and bad years. In an area, the patterns are basically similar across all trees. Some basic stats analysis can give confidence levels for how likely a given set of rings on one tree matches the dates for a given set on another tree.

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.html

The bristlecone pine chronology in the White Mountains currently extends back almost 9,000 years continuously. That's to 7,000 BC! Several pieces of wood have been collected that will extend this date back even further. The hope is to push the date back to at least 8,000 BC. This will be important as the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, and to have a record of this transition period would offer scientists a wealth of information.

We can test this by matching trees back over the recorded history.

Then match the records with ice cores from antartica over the same time. You see matching patterns in the ice put down each year and the tree growth.


The truth is that which refuses to go away. Even when you don't believe in it.


If you don't believe the world is somewhat over 6,000 years old, that's fine, but don't try to force me to believe that it isn't. We both have evidences to seem to further our points; we both have evidences that seem to crush the competition. All that ever happens is endless banter that eventually degrades to "I'm right, and you're wrong because you're stupid!"

Popeye
04-03-2008, 07:03 AM
We both have evidences to seem to further our points; we both have evidences that seem to crush the competition.

belief is not evidence

Popeye
04-03-2008, 07:23 AM
If you don't believe..

many people find it difficult to consult sorcery and witchcraft in their daily ruminations , honda , hard geological records rules a belief system out completely

George.
04-03-2008, 08:31 AM
Please explain to me the origin of life as theorized/understood/proven demonstrably true (whatever) by those in the sciences.



The origin of life is not even theorized yet - only hypothesized. There are a couple of plausible hypothesis out there, but not enough data yet to prove or disprove them.

Remember, though, that the theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life. It deals with the origin of species - different species from a common ancestor.

Keith Wilson
04-03-2008, 08:43 AM
Wow! You're COOL with that?!?!! Amazing. A worldview that can't answer one of life's fundamental questions would be hardly 'cool' enough for me....but to each his own. Several confusions here.

First, remember that the universe is a big place, and despite HS's obstinate mythology, it has been around a very long time. Human beings are not very big, we don't live very long, we only live on this one little planet and don't get around much, we have limited mental capacity, and we've only been examining these questions seriously for a few hundred years. Why should it be surprising that there's a lot we don't know? We're talking, after all, about events that took place roughly four billion years ago under conditions very different from those now existing on earth, and which, except for highly modified descendants, left few if any traces.

Now "can't answer" is not necessarily true, although "can't answer at present" is. Someday we may know what happened, or maybe we won't. We're learning more all the time, but presently no one knows whether we'll ever be able to answer that question. The amount of effort that's been put into it is extremely small, compared with, say, marketing soft drinks. However, the ONLY reliable methods we have found to answer questions about the physical world -what happened and how it happened - are the empirical methods of science.

While I'm sure your religious beliefs are very beneficial for you, they are simply not any good at answering scientific questions about the physical world. (These are questions of the general form: What is this? How did it get here? What is it made of? How does it work? What happened and how did it happen?) That's not what religion is for. You don't consult the bible about the history of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the atomic weight of phosphorous, or about how to fix your car; why should you consult it about questions of biology? Although for all of recorded history, human beings seem to have made up stories about things they didn't understand, we're trying to get beyond that. In order to truly understand anything, we must have the courage and the intellectual honesty to admit it when there are things we simply don't know. Pretending otherwise just gets in the way of understanding.

Flying Orca
04-03-2008, 08:59 AM
Bravo, Keith. You have said very well what I might have said myself, had I had the time and inclination.

Sam F
04-03-2008, 09:02 AM
Time for a little synopsis:
This thread started with yet another example of Secular mocking of Christianity – never mind that it’s only applicable to one sort of very modern Christianity – Fundamentalism – all reasonably orthodox Christians still get tarred with the same brush.
After years of theological study, Christians can't help themselves.
The thesis here is that Christians are irrational, believe in magic, oppose knowledge, and are thus obviously inferior to those who believe in holy science.
Which is OK… everyone is entitled to believe any darn fool thing they wish, provided those who dish it out can take it too.

But they can’t.

Along the way we’ve been informed that religion is “far scarier” than Evolution. The slogan is “Give me Evolution any day, I can live with that”, but as Mr. Eastwood said in some movie “dying ain’t much of a living” and that’s all Evolution has in store for the fit and unfit. It’s just that fit kill the unfit first. But that’s not scary!

When it was pointed out that the Evolutionists themselves have a few superstitious flaws in their beliefs – yes those are the right words, Belief and Superstition – the entirely predictable folly fest followed. In no particular order….

We were treated to cartoon “reasoning” and when the Scientism underlying it was identified, we got yet more cartoons. Instead of a definitive refutation and a lovely opportunity to blow the analysis out of the water, we got a confirmation of that analysis of the poster’s motives.

There was an utterly irrelevant and failed attempt to nit pick – that being born elsewhere is of no consequence to one’s citizenship – at one stroke revoking the status of immigrants world wide to their countries of birth. It’s as if being born on Nevis would disqualify one from being on US currency because one wasn’t American. ;) Simply amazing!
We got some Secular quote mining... :D

We got the by now standard Atheist misunderstanding of an ancient pagan proof of God – the chain of causation - as proof that God doesn’t exist. Frankly, as a former Atheist and one not entirely ignorant of Greco-Roman philosophy, this is quite embarrassing. Geeze fellows! How can this idiocy get published as a serious refutation and be repeated so often?

We got another predictable-as-the-sunrise statement of “False” and the equally predictable failure to support it.
Worse, we were treated to an appalling contradiction that while “every… scientific theory… won't tell what is the right thing to do” one theory “solves” the “intractable theological problem” of evil which, if it did, would tell us the right thing to do.
Hilarious!

As an exemplar of the thoroughly dysfunctional, we were “treated” to recycled prison lingo as a form of cheerleading… the less said about that the better…

To give him credit, Gdot consistently applied Evolution and used it to torpedo Christian morality. That is exactly what’s done on a daily basis and at least has the virtue of honesty. Evil is “objectively speaking… simply a byproduct of the [Evolutionary] engines functioning.” The problem is that such a view is so contrary to everyone’s own experience that it’s absurd. A person, after being mugged and beaten nearly to death is perfectly aware of the empirical evidence for evil and not inclined to take comfort in the mugger’s Evolutionary fitness. But one must nevertheless applaud Gdot’s clarity.

Finally, Nanoose asked a very good question:

Please explain to me the origin of life as theorized/understood/proven demonstrably true (whatever) by those in the sciences.
And received no answer – unless you count this:

The Theory of Evolution is the only non magical explanation for life on Earth.
Not magical? Let’s see, spontaneous generation of the first life-form was disproved by Pasteur way back in the mid-19th Century, no one has observed on species evolve into another, Evolution follows “laws” but, it’s results are random and unpredictable… Yet he BELIEVES!
Even Honda’s Fundamentalism requires less faith…

All in all it’s been a very poor showing for our resident Secularist/Atheist/Theological Naturalists.
But don’t give up hope… someday, someday you’ll get your act together.

Keith Wilson
04-03-2008, 09:09 AM
Sam gets the prize for the largest and sloppiest straw man of the year.

James McMullen
04-03-2008, 09:10 AM
Keith, that was a most thoughtful, erudite, well-reasoned and eloquent summing up (Post #197). I really do enjoy reading your postings--one of the main reasons I still bother to even read threads of this nature. I don't know how you manage to keep your temper in the face of unrelenting, unreasoning faith but I applaud you for it. I get so frustrated that I often just give up and descend into mockery--which I know is counterproductive--but I just can't help it. Your ability to continue trying to inject reason into these arguments is, I'm sure, much more likely to bear fruit in the long term, so three cheers, Amigo!

Popeye
04-03-2008, 09:11 AM
question:

..in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth..

can someone describe to me what this may have looked like , was there any sound or explosions , or did the earth appear silently and smoothly , what happened ?

mizzenman
04-03-2008, 09:14 AM
yes god can, he was the only one who was there ;)

George.
04-03-2008, 09:14 AM
To give him credit, Gdot consistently applied Evolution and used it to torpedo Christian morality. That is exactly what’s done on a daily basis and at least has the virtue of honesty. Evil is “objectively speaking… simply a byproduct of the [Evolutionary] engines functioning.” The problem is that such a view is so contrary to everyone’s own experience that it’s absurd. A person, after being mugged and beaten nearly to death is perfectly aware of the empirical evidence for evil and not inclined to take comfort in the mugger’s Evolutionary fitness. But one must nevertheless applaud Gdot’s clarity.



A person, after being tortured and burned at the stake, is even more perfectly aware of evil. So the Catholic Church practiced evil for centuries?

Sam F
04-03-2008, 09:15 AM
Several confusions here.
...Now "can't answer" is not necessarily true, although "can't answer at present" is. Someday we may know what happened, or maybe we won't. We're learning more all the time, but presently no one knows whether we'll ever be able to answer that question.

Your faith in the future will save you.
For those of us living in the here and now I'm afraid such promissory notes aren't of much worth.


...However, the ONLY reliable methods we have found to answer questions about the physical world -what happened and how it happened - are the empirical methods of science.

The "ONLY reliable methods"? I asked before and I ask again: What are the physical properties of an idea?


While I'm sure your religious beliefs are very beneficial for you, they are simply not any good at answering scientific questions about the physical world.

I'm sure your religious beliefs are very beneficial for you, they are simply not any good at answering scientific questions about the non- physical world.



Although for all of recorded history, human beings seem to have made up stories about things they didn't understand, we're trying to get beyond that.

No evidence of that happening Keith. You have different myths certainly. But they're still myths.


In order to truly understand anything, we must have the courage and the intellectual honesty to admit it when there are things we simply don't know. Pretending otherwise just gets in the way of understanding.

So heroic a view! Such grandeur! Now I suggest you put it into practice.
Your own view is Theological Naturalism - for you're no Atheist. You can't prove any of it. So show a bit of humility lad - you can't even string together a non-contradictory argument.
Quit lording it over those whose theological views don't coincide with yours. Pretending otherwise just gets in the way of understanding.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 09:16 AM
question:

..in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth..

can someone describe to me what this may have looked like , was there any sound or explosions , or did the earth appear silently and smoothly , what happened ?

Swmbo, having seen things being created, assures me that there must be a matching pile of wood shavings and sawdust - perhaps this is the "Dark Matter".

glenallen
04-03-2008, 09:17 AM
Oh boy, Sam, now you're going to tell us how God made all the species from scratch? I can't wait!

Sam F
04-03-2008, 09:17 AM
A person, after being tortured and burned at the stake, is even more perfectly aware of evil. So the Catholic Church practiced evil for centuries?

No George., you can't make that argument. I can, but you can't.
Don't spoil your consistency.
For you Evil is “objectively speaking… simply a byproduct of the [Evolutionary] engines functioning.”

Flying Orca
04-03-2008, 09:17 AM
I'm sure your religious beliefs are very beneficial for you, they are simply not any good at answering scientific questions about the non- physical world.

Conclusively demonstrate the existence of this "non-physical world" of which you speak, and I might begin to take you seriously. Otherwise you're just trolling.

Sam F
04-03-2008, 09:18 AM
I didn't have to wait long for your stereotyping!
Oh boy, now you're going to tell us how God made all the species from scratch. I can't wait!

Sam F
04-03-2008, 09:19 AM
Conclusively demonstrate the existence of this "non-physical world" of which you speak, and I might begin to take you seriously. Otherwise you're just trolling.

Obviously a man with no ideas.

Sam F
04-03-2008, 09:21 AM
Well folks... I've got stuff to do. If I get a chance, I'll check in later to see if there've been any improvements in the Secularist arguments.
Hope springs eternal ya know.

Flying Orca
04-03-2008, 09:21 AM
Obviously a man with no ideas.

Or, equally obviously, one who thinks ideas have no non-physical reality.

So, can you do it? Conclusively demonstrate the existence of your proposed "non-physical world"?

Keith Wilson
04-03-2008, 09:26 AM
they are simply not any good at answering scientific questions about the non-physical world.No they're not. Nor are they any good for cooking kosher pork chops, nor showing one how to trap and tame a manticore. "Scientific questions about the non-physical world"! Thanks for a good laugh, Sam.

glenallen
04-03-2008, 09:32 AM
Or, equally obviously, one who thinks ideas have no non-physical reality.

So, can you do it? Conclusively demonstrate the existence of your proposed "non-physical world"?


It's a private club where God and all the angels live. No photography allowed!

George.
04-03-2008, 09:36 AM
No George., you can't make that argument. I can, but you can't.
Don't spoil your consistency.
For you Evil is “objectively speaking… simply a byproduct of the [Evolutionary] engines functioning.”

I didn't make an argument. I asked a question. Was the Inquisition evil because its victims thought so?

The argument I did make is that evil, like beauty, is subjective - it only exists in the subject's mind. I bet you can't find a single example of something objective that everyone would agree was evil.

Popeye
04-03-2008, 09:45 AM
Conclusively demonstrate the existence of your proposed "non-physical world"?

indeed

TomF
04-03-2008, 09:52 AM
Let me add my clapping to the general applause 'round your earlier post, Keith.

That said, I do differ with those who seem to conclude that there's no spiritual world, nor evidence of God. But as we've said before, personal experience isn't transferrable.

It was interesting for me that this past week, the readings that came up in the common lectionary (used by many denominations - including Catholics -to choose a week's scripture for worship) included the story of "doubting Thomas." Who I always think got a bad rap.

Doubt and belief go hand in hand for most - if not all - of us. The issue really is how one chooses to live, faced with that.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 09:54 AM
Conclusively demonstrate the existence of this "non-physical world" ......

Does the "world of the imagination" count?

Keith Wilson
04-03-2008, 09:59 AM
That said, I do differ with those who seem to conclude that there's no spiritual world, nor evidence of God. But as we've said before, personal experience isn't transferrable. Nor would I make that argument. To say that no such thing exists is hubris, claiming knowledge beyond what we have, just as much as to say we know the fine details of the architecture of the other worlds and God's likes and dislikes.

And thanks, gentlemen.

Popeye
04-03-2008, 10:04 AM
'existence' and 'non-physical' are a contradiction in terms

Rational Root
04-03-2008, 10:23 AM
....snip...
Not magical? Let’s see, spontaneous generation of the first life-form was disproved by Pasteur way back in the mid-19th Century, no one has observed on species evolve into another, Evolution follows “laws” but, it’s results are random and unpredictable… Yet he BELIEVES!
Even Honda’s Fundamentalism requires less faith…


The mandlebrot set follows very specific laws. Yet it is in many ways random and unpredictable.

If you look at any sequence of the digits of PI they are random, and except by calculating PI, the next one is unpredictable.

That a process seems random to you does not in any way invalidate the process.

Please post a reference to Pasteur's proof. I am curious as to how he proved that spontaneous generation was impossible. If you mean he tried to do it and could not do it, that hardly proves it impossible. If that were the case then juggling 5 balls is impossible, since I can't do that.

Flying Orca
04-03-2008, 10:41 AM
Does the "world of the imagination" count?

That's an interesting question, Mr Stazzer-Newt. Since I believe that ideas are fundamentally physical things (patterns of matter, to be more precise), my answer would be "No". I suspect SamF has a different answer. ;)

Keith Wilson
04-03-2008, 10:44 AM
Patterns of matter and/or energy, eh?

Popeye
04-03-2008, 10:50 AM
wide spectrum spiritual beings experiencing the human monochromatic

Nanoose
04-03-2008, 10:53 AM
I find it amazing that people think they know my beliefs, and me, even though I have clearly made statements to the contrary. Almost like they can't really 'hear' me....they have a stereotype they can't get passed ("all Christians are/believe what the whacko fundies down the street/in my family believe"). Sad, more than anything...it just really hinders interesting dialogue which is too bad. How to encourage people to be a little more open minded and a little less defensive/argumentative....it's a toughie. Dialogue can be so rich for all involved. I do wish we could put more effort there, for these seem to be things we enjoy discussing.

As Keith knows, we are in agreement (his post #197), and as TomF reminds me, the experiential aspect of our 'knowing' is not transferable. And I think it is at that singular point that the discussion disintegrates.

Kaa
04-03-2008, 10:54 AM
We were treated to cartoon “reasoning” and when the Scientism underlying it was identified, we got yet more cartoons. Instead of a definitive refutation and a lovely opportunity to blow the analysis out of the water, we got a confirmation of that analysis of the poster’s motives.

I've been outed! Somebody set us up the bomb!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/gyroscopes.png

:D

Kaa

Kaa
04-03-2008, 10:56 AM
Since I believe that ideas are fundamentally physical things (patterns of matter, to be more precise)

Interesting claim. Can you show me a pattern of matter that corresponds to the number e? Or, say, infinity?

Kaa

George.
04-03-2008, 11:03 AM
Can you show me a pattern of matter that corresponds to an Excel spreadsheet which includes the number e?

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 11:06 AM
Interesting claim. Can you show me a pattern of matter that corresponds to the number e? Or, say, infinity?

Kaa

There's one on the screen you're looking at.

Some of the better brain scanners get tantalisingly close to showing "the world of the imagination".

Popeye
04-03-2008, 11:12 AM
...they have a stereotype they can't get passed .. Sad, more than anything...

yup

Kaa
04-03-2008, 11:13 AM
There's one on the screen you're looking at.

Um, no, that's a symbol standing for the number e. I'd like the "pattern of matter" that corresponds to the number itself.

Kaa

Keith Wilson
04-03-2008, 11:18 AM
We don't know the number itself. What we know is an algorithm for calculating it, to a degree of accuracy which depends on how much time you have.

Kaa
04-03-2008, 11:23 AM
We don't know the number itself. What we know is an algorithm for calculating it, to a degree of accuracy which depends on how much time you have.

However we certainly have an idea of what the number e is (as we do for infinity). Flying Orca claimed all ideas are physical -- I would like to see the physicality of the two ideas I mentioned.

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 11:25 AM
However we certainly have an idea of what the number e is (as we do for infinity). Flying Orca claimed all ideas are physical -- I would like to see the physicality of the two ideas I mentioned.

Kaa

Take the second half of my post you partially quoted.

Popeye
04-03-2008, 11:32 AM
http://www.csh.rit.edu/%7Espiff/dana/brain-scan-white2.jpg

Kaa
04-03-2008, 11:43 AM
Take the second half of my post you partially quoted.

Are you claiming that the number e exists only in human mind? That a thousand years ago it just didn't exist? Ditto for infinity?

Kaa

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 11:44 AM
You have a physical version of it elsewhere?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
04-03-2008, 11:47 AM
I I I

iii

3

Kaa
04-03-2008, 11:48 AM
You have a physical version of it elsewhere?

That's exactly my point, isn't it? I can't seem to find the "physical version" of, say, the number e, but I'd say it falls into the category of things I call "existing". And it seems to me it exists regardless of the ability (or lack thereof) of the human mind to think it.

Kaa

Popeye
04-03-2008, 11:54 AM
I can't seem to find the "physical version" of, say, the number e e is an expression of something which is otherwise intangible

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
04-03-2008, 11:55 AM
I can demonstrate that it (e) exists as an idea, and that ideas have physical equivalence in the patterns of human brain chemistry.

There might exist some non-human mathematical intelligence capable of manipulating the idea - and there might not.

This is known as the You Ba5tard (http://www.lspace.org/books/whos-who/you-bastard.html) hypothesis.

Where was Newton's Law of gravity in Socrates' time?

George.
04-03-2008, 11:57 AM
However we certainly have an idea of what the number e is (as we do for infinity).

We do not. We have an idea of the symbols for e and infinity. Our minds cannot grasp the numbers themselves.

Just because you can use and manipulate symbols doesn't mean you understand the things they stand for. Just because I have an idea of Korea in my mind, and can even discuss it with others, doesn't mean I know much about it (having never been there).

Nanoose
04-03-2008, 12:00 PM
Yes, there is much that is beyond the bounds of our understanding, isn't there George?

Kaa
04-03-2008, 12:04 PM
I can demonstrate that it (e) exists as an idea, and that ideas have physical equivalence in the patterns of human brain chemistry.

Correct, but that wasn't what you (and Flying Orca) claimed.

The issue is whether the number e exists only as and in no other way than some patterns of human brain electrochemistry.

We might have to decide what constitutes existing. If you define existing as necessarily being physical, well then...

Kaa

Kaa
04-03-2008, 12:08 PM
We do not. We have an idea of the symbols for e and infinity. Our minds cannot grasp the numbers themselves.

Sure they can. Just because the number e is irrational and there is no way to express it as a sequence of digits doesn't mean humans can't grasp it.

Historically the original definition of e was

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/d/1/5d18070ef4fdc2e1ae46d38ad588b18a.png

That's certainly a concept minds can grasp and understand.

Kaa

TomF
04-03-2008, 12:18 PM
Historically the original definition of e was

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/d/1/5d18070ef4fdc2e1ae46d38ad588b18a.png

That's certainly a concept minds can grasp and understand.

KaaSpeak for yourself.:D Some human minds, certainly. Mine? ....

George.
04-03-2008, 12:20 PM
Yes, there is much that is beyond the bounds of our understanding, isn't there George?

Of course. And if there is anything resembling a God out there, it is way beyond our understanding. And certainly way beyond the understanding of people who wrote books 2000 years ago. ;)

Kaa: are you saying our minds can grasp infinity?

Popeye
04-03-2008, 12:20 PM
here's a picture of a girl :

http://www.mopo.ca/hello/1907759/1024/upsgirl-2005.07.06-09.13.19.jpg

Kaa
04-03-2008, 12:27 PM
Kaa: are you saying our minds can grasp infinity?

Concept of? yes, of course. You probably mean fully grasp, but I'm not sure what "fully" means in this context.

Kaa