Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 569 of total 569 in this topic |
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 2, 2008 - 04:10pm PT
|
July 1st, 2008 was not only the 141st birthday of Canada, it was the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species". The famous book in which he put forth the theory that species evolve by natural selection. A theory that he and Alfred Russell Wallace both developed, and which has directly and indirectly been the foundation of much of modern science.
A theory, for those not familiar with scientific terms, is something that amongst other things makes predictions that are falsifiable - you can prove that it is wrong. Darwin's theory has become more nuanced, with advances in scientific knowledge, but has never been disproven.
"Intelligent design" and "creationism" are not theories, in that they are not falsifiable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/darwinbicentenary
Charles Darwin's bicentenary will be in February 2009.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
Abiogenesis--the origin of life from non-life--is falsifiable and has essentially been falsified by EVERY experiment to date, yet most scientists still believe it happened.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2008 - 04:26pm PT
|
Yes, when it comes to evolution, and the appearance of single cell life, humans have difficulty with time frames that are in the hundreds of millions if not billions of years.
Some now suggest that single cell life arose several times in the course of the Earth's history, but was obliterated by asteroid impacts and similar catastrophes, only to reappear.
Mix together the right elements (organic chemicals, water, energy - all of which are observed to naturally arise), stir them up occasionally, and wait a VERY long time, and you never know what might happen.
Of course, god may have waved her magic wand the week before last and made it all happen - but that's a matter of belief. It can't be proven or disproven.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Abiogenesis--the origin of life from non-life--is falsifiable and has essentially been falsified by EVERY experiment to date, yet most scientists still believe it happened.
Misinformation alert!!!!
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
But was it the Yaghan that purloined the Beagle's whaleboat?
Thats what I want to know.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Pop quiz: How many times does Darwin refer to the word evolution in this book?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2008 - 05:07pm PT
|
Ummm, I guess none?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"Abiogenesis--the origin of life from non-life--is falsifiable and has essentially been falsified by EVERY experiment to date, yet most scientists still believe it happened. "
Floyd, you know there's a bit more to what scientists have found than this.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Anders, I'll accept none. The very last paragraph (maybe the last sentence) of Origin of Species uses the word "evolved" - the only reference to this word or its relatives.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
If an experiment has produced a living cell from scratch, please let me know (yawn).
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Well I trust they were preceding relatives eeyonkee.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
Trivia #2, who was Fitzroy?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Floyd,
the evidence is consistent with both hypothesis, that is, that life formed from non-life, and that life was created by some supernatural act
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"If an experiment has produced a living cell from scratch, please let me know (yawn). "
Hmmm...as stated above, the basic building blocks have been created in a lab. Add millions of years, a larger "test tube" and a bit of luck and it is entirely conceivable that life would emerge...except of course for those who slavishly follow a legend written by men thousands of years ago. And such a book still ignores changes observed in life on earth over the millions and billions of years since.
Of course, abiogenesis referred orignally referred to obvervations of baby mice crawling out of piles of lenin left undisturbed for weeks. You know this too, I'm sure.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2008 - 06:04pm PT
|
Captain (later Admiral) Robert Fitzroy was the captain of the Beagle, on which Darwin voyaged from 1833 - 38. During that time he made the observations which formed the basis for The Origin of Species.
Fitzroy had a distinguished life in public service, and was a devout Christian, but was none too happy about Darwin's work. He later committed suicide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_FitzRoy
The mountain in Patagonia was named for him.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Wake up Floyd! You're the one who's using the term falsifiable. Hmmm, so as you understand the term, if an experiment that is designed to make life from non-life fails, then somehow one can make the claim that making life from non-life has been proved false??? Go back to logic class.
btw, Richard Dawkins has a chapter in The Selfish Gene that addresses the whole beginnings of life issue. Pretty interesting stuff. His take is that it's all in getting the replication process started.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
I'm not saying it never happened! But thousands of experiments have been performed using the appropriate materials and various substrates to produce proteins, DNA, etc., on a step-by-step basis, yet nobody has ever managed to create a living cell in a lab. If you prick the wall or membrane of a living cell and let the contents ooze out, you've got all the constituents needed to make a living cell. But does a living cell ever form when you do it?
There is something like a $100 million dollar prize awaiting the first scientist who can create life in a lab--and it's still unclaimed. If you believe it happened, is your belief based on evidence or on the absence of any other palatable explanation? Is it a scientific belief or is it a philosophical belief? Is it scientific to believe in something you can't explain, demonstrate or falsify?
In contrast with abiogenesis, Darwin's belief that new species evolve is based on an enormous amount of solid, irrefutable evidence. Solid science.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
I guess the only thing I don't agree with Ed H. about are slow Vdub's....lrl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
crawling out of piles of lenin
yuck!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
don't push it Lynne... I would guess we would disagree about which hypothesis is the correct one...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Yeah Ed, I guess that would be a little icky.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Floyd, here are several of my posts from a previous thread in 2005 noting that Craig Venter created [synthetic] 'life' in 2002 quite under the radar (if you consider phages to be 'alive') before moving on to attempt the same with a generic, minimal, self-replicating bacterial container. He's a complete maniac and I'm guessing he will succeed in moving up the true creationist ladder of life to bacteria by the end of 2010, certainly by 2012. Creating life - you don't have to be god, you just have to be really smart egomaniac and act like one.
-----------------------------------------
The real science of Intelligent Design (Synthetic Biology)
And one driven by ego and arrogance. In particular it should be noted that while the creation of a minimal, self-replicating [generic] microbial vehicle will be a remarkable scientific accomplishment, it also carries significant and very dark undertones relative to WMD development. We would all be better off if this work were being accomplished by someone less self-promoting than Venter, who is clearly the Reardon of biological sciences.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/
-----------------------------------------
Just to be clear, the reservations I and others have relative to such work is not related to the "ethics" of "creating life", Venter basically already passed that threshold with his [2002] creation of the first replicating synthetic virus (bacteriophage phiX174). Rather, our concerns are based on the obvious WMD implications associated with synthesizing utilitarian microbial vehicles.
[ Note: bacteriophage phiX174 link > [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4636121.stm[/url] ]
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2008 - 06:44pm PT
|
Humans may not have the time or materials to easily replicate the 'experiment' which created life.
The experiment involved hundreds of millions, or billions, of years. Earth's surface covered with organic chemicals and liquid water, in virtually infinite combinations. Energy sources - sunlight, chemical reactions, lightning, black smokers, vulcanism, etc.
Us humans have difficulty comprehending the HUGE parameters involved. The only thing we can add to the process to speed it up is intelligence.
Joke: Marx's grave is a communist plot. (Doesn't work for Linen - he hasn't been buried yet.)
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
Which came first, a cell or a virus? Viruses (or phages) could not be a stepping stone in the evolution of a cell, for they cannot reproduce without hijacking a cell's machinery. ADDED LATER: They're also much, much less complex.
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
I think it's a conspiracy by the Guardians of the Universe to keep the secret to creating life out of our hot little human paws...I mean, look at the mess we've made with all the life we have here now.
Shouldn't we clean that up before we're allowed back at the Easy-Bake Oven?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Yeah, EH, you're right. But, at least you presented both sides.
Guess, we may find out someday what really happened, but Life is so much more than a discussion on how it started.
Discussion's are great but arguing opinions vs. actual facts...then you have to argue what really constitutes the facts..been down this road so many times I put up a road closed sign I guess.
I would rather be enjoying peoples company, cooking a new receipe, learning a new song, instrument, how to climb, surf, reading, traveling, working in the garden...I have my new ST name...superficial lrl
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
In fairness to Mighty Hiker's initial comment on Darwin, his book focused primarily on how new species evolve--not on the origin of life.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"Doesn't work for Linen - he hasn't been buried yet."
-I have seen that wax, it'll sober you right up!
Oh yeah, and a 2-4 (slang, eh?) to Anders on nautical history, I must have dosed off...
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
Is Lenin entombed in wax?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2008 - 07:03pm PT
|
You could say that he's well-preserved!
Floyd: Good point. It's unclear exactly what Darwin's beliefs were later in his life, despite a strong Anglican family. He doesn't seem to have been a Christian, and probably the closest description is that he was a deist. Something that many Enlightenment figures, including most of the founding parents on the U.S., were. That is, he believed there was some first cause, but didn't go much beyond that.
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
Formaldehyde????
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I meant to say the mice emerged from undisturbed Lennon.
Sheesh...it's been a long day at work!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
Could be. When you Proceed through the Lenin Mausoleum on Red Square, the 'Body' presented as grazhdanin Ulyanov looks very wax like. Very much like the Cavemen in the Dioramas in the Field Museum in Chicago. Though it will be 35 yrs this month since I paid my respects to Volodya, and maybe he looks more natural, now.
Pretty sure Darwin called himself a Christian.
[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:WWB4JaC38xxz7M:http://www.marx-brothers.org/whyaduck/cards/all-hail.jpg{{/img}}
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
Kinda creepy...isn't it.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
Yup!
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Floyd, you miss the point - humans being able to synthetically create life in any way, in any order, by any means tells you right off the bat that if primates can do it, it's a pretty simple affair, and a naturally occuring one at that. The odds that it wasn't replicated many times over Earth's history and isn't dirt common throughout the universe is beyond ridiculous and comparable to thinking the solar system revolves around a flat Earth. No god of any kind is required and I don't remember any religious texts conveying this 'power' on primates. Actually, in religious text of all stripes it is a power reserved to god - clearly as big an error as the flat Earth at the center of the universe.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
Was it the Bible or later believers who claimed the Earth was flat or in the center of the universe? Might want to check out Isaiah's perspective (Isaiah 40:21-22).
I'm still wondering where all the matter in the universe came from...did it create itself during the big bang or was it always there? I hope some primate out there can explain that one for the rest of us.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
Healyje, if primates are intelligent and can create life, and the universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars potentially capable of hosting a planet with conditions suitable for life, how do you know with certainty that there is no other beast out there who also knows how to create life--and maybe even transport it to another planet?
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
Those who deny evolution love to point out the shortcomings of our current understanding without postulating a plausible alternative. What is your theory Floyd?
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
My theory is simple: I DON'T KNOW! Is there anything wrong with admitting our ignorance? I have no problem accepting biological evolution once life appeared on the planet, but I can't explain how life arrived here. Maybe by chance, maybe from another planet, maybe there really is an intelligent designer. Believing in any one of those sounds like faith to me. It's beyond the current realm of science.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"I'm still wondering where all the matter in the universe came from"
This guy's poop,
and Vishnu's navel, get with it.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
In the thread on gay marriage I proposed a monosexual god created the universe in a masturbatory big bang thus unifying religion and science in a single (probably several) stroke[s]. Multiverses when he's really horny.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 2, 2008 - 09:39pm PT
|
Yeah, but did he (no she, in this case) bang his forehead?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Floyd, distances between habitable planets and systems essentially makes getting between them more a matter of time travel than anything else. Within regions of space it could easily be the case where many planets are or become habitable, but never two at the same time given the time scales invloved. But I could see a certain percentage of all fully inhabited planets being obliterated by an asteroids or comets and having the elements of life scattered across space. The time thing works both ways, billions of years to percolate, but probably difficult for any intelligently inhabited planet to detect or communicate with any other such planet in the time left in their sun's ability to sustain that life. I'm totally guessing, but despite my belief that life and even intelligent life is common as sknott in the universe, I suspect the realities of distance and time mean that 99.9999% of all life emerges, lives, and is extinquished in complete isolation.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
Btw, my copy says 1859...
|
|
the museum
Trad climber
Rapid City, SD
|
|
Here's one of my favourite paragraphs...page 116
Circumstances favourable to natural selection
This is an extemely intricate subject. A large amount of inheritable and diversified variability is favourable, but I believe mere individual differences suffice for the work. A large number of of individuals by giving a better chance for the appearance within any given period of profitable variations, will compensate for a lesser amount of variability in each individual, and is, I believe, an extremely important element of success. Though nature grants vast periods of time for the work of natural selection, she does not grant an indefinite period; for as all organic beings are striving, it may be said, to seize on each place in the economy of nature, if any one species does not become modified and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors, it will soon be exterminated.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
Darwin passed away with a paper about genetic material sitting on his book shelf. He never read the paper. He had no clue as to the mechanism of his observed conclusions. He made observations and amazing ones at that. Far to often the scope of his work is taken way out of context. Especially when one steps into the "political" realm of wanting to discuss Intelligent design or Creationism (the political realm is the only place those topics belong as they are not science).
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Well, Nature, thanks for posting. You haven't said enough for me to know how to respond, but I know you are Nature and we can debate when we find the common ground...cause you are Nature and yo are great!!!
Thanks for being mellow. Lynne
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Well, DMT, interested. At least you are open;;; Have a great night. Lynne
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Floyd writes: My theory is simple: I DON'T KNOW! Is there anything wrong with admitting our ignorance?
Nothing wrong with that at all. But we do understand more and more, through the application of a methodology, the so called "scientific method," and one could hope to eventually understand the origin of life, and even of the matter in the universe. This understanding will be based on sound science. If there is a faith that I hold to, it is that we will understand.
As a scientist I would say there is much that we do not understand. I do not fear to admit to ignorance. But there is also much tat we do understand and we should admit that to.
It is one thing to say "I don't know," it is quite another to deny that we will ever know.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The whole Darwinian theory is false. It has no sound basis. Darwin himself admits it is just a theory.
Theory is not science.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
The really amazing thing about Darwins work is that it took place at a time when we were just beginning to understand that matter consisted of Atoms.
So many dfifferent aspects of the advances in scientific understanding that have occurred since that time have played a part in fleshing out the molecular basis for the theory.
I think that part of the reason that scientists get so frustrated, is that so much of modern science is intertwined with Evolution.
If you don't believe in the science of Evolution then you might as well believe that cell phones work by magic.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
No one not even Darwin can be independent.
Darwin died. So he was under the control of something higher.
No man wants to die, but he is forced to die.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 3, 2008 - 12:58am PT
|
WB himself is living proof of evolution. Once he was no 'count climbin' bum, hangin' with all 'em low life dirtbags in Slummyside Mudhole. Now he's a 'spected citizen and member of society, fixin' radios, hangin' off choppers, helpin' keep us all on the straight and narrow.
His continuing association with well-known felon #46 is another matter, but I guess we all have our dark sides.
As it only took 20 years for this change to occur, intelligent (re)design may also be a factor. Either way, though, isn't it supposed to take a lot longer?
ps Thank you, Ouch! Lynne will be happy.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Dingus:
[url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16379527" target="new"]Bacillus subtilis spores on artificial meteorites survive hypervelocity atmospheric entry: implications for Lithopanspermia[/url]
[url="http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24844" target="new"]Life Forms Ejected on Asteroid Impact Could Survive to Reseed Earth According to a Study Published in Astrobiology[/url]
[url="http://space.newscientist.com/channel/space-tech/astrobiology/dn1771" target="new"]Bugs could travel in comfort aboard meteorites[/url]
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Thank you Ouch! Enjoy your work again on the ST and Happy 4th of July! Lynne
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Floyd, ...but I can't explain how life arrived here.
Neither can I, but arguments from incredulity (I can't believe, see or understand XYZ, therefore it isn't true or it couldn't have happened) are not the answer. Not knowing is the beginning of finding out, it is the basis of all scientific inquiry.
Maybe by chance, maybe from another planet, maybe there really is an intelligent designer. Believing in any one of those sounds like faith to me.
Agreed, arrival from another planet or creation from a god/designer still leaves open the question of how they came into existence. What was the other planet's or designer god's abiogenesis? Chance, as noted above, is one likely element of the abiogenesis puzzle, add chemistry and time and...?
Saying that life is too complex to have emerged by mere chance and then proposing something even more complex (i.e. god or designer) as the solution is just dumb. (Floyd, I know you did not make this claim, I'm just making a comment).
It's beyond the current realm of science.
How can you make this claim? It is actively being studied and is certainly within the imagined "current realm of science". Everything is within the realm of science. You might find this interesting. [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg&eurl=http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/wondering_how_life_got_started.php [/url]
WB, The whole Darwinian theory is false. It has no sound basis. Darwin himself admits it is just a theory. Theory is not science.
This is a classic, and weak, creationist argument. First off it's not "Darwinian theory", it's the theory of evolution. The theory has changed over the years as we understand more and more. Darwin got the ball rolling with his intial insights. And as to your claim that it is "just a theory", I lifted the following from "An Index to Creationist Claims" to help you see why this is a lame argument.
[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/[/url]
"The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless."
Happy Birthday ‘On the Origin of Species'!
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
I like Jaybro's poop hypothesis. An alien spacecraft circumnavigated Earth in search of intelligent life. Disappointed at not finding any, the craft landed on the planet, an extraterrestrial terrestrial beast stepped, crawled or slithered to the ground to poop, and BINGO! We all evolved from his or her fecal bacteria.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
This is a false theory, that chemicals can create life. It is nonsense.
Life is never created, life is already there.
God is already there, and the part and particles, molecules, life, was already there.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Werner, you don't think live evolved?
If not, how would you explain the piles of evidence suggesting it has?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
dirtbag, the religious are not interested in evidence.
Presto "God is already there, and the part and particles, molecules, life, was already there."
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Waiting for someone to post an anatomical drawing of an eyeball.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I know BC. It's hard not to say something though.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
HDDJ, don't you mean Human Ear?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You have got so many chemicals.
Now the child is dead. Now you give some chemical injection and bring it into life. Why you cannot do that?
If you cannot do that, then what is this nonsense, saying that some chemical is missing?
If it is missing, you replace it. Why you cannot replace?
Because they haven't found out the chemical?
Therefore they are rascals. They do not know what is that chemical, and still you say that some chemical is missing. This is going on, bluffing, cheating. This should be stopped. They do not know what is that chemical missing, still, they say, "Some chemical missing".
They have no knowledge. As soon as they/you cannot explain, you prove your foolishness, that's all. That is not a scientific answer, "chance," "nature."
What is nature? Who is conducting nature? How is nature going on so nicely?
The "soul" is defined as a non-material, eternal spiritual entity present within any living being. The symptom of the presence of the soul within a body is consciousness. The soul continues to exist after the destruction of the body and it existed prior to the creation of the body. The material body develops, changes and produces by-products [offspring] because of the presence of the soul within. The material body deteriorates in due cause of time and when it is no longer a suitable residence for the soul it is forced to leave the body. This we call death.
The soul transmigrates from body to body according to the consciousness it has developed in it's lifetime.
That is the real evolution.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
We've had plenty of threads on evolution already.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
...and nothing changes. Ironic, huh?
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
How is nature going on so nicely?
I think it's all the yoga. And the tantric philosophy. Thanks for observing ;-)
Lynne: Actually I feel like I said a lot with that post. You could make many posts on superdopo about how his observations have been taken out of context (oh wait, we've done just that). And typically in that discussion someone decides to include intelligent design as a science to really stir the pot. Douglas Brooks had a wonderful rant about the political reasoning for doing such. I doubt anyone on this forum has ever listened to Douglas though...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
I believe in intelligent design.
It is how I establish new routes.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
You made up #1, but I'm with you on #2, though you left out some key details; among others, time is reaaaaallllllyyy long.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2008 - 02:26am PT
|
The "theory" of relativity hasn't been disproven. Yet.
The "theory" of gravity hasn't been disproven. Yet.
The electromagnetic "theory" hasn't been disproven. Yet.
Newton's three laws ("theories") work fine for a non-relativistic and non-quantum effect universe. They were in part replaced by special and general relativity, and then quantum mechanics and other exotic stuff that Ed can tell us about, but only to provide a more precise explanation of certain observations.
We depend on these "theories" each and every day. Anyone working in health care or biomedical fields depends on the application of the "theory" of evolution every day.
Anyway, wasn't it clever of Mr. Darwin to come up with such an interesting explanation of how some of the world works, and give us something to talk about? Whether or not he was divinely inspired, intelligently designed, or just plain evolved?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 4, 2008 - 02:35am PT
|
I must admit it's hard to imagine 4.56 billion years. It's an awful long time.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
It's probably way more than enough time for an Amoeba to evolve into a gay human, but I'll grant you it's certainly not enough time for you to evolve enough to tolerate gay marriage...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Those goddamn 'theories' - they're like the f*#king energizer bunnie...
[url="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/07/03/in.unique.stellar.laboratory.einsteins.theory.passes.strict.new.test" target="new"]In unique stellar laboratory, Einstein's theory passes strict, new test
[/url]
Thursday, July 3, 2008 - 14:22 in Astronomy & Space
Einstein's 1915 theory predicted that in a close system of two very massive objects, such as neutron stars, one object's gravitational tug, along with an effect of its spinning around its axis, should cause the spin axis of the other to wobble, or precess.
Studies of other pulsars in binary systems had indicated that such wobbling occurred, but could not produce precise measurements of the amount of wobbling.
"Measuring the amount of wobbling is what tests the details of Einstein's theory and gives a benchmark that any alternative gravitational theories must meet," said Scott Ransom of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
The eclipses allowed the astronomers to pin down the geometry of the double-pulsar system and track changes in the orientation of the spin axis of one of them. As one pulsar's spin axis slowly moved, the pattern of signal blockages as the other passed behind it also changed. The signal from the pulsar in back is absorbed by the ionized gas in the other's magnetosphere.
Pulsars, first discovered in 1967, are the "corpses" of massive stars that have exploded as supernovae. What is left after the explosion is a superdense neutron star that packs more than the mass of our Sun into the size of an average city. Beams of radio waves stream outward from the poles of the star's intense magnetic field and sweep around as the star rotates, as often as hundreds of times a second.
The pair of pulsars studied with the GBT is about 1,700 light-years from Earth. The average distance between the two is only about twice the distance from the Earth to the Moon. The two orbit each other in just under two and a half hours.
"A system like this, with two very massive objects very close to each other, is precisely the kind of extreme "cosmic laboratory" needed to test Einstein's prediction," said Victoria Kaspi, leader of McGill University's Pulsar Group. Theories of gravity don't differ significantly in "ordinary" regions of space such as our own Solar System. In regions of extremely strong gravity fields, such as near a pair of close, massive objects, however, differences are expected to show up.
In the binary-pulsar study, General Relativity "passed the test" provided by such an extreme environment, the scientists said.
"It's not quite right to say that we have now 'proven' General Relativity," Breton said. "However, so far, Einstein's theory has passed all the tests that have been conducted, including ours."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
So we can just throw out anything and instead of "proving" our theory if noone "disproves" it...it has credibility?
that's the way it works... you can disprove something, you can't prove it.... so if your theory is consistent with observation, and the theory can be explained logically, you're in!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"if your theory is consistent with observation, and the theory can be explained logically, you're in!"
Really?
Okay, so where are these observations of evolution happening?
The theory says that new organs and apparatuses can develop spontaneously through selection of random mutations.
So where's the observation of that happening?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Jody, Takes more faith to believe everything evolved from nothing than it does to believe God created
everything.
The diversity of life did not evolve from nothing. Life arose from the materials available in this universe, on and around this planet. Evolution began once self replicating organisms arrived. If you want to conjure up a "first cause", what caused god? What came before god? Please tell us where god came from? Extreme assertions require extreme evidence. Faith has nothing to do with it. The various fantastic theories in
science (and they are fantastic!) require and have large amounts of evidence, where is yours? (crickets chirping while we wait, and wait...)
Blight, Okay, so where are these observations of evolution happening?
If you are interested, I suggest you read through this list of top creationist claims against evolution. Your question is on the list. Most of the observations are occuring on what some people call the microevolutionary level (that is small observable changes seen mostly in insect and bacterial populations). [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html[/url]
Also, Blight, Jody and anyone else interested may want to read through the 29+ Evidences for Evolution provided free on the [url]http://www.talkorigins.org[/url] website. This should give you a good idea where scientists are coming from regarding evolution.[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/[/url]
Have a happy 4th!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"Takes more faith to believe everything evolved from nothing than it does to believe God created everything."
No, Jody, just takes curiosity and an open mind. My take is that the universe is open, not closed...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Hello Blight, interesting post...
Really?
Okay, so where are these observations of evolution happening?
The theory says that new organs and apparatuses can develop spontaneously through selection of random mutations.
So where's the observation of that happening?
Let's try another tack here...
Darwin was trying to explain a set of observations which were the result of the work of Naturalists systematically studying life around the globe.
First, that there is a concept of species which at that time essentially meant that individuals of a particular species could mate and their progeny had the capability of reproducing.
Second, that there are many species that are similar in form and function.
Third, that these similarities were often geographically local.
Something else that was observed was that function in dramatically different species might be similar.
The geologists were also out and about during this same time period and they did not fail to notice the existence of fossils, the evidence of species, trapped in rock layers. Many of these fossils did not correspond with any existing species.
The theory of evolution addresses the similarities of species, and offers an explanation which is consistent with all these observations and makes two major predictions (at the time) which have been borne out by observation.
Evolution basically states that species characteristics have variability, and that the characteristics of the parents can be passed from one generation to the next, that their traits can be inherited. Darwin reasoned that given enough time, that a gradual change could take place that created a new species.
The two predictions were 1) that a mechanism for inheritance existed and 2) that there was sufficient geological time for this gradual evolution to take place.
Observations of species similarities and differences, spatially, are consistent with this theory. Observations of species similarities and differences, in time, where we have a sample of past life, are consistent with this theory.
The two predictions also are verified 1) by the existence of an inheritance mechanism, genetic material common to all life and capable of encoding the information necessary to express the form and function of an organism. 2) by the knowledge that the earth is something like 4.6 Billion years old and that evidence for life on the planet dates back 4 Billion years. This is sufficient time for the process of evolution to take place.
As a physicist this second prediction is interesting, because the prevailing wisdom in Darwin's time was that the earth was very much younger. Estimates were based on the temperature of the earth, and the rate of cooling, etc. As we know now, radioactive decay of U and Th in the earth's interior are a heat source, and that the phenomena of radioactive decay is an important tool for measuring the age of the earth.
The theory of evolution provides a very simple, and to most, a compelling explanation of life on earth. It provides the foundation of modern biology. It is consistent with all of our observations of life on the planet. Today, evolution is a much more elaborate theory than the one Darwin introduced 150 years ago, but it is essentially the same.
There is no other scientific theory which matches its power to predict and explain life on earth.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Michael Shermer's The Real Evolution Anniversary
Of course, I seriously doubt the fundies, spiritualists, and woo woo trolls will bother with this article, but the rational minds here will enjoy it.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Jody, I realize that no amount of evidence for evolution will satisfy you. You're a true fundie, I get that. I offered an article here [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/[/url] which gives an excellent outiline of current thinking on macroevolution, however, I am sure you will not bother to read it. I know you do not like it, but there is ample evidence for macroevolution.
Why is it that the faith heads among us go about waving their hands in the air screaming, "Where's your evidence for evolution?, where's your evidence, huh?" and then when asked to provide any evidence for god, anything at all, we get thrown a useless piece of crap like "God always WAS". To use more of your own words, "You're kidding right?"
Hopeless.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
I think the debate between creation and evolution is quite interesting and more subtle than people give it credit. It is interesting on a number of levels of course; psychological as well as philosophical, scientific, rational and emotional.
For me one really interesting question is whether there is a dividing line between living and nonliving. Judging by the comments here it would seem that most people see an obvious division between living and non living.
The creationist has an easy time with this. Everything is dead unless God or other supernatural power imparts life to it. It is dualism, if I have my terms right. There are life forces and there are measurable forces that effect inanimate substance. It works pretty well for the most part doesn't it? Why is there life? God created it. Why are there zebras or worms or lightning? God created them. It answers the question and ends further inquiry, wherein lies the problem.
Too many of us are curious about things. God gave us inquisitive minds, or maybe evolution did, but we want to see patterns, we want to see connections. If God created zebras, when did he create them, how did he create them? What was the process? If you ask those sorts of questions you sort of come back around to evolution or something similar. If we pay attention we can see that things are continually changing, but often in subtle ways that we don't notice. That is sort of the definition of evolution, slow, gradual change.
Evolution thinkers have some similar problems that I seldom see acknowledged. We also seem to accept that there is a distinct dividing line between living and nonliving which was somehow crossed in the distant past, by the magical action of time, energy and chance. Now maybe we don't think of it as being magical, cause we have faith that eventually we will understand that dividing line and how it can be crossed. But can you really fault creationists for viewing this as equivalent to their belief in the action of God?
Personally, I don't think there is a real dividing line between living and nonliving. Way back in an Organic Gardening class at Fresno State I was made aware that plants are not the bottom of the food chain, but that the base of the life pyramid goes much deeper. It occurred to me that it probably goes down forever. I was probably high at the time, but it still makes sense even now.
It seems to me that evolution in many ways is rather obvious to everybody. Things change around us. We change. Our children are not the same as us? Judging by fossils there used to be creatures that are no longer here. There are creatures around now that did not used to be here?
If we find that interesting as many of us do, we want to explore that and think about it and investigate it further. If someone says to me, "God did that". It stops my impulse to explore in that direction. It makes me think I should go read my bible and quite being a troublemaker. "God created that, so don't ask any more questions, just go do your chores!"
On the other hand I have become very sympathetic to creationists on a couple of points. If you think that life is magical and wonderful and everything good comes from God, it must be very depressing to be told that, "No, everything is only randomness or based on inanimate physics. There is no God guiding it. Life is a fluke arising from death and returning to death. Life has no meaning." Now many will disagree that evolution says these things, but I think it is easy to get the impression that it does, or that our explanations of evolution give this impression.
If I believe that life comes from God, then I have to reject a theory, no matter the seeming evidence, that life comes from dead stuff. If you believe in gravity, but I tell you that I was floating around in my room yesterday, you won't care how many measurements I produce or how much video there is of me floating around. You will assume that I faked it because gravity takes precedence over other stuff.
I don't question evolution myself, but I do question our explanations of it. I suspect that the evolution of our explanations will lead closer to creationism that we think possible, at least it has for me. Probably won't satisfy creationists though.
Paul
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
“there is FAR more evidence that is consistent with Creation than there is for evolution“
That’s not true. There’s not a single shred of evidence to support creation, and there never will be. There is an ABUNDANCE of evidence to disprove it, though. Is that what you meant?
“God always WAS.“
That’s not true either. Gods were invented by humans, and humans haven’t been on the planet for very long. Dinosaurs, etc... didn’t have a need for gods, and didn’t have the intelligence to have the concept of “god”. So at that time, god WASN’T.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Andy
You don't have one single shred of evidence to support your nonsensical post above.
You're nothing but a gross mental speculator just as the rest of the folks saying there is no GOD.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
Ahem. Let me see if I can do the basic argument in under 50 words.
T or F:
1. Certain traits vary within the population of a life form.
2. At least some of these variations confer a survival advantage on those that posses them, making them more likely to have offspring.
3. The traits that vary are passed on to offspring.
If you answered true to all three, guess what? You believe in evolution! No need to argue about god or creation or whether the world is 6000 years old or why there are no dinosaurs in the bible or any of that.
Thank you, please drive through.
PS -- The standard creationist answer to this is that it explains changes in species over time, but not the evolution of new species. Nice try, but unless you want to claim that God nudges things back to the mean every time something is about to evolve enough to be considered a new species, the possibility of wide genomic variation is simply a mathematical fact. Of course if you think the world is only 6000 years old there's a bit of a problem, but I have to think that the writers of the old testament would have made some mention of the GIANT FREAKING LIZARDS RUNNING AROUND EVERYWHERE AND EATING PEOPLE AND STOMPING ON THEIR HUTS; flora and fauna that we recognize today certainly get ample mention in the text. Besides, any number of natural phenomena obviously indicate that the universe is over 6,000 years old, not the least of which is Yosemite Valley. There is still recourse to the argument that the world was created old, with dinosaur bones in the ground and pre-aged radiocarbon in the remains of early primate life and all of that, but if you can swallow that one you might as well believe that creation happened 10 seconds ago and God popped you into being with a head full of memories of the past.
PPS -- Besides the opening moves of a colonial revolt in the Americas, what else happened in 1776 that would shape the world and our perception of it for centuries?
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
WBraun, I disagree.
You know the "If a tree falls in the forest...." cliche? Well it applies here, too.
God is real in that "he" exists in the minds of humans. God is a concept that people follow. But before humans existed, all of the species on the planet did not possess the ability to think about god. They ate, slept, and reproduced. That is all. So it's pretty safe to say that god did not exist then.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Stupidest logic I've ever heard Andy.
Better stick to the material world and you won't look so bad.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Will do.
Hey, aren't you the guy that follows that crazy Dungeons and Dragons meets scientology religion? I think I remember you talking about it a few years back. Something about how the Moon isn't real and that it gets swallowed by a giant snake during the eclipse?
You may want to follow your own advice there, pal.
edit: Found it!
From this thread:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=246813&msg=298518#msg298518
WBraun wrote:
"The Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched, concluded, and perfect. The Vedas state that the moon is 800,000 miles farther from the earth than the sun. Therefore, even if we accept the modern calculation of 93 million miles as the distance from the earth to the sun, how could the "astronauts" have traveled to the moon--a distance of almost 94 million miles--in only 91 hours (the alleged elapsed time of the Apollo 11 moon trip)?
If anywhere they went to Rahu ...... look it up you'll see."
"Rahu, makes the eclipse. Check it out you'll see.
Candraloka, the moon is not the one the modern scientists, physicists think they went to. There is a hidden planet to the human eye called Rahu. "
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
More stupid speculation.
Proves you are just a mental speculator.
What do you really know besides just guessing ......
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
WBraun, thank you for postulating so many philosophies and ideals re: things that are important to many of us who enjoy free debate and exchange of ideas.
I myself happen to agree with many of the thoughts and philosophies you express and thank you for putting them out in the forum. I hope to address many of these issues as life gives me pause....hopefully soon. LRL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
didn't say that Jody,
what I said is a bit more subtle than that...
if you have a hypothesis in a theory than you can predict the outcome of an experiment or observation designed to test that hypothesis.
If the hypothesis fails to predict the outcome of the test, than it is false, and it may indicate that the theory is false.
If the hypothesis is consistent with the outcome of the test, that is that. We say "consistent" because of the finite ability to quantify the the prediction and the observation.
Creationism leads to hypotheses which can be checked, and have been shown to be incorrect, for instance, the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years. Another is the explanation of various geological features which are hypothesized to have resulted in the "great flood" and fail to correspond to known geological processes. Another is the explanation of the existence of extinct life as indicated in the fossil record. As I understand it, creationist hypotheses fail nearly every rigorous test they are put to, leading to a modification of the creation "theory" which essentially retreats to an untestable corner, that is essentially "the will of God/gods." Since part of the theory is that we cannot understand "the will of God/gods" we cannot formulate tests of this hypothesis. In science such theories are discarded as untestable, they are useless, for science, because of their inability to predict the outcome of experiment/observation.
On the other hand, evolution is predictive, and has been subject to a series of tests over the past 150 years which have both modified our description of evolution (refining the theory) and has been shown to be consistent with the experiments/observations used to test its predictions.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2008 - 02:54pm PT
|
"Ed even said that if you can't "disprove" it, it must be true."
I look forward to Ed's rebuttal to that. [Edit: I see he put one in while I was writing this.]
Spiritual and religious beliefs may be true, however unlikely it seems - but there's no way to prove or disprove them. They don't make predictions that are falsifiable, that is predictions that can be shown to be true or untrue.
Saying that "God will strike you down with a lightning bolt at 4:19 PST, unless you repent" is falsifiable - assuming "repent" can be defined. Saying that "I believe in god. You can't prove there isn't a god, therefore there is one." may be true - but in the absence of belief, or divine intervention, there's no objective test to measure it against.
Oil and water. Science has theories (beliefs, if you like) which make predictions about the world that can be proven or disproven. Religious belief doesn't.
Which is why 99% of the religious debate on SuperTopo is a waste of time. You either believe, or you don't.
It is probably easier for humans to believe in an arbitrary and often ridiculous collection of religious dogmas, which in turn are mostly a syncretic mass of beliefs and tribal legends from the Fertile Crescent, approximately 2,000 - 1,000 BCE, with later overlays, than it is to really appreciate 4.56 billion years. Particularly given that the religions do offer useful ideas as to how humans can live together and behave. Still, given the evils that all religions promote, if we said that teaching children about religion was child abuse, and prohibited anyone under age 18 from exposure to or involvement in religion, I wonder what would happen?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"Humans and apes have common ancestors. "
Not "we came from apes."
If you're going to refute a point of view, get it straight in your own mind before you embarrass yourself in public, again.
No evidence of speciation? What about isolated populations that can no longer mate and produce offspring? Do they no longer count?
Creationism is a whim, a suggestion, a fairy tale, it does not pass the rigor to be a theory.
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
Jody,
I'm not really an expert on this...but isn't it a fact that our DNA is something like 98% the same as apes?
Could one of you guys clarify that please? I read it a while ago...I think in that science article about the chimp who uses American Sign Language to have everyday conversations with people...just like a child would.
Edit: Found one of the articles I'd read:
In 2003, researchers at Wayne State University in Detroit again ignited the debate when they found that 99.4% of the most critical DNA sites are identical in human and chimp genes, prompting the lead researcher, Morris Goodman, to declare that chimps and humans should be brought together under the same umbrella genus, Homo.
"There have been discussions about whether chimpanzees should be afforded more protection and this might make things a bit clearer in peoples' minds about whether they should have rights of some kind. In terms of life on Earth, chimps and humans are really not that different to each other," said Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist at Oxford University. Practically, he adds, reclassification could raise the chimp's profile and potentially improve their conservation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/jan/24/research.highereducation
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2008 - 03:49pm PT
|
You guys are all wreaking hayhem on my thread. I just wanted to recognize a brilliant and interesting man, and his ideas. Not to debate whether his theory is true, and all that other stuff. No way that can be solved here, as we've demonstrated so many times before.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
To me, the biggest question in creationism is why God kills kittens because of what Locker does in his spare time.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 5, 2008 - 03:59pm PT
|
"Hayhem" is a term that recently appeared in the English language, as it continues to evolve. Jody created it. I think if has something to do with agricultural crime - genetically modified crops, rustling corn, hopefully not unnatural acts with the livestock. A neologism that seems useful in a variety of situations.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Darwin is not brilliant because he missed the most important fundamental knowledge, the existence of the soul.
When the knowledge of the soul is missing, knowledge becomes defective.
This is the defect of modern science. They have no knowledge of the soul and therefore speculated and theorize everything from the gross physical mundane platform.
The end result is they mislead everyone.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
A look at the vastness and complexity of the universe and life on this earth shows us that any creator isn't an old man with a white beard in the sky playing with clay.
Acknowledging God beyond our limited mental scope allows that evolution and an ultimate conscious power of creation are not incompatible.
And just as physics has found knowledge deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole, our awareness of how species arise and evolve may become more sophisticated with time. (and religion/spirituality can do the same)
I think it's a mistake for religion to get it's panties in a bunch about evolution. Religion is about transforming the heart and mind, not substituting one conceptual idea about something for another. Jesus didn't preach any science or spend an instant correcting wrong ideas about the physical world prevalent during his time (and religious folk would have to assume he knew better)
It's a distraction. Let science explore via its means, and let us all look for the meaning of life in our hearts, and not in cataloging beliefs that change nothing but the superficial content of our brains.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
Jody said: "whenever an evolutionist presents "evidence" for "evolution", it is always micro evolution presented as evidence for macro evolution."
Drawing an artificial distinction between the two has been a rhetorical gambit employed by creationists for decades, but has no real root in any kind of science. The distinction is often made between variation within a species and changes between one species and another, but we must remember that there is in fact no hard observable line between species. We've constructed this test of "can produce viable offspring," but that's a probabilistic observation, not something you can read into the genetic code by seeing if 99.xxxx% of the material is the same. It's the difference between saying "it's a fair coin if we flip it 100 times and get between 45 and 55 heads" and "it's a fair coin if we measure its shape and density using the most accurate equipment available and determine that it is within 99% of being perfectly cylindrical and of even density."
If a life form's genetic makeup changes across generations, the likelihood of any degree of change is simply a function of how often and how large the changes are and the amount of time allowed. Microevolution x 4.56 billion years = macroevolution. There simply isn't a good creationist argument for why microvariation cannot eventually produce macrovariation, at least without recourse to the idea that God reaches in and monkeys with things whenever the natural processes he laid out start to behave in a way that would make it necessary for believers to alter their faith. Mighty strange thing for a deity who created intelligent life to do, I think.
Jody, you've claimed a few times that even billions of years isn't enough time for macroevolution. Care to post up your math and tell us how long it would actually take for a reasonable probability of observing the level of speciation and diversity we see now, say a 50/50 chance? It's not difficult, really, you just need to specify the parameters that determine the distribution of the variation, calculate a standard deviation, and compute a likelihood of a given outcome from there. But of course you haven't done that, what you have done is just fall back to an intermediate argument when your first position was weakened in the hopes of salvaging something of your claim by simply saying it's not long enough. Unfortunately, you've already conceded the point; by admitting that it is not long enough, you have admitted that it is possible given more time, which means that you do in fact believe in the possibility of evolution in principle, which is inconsistent with your other claims.
A challenge to all of the defenders of creationism here: postulate some testable hypothesis that if found to be false would cause you to abandon your belief in creation. If you can't, you're simply not making a scientific claim, and we're all talking past each other.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
”Jay...there is no evidence that humans and apes have common ancestors. “
The same can be said about the different races of human beings, yet the Bible states that we all descended from Adam and Eve.
So you’re using science to try to disprove someone else’s views. Yet you are ignoring that same science when it clearly disproves your own views. Interesting....
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
" Jay...there is no evidence that humans and apes have common ancestors. "
Ya think? It's okay to actually open a book, and/or think some, the hive isn't the whole story, Jode.
There is more evidence than anyone could ever need, unless they Need to be in denial.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Werner and Karl, so appreciate your last remarks. I had a pretty good brain, but due to circumstances beyond my control it's just not with me right now.
I am assured by the pros that the brain will be back as life events are processed and configured into the new era of life I now live.
Anyway, I would so love to be a part of this discussion but it's just not there for me...so all I can do is comment on your remarks....
WBraun "Darwin is not brilliant because he missed the most important fundamental knowledge, the existence of the soul...."
Yes, the soul is the core of just who we are...separates us from all other life forms...
Merriam-Webster....soul.."the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
Also...the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe."
Yet, Karl, I don't think that we can put science on one side and the spiritual factor on the other. I don't think one can draw a line, so to speak, in the sand. There is a co-mingling of the two, science and soul, that baffles humans.
Most want to put science and spiritually into well defined cubby holes with nice sterile labels...and then walk away saying..."there, now we've got it pigeon-holed". I doubt this will ever happen.
Blessings to all you VERY special people and your brains on the ST.
Lynne
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
"Okay...there is FAR more evidence that is consistent with Creation than there is for evolution. You can't disprove it. I'm in!"
An example?
Just one?
That would be more than I have ever heard/seen. I contend that there is no such evidence, prove me wrong! I dare ya! Or, at least don't continue to limp off, avoiding the question, as is the norm.
Don't tell me that wanting the world (or science, math, taxes, or anything) to be any certain way, is proof of anything, beyond an example of what you're into.
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
"L, not sure, but taking you at your word...so what? Why wouldn't God used what worked on different species? Doesn't mean they "evolved" from each other."
Jody,
I just adore you and your stubbornness! If ever I'm a bit lukewarm about what I believe, or question what my values are, all I have to do is ask you a question and right away I find clarity. You have no idea what a multi-purpose compass you are for me--and I thank you with all my heart.
So who says God didn't use Evolution to make the world what it is today? Only you are saying those species didn't evolve from one another, not God. In fact, I've been very dedicated in listening to God my entire life and God has never said jack about all this science stuff, because God could care less about the fun we have with our chemisty sets.
God's not the moron so many religious types (not you of course) seem to think He is. God, as you so wisely pointed out, would save His energy by taking what worked initially and building from there. Evolution is God's way of saving energy, populating the Earth, and having some fun at the same time.
Your battle isn't GOD vs. EVOLUTION, Jody. Your battle is your VERSION of God, based on a patchwork manuscript that wasn't even written down initially, has been added to and deleted from according to who ruled at the time, modified to fill the coffers and control the masses by the few possessing education or power, interpreted and misinterpreted and reinterpreted over 2000 years. King James was a homosexual, Jody. A "flaming poofta". And even he got his own version of the bible!
And then you've got your fundamentalist taking the bible literally, and your traditional religions taking the bible as a parable, and all the while, little men everywhere feeling themselves wise enough and loving enough and omnipotent enough to say that their words come from the mouth of God.
I believe that God has an inexhaustible sense of humor, otherwise we'd be stomped into dust for our incredible arrogance and hypocracy, and He would just bake up a new batch of chimps to play with.
So your fight is with your VERSION of God vs. EVOLUTION. Once you realize that, you're right--none of this matters.
Thanks again, Jody--I truly do appreciate your presence here, and I mean that.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
fattrad, the ST family is SUCH an amazing group of very special, incredible people. Thank you for your care and concern! No matter what side of the spectrum on a multitude of issues we reside....when it all shakes out the men and women of Super Topo are there for you when you need them.
Thank you all! Lynne
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
In this age of Kali: the 3 big ones.
Gold
Oil
Drugs
G
O
D
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Ok, ST people, I need ALOT of education....start with what does in this age of Kali, mean?
Gold, Oil and Drugs...WBraun if your posts about the spirituality of life on this planet are something you truly feel are real then the Gold, Oil, and Drugs things of this planet are not all that significant compared to what the real GOD has on his agenda.
I know about pharmaceuticals, exercise and eat well (see Nature)
drugs can help...but they aren't gonna save you if you don't take care of your body. Lynne
|
|
L
climber
Soy latte center of the Known Universe
|
|
Oh...My...God....
I just found the pagan stuff...it was written by PaganMonkeyBoy...I don't know what to think....;-)
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Lynne wrote
"Yet, Karl, I don't think that we can put science on one side and the spiritual factor on the other. I don't think one can draw a line, so to speak, in the sand. There is a co-mingling of the two, science and soul, that baffles humans.
Most want to put science and spiritually into well defined cubby holes with nice sterile labels...and then walk away saying..."there, now we've got it pigeon-holed". I doubt this will ever happen. "
At the moment Lynne, on the official level, the two entities mostly operate separately, while the players have their feet in both worlds. Spirituality isn't afraid of science but Religion doesn't know how to approach it yet, and the tools of science are like a butterfly net while Spirit is like air or water, too fine for the net.
That will change in time. We're still babies on this planet. Back in the time of Jesus, people were really ignorant of the world around them and got simplistic explanations. What else could they understand? and as far as Religion went, it wasn't important for them to know more.
Even now with Science, we've been using the scientific method for an extremely short time in the grand scheme of things. Of course, if we don't kill ourselves, in 10,000 years science and "religion" will be great friends.
That's the rub, Science spends too much time developing the tools for our self destruction and Religion forgets peace and love and supplies the divisiveness and distorted dogma to propel us to misuse those weapons.
Which is why Religion should go back to it's real core, transforming the human heart by opening it to Love and Understanding. Then humanity will be inspired to put science to good work.
Peace
karl
|
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
Out on the sand.... man.....
|
|
How would this fit into your puzzle??
Soviet leader Joseph Stalin attempted to create a powerful, subservient army of ape-men by crossing human females with male apes. "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat," Stalin was quoted in Moscow newspapers. The leadership was quick to respond, with the Politburo ordering the Soviet Academy of Science to build a "living war machine" in 1926.
Intended for use in both military and intensive industrial work like constructing railroads, Staling demanded the cross-breed should be of 'immense strength, but with an underdeveloped brain.' The Russian leadership viewed the mutants as a core part of the plan to strengthen the weakened Soviet Union and power the first of its Five Year Plans for quick industrialization.
Apes, most likely chimpanzees, were captured in the 1920s, and Stalin ordered Russian scientist Ilya Ivanov to perform the horrific research. Ivanov was the Soviet's top animal husbandry expert, having set up the world's first racehorse artificial breeding center.
His first attempt was to capture chimps and impregnate them with human spermatozoa. When that didn't work, he tried the opposite. He procured an agreement with a provincial governor in the African country of Guinea whereby patients in a local hospital could be used for inter-breeding, so long as they volunteered for it.
In a shock to Ivanov, but perhaps to no one else, not a single woman would agree to interbreed with an ape. The research returned to Russia, at the Suchumi Monkey Colony, a Soviet Primate Center. A document discovered in state archives describes the efforts: human trials for hybridization (female human with ape spermatozoa) were to be conducted on no less than five women. They could proceed only with the explicit written permission of the target female. Besides acknowledging the risk, she would also have to be isolated to prevent natural human breeding from confusing the results.
Unsurprisingly, the entire misguided project was considered a failure. Ivanov, like many Soviet scientists who failed, was arrested and sent for five years of exile in Kazakhstan. He died shortly after from illness.
Nature and logic implies that no pregnancies resulted, though rumors of continued efforts at Soviet Forced Labor camps continued through the 50's. The results of this research are fodder for conspiracy theorists today, particularly those in the 'bigfoot' camp.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2008 - 06:07pm PT
|
"a powerful, subservient army of ape-men by crossing human females with male apes." "...a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat,"
Sort of sounds like Camp 4. Except maybe the servient part.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
"Sort of sounds like Camp 4"
You seen pictures of the fine citizens of JTree lately?
Man didn't have common ancestor with ape. Man is an ape. Just a little less hairy. Well, some are less hairy. Except for one of us. I bet the other apes are jealous of him.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Sir Russ, WHERE do you find this stuff? I have read quite a bit but never seem to run across the information you have at your finger tips???? smiles, lrl
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Jody, what about all the scientists with excellent education and modern instrumentation that have confirmed and built upon his work?
Darwin was a genius, that's for sure.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2008 - 06:33pm PT
|
Some websites, with a lot of information about Darwin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
He was an interesting and complicated man. Many Victorian-era Englishmen were. Perhaps a little odd, too.
His lack of a doctoral degree means nothing - they weren't common at the time, and many great scientists (and inventors) from the 19th century didn't have doctorates.
(Albert Einstein didn't have a doctorate at the time of his annus mirabilis in 1905.)
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
I don't know about Darwin, but I think there is a lot of evidence right here on SuperTopo, let alone on the rest of the Earth, that GOD!™ was not a genius.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
The complete works of Darwin are now online by some British company. Some really cool reading.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2008 - 07:40pm PT
|
Ouch! - The site mentioned above, darwin-online, has all Darwin's publications and writings, and very great deal of other information about him. It's a Cambridge University website.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody, you continue to be thick headed about this... but let's address your response regarding Darwin:
Darwin was no genius. His only scientific training was a couple of years of medical school in which he barely passed his courses before dropping out. An influential relative of his got him a position as an unpaid naturalist on The Beagle. He was initiated into witchcraft in South America and upon his return to England spent the rest of his life developing "theories" to destroy faith in the Creator.
I find this rather odd coming from you, who often take up sides against the "elitists," in this case I believe you are saying that Darwin was not a university trained scientist, thus, he could not have done science. Of course that is absurd, as the works of Darwin, the scientific writings, etc. are available to the entire science community, they can be examined and tested.
The scientific works of Darwin have stood up to 150 years of scientific scrutiny. I don't believe any scientist cares what Darwin's educational background was, perhaps that makes him all the more "genius" (though that is an overused word).
I can't come up with any historical reference regarding your statement regarding witchcraft. He was attended the Church of England, he seemed to believe in god early in his life, but perhaps not a believer in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Later in life, he described himself as an Agnostic.
He spent his life measuring things with a wooden ruler, talking to farmers, complaining about his physical ailments, and trying to explain how everything came from nothing.
I'm not sure that this is so bad. Those where the tools of naturalists in those days, and a descriptive writing style. Science can be performed with rather modest means, and field biologists today often have rather simple tools compared to particle accelerators. The point is, you use the tools that you need.
Origin of Species is so worthless that modern scientists distance themselves from it. Honest scientists know that "natural selection", changing from one species into another species cannot happen.
This is completely wrong unless you wish to say who is an "honest scientist." I am an scientist, I have published over 100 papers in the scientific literature, I participate in advising the government in science policy, and the science program. I am a leader of a division of 70 physicists who do a wide range of work, including significant work in national security. I wouldn't distance myself from Origin of the Species anymore than I would James Clerk Maxwell's A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism written in 1873. It's significance is that was the beginning of a whole field of science. Neither of these books are used in science classes anymore, they are superseded by better texts incorporating the scientific work of the intervening 100 odd years.
What Darwin put forward in Origin of the Species is the idea that all observed life is related through speciation driven by natural selection. It doesn't "prove it" it explains it.
Only "sub-species" can be formed, not entirely new opnes. There is absolutely no evidence that macro-evolution occurs presently, and no evidence in fossils or rock strata that it has occurred in the past.
Once again, you are confusing the idea of "evidence" with "observation." The fossil record, which is an incomplete sample of past life on the planet, is an observation which is consistent with evolution. You can explain the fossil record by evolution.
Origin of Species is full of statements like, "It might have been", "Probably", "It is conceivable that", and "Let's take an imaginary example". He would suggest a possibilty and later in the book refer to that suggestion as fact..."As we have already demonstrated previously.
Perhaps you have lost the thread of his argument because you are looking for something that isn't there. Darwin's Origin of the Species presents the theory of evolution and shows how it explains the variation of life on the earth. Darwin himself very much understood that his ideas could be falsified, in one later edition of Origin he outlines the very tests. However, the theory has withstood the tests and is accepted as the very foundation of biology.
I mean, seriously, look at his explanation of gaps in the fossil record, "...species must have been changing quickly in other parts of the world where men had not yet examined the strata. Later these changed species traveled over to the Western World, to be found in strata there as new species. So species were changing on the other side of the world, and that was why species in the process of change were not found on our side."
Much more is known about the fossil record now. There is no inconsistency with the modern theories of evolution and that record, just as there was none in Darwin's time.
Wow! With intellectual thinking like this, who needs science?!
Certainly your ideas of science are rather simple minded.
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
"Origin of Species is so worthless that modern scientists distance themselves from it."
This is utter malarkey. I personally listened to Stephen Jay Gould lecture with great passion and approval on Darwin and the Origin of Species before he (Gould) passed away, and Modern science regards it as work whose methods and worldview were bound up in the period but whose observations and reasoning are brilliant and hugely influential. I'm sure you can find one or two evolutionary bio guys who have talked trash about it, but your statement above is just pure made up nonsense. Claiming the world is the way you want it to be does not make it that way, that only works in religion.
"Honest scientists know that "natural selection", changing from one species into another species cannot happen. Only "sub-species" can be formed, not entirely new opnes. There is absolutely no evidence that macro-evolution occurs presently, and no evidence in fossils or rock strata that it has occurred in the past."
Oh, I see, the scientists that agree with you are the honest ones. I've already disproved this junk you're spewing, but as usual you simply ignore whatever contradicts your argument.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 6, 2008 - 08:56pm PT
|
It's amusing that the classic picture of Darwin, which someone posted upthread, looks exactly like christians portray their god to be. Old, big bushy beard, piercing glance, Victorian, probably able to cast thunderbolts (literal or metaphorical)...
I'm just saying...
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
A few posts back Jaybro asked for a few examples of this elusive “proof” of Creationism. Of course, Jody didn’t respond. So I took some time to do a little bit of research on my own. It’s quite amusing.
Basically, they say things like “NO proof exists of one kind of animal transitioning to another kind. Absolutely none.”
Yet they ignore the fact that the same thing can be said about the Bible. NO proof exists that God created anything or that the Bible is true. Absolutely none.
You can try to use scientific scrutiny to try to disprove Evolution. But don’t you DARE try to point that same finger at Creationism!
When I type this message, the word creationism gets the little red line under it. At first I thought I was spelling it wrong, but it turns out it’s not a real word! Thats funny!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody, It doesn't "prove it" it "explains it"? So does creation...
that's correct, and I believe that Werner has an explanation also, from another school of ancient wisdom...
but creation is not a scientific theory, it cannot be tested. The construction of the traditional creation theories is to invoke a supernatural agent as part of the creation. We can't test for that.
In most creation theories we are left to "believe" in the existence of that supernatural agent. We must have faith that that agent exists, and that what we know about that agent is true, we have no way of verifying that truth.
The scientific theories provide understanding and predictions. As I stated in a previous post above, Darwin's theory of evolution predicted two major attributes of the world, not known at the time of the publication of Origin of the Species. It was Darwin's reasoning, and his explanation of the variety of life on earth, that lead him to these correct predictions.
If no mechanism for inheritance had been found, then it would be very difficult to accept evolution by natural selection as correct. Yet in writing those words (and hopefully in your reading them) it is so far from our current understanding as to almost sound like a straw man do be knocked down trivially. It was not so 150 years ago.
Similarly for the age of the earth, were it significantly shorter than it is now known to be, there would be real difficulty in fitting in the evolution of life. This was not known 150 years ago...
Science is about learning something that we do not know. Good science reveals things about the universe, leads us to them through the process of the scientific method. We create new knowledge, throw out stuff that is wrong, all this with imperfect understanding, lack of facts, finite precision experiments, and faulty reasoning. It is a very messy process. But it has had spectacular successes.
For evolution, it has lead to a science of biology at the brink of explaining life on the planet in detail, from the genetic material to organism structure and behavior.
This is the legacy of Darwin and the theory of evolution.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
I know for certain that random, genetic mutations do, in fact, occur; climb with Locker.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
I, also, had never heard that Stalin, apeman story. That's some messed up stuff, right there. Atheist and ignorant at the same time.Something for everyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmaAPaP-h0
I think Im sophisticated
cos Im living my life like a good homosapien
But all around me everybodys multiplying
Till theyre walking round like flies man
So Im no better than the animals sitting in their cages
In the zoo man
cos compared to the flowers and the birds and the trees
I am an ape man
I think Im so educated and Im so civilized
cos Im a strict vegetarian
But with the over-population and inflation and starvation
And the crazy politicians
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore and make like an ape man
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man
Im an ape man Im a king kong man Im ape ape man
Im an ape man
cos compared to the sun that sits in the sky
Compared to the clouds as they roll by
Compared to the bugs and the spiders and flies
I am an ape man
In mans evolution he has created the cities and
The motor traffic rumble, but give me half a chance
And Id be taking off my clothes and living in the jungle
cos the only time that I feel at ease
Is swinging up and down in a coconut tree
Oh what a life of luxury to be like an ape man
Im an ape, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
I look out my window, but I cant see the sky
cos the air pollution is fogging up my eyes
I want to get out of this city alive
And make like an ape man
Come and love me, be my ape man girl
And we will be so happy in my ape man world
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man
Ill be your tarzan, youll be my jane
Ill keep you warm and youll keep me sane
And well sit in the trees and eat bananas all day
Just like an ape man
Im an ape man, Im an ape ape man, Im an ape man
Im a king kong man, Im a voo-doo man
Im an ape man.
I dont feel safe in this world no more
I dont want to die in a nuclear war
I want to sail away to a distant shore
And make like an ape man.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Challenge to our fundie friends. Proof of evolution? Then please explain:
1.) development of drug resistance in organisms such as bacteria
2.) development of pesticide resistance in insects
Both of these are examples of evolution that has been observed thousands upon thousands of times.
Geez, get with it. It's the 21st Century, already!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Go Jody....! Grace, Peace and Joy, Lynne
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Because you wrote: NO proof exists of one kind of animal transitioning to another kind. Absolutely none.
The development of drug and pesticide resistance are proof of animals evolving into new forms due to a changing habitat. That's proof of evolution (the mechanism of speciation).
Additionally, your willful ignorance of the fossil record and genetic taxonomy can't save your argument (if you really had one to begin with--which you didn't).
I suggest you stop trolling and start reading--science books would be a good start. Take heart--ignorance is curable.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
drgonzo -- "ignorance is curable."
Yeah, drgonzo, you're pretty ignorant.
When will you be cured?
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Floyd, regarding Isaiah 40:21-22
Here's what I found
[url="http://christiananswers.net/bible/isa40.html"]
21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:[/url]
From here:
While the Bible nowhere states categorically that the earth is flat, numerous Old Testament verses clearly show that the ancient Hebrews were flat-earthers. The Genesis creation story says the earth is covered by a vault (firmament) and that the celestial bodies move inside the vault. This makes no sense unless one assumes that the earth is essentially flat. Isaiah wrote that “God sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers.” In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven.” That the earth was considered essentially flat is clear from Daniel, who said, “I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth; the tree grew and became strong, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth’s farthest bounds.” This statement makes no sense for spherical earth.
The New Testament also implies a flat earth. For instance, Matthew wrote that “The devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.” From a sufficiently high mountain, one could see all the kingdoms of the world -- if the earth were flat. Finally, Revelation refers to “the four corners of the earth,” and corners are not generally associated with spheres.
From the foregoing, it’s not surprising that flat-earthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography. But Cosmas was fighting a losing battle, and the Ptolemaic system, based on a spherical earth, rapidly took over. By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick’s implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Werner, you disappoint me. But I feel the love of God from you, brother! Really, I do!
|
|
Landgolier
climber
the flatness
|
|
"Landgolier...NO proof exists of one kind of animal transitioning to another kind. Absolutely none."
Except the equine fossil record. That's just one off the top of my head, there are plenty more. But you're not willing to accept any evidence that contradicts this belief, so what's the point? Either present a claim which, if falsified, would cause you to abandon your belief, or accept that your belief is not based in fact and logic and we can go home. I'd again like to point out that when you claimed that 4-5 billion years isn't long enough, you didn't seem to have an answer for how long it would take for random mutations to result in speciation.
Let's go at it a different way. If species go extinct (which anyone has to admit they do, we have all kinds of bones and bug splats in the fossil record that aren't present today), why does the fossil record show greater rather than lesser biodiversity over time? Unless God is plopping down new species all the time, if new species can't evolve we're stuck with an ever-narrowing range of life forms. Species are dying off all the time both in isolated and mass extinctions, yet the range of critters running around expands rather than contracts. According to your belief your almighty in effect built a self-destucting macroecology -- eventually everything will die off and nothing new can evolve, though I'm sure you have an escape hatch for this argument via the rapture or the second coming or some other such fluff.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
Jody,
I think you realize that you can't disprove the theory.
I think you are being intentionally obtuse.
I think you may have visited some pro-cretinism™ sites to get ideas on how to sow confusion among the non-scientific; it seems to work on some.
I think you are really not interested in understanding what others are saying, nor are you interested in participating in an honest debate.
Ed and others have very patiently explained the theories again and again and you just keep playing your stupid "micro doesn't prove macro" troll, and acting as if evolution theory posits that new species just "poof" into existence.
You, the other fundies, your bible, and one hare krishna are the only ones claiming that fish or birds just "poofed" into existence.
There is plenty of direct evidence of micro-evolution and heredity, there is plenty of evidence that the Earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old; all of this combined with the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence of macro-evolution.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 7, 2008 - 01:11am PT
|
Besides, if they don't all start behaving, I may have to smite them with lightning or something. That'd learn 'em to believe in evolution!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
ok, so we are all here on this planet. Why argue about how we got here? Curious as to why we don't spend more energy on how to help one another on their life journey? A simplistic question from a simple person. Peace and Joy mixed with Grace. Lynne
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Jody:
Because drug resistance and pesticide resistance are both due to random mutations.
Questions about the fossil record?
Look it up. It's called G-O-O-G-L-E
I assume you believe in Google don't you?
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
You're assuming there actually is a purpose for life's journey. That's simply your belief.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Likewise.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody I ask again, how does microevolution, heredity, a 4.5 billion year old earth, and the fossil record prove that a fish became a bird or that man and apes had the same ancestors? You keep saying it does, but saying it does not make it fact.
The theory of evolution explains how species came into existence, the distribution and form of the species, and provides a framework to understand ecology at many different levels, including microbial ecologies.
By developing the theory quantitatively it becomes increasingly more useful to biologists in not only understanding what is, but also how biological systems work. Without evolution biology as we know it wouldn't exist. That includes much of what we understand about medicine.
A theory is effective if it leads to understanding things that are not understood. As I wrote before, but you have ignored, is that a consequence of the theory of evolution predicted both genetic material and inheritance as well as the fact that the earth was very old. There are many other things that subsequent development of evolution has allowed us to understand. For instance, the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria, the pesticide resistance of various insects, etc. Much of ecology uses evolution to help develop understanding of how communities of plants and animals work.
Many of my scientist colleagues would say that this is as close to truth as you can get, that is, correctly predicting these observed phenomena with a single unifying idea.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say, evolution is more than an indispensable tool for understanding biology... it makes biology understandable.
A consequence of evolution is that animals with similar morphologies are related, as chimps are to humans, and this is borne out in the fact that their genetic information is similar, which also leads to an estimate (a prediction) of the time of speciation from a common ancestor. This estimate is consistent with the fossil record, though you might wish that be more complete... an open question for future physical anthropologists.
As for the fine-tuning of the universe, there is another explanation than the "hand of god:" that life in the universe is not so unusual, that the conditions are not so special. This is certainly consistent with observation, as far as it goes... planetary systems are much more common than we thought until recently, and our understanding of the formation of planetary systems has been turned on its head by improved observation.
It is a fallacy to infer the probability of life by assigning probabilities to things you cannot explain based on the existence of us. It has no predictive power.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Jody, random is not a word I use when I think about life and what God's plan is for each of us on this planet. Grace, peace and joy...Lynne
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 7, 2008 - 02:25am PT
|
A discussion of free will versus a deterministic universe will now commence.
Step right up folks, there's lightning bolts enough for all!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Jody, I apologize. I will take time to read the entire thread and then post a response. I appreciate all your thoughtful time and effort into this Thread. Sincerely, Lynne
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I meant what I said, biology as we know it would not exist, it has nothing to do with my particular point of view. Biology's major tenet is the theory of evolution.
As for theories helping us understand "new" things, we can talk about something classical, like celestial motion. With Copernicus and Brahe describing the heliocentric solar system, Newton was able to think through the ideas which lead to the theory of Universal Gravitation (or if you please the Law of Gravitation).
Note that before Newton, you might have thought that Copernicus' idea was "just a theory" and the motion of the planets and moons describable by other means (like epicycles). Copernicus' idea allowed the observations of the motion to be systematized in such a way that Newton could derive the behavior by a simple, profound insight that gravity as we know it on earth (the falling apple) was the very same gravity that kept the planets in their orbital paths. Very simple, and testable in a million different ways.
But Newton's theory didn't quite predict subtle observations of planetary motion (such as the perihelion shift of the planet Mercury). Also, there was a difficulty in understanding just how gravity worked, how did it project itself throughout the universe? Newton punted on this hypothesis non fingo (I make no hypothesis).
Einstein worked out a much more insightful theory of gravity, General Relativity. The consequences of GR are a greatly improved understanding of the cosmology of the universe, including the concept of the Big Bang, the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Pushing the theories to explain more and more phenomena, testing the theories against measurement, forcing them to calculate the outcome, this is providing us with new knowledge, knowledge beyond our initial conception of "the reach" of the theories.
Science isn't static, it changes and improves, providing a better and better description of the physical universe. This might not appeal to you, who might prefer immutable laws that don't change. That isn't science, science is about understanding and explaining things, often by the most economical means.
Evolution is a scientific theory of profound depth. It organizes our thoughts on biology and has lead to a tremendous understanding of life on this planet, and probably on other planets as well.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Yeah, what Ed said.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Jody, isn't it true though that creationists are predisposed to the beginning result and go into their theories and tests with those predispositions in mind? Therefore, the "evidence" which seems to "predict" the beginning result that they are seeking is pushed to the forefront but evidence which has no plausable creationary explanation is suppressed.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Once again, I could very easily switch around the words "creation" and "evolution" in your statement, and it would still be just as true.
The fact is, at least there is SOME evidence to support evolution. While it may not be complete or perfect, it is a start. And at least the scientists are TRYING.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
No evidence?
Fossils, genetics, embryology, etc. = no evidence?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Jody Wrote
"By the way, it has been me against a hundred of you in this discussion. I can't address everything, I'd never get away from the computer. Sorry. :)"
Think of the tickets we could be saving people from!
I have no doubts about God but also no doubts that the infinite awareness of God manifests through processes that, on the gross physical level, science can observe. I'm sure some fundamentalists, in the distant past, would have objected to the idea that the body cures diseases with it's own internal mechanisms (anti-bodies and such) and not by God's grace. They don't seem mutually exclusive to me.
The Church used to need to believe that the planets and sun revolved around the earth. What's the use of trying to cook up science from mythology and linking it to your spirituality? It just discredits both.
Even Jesus had to bust the chops of his disciples for taking his metaphors too literally (don't eat the bread of the Philistines) Creationism is a distraction and the timing of things was never meant to be precise. (ie, notice that so many things in the Bible happened for 40 days and 40 nights? Was that God's timing? Nope, that was an ancient general idiom, like "a coon's age"
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
So how do you explain fossil animals plants, bacteria, and other critters?
Many look nothing like species that are living today.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"Dirtbag, and that proves evolution how?"
It shows that life now is not the same as it was a long time ago. Life on earth has changed. It's evolved.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
So why don't we see very many contemporary species in very old fossils?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
Fossils....Don't argue with them!
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
There is NO evidence to support evolution.
Main Entry: 1ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1: to be seen : conspicuous
2: as evidence
Main Entry: circumstantial evidence
Function: noun
Date: 1736
: evidence that tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact at issue
Main Entry: indirect evidence
Function: noun
Date: 1824
: evidence that establishes immediately collateral facts from which the main fact may be inferred : circumstantial evidence
Main Entry: self–ev·i·dent
Pronunciation: \-dənt, -ˌdent\
Function: adjective
Date: 1671
: evident without proof or reasoning
Main Entry: hearsay evidence
Function: noun
Date: 1753
: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath
Main Entry: fal·la·cy
Pronunciation: \ˈfa-lə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural fal·la·cies
Etymology: Latin fallacia, from fallac-, fallax deceitful, from fallere to deceive
Date: 14th century
1 aobsolete : guile, trickery b: deceptive appearance : deception
2 a: a false or mistaken idea b: erroneous character : erroneousness
3: an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference
Jody,
You appear to believe that divine creation is self-evident. The only basis for this a book full of hearsay evidence and fallacies.
You've spent some time in court Jody. Why can't you see that in the past 150 years, based on an overwhelming amount of indirect and circumstantial evidence, evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
I think cars with the little fish symbol that say "Darwin" will be my target today.
I feel the love of Jesus from you Jody!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
After enough cars with those stickers get tickets, fewer will put them on.
unnatural selection
;-)
I'm sure (hope) jody was kidding.
Karl
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Jody, you obviously have a different view of "evidence" than what is regarded as "scientific evidence." And you should come out and say that you would accept nothing that would be regarded as "scientific evidence" regarding evolution.
It is rather an extreme point of view, but you have made it quite clear that it is more important for you to justify your creationist point of view by dismissing the legitimacy of evolution. Really, after thousands of words spent just here on SuperTopo Forum you essentially come to the same point each time.
I understand that you feel strongly about this, but you argument always comes down to "prove it to me." But there is not way of proving it to you, you will not accept any of the arguments. So we go round and round. You might get satisfaction that there is no way to actually provide the evidence that would convince you, but really what you are asking for is idiotic.
I could demand the same evidence from you on any number of events from Christian mythology, and demand, essentially to be shown it. You would not be able to do it, and perhaps that would justify my smug response... not much you could do about it especially if I were to push the point on "evidence."
So this whole thread is sort of a meaningless exercise. Once again, you have taken advantage of people willing to reason with you and explain their reasoning on evolution while you string them along, only in the end to refute it all with you absolute denial that it could possibly be true.
What a waste of time on your behalf. I feel totally duped, once again, and I have only myself to blame for engaging in this useless discussion with you.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Not totally useless Ed, I and others enjoy your posts on this subject.
(Wanda nailed the situation pretty clearly last night)
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
Ed, I agree with monolith. You have not wasted your time. You knew full well we're you'd end up with Jody (right where you are) so yes, you can only blame yourself. However many others have read what you wrote and we get a lot from you. You are an excellent scientist and do a great job of logically presenting your thoughts in an understandable way. Those of open mind and heart that seek the powers that science provides appreciate reading your words. Your words further solidify for many what we know to be valid and worth pondering. Your words help with clarity of thought for many.
Yes, Jody strings many along. We've seen it. It's rather sad. It's the same old scene that's played itself out for years. It won't change and many of us know that. It's why I read this thread but care not to engage him. It's a pointless endeavor that does nothing for me. But I have read and followed and laughed or rolled my eyes.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
Jody Wrote:
"By the way, it has been me against a hundred of you in this discussion. I can't address everything, I'd never get away from the computer. Sorry. :)"
Actually, it’s only ninety-eight, Jody. I entered every post from this thread into an author attribution detection program. The posts of three of your “opponents”, on this thread, are apparently coming from one writer.
|
|
L
climber
Jello fan from the City of Lost Angels
|
|
Ed,
You haven't wasted your time at all. Please hear me on this.
Like Nature and Monolith pointed out, so much of what you write here is "common language" science and theory--things that many of us couldn't understand when a textbook was thrust under our noses. But your eloquent illustrations and analogies are so beautifully delivered that the average person (ie. me) can understand and apply them to the world around us. (I'm thinking in particular your expose on Scientific Method.)
You are also quite good at keeping current on science...I haven't had a subscription to Scientific American in years, so don't know much of the new stuff unless TED posts on YouTube, or you write it here. And I love learning the new stuff, it's just time gets short and magazines go unread, if you know what I mean. So I depend on you.
Now this thing with Jody...you have to understand that he works on faith where his religion is concerned. Plain and simple. He's made a decision to believe something and no empirical evidence is going to change his mind--that's how faith works. That's why religions hold such power over people...facts and proof are not part of the requirements.
I have a brother a couple years younger than me--Eric--who was "born again" when he was 17. He got into the heavy-duty fundamentalist thing--bible study 6 hours a day, living in "church houses", graduated from David Lipscomb Bible University, the whole 99.9 yards. Even started guest preaching at several churches.
I, on the otherhand, studied Christianity and the bible for many years, along with most of the World (organized) Religions and many of the "disorganized" religions (haha), out of a desire to find out what spirituality was. I refused to settle for someone else's interpretation of what I was supposed believe in, feel, or how I was to act in the world. Thus, most of what I know and believe today where matters of spirit are concerned, I have experiential knowledge of. I've experienced the state. I believe it because I know the truth of it--there's no "faith of the unseen" necessary.
Religion and Spirituality are not synonomous.
So my brother and I would have 3-hour phone conversations about Christianity vs. Joseph Campbell, or the Bible vs. The Course In Miracles...Prayer vs. Meditation, and of course, Gay vs. Hetero. (Somehow Christians always want to control people's sex lives--ever noticed that? Do you ever wonder why? Do they?)
I learned so much about the Christian mindset from my conversations with him. He would often end up angry and resort to yelling, and sometimes hanging up on me...because the power of the Love of Christ was moving him so, I suppose. And the next morning, he'd call me and apologize. Always did. Because in the end, my brother and I love each other a lot, and once his temper had cooled, he knew he'd jumped the shark.
My brother couldn't stand for me to believe what I did, and was always trying to convert me into a Christian. But since I'd already been there, and knew that a religious label wasn't going to fulfill my spirit, he eventually just settled for semi-friendly arguments.
And this is how you have to look at Jody. Jody's a great guy in so many ways...and these are the things you appreciate him for. That his belief system isn't based on something you concur with (unquestioning faith in what appears most questionable) doesn't mean your friendly arguments are worthless.
Sometimes debate from opposite sides of the fence illuminates things you had no idea would pop up: true conviction; grudging understanding; hardheadedness; your own questions; the other guy's true motivation for his beliefs. Whatever it is, as long as people can keep their minds open to the process, nothing is wasted. And you are very good with your words, Ed--you do know how to write and keep an open mind.
The only frustrating part of this whole deal is if you truly think "reason" is going to change a mind that's chosen "faith" as its modus operanti.
So don't do it...and be happy. ;-)
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
I always find it amusing to see this, one of the biggest lies shared by humanism and atheism, touted around.
"Why does religion exist?" is an important question. Religion has always existed as far as anyone knows; there has never been a civilisation without it.
The answer in no small part is right in front of us: religion exists because spirituality exists, and being spiritual is healthy for human beings. We could all live by eating bread, water and vitamin supplements. But we don't. We could all spend the time in which we're not productively working staring at a wall. But we don't. So why would anyone limit themselves to the confines of only ever thinking "rationally"?
This is the lie: so often we see anti-religous fanatics pretend that they're the righteous champions of "reason" (which is of course touted as the incompatible opposite of "faith"). In every area of life they act normally and indulge the same range of appetites as the rest of us, then suddenly and without any explanation when it comes to spirituality they claim, bizarrely, that only the dullest, most sterile of rational thinking is permissible.
It's simply one of the little group of boring little lies wich makes up humanism and atheism. We all know that even the most anti-religious fanatics don't really act this way, nor would they dare to say so in person.
So why, I wonder, do they peddle such a laughably implausible idea?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
This statement has no basis as a fact: Religion has always existed as far as anyone knows; there has never been a civilisation without it. And were it even to be true (which cannot be determined), it is not a justification for perpetuating a set of beliefs the consequence of which are most painfully played out in conflicts in the middle east, africa, eastern europe, north ireland, to name a few recent events.
Perhaps it would be an abomination to believe that the basis of our deeply held convictions regarding spirituality, and religion, are only the consequence of our physically based set of behaviors, evolved over time in response to a huge set of environmental challenges. Those behaviors could be very complex, and sufficiently subtle that we are forever lost in self-examination, imagining that there is a deep universal meaning to existence, where there is none, where there is actually just infantile, narcissistic infatuation with "us," justified by an imagined "supernatural force."
Blight, you have old ideas, medieval ideas of an academy that repels in horror at the displacement of man and god from the center of study. The irony is that you are liberated from your dusty corner study by a technology which is the result of a set of new ideas, the very foundations of which you deny, the result of "the dullest, most sterile of rational thinking..."
I'd rather try to understand things "dully" than to deceive myself by "believing" something which is basically absurd, irrational and infantile.
|
|
HoseBeats
climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
'Lizard Isles' reveal natural selection at work
* 19:00 16 November 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Roxanne Khamsi
Natural selection, the keystone of evolution, can switch direction in a matter of months, a novel experiment on lizards reveals.
Jonathan Losos at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, and colleagues visited a dozen tiny isles in the Bahamas. They tagged hundreds of tiny Anolis sagrei lizards, which show natural variation in the length of their legs.
In half of the islands, they introduced a larger lizard species, Leiocephalus carinatus, which preys on A. sagrei.
The tiny islands are each about 750 square metres (around the size of a baseball diamond) and located only about 100 metres away from land where L. carinatus naturally live.
These predatory lizards regularly colonise the tiny islands, but routinely die out because they are entirely ground-based and can be wiped out when hurricanes cause flooding. For this reason, Losos says it is ethically acceptable to introduce the L. carinatus onto the islands for experimental purposes.
Out of reach
The team predicted that introducing the predatory species would initially lead to a greater number of A. sagrei lizards with slightly longer legs, which would enable them to run faster than their shorter-legged peers, which would get caught and eaten.
However, they hypothesised that after a certain amount of time, selective pressures would shift to favour lizards with shorter legs, because such animals can climb trees better, and evade the L. carinatus in that manner.
Given time, A. sagrei would somehow learn to escape death by climbing, the researchers reasoned. “These lizards are no dummies,” Losos says.
Natural shift
In fact, all of these predictions came to pass. When the researchers returned to the islands after six months and counted the A. sagrei lizards that survived, they found a greater number had long legs. After a further six months, another survey showed that natural selection had shifted to favour lizards with short legs.
And there was a huge increase in the proportion of A. sagrei lizards that chose to dwell in trees. Normally, about 60% of these lizards are found in trees – and this was the case on the islands with no predator lizards. But in the six experimental isles, which had the introduced predator species, more than 90% A. sagrei were found in trees after one year.
Not only does the study illustrate how swiftly natural selection can act, says Losos, it also shows that the process can be experimentally induced, given the right circumstances.
Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1133584)
After reading an article like this how can anyone maintain that "no evidence for evolution exists"? It seems pretty clear.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
The fact that there are folks out there like Jody and Blight - lots of them, apparently, makes me especially cynical about the future of humankind. Jody and Blight seem reasonably smart - certainly compared to some poor Muslim born into poverty with no education other than maybe memorizing the Koran. If Jody and Blight can't be convinced by reason and the great edifice of scientific knowledge build up around the theory of evolution, I'm afraid convincing that Muslim not to hate the infidel (us, including Jody and Blight) is hopeless.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"This statement has no basis as a fact: Religion has always existed as far as anyone knows; there has never been a civilisation without it."
And yet of course you provide no evidence at all to support your assertion. And to be fair to you, that's a perfectly natural product of what I'll broadly characterise as "atheistic" thinking.
Atheism, in the sense in whch we in the west commonly encounter it at least, is as John Gray said just a late christian heresy. It has no original thought, no ideas of its own: even its name is a kind of childish circular nonsense, much like writing, "all sentences are wrong".
Every single key idea we see put forward by atheists is borrowed wholesale from religion with the occasional "not" or "don't" sprinkled on.
So, "I believe in God" becomes "I don't believe in God".
"Religion is good for society" becomes "religion is bad for society".
And so on.
Needless to say, this style of thinking - reactionary, dependent and ultimately pointless - can be seen in most facets of atheism: in Ed's case he has to wait for me to make a point then just adopt the opposite position.
It shouldn't be very surprising that a small proportion of the population want to practice such a negative and reductionist way of thinking.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
fatrad, then why are these very words truly lifechanging and life enhancing for me ? Lynner
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
And yet of course you provide no evidence at all to support your assertion. which I might point out is the case for your assertion, also.
But Blight, why do you argue? why do you feel that you should try to convey your ideas on the basis of some logical train of thought? Is it really necessary, after all, to invoke a rational argument to make a point that is beyond rational thinking?
Isn't it more in keeping with your tradition to just assert your belief as correct, without basis in fact, but as a story, handed down from long ago, beyond the reaches of history, that you are right, and righteous, and those who oppose you are wrong.
I bow down to your superior heredity.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Blight, ironic that you use the word "fanatic" two times to describe atheists and humanists. Note the etymology.
fanatic
Main Entry: fa·nat·ic
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin fanaticus inspired by a deity, frenzied, from fanum temple. According to the simplest etymology, "fanatic" derives from the Latin fanum, "temple"; but the meaning "zealous" or "zealot" seems to derive from the peculiar behavior of priests who served the Roman war goddess Bellona at a fanum built by the military dictator Sulla in the first century B.C.
Every year the priests staged a festival during which they tore off their robes and hacked at themselves with axes, splattering blood everywhere. This behavior could only be a sign of divine inspiration, and so fanaticus came to mean something like "crazed by the gods".
When the word "fanatic" first appeared in English in the sixteenth century, it meant "crazed person", and then more specifically "possessed with divine fury".
"Religious maniac" is still the principal meaning of the term, but in the shortened form "fan", it also simply means, "devotee" or "adherent".
I somehow doubt my atheist leanings would lead me to tear my clothes off and hack myself with an axe. Religion on the other hand can lead people to do some truly crazy stuff. Enjoy your religion and imagined spirituality if you want to, just leave the axes in the garage (and the suicide bombers, plane hijackers, etc.)
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Isn't it more in keeping with your tradition to just assert your belief as correct, without basis in fact, but as a story, handed down from long ago, beyond the reaches of history, that you are right, and righteous, and those who oppose you are wrong."
This is another of the key lies of atheism, which I alluded to earlier but I'll explain further here.
The idea that religious faith is just a blind, unthinking belief in untested ideas is just a reversal of the obvious facts: that religious people question, doubt and analyse their beliefs, often very deeply.
In fact almost every church and temple holds teaching sessions several times a week and runs outside study groups to challenge and discuss the ideas and thinking being presented.
Do atheists attend such seminars?
Of course not.
So what we see atheists present is a simplistic reversal of the existing reality. Again the idea originates with religion only to be appropriated and suitably tampered with, without any sophistication it has to be said.
It's worth adding that an accessory trait is on display here: I aid nothing at all about my beliefs being "superior" or that I am "righteous", yet Ed feels the need to attribute those arguments to me in place of discussing what I really did say.
Again, this kind of ordinary (and it should be said very predictable) lying is a common trait of atheist thinking, but I expect we'll have to time to go into why later.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I somehow doubt my atheist leanings would lead me to tear my clothes off and hack myself with an axe. Religion on the other hand can lead people to do some truly crazy stuff. Enjoy your religion and imagined spirituality if you want to, just leave the axes in the garage (and the suicide bombers, plane hijackers, etc.) "
Well, that didn't take long.
Of course anyone can see the double standard here: bc pleads innocence for atheism because he himself has never committed any atrocity, yet condemns religion because of vague crimes, none of which I've committed, of course.
This is a key area of the pathology of atheism: a powerful need to ascribe terrible (and often farcical) crimes to religion.
This stems from a key conflict: a crusading atheist hates religious people but yet the actual religious people he meets and speaks to never commit awful crimes, never infringe his liberties unduly or in fact behave in any way deserving of hatred.
So in order to justify this consuming bitterness, he concocts lists of crimes, dozens or even hundreds of years old, and blames modern religion for them. The crusades, the inquisition and many more are called into play. The plain fact of course is that terrible though those crimes were, no religious person alive today participated in them, nor have he or any of his brethren been their victims. But the motivation - whose source by the way is almost never the actual behaviour of religious people, not that many atheists will admit that that! - is so strong that even the most extreme crimes can be ascribed to the meekest of people without hesitation.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I thought this thread was about evolution, and not atheism?
|
|
scuffy b
climber
watching the flytrap
|
|
Blight writes:
It's worth adding that an accessory trait is on display here: I [s]aid nothing at all about my beliefs being "superior" or that I am "righteous", yet Ed feels the need to attribute those arguments to me in place of discussing what I really did say.
Again, this kind of ordinary (and it should be said very predictable) lying is a common trait of atheist thinking, but I expect we'll have to time to go into why later.
You characterize Ed as a liar but without thinking your beliefs
are superior?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Blight, why is it you see all athiests/humanists as a bunch of fanantical, pathological, crusading liars with powerful, all consuming needs to attack religion (recombining your own words here). Your word choices reveal the real "consuming bitterness" you have while attempting to ascribe it to others. You sound like one angry xtian. I quess you don't like it when your religious day dreaming is brought into the bright light of reason. You can dance around all you like, but you still don't have evidence for any of it. Is that why your angry?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I thought this thread was about evolution, and not atheism? "
This speaks to my earlier point: the thread was indeed about evolution but the drive to accuse and demonise religion is so strong in many atheists that it almost immediately became a forum to air grievances against religion.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
"I thought this thread was about evolution, and not atheism? "
This speaks to my earlier point: the thread was indeed about evolution but the drive to accuse and demonise religion is so strong in many atheists that it almost immediately became a forum to air grievances against religion.
Blight, I think Floyd threw out the first salvo against evolution. It seems the drive to demonize science is a little faster on the draw.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Why is it you see all athiests/humanists as a bunch of fanantical, pathological, crusading liars with powerful, all consuming needs to attack religion (recombining your own words here)."
I don't, and of course didn't say any such thing.
Certainly a great many atheists are just as you describe - after all, is this a thread primarily of christians attacking atheists, or atheists attacking christians? But not all by any stretch of the imagination.
The pathology is common, but manifests itself, like any pathology, in greater and lesser degrees.
In the greater degree it leads of course to preposterous and often self contradictory arguments. Rcihard Dawkins has shown good exmaples of this direction of atheist thinking many times. Famously, he said that it would be less harmful for a child to be the victim of a violent homosexual rape than to be raised catholic - but maintained, as he does now, that he doesn't want religion made illegal.
This of course raises an interesting question in light of the fact that rape is of course illegal - does Dawkins believe that rape should be legalised? If it is less harmful than religion and he doesn't believe religion should be illegal then it seems, like much of atheist thinking, a nonsense position!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Some religious people sure hate atheists.
I guess they feel threatened.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I think Floyd threw out the first salvo against evolution."
He pointed out that abiogenesis is yet to be replicated.
Of course there is no religion in what he said, no reference to it at all. Within 10 posts, Ed, dirtbag and then many others dragged religion in where nobody else had even mentioned it.
As I said: a strong drive to find fault with religious people - so strong in fact that even entirely legitimate scientific queries are characterised as irrational, religious nonsense.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Some religious people sure hate atheists.
I guess they feel threatened."
Well, you started complaining about religion and slinging nonsense about religious people before anyone else had even mentioned either.
So it seems that it's you who feels threatened. Why is that?
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
And yet Xtians are atheists too. They're atheists in regards to Zeus, Allah, Thor, Shiva, etc.
If you were to go around telling your friends that 2 + 2 = 32456.876, they'd take you aside and tell you you're not right in the head. But if you go around talking about an imaginary friend in the sky that: created the universe, has never been proven to exist, wrote an internally inconsistent "holy book" whose only claim to truth is that it itself claims to be true, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and habitually demands more of your money every Sunday, rational adults are supposed to give you respect? WTF?
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
Blight, yes, we could go tit-for-tat about what side said what outrageous comment about the other side. You are a good foot soldier for the religious side, it's too bad they never found the bullets for your gun. Start a new thread if you hear of any good evidence for god, etc. Good luck to you and all the rest. Discussions like this never get anywhere. I'm taking the kids to the lake.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
"So it seems that it's you who feels threatened. Why is that? "
Oh really?
Show me where I posted something that indicates that. The only thing I feel threatened about are rats crawling from Lenin.
Okay...if you want to say I feel threatened by superstition, then sure, that's probably true, I admit. Superstition has caused quite a few problems for people for centuries.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
"How did Noah get his hands on American Bison"
Maybe that personage bought a herd with them golden plates.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I'm taking the kids to the lake."
Okay, have a great time and thanks!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Okay...if you want to say I feel threatened by superstition, then sure, that's probably true, I admit. Superstition has caused quite a few problems for people for centuries."
A level of paranoia, a conviction that religion is a threat - yes, those are normal if unfortunate parts of the atheist pathology.
How they manifest is very interesting too. Not simply in terms of the strength of feeling but in terms of sheer quantity. As in your case, religion is often dragged into almost every debate not matter how irrelevant and no matter whether anyone else even mentions it.
It's this obssessive attention to religion coupled with an almost incessant questioning of religious principles which shows just what nonsense "atheism" really is. Far from living without God, a great many atheists are utterly obssessed by it to the extent that it dominates every area of their thought and leaves them totally unable to discuss even something as specifically scientific as abiogensis without immediately beginning to discuss it unprompted.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
I was going to type a response to Blight, but I think BC's lake idea is a good one. You can't have discussions with nuts.
Have a good one.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
“In fact almost every church and temple holds teaching sessions several times a week and runs outside study groups to challenge and discuss the ideas and thinking being presented.
Do atheists attend such seminars? “
No, but for many years I DID attend such things. And that is why I am an atheist.
“that religious people question, doubt and analyze their beliefs, often very deeply.”
My experience has been quite the opposite, though I guess it depends on your definition of “deeply”. The more I looked into it, the more I realized that religion is just a childish need for comfort. Many people simply don’t want to grow up. They always want to have that “parental” figure guiding them. That’s why you feel threatened by atheists. Because you are insecure about your immaturity.
I imagine you have stopped sucking your thumb, stopped wetting the bed, hit puberty, and moved out of your parents house. It’s time to grow up and take the next step, big boy!
You claim that atheists hate religious people. That simply is not true. They are simply misguided, and I speak out against religion because I think, overall, it does more harm than good to a society.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
and another, I have never felt threatened by an atheist. They just have a differece of opinion than I do. We are all allowed our opinions, right? Lynnie
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
fatrad, I'm not too concerned about "how things came about". We are here! So are animals and all kinds of beasties.
"How things came about" topics often lead to devisive arguments. Obviously from this thread no one has the real facts in hand to demonstrate what actually happened. Opinion and speculation at best.
What I'm taking about are the words of Jesus....He changed my life. Talking about forgiveness....his was the ultimate.
Smiles, Lynne
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."
-H. L. Mencken
Mencken was way too tolerant.
[url="http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/LeftBehindBageant.html"]What the ‘Left Behind’ Series Really Means
Have we finally become the dumbest mofos on the planet?[/url]
By Joe Bageant
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 8, 2008 - 08:55pm PT
|
Hi everybody! You guys having fun here? Just thought I'd drop by - I've been busy elsewhere. Nice that there's so much interest in Darwin and his ideas.
Anyway, Lynne has a good point. Maybe the issue isn't where we've been, but where we are, and where we're going. Having (I hope) free will, we do have some choice about what's next.
I believe the creationists would do better to admit from the outset that there is no scientific basis for their beliefs. That is, scientific in the true meaning of the word. They would also do well to give up the nonsense about scientific theories such as evolution not being "proven". It's somewhat disingenuous that they keep flogging such dead horses, and damages their credibility.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Blight, gee, my posts have largely been directed to discuss the science of evolution, I responded to your first post trying to give an example of scientific reasoning in response to your post which was, essentially, "show me."
Between that post and your next post I was engaging in a discussion on evolution and didn't once denigrate religion... Your next post opened: "I always find it amusing to see this, one of the biggest lies shared by humanism and atheism, touted around" which I took as an accusation on your part that I lied.
Your post was rather negative, and presumptive of a number of things one of which seemed to imply that I was an "anti-religous fanatic," which I am not. Further the discussion was about science, not about religion. The discussion stands on its own without the mention of religion or religious belief, yet that was brought into the discussion early by Jody.
You also take great care to label me as an "atheist," though it is irrelevant to the science discussion. I have said on many occasions, though not in this thread, that I only am concerned with understanding the natural world, I leave the discussions of what happens in the "supernatural" world to others.
Yet somehow, discussing evolution seems to have gotten you so riled that you went to a ad hominem argument very quickly. I appreciate your directness in pointing out your opinion regarding the lie of science, the theory of evolution.
I can tell other "lies" too, one lie that the earth is round, that followed by the lie that the sun is the center of the solar system, yet another that the sun is only one of several hundred billion circling in a galaxy, that that is only one galaxy in a cluster of galaxies, in a cluster of clusters, etc... that we are not the center of it all.
Oh, and that's not all, 'cause we've been busy looking for more, like the lie that the stuff we are made of constitutes only 3% of all the matter in this universe... that we think we know how the universe ends, and we are learning how it began.
So I stand accused.
But hopefully you are less sloppy on your religious studies than you are here ascribing things to me that are simply untrue.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
drgonzo, you can do better than that, kinda mean spirited, and I thought much better from you.
Why do people get so upset over things they cannot absolutely prove. I drink H20 .... it helps keep me and you alive. I can pretty much say that is a fact. Most of the stuff on this thread consists of ideas and philosophical differences.
I like all you guys ... but it bugs me when you allow your discussions to develope into hard feelings towards one another.
I am sorry! to drag my personal life into this thread but DARN, my hub just died, my Mom just had a stroke, my livelihood is compromised, but I don't darn well go around arguing and fomenting bad feelings.
(except with Locker, but can you blame me ? hahaha KIDDING Mr. Locker, he takes everything so seriously)
You all are special to me. We all here on the ST have a common denominator. For crying out loud could we appreciate it. Of course, Peace and Joy from Lynne
PS discussion is Good. It's the bad feeling stuff that bugs me!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
for those of you interested... you can read Bertrand Russell's lecture Why I'm Not A Christian. He is a least British, so Blight won't have the same disdainful comments he has for us colonials... he will have another set.
Interesingly, Russell toward the end of his talk says:
"Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it."
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Geez, Ed, if Jesus and his words help me how does that hurt you guys? Organized religion over time has been very destructive, but the normal person that lives their lives using the example of Jesus, what harm have they done? Just a question from a friend. Lynne
Why does it have to be my way or the highway, why are you guys always making anyone who tries to live their lives by Jesus words bad guys? Just a question from someone that totally respects your opinion.
And if you ask me ...our own efforts haven't gotten us very far. Just look at all the fighting and bickering on ST. and the world in general.
|
|
L
climber
Jello fan from the City of Lost Angels
|
|
I was just in Barnes&Noble getting pissed-off over lies about Jello when I stumbled upon the book:
Thank God for Evolution
Now, it's written by a minister, and shows how God and Evolution can exist side-by-side (yes Jody, they can!), and actually be happy together. From the web site:
Evolutionary Evangelist
Newsweek/Washington Post
by Claire Hoffman
I was just about to toss my New York Times Magazine this morning when this article on Darwinists for Jesus fell open. It's about evolutionary evangelist Michael Dowd who, with his wife, has been traveling the nation and preaching on the sacredness of evolution. I love stories like this, that show the ways that religious thinking can adapt and synthesize to totally modern theories.
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee writes in the Times article that "For the last six years, he has traveled across North America with his wife, Connie Barlow, in a van that displays an image of two fish kissing each other — one labeled Jesus, the other Darwin — explaining to conservative and liberal congregations why understanding and accepting evolution will bring them closer to spiritual fulfillment.
The religious advantage to embracing the evolutionary worldview, Dowd says, is that it explains our frailties, our addictions, our infidelities and other moral deficiencies as byproducts of adaptation over billions of years. And that, he says, has a potentially liberating effect: never mind guilt; once we understand our sinful ways, we can get past them and play a conscious role in the evolution of humanity."
I'm wondering if we should have Lynne pose this for the next ST book club read...what do ya think, Lynnie?
You might solve all the problems on Earth and ST with just one book report...;-)
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
I don't think Ed is being exclusionary in the way you suggest lynnie, it's not evengelical, he just wants so make a point about where it comes from that moves him, like many others do.
-though he can speak for himself and I will shut up, now.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
"Now, it's written by a minister, and shows how God and Evolution can exist side-by-side (yes Jody, they can!), and actually be happy together. "
Duh, I've been saying that all along (not in this thread).
I'm sure Pisschrist (wes) will show up and say something real noble about that though.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
When I was growing up in Methodist sunday school, I was taught that evolution was not only compatible with, but first expressed in, the bible.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
...or Budha, or Lao-Tze, or any number of wise people whose teachings come down from the ages. Indeed. I would not pronounce, categorically that all religious people I know are dangerous fanatics deluded by myth. I would not pronounce those people as "pathological." I would think about what they said they believed and how it affects them, I wouldn't accuse them of perpetrating lies. My previous discussions on this forum has lead me to ideas different than I started out with, though by no means would those ideas be acceptable to believers (of any form), nor have I changed my disbelief.
It is not "my way or the highway" but you also can't have our wonderful science and technology and maintain particular views of literal biblical interpretation. Eventually these things come into conflict.
In the end you choose how to resolve that conflict. I choose too. Many others have.
Here we are arguing... though Blight would probably admit to only swatting at gnats... and I see Blight's John Gray and raise him a Bertrand Russell... his call now...
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
I did not mean to say Ed was being exclusionary, he NEVER is. Sorry if I did not word post correctly. Ed always takes the high road and the right road. lrl TTBOHA
|
|
L
climber
Jello fan from the City of Lost Angels
|
|
Did you already read the book, Jody?
Cause if you haven't, then you're not in a position to say that.
He's a minister...he's studied the bible to a far greater degree than you have...and he's acutally living those words that Jesus spoke...not just bandying them about like pingpong balls. Can you prove you're doing greater works of Christ love than he? Can you prove you know the bible better than he?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Ed, I don't think anything I have said is a literal, biblical interpretation ..... I am not a scientist or word crafter as you are, but I think if you re read my posts you get my meaning.
I am not trying to prove any science or evolution via bible or Jesus words....I am just saying that his words make an enormous impact in ones life if YOU DECIDE to try them out.
You don't need to even entertain his words...it's a life decision to try them out....I was desperate at one point many years ago and did. Glad I needed a crutch....needed help and glad I did cause my life has never been the same in a REALLY wonderful way. Lynne
|
|
L
climber
Jello fan from the City of Lost Angels
|
|
Didn't mean to be offensive, Jody, just honest.
I see people trying to reconcile these differences to bring divided groups together, and I see you standing crossed-armed saying "He's wrong. She's wrong. They're wrong."
Blessed be the peacemakers, Jody...all is not as it seems.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
I guess we probably need to define 'evolution' and 'creation' before we discuss it. I'm late here, did that already happen?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Atheism is, in and of itself, harmless. That's because in and of itself it's nothing, nothing at all. All atheism is isa space where everyone else has a rich and fulfilling part of their lives.
In that sense it's clear that atheists are literally less than the rest of us: atheist and religious, we share the same areas of intellectual endeavour and exploration except that atheists don't have one of the most important and valuable parts of life: religion.
Of course that's their own choice and they're very welcome to it. But anyone of even modest intelligence knows that there's a very big difference between closing your eyes and saying, "I can't see any light" and closing your eyes and saying "There's no such thing as light".
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
So how is this expressed in atheist thinking?
As can be seen in this thread, it usually comes out as a kind of crude reductionism. There's a strong drive to reduce everything to black and white which, coupled with the trademark paranoia and persecution delusion we discussed earlier, leads to some unfortuntate (if comical) conclusions.
For example: Ed doesn't know what I believe because I've never said what I believe. But because I've questioned the scientific evidence for evolution, he assumes that I'm some sort of fundamentalist or creationist, claiming that discussing evolution has go me "riled" and posting "controversial" facts about commonly accepted scientific principles.
As an interesting aside he makes, of course, grandiose claims for himself, saying that he's open-minded and graciously allows others to discuss supernatural issues, presumably unmolested. But of course his crass assumption, shown above, that because I'm not 100% accepting of evolution that I must reject it entirely, shows that this is just another in the series of lies which are strung together to make "atheism".
As it happens I'm not a creationist at all. I respect creationists and I think their work is very important because it's vital to science that all areas of it are open to question. I admire their stance and although I may not share it I think they're courageous to challenge of the most entrenched and heavily defended areas of science.
Creationists add to human experience by opening up new ideas to consideration and questioning what we think we know. The atheists and evolutionists her are doing exactly the opposite of that: reducing and limiting openness and enquiry, demanding that their dogma be allowed the exclusive right to exist without being questioned.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
'Blight' is right. It's hard to know where to even begin to refute such arrogant, self-righteous, tripe. 'Void'? 'Lesser'? Feel free to continue making an ass of yourself by attempting to propogate the same fear-based tracts which religion has deployed for centuries. Just by your choice of words you reveal more fear than any understanding of what aethiesm is or is not about.
A quick perusal of christianity itself over the past several thousand years reveals a form of evolution hard at work within human organization - the dead-end branches, the mutations, the selection for the hardy - the net result in christian speciation is available in your local phone book with sixty views of christianity which all claim to be 'the way' - not one more believable than the rest, nor are any of them inherently more believable than any form of religion ever expressed throughout history.
Creationism is a clear attempt by christians to obfusticate and suppress science. There is no legitimate science involved, because it always starts with the assertion there was a 'designer' - which is bordering on a new age way of simply obfusticating god.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"'Blight' is right. It's hard to know where to even begin to refute such arrogant, self-righteous, tripe."
And it's noticeable that you can't and don't.
Instead you follow exactly the template I laid out earlier and simply adopt the opposite position without qualification or support.
So, my clear statement that I'm not at all threatened by atheism and explanation why not becomes, "you fear atheism".
Then you follow the next predictable stage and ascribe numerous wrongdoings to religion and to creationism in particular.
You're really very predictable.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
No, your clear and arrogant assertion that religion somehow provides a more full experience of life belies not being threatened by aethism, but rather being threatened by your own inability to overcome fears and the inevitability of our inherent frailties and limitations.
No 'wrongdoings' are necessary when describing the evolution of christianity - it has been a self-documenting human phenomena the current state of which is available at http://www.superpages.com under 'churches' - it's a simple statement of fact.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"No, your clear and arrogant assertion that religion somehow provides a more full experience of life belies not being threatened by aethism, but rather being threatened by your own inability to overcome fears and the inevitability of our inherent frailties and limitations. "
Again, as I said before, a litany of nonsense is rolled out in place of addressing anything I've actually said. Of course I've said nothing at all about frailties or limitations, let alone my ideas on them - and yet the atheist compulsion to create opposition and disagreement drives you to make up nonsense views on those topics and attribute them to me.
Yes, a life of atheism is quantifiably less than religion. Atheism adds nothing: it has no spiritual component, no concept of morality and no framework for thought.
Of course atheists need those things just as we all do, so they have to borrow or take them from other ideologies, typically the local religion. In terms of content, atheism is just like the gripings of a whiny teenager who kicks against their parents' values by adopting the opposite position, all unaware that the most basic building blocks of their thinking remain those that were put in place by the very people they childishly rebel against.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Yes, a life of atheism is quantifiably less than religion. Atheism adds nothing: it has no spiritual component, no concept of morality and no framework for thought. Of course atheists need those things just as we all do, so they have to borrow or take them from other ideologies, typically the local religion."
Stupidly inane, surely you can do better than this weak tract. On that additive basis, if one god is good, then surely polytheistic ideaologies provide a fuller experience of life, a deeper concept of morality, and a much richer framework for thought. Just the very idea that one religion somehow has gotten 'it' right over course of human history despite the endless churning and mutation rate of religious expression is ludicrous. The myriad expressions and ideaologies by themselves undercut the credibility of the whole ridiculous affair. Religion and god are in no way prerequisites for spirituality, morality, or even frameworks for thought - and if they were then certainly they would all be completely interchangeable and equally valid in that capacity.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"The myriad expressions and ideaologies by themselves undercut the credibility of the whole ridiculous affair. "
In the end there can only be one truth.
That truth can be phrased in a great many different ways and found in a great many different ways. The one way in which it cannot be found is by not looking for it.
This is another key element of atheist thinking. The obssessive need, shown by healyje and others here, to ascribe nonsense ideas to religion and religious people, is part of a larger issue.
That issue is again related to the reductionist nature of atheism. Instead of learning about religion, understanding and practicing it to find its flaws, the atheist works hard to remain ignorant of it. For a great many atheists, atheism has become a devotion to simple ignorance: who hasn't seen atheists claim that christians believe in an "old man in the sky"?
Of course almost no christians believe that, yet it's trotted out time and time again as the truth. This is the extension of ascribing nonsense ideas: not only are many atheists driven to claim religious people do things and hold ideas which everyone knows they don't, the atheist goes one step further and refuses to find out what the actual ideas are.
Richard Dawkins, sometime high priest of atheism, boasts openly about just how ignorant he is of basic religious principles and of how he undertakes no research at all into the subject.
And we see this time and time again right here: atheists flaunt how ignorant they are, creating garbage to pin on the religious and even when corrected refusing to wonder even briefly what the facts of the matter might be. It's a badge of honour to be uneducated as an atheist and that's the sad destination of all reductionist thinking.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Blight, you are f*#king nuts. Straight up NUTS. And hateful For all your diatribes about hate and fear you are the one exhibiting it the most.
You've made preposterous and hateful diatribes and assumptions about everyone voicing support for evolution.
Get help.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Blight is a social critic, and he is correct in his assertion that I have made many assumptions about just what his thing is, but he has not really revealed anything but my faulty logic, and apparent sheep like adherence to a modern orthodoxy, science, which he argues is no better than, rather much less than, other ways of thinking.
What those ways are we don't quite know, he hasn't told us (his argument would be, I am guessing, that it is obvious to everyone else, that it is not obvious to me makes the point). Apparently, I am to get in touch with my inner spirituality and refine that into religious belief to make me whole. But I'm putting words in his mouth, as he will soon remind you all.
Blight's post here have largely been critical, for which I have no argument, but I would like to know more about the foundation of his critical theory. As I have found and have been guilty of in the past (and probably now and the future) it is very easy to be critical, but less easy to articulate clearly a point of view explaining why. Many critics don't need to explain why, Blight probably feels he is one of them.
So it is Blight who is my teacher. Thank you... really.
Blight's lessons so far (by the way, I am not too confident that I will pass this particular test):
1) Scientists presume a larger role of science in explaining the world around us than is supported by our experience.
2) Spiritualism is an innate component of humans, vital to their existence. Spiritualism is the foundation of religion.
3) Atheists and humanists who profess to be rational, respond irrationally to spiritualism, dismissing it without the rigor required by their presumed rational stance.
4) Atheism has no independent philosophy from religion (say "theism") and is trivial in that it merely states the negative of a religious ("theist") assertion. [While I understand how this is negative, I don't see why "reductionist" comes into this part of the lesson, but apparently it does].
5) There is the arrogant presumption of atheists that religious people could not have examined their religious convictions, for had they, they would not have so committed to those convictions.
6) Atheists are quick to attribute to the brutality in the world to the prosecution of religious belief, and slow to acknowledge the brutality not associated with religious belief, and ignore brutality committed in the prosecution of antireligious doctrine.
7) Criticisms of science are characterized as irrational, and nonsensical.
8) It is vital to science that all areas of it would be open to question. In particular, that aspects of meta-science (awkward, but gets the point across, basically the philosophical foundations of science, or "the science of science"), play an important role in ensuring ? (I'm not sure what here, perhaps "truth").
9) Atheists and evolutionists insist on a dogma that would allow only one conclusion (the obvious ones).
Many of these criticism are just... and I certainly fall into various rhetorical traps while trying to explain the science of evolution, or any kind of science. I will try, in the future to avoid those traps as the science, such as it is, can stand alone without resorting to those rhetorical devices.
One thing though, Blight, abiogenesis is an open question, absolutely, but the thread was started regarding evolution, which is the science of what happens to life once it is formed. We should probably start another thread on the science of abiogenesis... which is much less well understood.
As for the reductionism, I suppose that we could start a thread on the philosophical foundations of science. Science is not so well described, and not nearly as well as it produces results. While one might question the need for foundations were it merely the endless arguing of mental exercise, the inclusion of empirical affirmation, observation and experimentation, is a powerful corrective to sloppy thinking.
If I get in touch with my inner experimentalist, I would say that the only way I might resolve the religious hypothesis is to do the ultimate experiment. Since I will be doing that one day, I don't feel the imperative... unfortunately, I will not be able to share the results of that experiment with any of you.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Yes, it's common for atheists to be exceptionally uncomfortable with having their own beliefs questioned.
Exactly why should immediately be clear with just a glance at the word "atheist": as I said earlier it's just a simple knee-jerk opposition to an established idea with little or no depth or content.
Atheism, by definition, is characterised by opposition to religion: a quick look at this thread should show just how much time and effort is spent discussing, obssessively, religious principles and ideas! But while religious people are generally well used to having their ideals questioned even robustly and will typically be able to argue their side, atheists devote no such time to their own ideals.
This is in part because atheism is entirely reactionary - it generates no ideas of its own and is entirely (and ironically) dependent on religion to create the sophisticated ideologies which it then weakly reverses and lampoons. It's also in part because of a lack of actual study on the part of atheists, with stolid pig ignorance being so highly prized and no formal teaching available.
This leaves atheists, as we can see here, unable to reasonably discuss their own motivations and ideas. Instead we see, as ably demonstrated by dirtbag, childish name-calling and abuse.
Of course I've directed no diatribe at "everyone voicing support for evolution" because I support evolution, much as I may debate the details. What's really sad is to see someone like dirtbag who claims that I'm hateful and fearful - and yet is unable to see that I'm not the one calling names in response to reasoned points.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
I get the feeling that Blight is just playing. Surely no one so thoughtful and eloquent could be at heart a jibbering theist.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
not to point out the obvious, Blight, but almost every one of your posts is about religion.
I don't think that the same could be said for my posts, nor do I believe the posts that I made were disrespectful of religion, or presumed religion in any way.
If you have any interesting insights regarding evolution, I would be interested in hearing them... so far, you have been setting the stage. Maybe it is time to start the act.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
Ed, there is no act. Religion is the original surrealist theater.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes
Science means that which is applicable to everyone.
Religion is described in the dictionary, "a kind of faith." Faith... I may be Hindu today or Muslim; tomorrow I may be Christian. That is... I can change.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
Fossils exist as tangible objects which can be touched, tested, and dated.
All else exists only in the imagination and bears not even the substance of the wind.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Darwin was a wussie. Note, he avoided even mentioning rap bolting.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
"Understanding and practicing it [religion] to find its flaws"
I don't have to live in a home to understand it's shortcomings - even a cursory inspection of the key systems and construction will immediately tell you whether it is habitable or not. If it isn't, there is little point in dwelling in hell to discover the minutiae of it's obvious shortcomings.
And without saying it you seem to believe any religion will do - paganism, monotheism, polytheism - it's all good. Is that your position? Any framework in the storm as it were...
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
"Darwin was a wussie. Note, he avoided even mentioning rap bolting."
Darwin didn't use bolts. He used dried tortoise peckers.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 01:41am PT
|
one could, of course, stop speaking about god and the soul of man since it seems to irritate people so. Eventually god will speak if he is there.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 03:01am PT
|
I should let this die, I really should, and I have no expectation that Jody would accept an explanation...
Jody wrote: '"Natural selection" is a misnomer. How can something that is "random" select anything? Shouldn't it be "natural randomness"? How can randomness ONLY select that which is better? Shouldn't nearly have of these random selections be detrimental? In the never-never land of evolutionary theory, the coin always lands heads up, never tails.'
There is a natural variation in how genes express, and there will be variations in morphology of all living things. Humans have taken advantage of this by breeding traits into living things to be beneficial (to humans), most agriculture is predicated on this. The inheritance of traits is worked out in great detail, and with detailed information about genomes, eventually the step-by-step details of protein production will be revealed.
The "randomness" is quite natural, but it is not an unrestricted randomness. These chemical reactions are governed by a probability distribution, which describes, as a function of temperature and chemical potential, the rate of the particular reactions. One would look to statistical mechanics to work out the details. The field of population genetics studies the details.
Natural selection is a term that Darwin choose to distinguish it from the sort of selection, through breeding, that farmers do.... that is, the organism has some way of "choosing" a mate. Just like breeding a particular type of cow or dog, but the cows and dogs decide who's hot and who's not.
Now we know the probabilities of inheriting certain traits, genetically. If you inherit a trait that leads to your death before you are able to breed yourself, then that particular genetic trait is not passed on to the next generation by you. If all in those who possess this trait suffer the same fate, then that trait is extinguished relatively quickly. Depending on your parents, you have some probability of having acquired such traits. You through the dice, different probabilities depend on some subtle characteristics of genes we are in the process of understanding, though some traits are quite obvious.
Interestingly, it is not just disease that is so expressed. The major determinant in you life span is the life spans of your parents... apparently this is a genetic trait which gets passed to you, with some probability.
Now Darwin studied with his rulers, calipers, magnifying glass, etc, the taxonomy of large number of animals who looked very similar but were not of the same species, that is, they could not produce viable offspring in their mating. In many respect, these animals were so closely related that Darwin inferred that taking the process of inheritance which is common knowledge to farmers, but expanding the time over which the breeding took place, it could be possible that the two separate species were once a common species, but that over time, they lost the ability to interbreed through the same process that caused their taxonomy to diverge.
That the changes of taxonomy and of the function of various organs and systems in the organism also changed.
One more step in the argument of Darwin is that the organism's ability to survive and produce offspring might result in a natural selection of individuals particularly adapted to survive in a specific environment.
It is a powerful feedback mechanism, if you are "fit" you pass your survival attributes on to the next generation, if you are not fit, you die and don't pass your attributes on. Only the "fit" survive, in the very long run.
Now this process is a statistical process, because there are random variations in a population of a particular organism.
It really isn't that far of a stretch, really, from the barnyard. However, it is a very slow process, but not as slow as the geological age of the earth.
The exact time is something that can be studied, assuming the hypothesis of evolution, and comparing it to time dependent species change. First by creating a cladistic organization of organisms based on taxonomy (e.g. the Chimpanzee is very similar taxonomically to humans, the baboon less so, the slime mold even less so, etc). Nowadays this would be done by comparing DNA, like L said.
The assumption is that the more similar the DNA, the closer in time the relationships of the different species.
Now if that is true, then we could look at the fossil record for evidence of past life, say of homo and that of pan, both identified by their fossilized skeletal remains. The rate of genetic divergence can provide an estimate of the length of time, in this hypothesis, but the rate of genetic divergence is not a constant, so it only provide bounds for a time estimate.
Given that, I believe that there is no current inconsistency in the fossil record reconciled with DNA cladistics with the hypothesis that homo and pan share a common ancestor.
This can be done for a large number of existing species, and is an active area of research, especially trying to understand the rate of genetic divergence.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 05:02am PT
|
"I don't have to live in a home to understand it's shortcomings - even a cursory inspection of the key systems and construction will immediately tell you whether it is habitable or not. If it isn't, there is little point in dwelling in hell to discover the minutiae of it's obvious shortcomings. "
Yes, this is a fine example of the atheist commitment to ignorance.
Of course as we'd expect, the reasoning is nonsense: the claim here is that an atheist need not practice religion to understand its shortcomings, all he needs to to is study its technical specifications.
What makes this funny is that of course to understand its technical specification and inner workings he'd need to have experience and knowledge in the field. In other words the claim is that understand religion's shortcomings you needn't be religious, you just have to be an experienced expert on religion.
Yet this is rolled out as an excuse for remaining totally ignorant; given as a reason for refusing to study or learn about religion.
As I said earlier, very few atheists are used to analysing or studying their own reasoning, and the kind of gibberish, self-contradictory nonsense being presented here couldn't illustrate that better.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 05:45am PT
|
Gibberish - now there is something we agree on.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:17am PT
|
Darwin's masterpiece, Origin of Species, is a great read, and I think presents compelling enough reasoning and evidence to make the "theory of evolution" as near a slam dunk as a theory can get.
With for the most part, armchair reasoning bolstered by a lifetime of observation and research of the natural world, Darwin's elegant theory provides compelling explanations of among the following:
why the the fossil record looks like it does,
the distribution of plants and animals around the world,
how domesticated animals and plants came to be,
why we can naturally classify animals and plants into tree-like structures,
many, many individual zoological phenomenon (like why whales have appendages that look like they were formerly arms, etc.).
It's brilliant how it brings all of these disparate subjects under the umbrella of a single, simple theory of how biology works. Since Darwin, we have found that the earth is much older than previously thought and there's this molecule called DNA that is present in every cell in virually all organisms. Both of these new pieces of evidence bolster the theory. The first gives the whole process a lot more time to work its magic, the second provides the mechanical underpinnings for how it works.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:42am PT
|
Unfortunately Darwin missed the single most important item "the soul".
Missing the the root (the soul) makes his entire theory null and void.
In other words his observation was defective and therefore the world has been mislead.
The science of the soul is the single most important element for understanding everything.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:44am PT
|
yeah, but it's useful to be able to work on a car, or know where you are.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 06:31pm PT
|
Newton's elegant theory also provides compelling explanations. But not proof.
So all of science is about explaining things.
What do we do with all these explanations? we push them to provide new knowledge that allows us to explain even more.
What is the "proof" that the explanations agree with our observations? that the results of our experiments and lead us to things we truly did not know without them.
There is much information in the lack of fossils. But there are also, now, many more fossils than in Darwin's time, and largely because the scientist are trying to understand how evolution exists.
My explanation addresses changes within a species, but it is consistent with species divergence too. It is not inconsistent with what is observed. But that is what you get with science.
Newton couldn't give you proof that there was a law of universe gravitation. But the phenomena he observed were consistent with that hypothesis. It is not proof of it.
Do you doubt the law of universal gravitation is true?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 06:49pm PT
|
There is NO evidence of gravitation.
So called micro-gravity, like when an apple falls to the earth, has no correlate in so called macro-gravity.
Why doesn't the moon fall to earth? It rotates around the earth instead.
Why don't we and our apples rotate around the mountains? It is obvious that it is the invisible hand of God! that holds us and our apples to the earth and keeps the moon revolving around, and not impacting, the earth. There are so many gaps in the gravitational record; meteors for example: some fall and some rotate, but only by the will of God! You cannot prove gravitation!
And don't get me started on Newton the Necromancer!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 07:03pm PT
|
the fossil record does not tell us that evolution is incorrect.
The fossil record can be interpreted, in the context of evolution, as a way of determining the rate of speciation.
That rate can be compared to what is known about the rate of genetic material, about how fast it has to change, and what has to change (different parts of genetic material change a different rates, that has been studied).
This opened up a lot of interesting research, but the bottom line is that genetic material rates of change are consistent with the fossil record if you assume that the fossil record is the result of evolution.
The fossil record does not disprove evolution.
Do you believe in the universal law of gravitation?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 07:12pm PT
|
Read'em and weep -
[url="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html" target="new"]Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab[/url]
[url="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair" target="new"] Conservapedia Lenski affair[/url]
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 07:31pm PT
|
Jody, I'm disappointed.
We can observe differences and changes and adaptations in the same species, and we can see how genetically similar and different other species are, and we can can see ancient species in the fossil record, but according to you seeing all these things is not enough evidence for evolution.
We fall down, but that doesn't PROVE the THEORY of gravitation Jody. Gravitationists interpret it that way, don't fall into their trap.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 07:35pm PT
|
"What about the fact that Darwin repuidiated it later?"
-check your sources, that's stretching it, just a wee bit...
we all live in the lab where evolution works...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 07:49pm PT
|
Jody, how do you know that what happens to you on the earth is the same as what the sun does to the earth?
What is the equation that governs your trajectory on earth?
x(t) = ½ g t² + v0 t + x0
the equation that governs the trajectory of the earth around the sun is nothing like that... what gives?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 08:01pm PT
|
You have to integrate the force equation:
F(r) = G M m/r²
where M and m are the masses of the two bodies a distance r apart. The constant G is the gravitational constant.
On earth, the force equation you might guess is:
F = g m
where g is the acceleration of gravity. Notice that this force does not depend on how far away from the earth you jump.
Also, if you jump out of an airplane, you eventually stop accelerating... not what you'd expect from that equation.
What's up with that?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 08:03pm PT
|
Gravitationists like to talk about orbits and the Earth traveling around the Sun, but this is all just circular reasoning.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 10, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
You know, this thread has the most posts of any I ever started. I wish it had a lot fewer.
It would probably be improved if there were fewer posts. It wasn't intended to digress into a long discussion of evolution.
Ed has been remarkably patient and informative, though it's pretty hard to make any headway against those whose essential argument is "I believe that" or "god says that" or "the bible says that, and is complete". Different world views.
Wanda seems to be having fun, anyway - though she hasn't hooked anyone yet.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 09:34pm PT
|
Mighty Hiker, How 'bout, "it works for me" which somewhere in the primal (now sludge, no longer) soup was lost. How bout if a person's life is revived, sustained and changed for something they never thought possible in an incredibly great way?
Jesus and his words worked for me. What can I say? Only my life is proof.
Lynners
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 09:35pm PT
|
There is no gravity, the earth sucks.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 09:54pm PT
|
The last few pages of this thread are nothing short of outstanding! A bunch of people throwing around opinions as if they are facts. And of course all of the real facts are getting ignored.
I wonder if this is how the Bible was written. They guys who got their writings published in The Bible were the only ones stubborn enough to keep arguing after everyone else went home. They just kept repeating their opinions enough times until they became “facts”.
That would certainly explain why it contradicts itself on just about every issue.
Keep up the good work, fellas. I’m sure you’ll be able to convince the other people that your opinion is right. Just give it more time.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:01pm PT
|
bc and andanother, why is what i say so ignorable? I thought everyone's life was a life that needed to be considered. I have not been arguing, whining etc. ...just stating a simple proven fact in my life. Smiles. Lynne
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:13pm PT
|
Proof is for mathematics.
Right and wrong is for chopping bolts(right) and rap bolting(wrong).
For the natural world we have theories. Theories are not "right" or "wrong", and they are not "proven" or "disproven".
Evolution theory is a well-substantiated explanation of the OBSERVATIONS of the genetic relations between species, and scientists continue to have experimental DATA to support their OBSERVATIONS.
Theories are useful. Blight and Lynne and others might say that religion is useful.
Some religious people can accomodate evolution theory whithin their worldview, and see both the theory and faith as "true".
Some religious people need very definite boundaries between right and wrong, and they demand definite proof (which is never enough, no matter how much is provided) of anything which contradicts their literalist interpretation of their religion, and threatens their rigid worldview, which to them is self-evident and requires no proof, nor a scrap of real evidence.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:25pm PT
|
Lynne, I was making a joke. My comment was not directed at anyone in particular ;-)
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 10:38pm PT
|
Thank you for acknowledging "my take". I deplore the term religion and do not apply it to my life.
Since there are no...one and one make two...facts for either side I can blend alot from both positions. But why so consumed over something not proveable? Geez, if we spent this much energy helping Mortenson establish schools...well that would be commendable.
Discussion is good, no doubt. Attack ending in ill will is not only pointless, but hinders the stuff we need to help one another and survive the tough stuff thrown at us.
Bottom line: Jesus and his words made a HUGE difference in my life, which then made a huge difference in many other lives...marriages saved and restored, suicides precluded, drug, smoking and alcohol harmful to people gotten rid of....can't beat something that makes a person's life great.
Or can we, for the sake of argument?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
|
On an individual (micro-) level, faith may be useful, but many people, myself included, believe that dogmatic religion at the society-wide (macro-) level does more harm than good.
Some agnostics and atheists can sympathize with the individual of faith one moment and then lash out at him or her in the next when they see that individual of faith as a representative of something massive and destructive; dogmatic religion.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2008 - 11:21pm PT
|
I must just be a silly person, and I love and respect (about) everyone...but I am giggling cause so many people say to me on ST .... check your email....like I never check my email...gigggles.....it's the first thing I check after my quiet time every morning. hehehe- Y'all have a gute nacht.
Lynners
OBTW...Note that still no one has addressed my comment.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:03am PT
|
Well, I think I'm in the wrong crowd...I thought we were all ST friends discussing a topic....I've never even heard of a "throw down" email address.
I just want to go CLIMBING.....and thank GOD I most likely will this weekend. What up with y'all? Lighten up ! Ever heard of Love one Another? Lynnie
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:07am PT
|
So Jody, the gravity that you "feel" is described by a different equation than the gravity that the earth feels from the sun... I'm wondering how you know it is the same, or do you know it's the same.
Do you feel the gravitational attraction from the sun? How do you know it is there? you have no sense of it.
I don't believe in thermodynamics, I understand it and can apply when I do calculations of physical systems. I understand its fundamentals, I understand its range of applicability and I understand where it is inappropriate to apply. Do you understand it?
Before you answer that, answer the stuff about gravity so we can get along to the next step.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:08am PT
|
"Bottom line: Jesus and his words made a HUGE difference in my life, which then made a huge difference in many other lives...marriages saved and restored, suicides precluded, drug, smoking and alcohol harmful to people gotten rid of....can't beat something that makes a person's life great."
Lynne,
Amen to that (even though I'm an agnostic)
If Jesus has made a positive effect on your life right on!
But what do you say to someone, who was confirmed the Lutheran church, who feels that their life is better with out "god" in their lives?
Can you, or anyone who follows the teachings of christ, give the same level of respect to those that do not believe that you are asking of them?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:08am PT
|
OBTW...still no one has addressed my last several comments.
Easy to post non sequitur's but it takes a thinking person to respond to the specific item spoken or addressed.
Smiles, Lynne
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:30am PT
|
The point is, you don't feel the gravity from the sun... Newton said, however, that it was the "same" gravity as the one on earth.
How do you "prove" it? No one has ever gone to the sun and jumped off a cliff there and reported back.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:47am PT
|
so Newton reasoned if the law of universal gravitation is correct, that you should be able to calculate the gravitational force we experience on the earth.
He had to show that you could consider the entire mass of the earth, M, assuming it a spherical earth, was as if it were all at the center. You are sitting one earth radius R.
The universal force law:
F(r) = G M m/r²
becomes
F(R) = (G M/R²) m
(G M/R²) is constant if the height above the earth h is small compared to the earth radius R.
which recovers the gravity you are familiar with...
For this Newton not only founded modern physics, but modern mathematics too.
So Jody, how does the earth feel the sun's gravity so far away from it?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:47am PT
|
Uncle Doug, Of course, give you great respect even if we do not agree.
It is not about me convincing you that my way is the only way and the right way....I am only telling what Jesus has done in my life to make me who I am today.
What's crazy and what I call a "holy coincidence" is that I too was a baptized and confirmed member of the lutheran church. We won't go there... to the words b. and c. But i found out later how alive Jesus is and he cared enough to do some incredible miracles for me....until he allowed my husband to die @ 6 months ago....
My faith after that huge incident, still way intact, albeit a refining of what I believe, Jesus has taken care of Lynne in Lynne's life part two. God is good .... if you let him be.....to you....keep in touch. Lynnie
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:07am PT
|
Lynne,
Whoa, my deepest sympathy to you in regards to your husband.
And I'm glad that your faith is as strong or stronger after all that.
Regardless of what we believe in, as long as it makes the person "better", or maybe it should be "in a positive direction", more power to it.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:13am PT
|
Ed and Jody, soul music vs. hard rock ...heavy metal etc.
Maybe not, just soul....peace and joy, Linners.
Learning a new life, working to climb. Life is eye opening, crazy, refreshingly good and more than one can push on another human...we can share our wisdom and knowledge...we cannot change a heart or mind....
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:21am PT
|
Jody,
Do you or anyone you know get flu shots?
Influenza vaccines are a prime example of evolution in-action.
The vaccine is reformulated every year to adapt to the changes in the flu virus.
From the CDC
"Each year the influenza virus changes and different strains become dominant. Due to the high mutation rate of the virus a particular vaccine formulation usually works for only about a year. The World Health Organization coordinates the contents of the vaccine each year to contain the most likely strains of the virus to attack the next year."
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:29am PT
|
Wallace and Darwin. Two men to have at the dinner table for a choice night of talking shop. Evolution. Yeah!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:34am PT
|
If the scientists biology and chemistry are so advanced, why don't they create something?
They claim they may be able to create life in the future, but why in the future?
Life is already created. Is science based on the future?
They have to accept that they do not know what the truth actually is.
They can't even produce a spear of grass through their biological or chemical experiments. Nonetheless they are claiming that the creation is produced by some chemical or biological method.
Why does no one question all this nonsense?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:43am PT
|
Well I suspect that you can't answer the question, "how does the gravity of the sun get to the earth"
and neither could Newton. But although he didn't have a direct "proof" of that mechanism, he didn't dismiss his theory.
Why? because the law of universal gravitation allowed him (and others later) to calculate with great accuracy the motion of the planes, and moons and other solar system objects.
How did he know it was the right theory of gravity? Because he could use it to explain many other phenomena observed around him.
Cavendish did an experiment to directly measure the universal law in the laboratory, a very difficult measurement because the force of gravity is so small. But he verified the aspects of the law, the bi-linear mass terms, the 1/r² distance dependence, he measured the constant G.
But still, how do you know this is the same thing here as it is 5 billion light years away? But by assuming that that is true, and applying Newton's law of gravity, it is possible to predict the motion of stars, and matter in the universe.
In fact, the force of gravity effects every corner of the universe.. this force has an infinite range, that force is acting on you right now from billions of light years away. It is so feeble as to not be "sensible" but it is there.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:55am PT
|
"So, changes in the flu virus is somehow definitive proof of fish becoming birds and that apes and man have common ancestors?"
Jody,
Yes, when taken in the context of all the reasoning that has been performed to come to the conclusion that the flu vaccine needs to be reformulated each year to compensate for the changes in the flu virus. If it were not for the concept of evolution none of this re-formulation would be possible. The origins of the theory of evolution were based on observations of fossil records of plants and animals much larger and more complex than viruses, yet the same principals of evolutionary processes were applied to viruses to come to the conclusion that the flu vaccine needs to be changes to compensate for the evolving virus.
Now vice-versa this back to more complex beings.....
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:58am PT
|
Wanda wrote,
"Some religious people need very definite boundaries between right and wrong, and they demand definite proof (which is never enough, no matter how much is provided) of anything which contradicts their literalist interpretation of their religion, and threatens their rigid worldview, which to them is self-evident and requires no proof, nor a scrap of real evidence."
Very good.
Now apply that to scientific people who need absolute proof that God exist. Yet they forget to answer the question of "who or what created the dirt" out of which life evolved. For once I am sort of on Jody's side. Da...aaaang haha.
I believe we evolve. I also believe we devolve, which is the story of the fall of mankind in the book of Genesis. I don't believe we evolved from a lower species such an ape. I believe animals were created separate from man. I believe the earth is much older then 10,000 years. I don't know how old, but certainly millions if not billions of years old. Can I prove this? nope. I think evolution in the form of natural selection plays a role in how life on this planet operates, but it does not explain what and where everything out of which we evolved came from. So perhaps I am not so much on Jody's side, if there is such a thing, since I accept natural selection as part of the process. Spiritualist would call that the school of hard knocks.
I believe that God created the heavens and the earth and the animals and the planets. Then he gave it to us, and its current condition is the result of our consciousness. It evolved or devolved as our consciousness evolved or devolved. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of man devolving from a higher state. The story of Jesus is the story of a man evolving back into a higher being, one that has eternal life. Jesus is a man who has mastered the material world by being one with the spiritual world. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added unto you".
..........
Uncledoug, don't confuse religion with what God is. Spiritualist say that God is Love. If you haven't experienced this, then you haven't experienced God, you experienced mans interpretation of God, which is religion. Most definitely you are better off without most mens interpretation of God. Jesus describe the leaders of the church in his day as the blind leaders of the blind, who end up in the ditch.
I was raised Southern Baptist so I commiserate with your Luthitudedness.
Read "I Love Jesus, I Hate Christianity" by Kim Michaels. for a different prospective on God.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 02:11am PT
|
One of my fave evo examples is that some mammals left the land to exploit niches in the lagoons and embayments and evolved into non-terrestrial marine dwellers; porpoise, whales, etc. They came from the sea, they returned to the sea.
And the example of tree-climbing lizards becoming birds. Really love that one, being a herp fan.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 02:40am PT
|
WB, I know what you mean but IMO, it's not that science claims to know everything or declares this knowledge is the ultimate reality. 'Figuring out' evolution through DNA analyses, the fossil record, geologic history, and mathematical theorems that describe the evolutionary process do not detract from any other reality. It adds to our conscienciousness.
It's not about being able to create life. It's about continuing to gain understanding of how life on this planet has existed over time.
Darwin and Wallace and their cohorts first figured out that there was a pattern. We have the knowledge through observation and technology to understand more than ever before. To me, expanding this knowledge is not a bad thing as long as other perspectives are kept open.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 04:36am PT
|
"We have the knowledge through observation and technology to understand more than ever before."
That's exactly the problem with evolution as science.
Evolution postulates a numebr of key processes - for instance, it's totally dependent on the ideas that completely new genetic material can appear spontaneously and that this can lead to new organs and apparatuses developing.
The problem is that these processes have never been observed and can't be replicated either. Sometimes we hear desperate evolutionists try to excuse this by saying that the timescales involved are too long for this to be possible (and sometimes even the most comical extension of this, that human beings are incapable of understanding the timescales involved!).
I'm sure most people recognise that those are very weak excuses and neither changes the fact that there is no experimental evidence at all to support those postulated processes.
What's considerably more damning is that it's not as if no one's been trying to observe and replicate these processes. Years of effort and billions of dollars have been put into researching this and the result has been - well, absolutely nothing, actually.
It disturbs me that man otherwise sensible people still cling tenaciously to the idea that these ideas about evolution must, just must, be right in spite of this total lack of evidence, and shriek in indignation whenever anyone suggests another idea.
If any other theory was tested millions of times over decades and never once showed a positive result, would we still be saying it was right?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 09:41am PT
|
Jody,
It's not the actual evolution of the virus that is the point.
It is the deductive reasoning that had to occur for scientists to come to the conclusion that because viruses evolve they have to change the formulation of the flu shot. That reasoning is based on the concepts of evolution in general.
When you are out on patrol do you just pull over people at random? Maybe from time to time. But I'd venture that you pull over people because you observe something that you reason gives you probable cause to pull someone over.
Now apply that same reasoning to all of this evolution stuff.......
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 09:53am PT
|
Blight, what are you TALKING about? I take back what I said about you being a reasonably smart guy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 10:20am PT
|
Now we are getting somewhere...? ...!
Modern science says we are independent and we will figure everything out on our own. There is no Supreme intelligence or being who is behind evolution and creation.
Or maybe there is? But we will eventually in the future figure it out says the modern so called scientists.
The modern scientist is like the pro who never reads the manual the inventor/engineer wrote for the machine he built.
Why should I read the manual he says, I'm a pro and I've been 30 40 years in the business.
Not reading the manual and trying to figure it out is the "indirect method".
The intelligent person takes the "direct method" and reads the manual and contacts the inventor/creator/engineer of the machine to understand all the subtle contradictions and nuances that bewilder the user of the machine.
A lot of people now-a-days say that a person who takes the direct method is an idiot and the person who takes the indirect method is more intelligent.
That is the sure sign of the symptoms of the age of the Kali Yuga.
Thus it was said: "The Symptoms of Kali-yuga"
"In the Western world, theologians have been unable to scientifically present the laws of God or, indeed, God Himself, and thus in Western intellectual history a rigid dichotomy has arisen between theology and science. In an attempt to resolve this conflict, some theologians have agreed to modify their doctrines so that they conform not only to proven scientific facts but even to pseudoscientific speculations and hypotheses, which, though unproven, are hypocritically included within the realm of "science." On the other hand, some fanatical theologians disregard the scientific method altogether and insist on the veracity of their antiquated, sectarian dogmas.
Thus bereft of systematic Vedic theology, material science has moved into the destructive realm of gross materialism, while speculative Western philosophy has drifted into the superficiality of relativistic ethics and inconclusive linguistic analysis.
With so many of the best Western minds dedicated to materialistic analysis, naturally much of Western religious life, separated from the intellectual mainstream, is dominated by irrational fanaticism and unauthorized mystic and mystery cults.
Thus dharma, or true religion, which is strict and conscious obedience to God’s law, is diminishing."
SB: 12.2
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:29am PT
|
Werner,
I do not want to pick a fight but I must express myself.
From my point of view your assumptions are just as broad as the people you are trying to paint with one brush stroke. I'd venture to say that you have little true understanding of the concept of science and the methodologies and reasoning involved.
Science(once again from my perspective), following the scientific method, definitely allows for a "God" but does not mandate it. If evidence is provided and can be tested and reasoning can be applied then science definitely has room for it all.
But it seems that you can not come to terms with this.
I'd love to take the direct method but where is the manual and who is the inventor/creator/engineer?
"God", "Yahweh", "Alah", "Buddah", "Warren Jeffs", "David Koresh"?
Please advise....
There have been many times that I've seen this quote.
"Science is not out to disprove god but to reveal he/she in all his/her glory."
That is the way I think in my agnostic logic train.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:32am PT
|
The Uncle said; "I'd venture to say that you have little true understanding of the concept of science and the methodologies and reasoning involved."
Pure speculation like most of your post.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:39am PT
|
Not speculation, reasoning.
I took information from your posts and what I gleaned from them is that you have little understanding of the concept of science and the scientific method.
I'm way open to be proven wrong on this.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:41am PT
|
Blight writes:
Evolution postulates a numebr of key processes - for instance, it's totally dependent on the ideas that completely new genetic material can appear spontaneously and that this can lead to new organs and apparatuses developing.
The problem is that these processes have never been observed and can't be replicated either. Sometimes we hear desperate evolutionists try to excuse this by saying that the timescales involved are too long for this to be possible (and sometimes even the most comical extension of this, that human beings are incapable of understanding the timescales involved!).
Actually I believe that the problem is that genetic material which is the result of a chemical reaction is stable against change, that is, resistant to the alteration of it's function by random chance due to the effect of finite temperature.
The genetic material guides the production of material which "builds up" the various cells. Depending on the chemical environment, different proteins will be produced.
It is a rather common practice to insert sequences into genetic material to alter the protein production and have a gene express something that it originally didn't.
I'm sure most people recognise that those are very weak excuses and neither changes the fact that there is no experimental evidence at all to support those postulated processes.
So, while it hasn't been done to my knowledge, in complex biological organisms (though on another thread we learn that Venter claims to have made entirely artificial life out of genetic material he engineered in the lab) it is entirely possible that as we understand the details of genomic encoding that the process of creating new species could be accomplished in the lab.
What's considerably more damning is that it's not as if no one's been trying to observe and replicate these processes. Years of effort and billions of dollars have been put into researching this and the result has been - well, absolutely nothing, actually.
You like to talk in absolutes, but I think you are simply wrong on this one. A tremendous amount of research on genetics has resulted in an immense body of scientific work. There is a tremendous amount of detailed work to be done.
It disturbs me that man otherwise sensible people still cling tenaciously to the idea that these ideas about evolution must, just must, be right in spite of this total lack of evidence, and shriek in indignation whenever anyone suggests another idea.
The fact that Darwin anticipated the existence of genetic material in Origins of the Species by using the observed distribution and relationships of existing species and the temporal distribution of past species in the fossil record is a good starting point for investigating, scientifically, that idea. So far, neither you nor anyone else has shown that evolution is false.
One can hypothesize any number of other theories. Creationism is consistent with the observations, but is suffers two major problems as a scientific theory: 1) it is consistent by construction and 2) it is not testable. On the testability, the problem you have is to show that no natural agent is responsible for the distribution and relationships of species. A proof by eliminating all other possibilities.
Since creation is true by construction, and we cannot ask questions of the architect directly, we have no useful theory of the final product. It is the way it is by will of the contractor, who is unavailable for comment.
If any other theory was tested millions of times over decades and never once showed a positive result, would we still be saying it was right?
Yes, because we do science by falsification of hypothesis. However, we probably wouldn't continue using a theory if were not a source of explaining a broader class of phenomena beyond the original scope of the theory. Evolution has provided a framework in which to investigate and understand biology in toto.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:47am PT
|
".... by will of the contractor, who is unavailable for comment."
He's always available, every movement you make he's there.
And he's always commenting, you just need to adjust your vision.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:51am PT
|
Werner,
I've had my eyes and ears open for 39 years but still nothing.
What am I dong wrong?
Please advise.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:00pm PT
|
Heck no!
That is Science and that cant explain what is going on.......
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 11, 2008 - 12:28pm PT
|
OK you guys, enough is enough. When I started the thread, I hoped that we could all agree that Darwin and "The Origin of Species" were interesting, and caused us all to think more about the world. Whether or not we agree on the theory he proposed. I figured 50 posts would do it, tops, and I think was pretty clear that I didn't see any point to yet another round of unwavering belief v science.
It's not "my" thread, but I am a little embarrassed that it's gone on this long, to little if any purpose. Especially as it's off topic, I'd hoped for something a bit more constructive. Some of you guys are thrashing around like rats in a bag.
As even god took a day off, I'd like to suggest that you all do the same. Refrain from posting to this thread for a day or two, maybe even not look at it. Look around - there's some other interesting threads going on, some of which are even about climbing.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:34pm PT
|
Oh now that is intelligent discussion....NOT!
|
|
sawin
climber
So., CA.
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 12:50pm PT
|
A interview with god.
Q. So you believe in god.
R. Yes, in the sense I sent.
Q. So you believe evolution is fact.
R. Yes, just what I sent.
Darwin's theory has become more nuanced, with advances in scientific knowledge, but has never been disproven?
"Intelligent design" and "creationism" are not theories, in that they are not falsifiable?
ST membership and login takes me to just this post.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=568569&msg=570173#msg570173
seb
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:00pm PT
|
Uncle Doug, need to talk also....sorry MH...I will now refrain. lrl
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:03pm PT
|
Sorry MH, but I have to post this.
The thing that has been vexing me incessantly is that if......
......Humans are creations of "god", and god is all knowing and has designed everything on earth (past, present and future), then the concept of evolution IS a creation of "god" and therefore un-foulable.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:16pm PT
|
I will chew through the bag, post haste, and depart this thread.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:27pm PT
|
"......Humans are creations of "god", and god is all knowing and has designed everything on earth (past, present and future), then the concept of evolution IS a creation of "god" and therefore un-foulable."
Here is the thing Uncledoug. God created this place, then he created us as extensions of him/her Self. Then we were given dominion over this place. So while it is true that everything is made out of God, because God is all there is, it is not entirely true to say that God created everything, because in fact humans did.
It is humans who created the ego/carnal mind. This was not part of the plan of God, yet God gave us free will so He/She allows it for a time. The ego/carnal mind has created much of the mess on this planet. The ego/carnal mind is a creation of man, Just as religion is.
It is much more complex then this, but Supertopo is rarely the place for complicated explanations.
Read anything by kim Michaels for involved explanations.
http://www.askrealjesus.com/
.............
MIghty Hiker, I think this thread has merit. You got Werner involved. That alone has merit. Some folks are intractable, yet I think the exposure is good. From both viewpoints. It is interesting to see how and what each person here thinks.
Here is something funny for yall. I learned something from Lois. My ego didn't want me to admit this, but I did learn something. What I learned is that instead of trying to convince someone, you simply state your case and allow the person to make up their own minds. This does not mean that you can not clarify your position or make your case, it just simply means you are not attached to outcome and therefore you can keep your ego out of it. This makes for a more friendly environment.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:29pm PT
|
I think Ed should get a prize, Mighty Hiker, when he chewed through the bag and left he was #400!! lrl
ps...I agree with Moosie.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:48pm PT
|
John,
Here is what does not make sense to me.
If god created this place and all that is in it and yet humans create things that are independent of god how can god be in control of everything? How can he/she be in control of anything?
Is "god" selective on what he/she controls?
"It is humans who created the ego/carnal mind. This was not part of the plan of God, yet God gave us free will so He/She allows it for a time. The ego/carnal mind has created much of the mess on this planet."
So god is letting us flounder around for a time until he/she deems "times up!"?
What will happen when time is up?
Will all be good?
Will we be able to learn from our mistakes or has "god" decided to have us go through this little exercise of the ego/carnal mind just for his/her amusement?
" The ego/carnal mind is a creation of man, Just as religion is."
If the ego/carnal mind is a creation of man ( and "god" had no place in it) then our very existence, or our awareness of the self, is a creation of man and "god" has no place in our existence.
If religion is a creation of man, then buy default, so is "god".
Now what?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 01:58pm PT
|
If we accept that the universe is ruled by an omnipotent God then life is just a very big board game.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 02:28pm PT
|
Good questions Doug, Let me see if I can answer a few.
"Will we be able to learn from our mistakes or has "god" decided to have us go through this little exercise of the ego/carnal mind just for his/her amusement?"
Some have learned from their mistakes. Jesus is an example. Buddha is also an example. Contrary to modern Christianity's teaching, Jesus was just as human as you or I. He made mistakes and he had to correct them, that is if he wanted to overcome suffering. He did and he did.
Here are some important things for you to think about.
The world has multiple purposes. One is to teach us how to grow into Being God. Jesus said, do you not know that "ye are Gods". We have the capacity to be God. This planet is a teaching environment. One way it teaches is to mirror back to us everything we believe. So if we believe that God is mean, then that will be mirrored back to use. If we believe that life is difficult, then that will be mirrored back to use in the circumstances we experience. There is truth in the statements about positive thinking, yet they do not go far enough. For to be truly free, one has to clear ones subconscious as well as ones conscious.
"So god is letting us flounder around for a time until he/she deems "times up!"
We had teachers, we ignored them. There is a saying, when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. What this means is that there are always learning opportunities, we just need to make ourselves ready and willing.
"What will happen when time is up?"
A number of things are possible. This is a rather complex topic and more in depth answers can be found on the website I showed you.
There is something called the second death. There is no eternal hell. That is a fiction. The cleansing fires of hell burn for eternity, but God would not demand that a being of his/her creation suffer for eternity. Instead what happens is that a Being that is suffering is sent to what is called the second death. What happens is that the being is given the opportunity to see what is causing its suffering, ( its own beliefs ) and then change and have another chance here on Earth to grow in wisdom of how not to create suffering. If the being choses not to learn, then the beings energy is dissolved back into the allness of God. No suffering, that is a false teaching. Just dissolution.
Why? Because God will not allow a part of itself to suffer for eternity. That would be insanity.
There is much much more to understand about this, but books have already been written and I don't want to repeat these works.
You can free yourself from suffering. God is real. God is Love. Life is meant to be good but we do have dominion. The path forward is through discovering each of the untruths you have buried in your subconscious then making a better choice. I will not give you false hope. The path is still a path. There is no one quick fix. You are responsible for every decision you have made. That is what it means to be God. Yet you have the power to change those decisions.
If you are suffering, it is because of a choice you made somewhere in the past. Many people are angry with God because of they are suffering and to them it appears that they did not create this suffering. What has been lost to their conscious mind is that they have had many lifetimes to make poor choices and to create their suffering. What has also been lost to their consciousness is that God has always been there and been ready to help. We just chose not to listen to that help.
Picture a truculent teenager who just wont listen to his parent and you have the condition of most people on this planet. Yet it has gone on for so long that the teenager has convinced himself that he doesn't have parents just waiting to help.
God will not force you to listen. That is the ultimate meaning of free will. Yet God is always there and is waiting for you to want to listen.
Just don't expect some burning bush or some voice to reach out to you. You have much blocking your ability to hear. It will take effort to overcome that. Spiritualist describe the voice of God as that still small voice within. Do you always listen to it, or do you occasionally listen to the ego telling something else?
The choice is yours.
Edit: Sorry for the length of this post. Life really is simple, yet deeply deeply complex. That is a Koan that if you can understand, then you will be well on your way to freeing yourself from suffering.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 02:49pm PT
|
John,
Good debate.
Can you name anyone besides Jesus or Buddah that have truly "learned from their mistakes" as you suggest with Jesus or Buddah?
I agree about positive thinking and that this life or the earth is a teaching environment but...
In my mind I believe life is good and I also do not think I'm suffering at all. Having one heck of a time here on earth. Or do I need to have "god" in my life as a precondition to avoid suffering ( which I am not )?
I can understand the analogy of the teenager, but you have completely lost me with this.
"You have much blocking your ability to hear. It will take effort to overcome that. Spiritualist describe the voice of God as that still small voice within. Do you always listen to it, or do you occasionally listen to the ego telling something else? "
Do you realize you are dishing out the same rhetoric many have accused "non believers" of dishing? Stating that "you" can't hear what is being said. This is offensive, but I'll let it go (in the spirit of Jesus' teachings).
Here is what I still do not understand.....
If god created this place and all that is in it and yet humans create things that are independent of god how can god be in control of everything? How can he/she be in control of anything?
Is "god" selective on what he/she controls?
If the ego/carnal mind is a creation of man ( and "god" had no place in it) then our very existence, or our awareness of the self, is a creation of man and "god" has no place in our existence.
If religion is a creation of man, then buy default, so is "god".
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 11, 2008 - 02:52pm PT
|
I never said Ed was a rat! And I never said I wasn't a rat, either.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 03:21pm PT
|
Hey Doug,
I'm sorry if that statement about hearing sounded offensive but perhaps try to see if you judged it with your ego/carnal mind. Who me? Not be able to hear? No way man. I'm listening all the time.
Perhaps you are, but through what filter that you created? Think teenage mind.
Hey Son, you need to get some sleep tonight if you are going to be awake for school tomorrow.
Whatever..
He heard the words but did he get the message. That is what I mean by truly hearing. Have you gotten the message or has your ego distorted it? You sensed it from your true self when you interpreted it through the teachings of Jesus, yet part of you was offended. As though I was saying you couldn't hear. That part that was offended was your ego/carnal mind. It is something you created. Your true self is still there and can not be offended for it understands that nothing I say or even do can harm your true self, which is spirit. I may harm your body, but you are not your body. You are spirit.
............
Is God in control all the time? hoo man. That is a deep question. Ultimately yes. Temporarily...no. Another Koan.
God is in control in the sense that God has given us the power to make our own decisions, but God will not make those decisions for us. If God made the decisions for us, that would mean we were robots.
We are offspring of God. We have the power to choose and the power to create. We just don't have it to the full extent that God does, at least not until we prove that we wont destroy everything around us, then we can gain more power. Much like giving a child more responsibility as they mature.
....
Who besides Jesus and Buddha has gained full enlightenment? I don't know. There are lots and lots. Some are meant to be world teachers, these are the Buddhas of the world. Others live quiet lives directly being known by only a few. Paramahansa Yogananda was one world teacher. He achieved his full enlightenment after his death. That is possible. But he was very close while here on earth. "Autobiography of a Yogi" is a worthwhile read.
I believe my teachers are fully enlightened. Kim and Lorraine Michaels. Does this mean they don't have to deal with day to day life? No.. they still deal, yet they have an amazing grace and everyday their life becomes easier as they learn to fully master this realm.
According to them there are over 10,000 souls on this planet currently who have to the capacity to fully put on the Christ mind in this lifetime. Will all of these souls manage this in this lifetime? No one knows as it is up to each individual person. Yet these people have mastered enough of life to achieve this in this lifetime.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 04:11pm PT
|
What kind of deity designed this board game? If you love the players of the game why stack the rules against them in so many versions of the game?
Many versions of the game have strict rule books, use loaded dice, and if a roll of the dice eliminates a player the others players use a card they made up that says it is because the designer passed judgement on her.
The "game pieces" come with foibles and infirmities that incline them to turn right when they should turn left, and when players break the rules they are rewarded and seem to be winning, but when they read the cards they keep receiving stern warnings for what will happen in the final dark tunnel.
All the pieces eventually reach the tunnel at the end, and it is a mystery who won and who lost, but the rules say that the game designer knows. Proponents of the different versions of this game insist that their version is the only one that is real; some are willing to kill over this.
They believe that the designer has magically made it so that inside the tunnel the "game pieces" of players who had no dirty thoughts, knew the designer's son, and held their mouths just right will rise invisibly to the next level, but the game pieces of those players that looked at another player's breasts, or kicked another player under the table will fall through an invisible opening in the table into an invisible lake of fire.
Some players have decided to use the rules that they like, and they don't read any cards that are not inspirational.
They still use the dice, but if a "game piece" is eliminated, the other players use a card they made up that says that the eliminated player is needed in game-heaven with the designer, but if the "game piece" has a close scrape and continues to play, then they have another card that says the player still has important designer-business in the game.
The players just go around and around, and there is no devil to scare the kids, so it is appropriate for younger children.
They all enter the tunnel at the end, but no one really loses or wins. Proponents of this game stress that it's all about "how you play the game", but they also insist that this game is the one that is real.
It is comforting to play the games; to have rules, to know that there is a plan and someone who cared enough about you to make the plan. The dice would seem so arbitrary and cold without the explanations the cards provide. How can anyone not play the game?
But some people don't play the board games. Unimaginable for some, to just walk away from the board and rule book, and go outside, and just see, hear, feel, smell, taste, think, read, imagine, reason, with nothing but your experiences and the experiences of others to guide you.
By the way, the Hindu board game has a 643,892 page rule book, but you get to keep coming back so it's not a problem.
|
|
Omot
Trad climber
The here and now
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 04:24pm PT
|
Dear Ed,
You sure know a lot about evolution and biology for a particle physicist! Thanks for taking the time explaining it all in an objective and easy-to-understand way.
Logical reasoning that leads to science and intuitive thinking that leads to enlightnement are both valid and make life whole. Science and religion can co-exist nicely. I'm sorry for those who don't have room for both in their thinking, or can't at least have some appreciation for the one they feel less comfortable with.
Tomo
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 04:34pm PT
|
Well, folks, I'm a wussie and I've never rap-bolted.
Does this mean I'm further evovled?
:-)
PS Thanks for the laughs, Ouch!
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 04:49pm PT
|
Jody wrote:
“Why don't you just stick to posting as the real "you" instead of all these monikers you keep using?”
...and then...
Oh, I see, now you are posting as Wanda...
So I’m assuming that means he thinks Wanda and I are the same person. Just like how he thought he knew who was behind “Rick James, Bitch” until it was revealed that there were 5 or 6 people using it. Is that why you have been calling me “andanotherlong”? I never really understood that one, and have been meaning to ask.
And judging by Jennies earlier comments, it sounds as if he has convinced her of this as well. Poor little thing. She adores you Jody! And you’re feeding her lies!
Anyway, Wanda, if I’m going to be held responsible for your posts, could you be sure not to post anything that might upset Jody? I know he holds my opinions in the highest regard, and I don’t want you screwing that up for me!
I return, I will do the same for you.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 05:45pm PT
|
Why andy, I don't think I've ever written anything that could upset Jody.
The way I read his post andy, is that Jody, who normally respects Wanda's wit and wisdom, believed that one of Wanda's posts was beneath her, and he was trying to give her a gentle admonishment to improve her writing by joking that andy had written Wanda's post.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2008 - 11:44pm PT
|
That resurrection schtick you can thank the Egyptians for. There is so very little that is really original to Christianity, basically just the pseudo-history of the main characters, that's all. The rest is just reworked versions of older myths, cut and pasted to look like it was all something new. But whatever gets you through your life, it's alright, it's alright.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2008 - 01:48am PT
|
Jody,
I really liked the debate I was engaged in with John.
Seemed to be relatively mellow, ( like jello would want).
And informative.
But there is no debate with you what so ever... never has been, never will be.
Peace out.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2008 - 02:10am PT
|
Christianity/Judaism is a ripoff of Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism had it all well before the bible--virgin birth, massive flood, resurrection of the dead, destruction of the Earth in a final battle with evil, blah, blah, blah.
Sad to think that Christians couldn't even get an original set of myths to follow.
Edit: Sorry Jody, (post below) wrong again. Good retort though--shows you know what you're talking about. That seems to be your MO. Information-less responses to valid points made against your arguments. Very weak.
Zorastrian theology has had a great impact on Judaism, Christianity and other later religions, in the beliefs surrounding God and Satan, the soul, heaven and hell, savior, resurrection, final judgment, etc.
It is one of the oldest religions still in existence (possibly beginning as far back as 6000 BCE, some estimates based on the writing style put it at 1500BCE).
It may have been the first monotheistic religion--easily predating Judaism.
|
|
Doug Buchanan
Mountain climber
Fairbanks Alaska
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2008 - 05:44am PT
|
How the humans have remained so intellectually primitive, by natural selection...
All human-caused contradictions are efficiently resolvable, by design of the human brain and the origin of the contradictions, much to the anger of those who insist upon the existence of romantic (emotion-based) mysteries as their excuse to remain ignorant because thinking is toilsome.
Among the knowledge one must learn to therefore learn more advanced knowledge only accessed by prerequisite knowledge, is how to use words that simply hold their dictionary meanings.
One trains their mind by the words they use. If you use words that do not relate to their primary common meanings, you will successfully TRAIN your brain, a trainable device, to routinely route data to unrelated neuron groups that cannot access useful data regarding what you want to learn as described by your inaccurate words.
Classic example: The heart pumps blood. The brain synthesizes knowledge, including emotion-altered knowledge. If your brain needs to learn more about the easily learned absolute proof of the existence of God, and you have trained your brain to perceive that the knowledge is in your heart, you will not be able to identify the proof of the existence of God because it is in your brain, where all your knowledge is.
This also explains why Park Pigs and their ilk are so intellectually primitive. They genuinely believe their knowledge is in their supervisor's brain, who was promoted to his job because he displayed his belief that his knowledge was in his supervisor's brain, extending all the way back through the club-carrying Neanderthals, some Chimpanzees, to some fish that walked out of the Ocean because God was laughing so hysterically about the game she invented that she did not notice the fish.
Intellectual evolution. Everybody knows that. It's the laws of nature.
Doug
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2008 - 09:58pm PT
|
drgonzo, don't "follow" myths...believe in the truth and validity of Jesus teaching....they work....at least for me...big time. smiles, Lynne
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:50am PT
|
Yes, this is how you get humans from apes (macro evolution) and a comparative analyses of both genomes and mitochondrial DNA confirms it:
[url="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html" target="new"]Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab[/url]
[url="http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair" target="new"]Conservapedia Lenski affair[/url]
|
|
MauMau2
climber
Freedonia
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 02:40am PT
|
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 03:30am PT
|
"The problem is that the bacteria can't pull the molecule [citrate] in through their membranes. In fact, their failure has long been one of the defining hallmarks of E. coli as a species"
Yeah, if you consider something like, say you suddenly being able to eat wood, being "slightly different" then sure, I guess it's no big deal. That an organism is able to mutate to derive energy from a chemical source it heretofore was unable to use or even pass through cell membranes is in fact a case of it doing something dramatically different - i.e. it's very different.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 03:32am PT
|
Yes, I can see the problem, scientists are just too careful to not overstate what the evidence shows, whereas biblical pronouncements are so forceful; they just leave no room for doubt . . .
We can keep giving you all sorts of evidence such as the latest on flatfishes, but then you'll claim that it doesn't prove evolution either. And you'll be right, because science is not about proof; it is about "most likely" and the overwhelming amount of evidence when it is all added together.
You are willing to believe a big story that explains everything while explaining nothing--just because--not because of any proof or evidence or logical argument--just because.
But when presented with evidence and the opportunity to find more evidence on your own, you reject it out of hand. We show you a piece of a bone and you refuse to see how it fits with other pieces to make a whole bone, and how each bone creates a skeleton. Instead you say that's just calcium it's not bone, and ignore how the pieces, bones, and skeleton, taken together, tell a story. We show you a branch from a tree, and you refuse to see how it fits in with a forest of other trees, arguing that it's not a branch, it's only wood.
Evolution tells a story. It's not a complete story; there are missing pages that may or may not be found. And it's written by scientists whose lack of skill at writing fiction--always using qualifiers like "must have," "could have," and "probably"--are just not satisfying to some people. But it is based on science and science is based on evidence, so while faith may provide a story that is useful in that it can provide comfort--science is useful because it can bring us closer to truth, however uncomfortable that might be.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 04:59am PT
|
"science is not about proof; it is about "most likely" and the overwhelming amount of evidence when it is all added together."
"it is based on science and science is based on evidence"
You're contradicting yourself: you first say that science is about the balance of probabilities then you immediately say that it's really about hard evidence.
Of course not only are you contradicting yourself, you're openly contradicting the evidence itself: there has never been an observation of an organism developing a new organ or apparatus yet you believe that this happened.
Frankly your thinking on this is just a mish mash of half-understood ideas; where it's convenient you link to other people's ideas and articles and where it's not you just invoke "well it just myst be so there", plugging the gaps with self-contradictory nonsense.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:12am PT
|
Flatfish - if ID were right about flatfish then it would mean god had decided he was wrong about his first 'design' and needed to adjust or fix it later. Wouldn't god get it right the first time?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:17am PT
|
"That is such a gross exaggeration of what actually happened it is laughable".
That's correct, yes.
Evolution is dependent on the idea that organisms can spontaneously develop new traits and apparatuses.
The bateria in the posted article were already able to metabolise various chemicals. The ability to metabolise or the presence of a metabolism wasn't new at all. Claiming that this is evidence of evlution is like claiming the fact that I can run slightly faster than my dad as evidence.
This is an excellent example of a key flaw in the thinking of most evolution fanatics, the pathology and development of which is quite interesting.
Darwin's idea was excellent - it appeared to fit a lot of observations and was self-consistent and convincing. So naturally as with any scientific theory, its content had to be tested. Scientists began, as anyone would, with the basics.
Can we observe one species evolving into two others?
No.
Well can we observe a species evolving into one other?
No.
Okay, then can we observe a new limb or organ appearing?
No.
What about a new trait or apparatus?
No.
Clearly this is a problem for the theory: every attempt to reproduce the claimed mechanism has failed, even when conditions are manipulated to be perfect and mutation rates are speeded up many thousands of times.
So the fanatics needed a way around this - a way to simultaneously ignore the pathetic failure of every attempt to date and to claim victory. The method used is ingenious: just as the experiments began by looking for big evidence and got smaller and smaller, so the evoutionists just moved the goalposts further and further and made them larger and larger so that in the end almost anything can be accepted as cast-iron evidence.
This is how we arrive at the feeble-minded clowning above: single-celled organisms exhibiting a microscopically different version of an existing trait from existing genetic material is trumpeted as total victory, final proof that the whole theory is true. The fact that 99.99999% of the theory still has no evidence at all to support it is conveniniently ignored.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 11:20am PT
|
how is this different from geology? cosmology?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 11:37am PT
|
Blight,
I am not contradicting myself; every bit of additional evidence increases the probability that evolution is the best explanation.
You are the one that is confused and pathological. If anyone's thinking is a "mish-mash of half understood ideas" and "self-contradictory nonsense" it is yours.
Evolution is dependent on the idea that organisms can spontaneously develop new traits and apparatuses.
Bzzzz! FALSE
This a completely laughable misrepresentation or misunderstanding. There was nothing spontaneous about it; in every generation there were many variations and mutations that didn't do anything that increased survivability until the 3,800th generation. Now this less-than-spontaneous trait may be built upon for even larger changes.
Let's see if I get this straight . . . it could already metabolize, but because it developed the ability to metabolize something completely new it is not evidence of evolution?
Bzzzz! False
It is alive, it can metabolize. Your metaphor is very weak; it didn't metablolize more, it metabolized something COMPLETELY NEW; it's as if you had a child with a mutation that allowed her to digest cellulose, and she could pass that trait on to your grandchildren.
Can we observe one species evolving into two others? etc., etc.
Bzzzz! Try again. Thank you for playing. These are straw men, the scientists make no such claims. There is no claim that we can OBSERVE more than the smallest steps in processes that are incremental, where larger changes can take thousands or millions of lifetimes of trial and error to develop.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:22pm PT
|
Yes, you've illustrated my point very well.
"Evolution is dependent on the idea that organisms can spontaneously develop new traits and apparatuses."
It's clear that a theory stating that complex, multicellular organisms can develop over time from simple unicellular ones requires that at some point the apparatuses present in the complex organisms developed in the simple ones - put simply, we have lungs and the first organisms didn't, so over time lungs must have appeared.
But instead of addrssing this simple - and very, very obvious - point, you descend immediately into minutiae to avoid facing the fact that the implied events have never, ever been observed or replicated.
"These are straw men, the scientists make no such claims. There is no claim that we can OBSERVE more than the smallest steps in processes that are incremental, where larger changes can take thousands or millions of lifetimes of trial and error to develop."
Then we agree: the steps implied in the theory of evolution have never been observed.
In fact you've taken the next step I described earlier and used the weak version of the argument and claimed that the steps cannot be observed.
Obviously no clear-thinking person would accept as correct a theory whose most rabid proponents admit that not only does it have no observational evidence to support it but it will never have any.
Doing so would be well outwith the boundaries of anything we could reasonably call "science".
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:29pm PT
|
I do find the scientific mindset fascinating, and those who subscribe to it just as interesting. I say this out of affection for them; I know a great many scientists and enjoy their friendships a great deal. But where does this agressive and combative attitude come from?
Well science is, in the large view, entirely about conforming. It’s about doing as you’re told.
This thinking begins at school and is carried on through colleges and into labs and journals. Consider the structure of school science work:
1. You read a text or do an experiment and are told what the correct thing is to think.
2. You write an essay or an exam paper to show that you think the correct thing.
3. Somebody else checks your answers and you are rewarded according to how well you conform.
4. Those who conform progress to the next stage. Those who do not are excluded.
There are good reasons why this system exists. It is structured this way to produce an intended result. What’s unfortunate is that the main thing it produces is a slavish conformity in it followers, who expect to be told what to think without having to question it.
The evidence of this is everywhere. Are there multiple ideologies in science? No, there is only one, which claims to be the one true way. Can anyone question scientific issues? No, only those who have conformed in the past and have qualifications to show for it are allowed to submit their thinking for further approval by their peers before being published. All others are rejected out of hand and pilloried without consideration, with legal steps taken to supress them where necessary.
Is that the sign of bastion of open-mindedness? Of people open to new ideas?
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:30pm PT
|
Well science is, in the large view, entirely about conforming. It’s about doing as you’re told.
Blight, you are mixing your words there... doncha mean to state:
Well religion is, in the large view, entirely about conforming. It’s about doing as you’re told.
Yeah... thought so. You're welcome. Carry on.
LOL!
|
|
Chewbongka
climber
लघिमा
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:36pm PT
|
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:42pm PT
|
Folks, Blight is KNOTT going to listen to you about this topic. He will ignore or twist what you say. He's got a hatred problem.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:49pm PT
|
What I suggest is that before you engage Blight or Jody in conversation you check back on the courses you've taken in college. If you have taken a logic course than by all means dig in (though dirtbag is right - both Jody and Blight are all about twisting words and ignoring what's in front of them so there's really no point). Still... those w/o a idea of the fallacies of logic (see Wanda's strawman call out) will fall into their trap. Others, like Wanda et al can at the very least see the trap and avoid.
But in the end it's really just a repetitive circle of arguing with a brick wall and expecting your logic will someone strike a cord.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:50pm PT
|
What would it take Blight?
Pigs need to grow wings, is that it? You need to SEE a magic trick?
Your argument is ludicrous. Evolution, just like geology and cosmology as Ed mentioned, is about change over time. Some evidence is observed and some is inferred.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:53pm PT
|
"Blight, you are mixing your words there... doncha mean to state: "
Yes, I commented earlier in the thread that its a standard trait of atheist thinking to be totally reliant on others to create concepts and ideas which are then simply reversed.
This is, in its own way, a kind of conformism: in this case you need me to come up with content which you then adhere to (with a sprinkling of reversals) pretty slavishly.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:55pm PT
|
Blight is on a quest to make us all a little stupider.
I no longer believe in evolution; we ARE devo!
How much longer can the increasingly decadent society in which we live, survive? No wonder he calls himself blight...which one of the riders is he?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:57pm PT
|
He's light duty, and he wants us to B light.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 12:58pm PT
|
"Your argument is ludicrous."
That's an intersting idea: that it's ludicrious to expect evidence to support a supposedly scientific idea.
Of course we all know that this is hardly to commonly accepted position - most science is almost entriely dependent on reliable, reproducable results.
It's a key feature of evoltion fanatics' arguments that they typically suspend the requirements for logic and evidence which they apply to everything else in their desperation to believe.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 01:04pm PT
|
"science is not about proof; it is about "most likely" and the overwhelming amount of evidence when it is all added together."
Good statement.
It's funny the projection that goes on from creationists. They state scientists refute alternative explanations, umm that's them. They state scientists have their beliefs set in stone, umm that's them. They state scientists conform and don't question beliefs, umm that's them.
When you try to reason with a creationist you are attempting to win a losing battle. It is not about evolution or creation, but it is about their belief system. Once they believe creation isn't true their whole belief system may crumble. They will have to face the inevitable chilling reality of death, and that the purpose of their lives comes from within, and that human beings aren't created to be in the image of God, but are simply another one of nature's wonderful creatures. You can't undo a lifetime of misinformation in an Internet post.
Sure there could be a God out here, I hope there is. But he/she wouldn't be like religion is telling you. But if you look with an open mind about what is likely you see evolution is the most probable explanation for how we got here. So much evidence refutes the idea the humans all of a sudden appeared. Was there a God who created everything so evolution could take place and eventually lead to being in him image (by in his image I think more of the ability to think, not the human form)? Possibly, but of course this is an untestable hypothesis, so we will probably never know.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 01:11pm PT
|
please take Blight seriously, he has a number of criticisms of science that must be confronted by scientists in explaining what science is about.
His view of a single monolithic science is quite wrong, there are many different thoughts on the frontiers of science, and understanding, where science is exploring, before we have understanding. Science can be a messy thing, and the process obscure to the non-scientist who is further burdened by the problem of not having the education to understand what is going on, and further burdened by a science community that doesn't take the time to explain itself in ways that can be understood.
To a large extent, this has been a problem with science and scientists.
Now I see Blight mostly reacting to the presumed (by him) claim that science is somehow about absolute truth. In my mind, science is about provisional understanding, an understanding that does not necessarily resolve all contradictions. Science does provide a methodology for developing new understanding, and that new understanding becomes the foundation to even more.
From time to time, scientific understanding makes a large change.
You cannot argue with Blight about evolution because he sets up the problem as one of absolute truth. That is something we can't even define, let alone provide, at least in science. It is also something that science is not about.
When I drive through the Rocky Mountains I marvel at the idea of it being excavated from its surroundings, over a huge expanse of time. Or climbing on rock that has pushed up into the Sierra. What the marvel is, is that we can understand how this all happened, without having to have been there.
That we can look into the skies, see 4ºK black body radiation and understand where it came from... and that that observation leads us to a deeper understanding of our world, and universe.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 02:07pm PT
|
Ed, I'm not dismissing him. I think several people, including you, have posted wonderful detailed explanations that were either ignored or distorted, so why bother? When he refers to those trying to explain science as "fanatics" and other not very nice terms, the discussion is pretty much over.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 02:46pm PT
|
I hereby award Ed Hartouni with the "Destroyer of Quakery" badge in which the recipient never ever backs down from an argument that pits sound science against quackery.
taken from The Science Creative Quarterly
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 03:02pm PT
|
Blight wrote:
Darwin's idea was excellent - it appeared to fit a lot of observations and was self-consistent and convincing. So naturally as with any scientific theory, its content had to be tested. Scientists began, as anyone would, with the basics.
Can we observe one species evolving into two others?
No . . .
etc., etc.
. . . Clearly this is a problem for the theory: every attempt to reproduce the claimed mechanism has failed . . .
er, no it hasn't failed; see the numerous examples listed in this thread.
. . . The method used is ingenious: just as the experiments began by looking for big evidence and got smaller and smaller, so the evoutionists just moved the goalposts further and further and made them larger and larger so that in the end almost anything can be accepted as cast-iron evidence.
Step back, take a deep breath, and compare evolution to continental drift, and see the error of your ways.
The hypothesis that continents 'drift' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. However, it was not until the development of the theory of plate tectonics in the 1960s, that a sufficient geological explanation of that movement was understood. --Wikipedia
Have you ever seen a continent drift?
No? But that is what you are asking for.
As the development of plate tectonic theory is to continental drift, gene theory is to evolution.
More and more evidence accretes. Evolution is the only plausible explanation for the way the world is.
It is probably more complicated than we think; just last year researchers discovered that the human genome might not be a "tidy collection of independent genes" after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single function, like a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.
Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. --New York Times(7/1/07)
For evolution, this seems to imply that for every useful linear-appearing adaptation that is passed on there are a host of other changes that may lead to evolutionary right and left turns
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 04:48pm PT
|
Jody,
It's all f*#ked up- just like fattys COC's.
Each side could "talk" 'till the blue in the face thing sets in.
But by definition this is a losing argument on all sides..... since faith is involved - be it faith in religion or science.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 04:51pm PT
|
So Jody has given up on faith?
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 04:57pm PT
|
Jody, kindly explain how my observation is a person attack?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:04pm PT
|
Yes, I'd like to hear that too.
If you read Blight's posts it's pretty obvious he doesn't like the pro-evolution crowd.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:17pm PT
|
DMT, have you not been listening?!?!?!? God always existed.
If in the very beginning it was a Tuesday God would have existed on Monday.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:38pm PT
|
The God of God?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:46pm PT
|
DMT,
When you begin to break it down when and where are really the same from a scientific standpoint, OOOPPPSSSS!!!!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 05:54pm PT
|
Sure, I was blowing them off. Because I've been blown off some, and I've seen others blown off even more.
So, since we're all engaged in blowing each other off (insert Clinton joke here__ ) this is a waste of time.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 06:19pm PT
|
God has always been there. Ask Jody. he knows. Blight does too. Don't ask Ed, he might make you think and we know how that hurts our little melon's.
Edit: Sorry, should speak for myself self - I meant my little melon. I'd sure hate to have anyone think I'm personally attacking your melon.
Speaking of melon though... that watermelon I cut up is calling....
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 06:25pm PT
|
See....?
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 06:37pm PT
|
Dingus Dingus Dingus....
why you gotta harsh his buzz and ask the tough questions?
They never told him that part in Bible School.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 06:45pm PT
|
First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17
So the Earth was created first and the whole rest of the universe (the sun, moon, and all the billions of galaxies) had to wait until the third day? How did God invent "day" and "night" before creating the sun?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 06:59pm PT
|
Jody, why did God create evil?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 14, 2008 - 07:06pm PT
|
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:12pm PT
|
So the choice did not exist until man chose it (then it was created)?
Got it.
And God did not know what man would choose.
Got it.
And there would be no love unless man chooses evil.
Got it.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:16pm PT
|
"God always WAS...hard concept for mere humans to grasp, isn't it Dingus? After all, He is God."
Jody,
You are correct, just as it is hard for you to grasp the concept of evolution.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:27pm PT
|
Funny,
I grasp the concept of "god" always having "been" and I know it to be patently false.
Go figure....
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:36pm PT
|
no no no Doug... Jody and a whole bunches of other peoples sez it's true so it is. 'member.... just sayin' so makes it true. PLUS!!!! it's written in a book... a really really old book!
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:41pm PT
|
Nature,
Oh, you are right!
My short term memory has gone.
Must bee too much pot.
If "god", (or Jody) says it is so and you read a bout it in a book that has evolved over time, it must be true. And everyone else is totally wrong, no mater what.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:46pm PT
|
Is it the 'If it's missing a single piece it won't work' argument?
Turns out, some mechanisms have evolved for one function, then switch to another with further changes.
It's like a mouse trap that is missing the latch. Makes a perfectly good tie clasp.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:51pm PT
|
"the 'If it's missing a single piece it won't work' argument"
A good way to put it. Doesn't that same type of argument work against creation? Lots of "missing links" in "proving" creation.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:54pm PT
|
Jody,
You are ignoring any evidence "we" present.
Can't you see this?
Every time the bible has been translated, the translators or the person in charge (probably some king at the time) has interjected their own biases.
I.e. the Revised Standard, the American Standard and the King James versions. Or for that matter the Living Bible.
Why can't there be just one?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 07:58pm PT
|
Many if not most people are unaware that the Bible teaches the earth is flat. All standard Bible references, all standard mainstream non-fundamentalist Bible scholarship acknowledges this. Like on so many other topics, the Bible simply reflects the primitive and mistaken cosmology of the day.
Ancient Israel imagined the earth to be a flat disk (Isa 42.5) resting on a foundation or pillars (Job 9.6). It is surrounded by the ocean (Pss 24.2; 136.6). It has four corners (Isa 11.12; Ezek 7.2; job 37.3; 38.13) and an edge (Isa 24.36) or ends (Isa 40.8; Job 28.4; Ps 48.11; Jer 6.22; 25.32). It also has a center or navel (Ezek 38.12). Except for the implication that Jerusalem is the earth’s center, ancient Israel’s view of the world did not differ from that of other ancient Near Eastern peoples.
— Stuhlmueller, Carroll. The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of Biblical Theology, p234. (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1996)
More at http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/flatearth.shtml
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 14, 2008 - 08:03pm PT
|
This seems an apropos comment on the 500 post mark being violated.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:06pm PT
|
No, no, no, no! Guyz, you've got it all wrong!
You see, the book says that God! has always existed,
and that proves that God! has always existed because the book is God!'s word, and God! wouldn't lie,
because the book says he doesn't lie, and . . . well, he's God!, dammit--except to Abe in Gen22,
but the spirit of God! has shown some people which parts of the book can be ignored,
so we can't count God!'s deception of Abe--and because the book says God! doesn't lie it must be true because the book is the word of God!--though it was written by many different people,
and translated by many others,
the spirit of God! can guide some people to understand the true spirit of the words of God! (though many that have the spirit of God! inside them,
telling them what the words mean,
do often argue with other people who have the spirit of God! inside them about the meaning of the words,
and whether the other guy actually has the spirit of God! inside him)--and so the book is perfect because God! is perfect,
because the book says so.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:12pm PT
|
" Granite...the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat."
But doesn't it? Extensive citations are in the link. http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/flatearth.shtml
The Bible also teaches that the sun and moon and all the stars (the entire rest of the universe apparently) were all created by God on the third day. I'm still waiting to hear how there can be days and nights without the sun.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:16pm PT
|
More teachings from the Bible. This has been posted here on the Taco a number of times, but is still just as funny and just as true. I haven't seen a good response to it yet from anyone who believes the entire Bible (Old Testament and all) is literally true.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted fan,
Jim
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:22pm PT
|
Yes it is interesting how hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, took one day to make, but our little blue speck of dust took 4 days.
And where the hell do you get a "day" when you don't have an Earth or a universe?
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:23pm PT
|
hey there all... say, i just stopped in to see what was new around here... or, what i mean is what was up for the nights agenda....
say, i have not read all this, as these can be a mite complicated, and this sure is a long one.. :)
say, i am not sure, as i said, what is going on.. .but my grandkids like to read the bible... i had actually read this part to them the other day, as the wording is very simple, and they can handle that better... (i just let them read, and i read whatever new words pop up)---well, hmmmm, in the king james, i think ours is... it said that when god made the light and called it day, etc... that this was the evening and the morning of the first day...
(it is verse 3, but it does say, it is the first evening and day, being that he said the earth was formless and void, and he said let there be light, and then he seperated the dark from the light)
hmmm... there must be other bible versions around, huh?
so far, though, all i have seen are the same.. but i dont go out and shop much....
well, i may stop and read a bit now that i am here...
i hope this helps a little, but then if there are other bibles that say other things... than it may be everyman for himself, until we meet our makers... etc...
oh, well, guys, back to your "species" stuff... :)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:29pm PT
|
In the Bible the earth is at the center of the solar system and the sun revolves around it.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:13
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
wherever my mind exists
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:34pm PT
|
It was only a handful of so-called intellectuals claiming to represent the Church, who promoted the "flat earth" myth. They were basically ignored by the Church, yet their writings somehow became the official stance of the Church in early history books.
So if this myth slipped through somehow, wouldn't it be probable that other myths slipped through as well?
Wouldn't that cause one to question the validity of the Churches teachings ie: The Bible?
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:43pm PT
|
hey there ... say, thanks graniteclilmber... say, this is a longggggggggggggggggggggggggg thread, ... .my, oh, my... all kinds of stuff on it...
say, i thought i heard someone a long time ago say they had heard some scientist said that there was some kind of a time-account glitch somewhere, and then someone tried to point out that it very well could have been due to the stalled sun that on that very day, for joshua...
has anyone ever heard anything about that... ?
just curious, i dont know who it was that had found some kind of research on it.... it was very interesting.....
say, i did hear though that someone had actually thought to "try to find maps of roads in the sea"... meaning the ocean currents, after reading the bible.... not sure if that led folks to study how the winds have fixed courses, too, or not...
but that was very interesing about the currents... maybe i can try to find it... or maybe some of you all can... i was a lot younger when i first heard about it...
i always love to hear how folks discover stuff and what led them to do so... (i remeber madamn curie, too.. but she was not studying oceans or winds.. :) )
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:44pm PT
|
Jody, So most translations of the Bible are WRONG on this?
http://biblecc.com/isaiah/40-22.htm
Not one of the translations uses "sphere." although the Douay -Rheims translation uses "globe." The rest use arch or circle.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 08:46pm PT
|
say, i though i heard someone a long time ago say they had heard some scientist said that there was some kind of a time-account glitch somewhere, and then someone tried to point out that it very well could have been due to the stalled sun that on that very day, for joshua...
has anyone ever heard anything about that... ?
Maybe it was on the day when they went from standard time to daylight savings time? How does it go? In the fall, fall back.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:09pm PT
|
hey there granitclimber.. say, that was funny.... kind of like:
instead of back yonder... wayyyy back yonder...
instead of far, too far back...
edit... ooppp, i thought you said, fall fall back... like falling back in time... oooooopss...
okay, still cute.. .though... i got it.. :)
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:13pm PT
|
hey there dingus... wow, that is a power-packed question... hmmmm...
kind of like asking where the atom comes from ... or where the breath of life comes from ... or whatever hard chore one may find...
wow, you all are full of questin, on this thread... :)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:13pm PT
|
To be "fair and balanced"
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:15pm PT
|
hey there... or, oppps... kind of like asking where the building blocks of an atom come from? ... is that better... oh, my...
or life, before the slap that brings the breath... :)
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:23pm PT
|
So he stopped the Sun from orbiting the Earth?
Please advise.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:23pm PT
|
"Joshua 10:13 is a miracle that Joshua prayed for and God answered his prayer."
Yes, but it says that the sun stood still instead of saying that the earth stopped rotating.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:26pm PT
|
So does the sun still orbit the Earth in your solar system?
What am I saying!? Sheesh!
What I mean is, does the entire cosmos revolve around your planet in your universe?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:29pm PT
|
I still want to know if the Bible allows me to enslave Mighty Hiker. I say that it does.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever[/ib]: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:36pm PT
|
granite,
That is like the stuff about God! telling Abraham to prepare his son for human sacrifice and then at the last minute God! is all like "ha, ha jk."
Except those darned Hebrew joke writers forgot the punchline sometimes.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:42pm PT
|
hey there... welll, i am off to check on all the over good stuff here...
say, before i go... this is kind of on the same track, maybe, as it least it is about the bible aspect:
say, and you all can throw in the other religion ways that i dont know about... but my friend and i were talking about volcanoes, etc, the other night...
it was interesting for us both to note that the we had heard-tell in the bible that it states many such things before the earth's end days... things such as:
1--more earthquakes, and signs in the heavens...
2--then, mountains of fire falling into the sea (the volcanic aspect, natually), killing 1/3 part of sea life, also as to the trees and land.... as to a star falling from heaven drying up 1/3 of the earth waters... and the 1/3 of stars not showing as the sun and moon are dimmed...
3--and the waves of the sea in great force (tital stuff)...
4-the heavens (ozone????) splitting open like a scroll...
well---what had cuaght our attentions that night was the fact that there are all these VAST amounts of volcanoes being discovered all over,underground... and of course, all the dormant ones that we've seen... well, we really could see how if earthquakes started trigging such.. and all the etc... that if these volcanoes all took to going off, or started, and followed suit year, after year, or whatever...
why, then there'd be ash all over and as we've seen the sky would be dark... the sun color would be that odd redish color... and the earth would sure be drying up, as to anything being able to grow...
and now a days, too, beside the vocanoes, we see how the global warming is affecting ocean levels, or whatever, and frozen northern lakes, not being left frozen long enough, so they are evaporating...
so this was kind of a heavy thought for those of us with grandkids, etc...
well, the bible mentions all this, sooooooo...
so i just figured that all the other books for faiths surly must have things that they must have stated as to the future....
perhaps some of you all could share this... too... as with all these volcanoes and fault lines, maybe others have took note on them too....course, long time back, folks did not know all this was going to happen... but they sure hit it on the nose...
*now the bible does say, as to wars in jerusalem, etc, and wars in the world and christ coming, etc, but you all have heard all that etc:
so maybe you all have some newer thoughts on all this... i'll get back soon as i can, as you there are so many of you that have shared a lot here... so i know you have some kind of sourse to share from... thanks all...
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:46pm PT
|
hey there graniteclimber.. say, i just saw this... be back later... but say...
most likely it was written that way, as the soldiers stated what they say... (i dont think folks understood the deeper aspects of how it all worked... just that they were a might shocked that shadows took to not moving anymore, and had never seen the likes of that before)...
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 09:55pm PT
|
Certainly nothing you would consider evidence, Jody.
We are just funnin with ya and giving you plenty of opportunities to witness to us.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:32pm PT
|
What type have you been giving?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:43pm PT
|
Well I commend you on your effort and the rewards heaven inspires for you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:50pm PT
|
rock can be dated by radionuclide concentrations... no life required...
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 10:53pm PT
|
Imagine if Jody was a District Attorney and you were on trial for murder.
The curtain rises to reveal a non-descript county prosecutor's office.
Assistant DA:
"Sir, I think we may have found some exculpatory evidence."
DA Jody:
"What is it?"
Assitant DA:
"Someone else's DNA was found on the victim and we didn't find any of the defendant's DNA"
DA Jody:
"No, what does excupaltory mean?"
Assistant DA:
"We have DNA evidence that shows that the defendant is innocent."
DA Jody:
"You know I don't accept DNA as evidence!"
Assistant DA:
"Sorry sir." "But there's more."
DA Jody:
"More what!?"
Assitant DA:
"Evidence sir."
DA Jody:
"I'll be the judge of that."
Assitant DA:
"We found remains of similar victims, sir"
DA Jody:
"You mean, fossils?"
Assistant DA:
"Well, sort of sir, but the thing is sir, that the defendant has an alibi for these others and we found the same DNA on these as we found on our first victim."
DA Jody:
"Didn't I tell you I don't accept DNA as evidence!?"
Assistant DA:
(nods)
DA Jody:
"And I certainly won't accept that fossils could be evidence."
Assistant DA:
"But sir, what about the fact that the FBI profile doesn't match, and what about the guy who confessed?"
DA Jody:
"Glory seekers, that's all; they don't prove a thing."
Assistant DA:
(fearfully) "Sir, with all due respect, don't we have a duty to present the defense with any and all evidence which might exonerate, er, . . . I mean show that the defendant might be innocent?"
DA Jody:
"Evidence! I don't see any evidence!!" "What evidence?!!!111"
Assitant DA:
(terrified now)"Why sssirr . . . the man who confessed . . . well . . .
DA Jody:
"Out with it already!"
Assistant DA:
(gathering his courage) The man who confessed sir, he's a match."
DA Jody:
"He's a what?!!"
Assistant DA:
"His DNA, sir. The man who confessed; his DNA was found on the victim."
And as the curtain drops, a mighty thunderbolt drops from the ceiling and destroys the blasphemer, and order is once again restored in God's creation.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 11:38pm PT
|
you can estimate the accuracy... you can determine the uncertainty quantitatively.
Also, the decay rate for an isotope is a physical constant (doesn't vary, at least not in the rock)...
You can also cross check your answer using other isotopes that have different abundances and chemistries...
...so no question there. Solid as rock, so to speak.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2008 - 11:46pm PT
|
the contaminants don't affect the isotope lifetimes... as I said, that is a physical constant....
it is the ratio of isotopes that measures the relative lifetime of the rock... so you may have to make some assumptions about the initial isotopic composition of the rock.
Depending on the age of the rock, the isotopic abundance might be processed by supernova... cosmic rays, stuff like that.
All of these may seem like "problems" but different elements are processed differently, and so reconciling all of these "chronometers" actually teaches you about where the stuff has been and what has happened to it.
As I said, this is pretty solid stuff. In general, the error bar attributed to the time determination tells you the uncertainty in the assumptions of the initial conditions.
When you think about it, it's pretty sweet, you get an answer, and you get an estimate as to just how good the answer is...
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:13am PT
|
"Many if not most people are unaware that the Bible teaches the earth is flat. All standard Bible references, all standard mainstream non- fundamentalist Bible scholarship acknowledges this. Like on so many other topics, the Bible simply reflects the primitive and mistaken cosmology of the day"
The Bible does NOT teach the earth is flat and contrary to prevailing modern opinion, the Roman Catholic Church did not create, extol or exalt the flat earth model.
And some have posted claiming “the church” promoted the flat earth theory. Not being a member of the Roman church or an adherent to “catholic” doctrine, I chose not to post counter argument to that declaration. But the common acceptance of this falsehood SHOULD be addressed, whether from within or outside the capacity of Roman Catholicism.
Jeffrey Russell, a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara, wrote an interesting book Inventing the Flat Earth stating ”(that) through antiquity and up to the time of Columbus, “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical.”
The concept that the Roman church leadership advanced and held fast to the flat earth concept is a popular myth forwarded, nourished and cherished by individuals with antagonism and hostility to religion. But historical sculpture, art, coinage and documents tell a whole different story.
The Catholic Church held to the geocentric model of the universe rather than the heliocentric hypothesis conceived by Copernicus, himself a PRIEST. Copernicus received little opposition to his hypothesis from the church, but his sun centered model was the central issue in the trial and censure of Galileo a few decades later, possibly because of Galileo’s acerbic and argumentative nature. But Roman Catholicism never decreed a FLAT earth doctrine. Again, the earth was known to be spherical by the educated throughout Europe, and that knowledge was accepted by most all members of the educated clergy.
Numerous evidences of Greek and Roman knowledge of a spherical earth dogma came down (strongly) through history, before and during the Christian era. Writings, numerous statues of Atlas bearing a spherical Earth, statues of Caesars holding a globe (of the world) in their hand as testament of their universal dominion, coins bearing globes symbolizing the earth appeared before and long after the reign of Constantine.
The Bible, in my opinion, does not teach either flat earth or round earth cosmology. Christians often use scriptural quotations, including Isaiah chapter 40 and Luke chapter 17 as evidence of the Bible instructing readers of a spherical earth. Opponents quote passages from Genesis’ creation story as well as Christ’s being lifted up to see all the kingdoms of the Earth as evidential of the Bible advancing the flat earth notion.
These biblical verses are symbolic and highly metaphorical and can’t logically be used as tangible or literal grounding of Christianity or Judaism in either the flat earth or round earth view.
Although many moderns continue to believe the myth that medieval Europe’s intelligentsia followed the flat Earth concept, the Earth was, in fact, KNOWN to be spherical, by the educated and enlightened, from Greek and early Roman times through the Middle Ages. History or pseudo scholarship CAN NOT support or prove the claim that Roman church officials believed or taught that the earth was flat. But some modern writers, who considered themselves “enlightened”, and needing to cast Christianity as the afflicting angel of ignorance, superstition and irrationality promoted that myth. Thus these intellectual lighthouses attempted to dye and re-weave history to fit that theme.
The myth of Roman Catholic flat earth doctrine is, to large degree, a product of the prejudices and imagination of American writer Washington Irving. His book The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus portrays Columbus as a solitary believer of a radical, spherical earth hypothesis contending against consolidated ranks of ignorant, hostile and highly partial professors and clergy and (himself) barely escaping with his life at the Council of Salamanca.
In reality, most attending the Council believed the spherical earth model. The council was assembled to discuss the size of the Earth and the distances between islands and continents, NOT debate the shape of the Earth.
From John Noble Wilford, in his The Mysterious History of Christopher Columbus:
“However, it was not the facts of history that were important to myth-builders like Irving; it was the symbolism. Columbus, the little guy with the big idea, coming face to face with ignorance and indifference at the top, was a favorite American trope and became an important factor in the Columbus myth.”
Irving’s fanciful “biography” of Columbus has been widely quoted, even today, without investigating the historical facts.
The nineteenth century was the prime era of great perceived antagonism between science and religion and subsequent to the Darwinian revolution many scientist’s popularized the perception of religion as the hostile aggressor toward new scientific ideas. Antoine-Jean Letronne in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers, 1834, misrepresented the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth.
Letronne falsely claimed that most of the prominent Church Fathers, including Augustine, Ambrose and Basil, held to a flat Earth.
But Augustine definitely believed in a spherical earth. Just one evidence in his writing: ” But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.”
Other influential theologians including Boethius, Bishop Isidore of Seville, the 9th century bishop Rabanus Maurus, he monk Bede, Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg wrote treatises on the spherical Earth.
Yet, the modern belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has prevailed among the general public. In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history. ”But, in fact, very few educated people in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. on believed that the earth was flat and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.”
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:25am PT
|
"Hmmm... a rejection of education, a purposeful turning away from science, superstition in place of reason: where have we heard THIS recently?????"
That's definitely modern science's problem.
They mislead everyone .......
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:27am PT
|
link fixed
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:46am PT
|
and heliocentricity?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:02am PT
|
And how would an error of a few millions of years in a billion year old estimate matter to a creationist who thinks the world is only 6000 years old?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:04am PT
|
"These biblical verses are symbolic and highly metaphorical and can’t logically be used as tangible or literal grounding of Christianity or Judaism in either the flat earth or round earth view."
Jennie, but then might not the biblical verses in Genesis on the creation of the earth also be symbolic and metaphorical can't logically be interpreted literally?
Although the Bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years by different people of different times and backgrounds (some Jewish, some Greek and some Roman), some people today consider the Bible to be a single infallible document, of which every word is literally true. That is what I am questioning.
A couple hundred years before Christ, the Greeks had already determined the approximate diameter of the earth However some of the books of the Old Testament are much older then this. (Also, the Old Testament isn't Greek.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
Antiquity
Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps such as those of Anaximander and Hecataeus of Miletus.
Some theologians and biblical researchers maintain that at least some of the writers of the Old Testament books of the Bible had a Babylonian world view, according to which Earth is flat[5] and stands on pillars, and is covered by a solid sky-dome[6][7] (the Firmament). The firmament was the heaven in which God set the sun (Psalm 19:5) and the stars (Gen 1:14).[8] The flat earth concept appears to be mentioned in (Isaiah 40:22) where it speaks of God "dwelling above the circle of earth" which means a literal circle, from the Hebrew word "chuwg". However in Isaiah 22:18, the word "duwr" is used to describe a ball. This would appear to be in conflict with the Babylonian world view. Job 26:7 states that God was "hanging the earth upon nothing" and the same verse also described the north (of the Earth) as hanging over nothing too. The non-canonical Book of Enoch presents a concept In which the Sun and Moon move in and out of the Firmament dome through a series of openings (reflecting the apparent movement of their rising and setting points throughout the year). This is explained in considerable detail in the following excerpt:[citation needed]
"This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky" (1 Enoch 72:2-5).
[edit] Classical Antiquity
By classical times the idea that Earth was spherical began to take hold in Ancient Greece. Pythagoras in the 6th century BC, apparently on aesthetic grounds, held that all the celestial bodies were spherical. However, most Presocratic Pythagoreans considered the world to be flat.[9] According to Aristotle, pre-Socratic philosophers, including Leucippus (c. 440 BC) and Democritus (c. 460-370 BC) believed in a flat earth.[10] Anaximander believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top which remained stable because it is the same distance from all things.[11] It has been suggested that seafarers probably provided the first observational evidence that the Earth was not flat.[12]
Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[13] noting that travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. He argued that this was only possible if their horizon was at an angle to northerners' horizon and thus the Earth's surface could not be flat.[14] He also noted that the border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in all directions apart from directly above and directly below.[15] Writing around 10 BC, the Greek geographer Strabo cited various phenomena observed at sea as suggesting that the Earth was spherical. He observed that elevated lights or areas of land were visible to sailors at greater distances than those which were less elevated, and stated that the curvature of the sea was obviously responsible for this.[16] He also remarked that observers can see further when their eyes are elevated, and cited a line from the Odyssey[17] as indicating that the poet Homer was already aware of this as early as the 7th or 8th century BC.
The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades and a degree was 700 stades (implying a circumference of 252,000 stades).[18] Eratosthenes used rough estimates and round numbers, but depending on the length of the stadion, his result is within a margin of between 2% and 20% of the actual circumference, 40,008 kilometres. Note that Eratosthenes could only measure the circumference of the Earth by assuming that the distance to the Sun is so great that the rays of sunlight are essentially parallel. A similar measurement, reported in a Chinese mathematical treatise, the Zhoubi suanjing (1st c. BC), was used to measure the distance to the Sun– albeit by assuming that the Earth was flat.[19]
Lucretius (1st. c. BC) opposed the concept of a spherical Earth, because he considered the idea of antipodes absurd. But by the 1st century AD, Pliny the Elder was in a position to claim that everyone agrees on the spherical shape of Earth,[20] although there continued to be disputes regarding the nature of the antipodes, and how it is possible to keep the ocean in a curved shape. Pliny also considers the possibility of an imperfect sphere, "shaped like a pinecone".[20]
In the Second century the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy advanced many arguments for the sphericity of the Earth. Among them was the observation that when sailing towards mountains, they seem to rise from the sea, indicating that they were hidden by the curved surface of the sea. He also gives separate arguments that the Earth is curved north-south and that it is curved east-west.[21] Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude, longitude, and climes. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages, although Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (ca. 3rd to 7th centuries) saw occasional arguments in favor of a flat Earth.
In late antiquity such widely read encyclopedists as Macrobius (4th c.) and Martianus Capella (5th c.) discussed the circumference of the sphere of the Earth, its central position in the universe, the difference of the seasons in northern and southern hemispheres, and many other geographical details.[22] In his commentary on Cicero's Dream of Scipio, Macrobius described the Earth as a globe of insignificant size in comparison to the remainder of the cosmos.[22]
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:06am PT
|
Okay, Jody, how old to you think the Earth is?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:06am PT
|
Then please explain why an error of a few million years in a billion year old rock estimate would matter to you Jody?
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
wherever my mind exists
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:09am PT
|
The myths slipped through in the "history books"...not the Bible. Now, if by "Church" you mean the Catholic Church...you have a point. But if by "Church" you mean the community of christian believers, then, no.
History is a verbal or written documentation of the past. The Bible was a verbal and then became a written documentation of the past. The Bible is a "history book".
Therefore if myths slipped through "history books", then myths slipped in to the Bible.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:16am PT
|
the accuracy of the dating depends on many things: the lifetime of the isotope, the processing of the element in the material, the initial isotopic ratio.
Do you know what an isotope is? Nuclei determine which element the atom will be by the number of protons. There are an equal number of protons and electrons in an atom, and the electrons determine the chemistry of the element.
Naturally occurring elements will often have a set of nuclei with the same number of protons, but different numbers of neutrons. The atomic mass changes (the chemistry might change a tiny bit due to the isotopic shift, but not usually much). Depending on the nucleus, adding neutrons might make the nucleus unstable.
Nuclear decay, radioactive decay is a random process, the probability distribution is an exponential decay curve and the half-life of the decay is the time that half of the original nuclei would have decayed.
The half-life depends on the nuclear force and the numbers of protons and neutrons. It is not changed by the environment the nucleus is in. It is a constant for that particular isotope.
If you have a lot of atoms of a particular isotope, and their nuclei are unstable, then you can measure the number of that isotope remaining, and the number of "decay daughter" isotopes. This ratio will give you a measure of the time that has passed.
Usually you'd pick a couple of isotopes to start, now you're measuring four things. If you pick your isotopes correctly, you can determine the starting concentration and the time since the initial conditions, knowing the half-lives of the isotopes you've picked.
The uncertainty in the determination of that time is quantifiable, and usually is quoted as an "error" on the determination of that time. So the measurement has finite precision and accuracy.
Interpreting the chemistry of the samples is important, and often leads to ambiguous results for well know reasons. Additional information can help resolve the ambiguous results. The "clocks" are not perfect, but provide constraints on the age of the samples being measured.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:18am PT
|
Just would like to insert here that I think the main point of the bible and god is sometimes being missed here. The Old Testament Books bascially prepared the path and gave information about when Jesus would come and why.
The New Testament is about Jesus. Jesus came to help people. He helped and continues to help me and anyone else who wants help.
That about sums it up IMHO...trying to keep it simple...like me.
Lynne
Sorry, off topic somewhat...please forgive...oops to do that go to forgiveness thread by Karl B. hehehe Need to keep a few chuckles in life right?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:31am PT
|
So how large an error bar would make a billion year old estimate wrong Jody?
A day, a week, a year, 1000 years, 100000 years....
How accurate would it take for you to accept it?
And if the estimate is wrong in the first place, why would you care about the accuracy anyway?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:37am PT
|
But with the 'scientific'view there are facts and a logical paradigm. Respectfully, Jody, is there any part of the explanation that works for you that isn't "assumptions and estimations" plus of course, faith? any facts at all?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:38am PT
|
Then why did you care about the accuracy Jody?
Remember you said:
So you are admitting it might not be completely accurate?
Give us some idea of what you mean by 'completely'.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:41am PT
|
So how old is the earth Jody? We're still waiting.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:44am PT
|
the "if" meant that you pick isotopes appropriate for the dates you are determining... so that is just getting the right half-lives....
...the initial conditions has to do with processing, chemical and cosmogenic. Depending on what you are measuring you may have a really good idea of what he conditions are, initially. However, you depend on many other constraints to get an accurate determination of the time.
Really you perform a statistical analysis with all the constraining measurements.
The earth was formed well after the universe was... currently we put the age of the universe at something close to 14 billion years. The earth is only like 4.6 billion year old. So the material the earth was formed out of was processed through supernova, and other nucleosynthesis pathways we think we understand, but have yet to identify a site. Probably because there is no single site for these processes.
Once again, this information is a part of the puzzle, not the absolute truth that you seek. You will not find that here. Understanding this you begin to understand a lot more about the world around you.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:45am PT
|
Good question Granite.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:47am PT
|
Still don't know what you mean by 'completely' Jody.
If it's not 'completely' accurate then you get to throw the whole thing out?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:54am PT
|
They always give the error bar Jody. There's nothing absolute about it.
The question you have to ask yourself, does an answer at the edge of the error bar change the hypothesis? That's science.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 02:02am PT
|
I'm sure the observations are consistent with an earth that is roughly 4.5 billion years, give or take a few tens of million...not just from dating rock, but the age of the solar system...
The oldest earth rocks are something like 4.4 billion years old, the earth has an active geology and recycles a lot of itself. Meteorites provide some of the puzzle, as does the age of the sun.
All in all, though it's been around a bit.
I thought you'd wonder how we know the universe's age...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 02:09am PT
|
The oldest rocks on earth are metamorphic...
I'm in the camp that puts it closer to 4.7 billion years old, not that it matters.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 02:35am PT
|
".because this stuff is being presented as absolute fact in academia nd they darn well better be sure it is abolutely accurate if they are going to present it as such."
Is it? Did you read the papers? The datings are always approximations, subject to certain conditions.
" Granite, why does it matter how old I think the earth is?"
What does the Bible say? Does it say anything relevant on the age of the earth at all? Also, why do you care how old the earth is?
You are looking for absolutes. That is not what science is about.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 08:58am PT
|
Hey Jody,
I have a sincere question for you. Werner's scriptures (the Vedas) state that the moon is 800,000 miles farther away from the earth than the sun is. What do your scriptures state (if anything) on that particular subject? Furthermore, what do you feel about that concept on an intuitive level? I ask because I find it interesting that Werner disagrees with what is the foundation of our (Ed's, mine, Jay's, and a host of others) way of understanding and you do as well. Yet I can't help but ponder and think that you and werner don't exactly see things the same yet ya'll's have yet to have one word of difference on the subject. It's like... we're takin' it from both ends from you guys.... no lube involved either!
thanks,
Doug
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 09:10am PT
|
"Yet I can't help but ponder and think that you and werner don't exactly see things the same yet ya'll's have yet to have one word of difference on the subject."
That's called tolerance.
I may not agree with Werner or Jody and they may not agree with me. However, I'm not at all interested in stopping them from thinking what they do, in fact I'm glad they think it and hope that it makes them happy.
Remember that atheism has no ideas of its own - no moral framework, no world view and no ideology. For the overwhelming majority of atheists it is just a crude system of being opposed to religion, composed of borrowing or stealing religion's key ideas then adding "not" or "don't" where appropriate.
It's an entirely negative way of thinking, characterised (as this thread shows) by agression and opposition. It should hardly be a surprise then that the one thing we almost never see from atheists is tolerance of other ideas. Not openness to them (that would be a bit much to ask from a system which naes itself for being opposed to another!), just acceptance that others have different ideas and should be allowed to do so unmolested.
If atheists were to learn to do that, we might see some progress from them.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 09:20am PT
|
I'm not an athiest.
But you and Werner and Jody are all welcome to, as you state, your opinions. Yet Jody continues to state with absolute certainty that evolution and Darwin's concept of survival of the fittest (which results in evolutionary change) has no merit or is wrong (and he's 100% certain of that and has proof). Yet the proof does not even begin to bare itself out. And thus the argument ensues. I have no problem with Jody or you or anyone viewing the world from a faithful understanding. Where I take issue is where some guise otherwise (like masking it as science) comes to play.
Remember that atheism has no ideas of its own - no moral framework, no world view and no ideology. For the overwhelming majority of atheists it is just a crude system of being opposed to religion, composed of borrowing or stealing religion's key ideas then adding "not" or "don't" where appropriate.
Here again, an opinion (of yours). Filled with a whole lot of negative crap. But then, I still think you are trolling.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 09:52am PT
|
"Here again, an opinion (of yours). Filled with a whole lot of negative crap"
Yes, that's a good illustration - as I said you just automatically adopt the opposite of what I've said without any actual content.
Of course if I was wrong and atheism did have content beyond what it borrows from religion and crudely inverts or parodies, you would have said what that is - but you don't, you're reliant on me to come up wit hthe idea which you then simply deny as a matter of reflex without qualification.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 10:45am PT
|
Blight, I think it actually your style of argument, which makes heavy use of argumentum ad hominem rather than actually addressing the issues. I, for one, find your criticisms useful in shedding unnecessary discussion around the issues and pointing out the occasional rhetorical traps that one runs into in debate. But by and large, you seem not to address any of the technical issues and prefer to change the subject to a discussion regarding the people (or group of people) you presume to be making those arguments.
Jody would use argumentum ad verecundiam.
In both cases, it avoids a discussion of the actual evidence and method of scientific enquire, which I know you have criticized in previous posts, but once again by arguing about scientists and their presumed biased mindset rather than arguing about the science.
This is a form of argument that has, unfortunately, become the major,modern criticism of science: that scientists are human. A fact well known by scientists and a major driver in the intense self-criticism that takes place in the science community. Sometimes that criticism gets personal and nasty when it doesn't have to, but the science itself seems to eventually emerge. The scientific method, ultimately corrects for human foibles, when it is correctly applied.
Scientists do keep conflicting data and observations around, they provide a strong test for understanding theoretic explanation. Often, some bit of inconvenient data or a puzzling observation will be around for decades, to be explained later with some deeper insight.
These data are not central because they often cannot be addressed by what is currently known. One good recent example was Fritz Zwicky's observation that galactic rotation curves (the velocity of the stars in a galaxy as a function of their distance to the center of the galaxy) could not be explained by our estimates of the luminous mass in the galaxy (stars, dust, everything we could see) and gravitation.
Reconciling this observation, at the time, would require a change in our understanding of physical law, something which didn't seem to be warranted by the evidence, though many people pursued that line of reasoning.
Eventually the hypothesis of dark matter became more and more appealing, that there is a form of matter in the universe that interacts through its gravity, but not much more. Candidates for this matter are likely the result of the interactions of elementary forces, the consequence of which is much broader than just explaining Zwicky's observation.
Dark matter on the cosmological scale helps explain the nucleation of matter to form stars in the very early universe, a conundrum for explaining how the universe got to where it is now...
Amazingly to me, this has happened during my scientific career, a breathtaking array of knowledge, explaining many observations and unifying a host of experimental results. It's beautiful to my eyes.
As much as has been explained are those new questions that we are pursuing the answers for... looking in the theories we have developed, or imagining new theory for that which we know can't be explained by our current theories.
It is truly an endless frontier.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:14am PT
|
"Blight, I think it actually your style of argument, which makes heavy use of argumentum ad hominem rather than actually addressing the issues."
There is a certain keen irony in watching you complain that I'm not addressing the issues then immediately try to establish credibility for the scientific evolution case by citing success in completely irrelevant areas of scientific study!
As for your defense of science: well that's just the same tired old positivism from last century dusted off and spruced up with a lick of cosmology. I'll not insult your education by going any further into that: it was done to death 50 years ago.
Science has certainly produced its share of curiosities and wonders, I agree. But using it as a blunt tool with which to hit people you don't like - as we see in this thread - is as much a misuse of science as propganda posters are a misuse of art.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:17am PT
|
Ed, I thought you had "chewed through the bag" to freedom...
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:22am PT
|
"Remember that atheism has no ideas of its own - no moral framework, no world view and no ideology. For the overwhelming majority of atheists it is just a crude system of being opposed to religion, composed of borrowing or stealing religion's key ideas then adding "not" or "don't" where appropriate."
Try to stick to the topic. Evolution is not only "an idea of its own" its one you don't understand.
blight
Noun
1. a person or thing that spoils or prevents growth
2. any plant disease characterized by withering and shrivelling without rotting
3. a fungus or insect that causes blight in plants
4. an ugly urban district
Verb
1. to cause to suffer a blight
2. to frustrate or disappoint: blighted love
3. to destroy: the event blighted her life [origin unknown]
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:32am PT
|
Blight is a troll.
I'll repeat what I said almost 2 years ago in another Darwin thread.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=269282&msg=271009#msg271009
"Before spending very much time putting together detailed, thoughtful responses to Blight's demands, look at the previous postings on evolution here on Supertopo and form your own conclusion as to whether Blight is genuinely interested in learning more about evolution or if he is only seeking to confound."
Look at that thread and others to see what was already covered.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:42am PT
|
hehe... good one gc. The ironic part about that thread is that TiG, who I rarely agree with much, questioned blight. And yet again he side-stepped the issue and attacked the scientists and not the science. Is he a troll? I'm not sure he his. At least not in the way trolls usually operate. I think he actually believes his opinions to heart and thus isn't really a troll. But he sure knows how to twist the words of others to get under the skin of those that don't see the blatant fallacies of logic or don't see the thinly veiled attacks.
BTW, thanks Ed. You wrote exactly what I was thinking. Well, except for those fancy words in italics. And except for paragraph two through the end. And except for paragraph one. Otherwise spot on what I was gonna say.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:42pm PT
|
I would like to hear from Jody and/or Werner what experiences they have had that make them believe in God.
I'm not being facetious. I'm curious what drives their faith. It can't just be reading the Bible or listening to preachers. I would think it is much deeper and personal. Is it a feeling? Has God communicated to you in some way? How? What was it like? Is it even possible to explain it?
Again I'm not being facetious or negative, I just want to know what drives your convictions. I keep hearing we need to listen, but for what?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 12:52pm PT
|
I've never read the bible. I have no clue what it says.
I chant the Maha-mantras .......
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:15pm PT
|
Jody, I didn't ask what the bible said. I asked what you thought of the concept. You can think beyond what's written in the Bible, right?
And why does it matters? Because someone asked you sincere question they were curious about. It would be fair to read a little into why as I eluded to it if you like.
Werner: Which is your Ishta Devata to whom you chant your Maha-mantras? Hanuman seems to be mine...
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 01:20pm PT
|
OK, good point. I did ask. And you answered that (I've never read the Bible so I wouldn't know). I went on to further ask:
Furthermore, what do you feel about that concept on an intuitive level?
So my bad...
woo 600!
Edit: and I certainly didn't ask expecting we'd debate. I suspect you feel/think the moon is roughly 384403 km away from the earth while the sun149476000 km from the earth.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 02:09pm PT
|
No, I am saying that YOU have no proof that the above is true.
. . . there have been many instances that obviously had God's hand involved.
It's called the placebo effect. I've been wondering what you would call "proof".
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 02:23pm PT
|
See you there, my friend. We can spend an eternity arguing about the Clash of Civs.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 03:01pm PT
|
I immediately felt like a truck that had been sitting on my chest had been lifted away
Perfect example of a virtual experience. *SPOILER ALERT* Same thing as tearing up when Old Yeller gets done--Mr. Disney really didn't zap a dog in that movie and everybody knows it--but golly, the emotion felt real! Same thing when your sibling jumped out from behind a door and scared you for the 1,000th time. Should emotions be trusted as reliable and truthful gauges of reality?
Why do you think alter calls are always preceded by the big buildup of singing and preaching, etc.? It's emotional staging--oldest trick in the theater.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 03:03pm PT
|
Thanks Jody, I appreciate your forthright answer. It really helps me understand your viewpoint.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 03:09pm PT
|
Blight obviously has a persecution complex.
He accuses "atheists" of "aggression and opposition," but is blind to his own tone of sneering animosity. And if that isn't enough evidence, consider that he accused Ed of attacking him with a blunt instrument: science!
No one except Blight is talking about Atheism. But Blight keeps returning to it again and again. Why?
Of those who are arguing in favor of Evolution, some are atheist, some are agnostic, some are spiritual or believe in some form of God, and some would describe themselves as Christians.
Most of the religious arguments in this thread have been about a biblical literalism that prevents honest discussion of Evolution. And this is where some of us cross the threshold in Blight's mind and become part of the persecutory atheist enemy.
Blight has complained of the pathological [compulsive or (mentally) diseased] behavior of atheists. But his fixation on atheists and his description of atheist behavior--that doesn't fit with anything we can see in this thread--are demonstrative of his own neuroticism and paranoia. We can see this from all the complaints that we've made that Blight twists people's words; it is not Blight being malicious, but instead it is a product of his own disordered mind.
He complains that atheists have "no moral framework, no world view and no ideology." And he complains that they are fanatics. Blight the idealogue, is completely blind to the fact that the one with an ideology, like him, is more likely to be a fanatic, which he of course is, than someone with no ideology.
"Yes." he says, "you've illustrated my point," when you have done no such thing. He always claims that your comment had no substantiative content, and that you have only said the opposite of what he said, which is also his main complaint about atheists. Of course we are all baffled by this because it doesn't match our own experiences.
Most of us do respond to Blight with substantiative content and we know that atheists don't just borrow or steal "religion's key ideas then adding 'not' or 'don't' where appropriate." Atheists and other skeptics on this thread have been asking for biblical evidence--there is evidence for this 'asking' in this thread! There is also evidence on this thread that those opposed to Evolution are the ones who rarely have any substantiative comments, and are more prone to dismiss something with a "not" or a "don't."
But Blight's "reality" is based on his distorted perceptions, and if anyone's differences with Blight exceed a certain threshold, they are lumped in with the cruel, persecuting atheists, and everything they say is seen as confirmation of Blight's worst fears.
It's sad really. Blight does seem intelligent, but it has become a disordered and self-destructive intelligence. For all the comfort or joy faith supposedly gives Blight, I don't sense any of it; I only sense his fear and hostility.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 03:19pm PT
|
As with Ed's post that is exactly what I was thinking and well on my way to writing it up just like that. We'll except for the part in italics and quotes. And except for the second paragraph until the end. And well... except for every word in the first paragraph. Otherwise spot on with what I was thinking.
(Well said Wanda)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 03:33pm PT
|
I am less interested in what Blight has to say about me than I am about his criticism of science. I am not sure that I am a "positivist" though I remember studying the philosophy of science when I was younger. I found that not so full of insight, largely because philosophers can't agree on what reality is... where scientists tend not to worry so much about it depending on empirical measurements, and a mathematical model to explain what is going on.
How does it work?
I don't know, and if understanding it would help me do better physics (which I once suspected it would) then I would have tried a lot harder to learn about the philosophy of science. Perhaps Blight can teach me something.
But I think myself more a pragmatist, not so worried to apply the latest thinking of the academy to affirm something that I can go out and verify myself.
And I think it dates back a few centuries, not just the last 50 years. I can sit with Newton's Opticks and reproduce his experiments on light as he did. Now of course Newton did a lot of good optics, but he got a lot "wrong" for the right reasons. Understanding that from a philosophical point of view might open us up to a more "efficient" execution of science. Perhaps Blight has something to say about that.
However, if I believe in anything, it is that the universe is understandable through the scientific method. That's all. And the history of science seems to point to a success there.
Is Blight saying it was all just an accident that would have worked out the same if we applied some other method?
I'm all ears!
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 04:07pm PT
|
"These biblical verses are symbolic and highly metaphorical and can’t logically be used as tangible or literal grounding of Christianity or Judaism in either the flat earth or round earth view."
Graniteclimber:"Jennie, but then might not the biblical verses in Genesis on the creation of the earth also be symbolic and metaphorical can't logically be interpreted literally?"
"Although the Bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years by different people of different times and backgrounds (some Jewish, some Greek and some Roman), some people today consider the Bible to be a single infallible document, of which every word is literally true. That is what I am questioning."
Yes, I, personally, take the Creation story as a metaphor. But the metaphorical and symbolic can be just as powerful or MORE powerful than the literal. I believe a Creator was driving the Creation whether it took more or less than 13.7 billion years for the universe and or 4.6(plus or minus) billion for the earth to come to its present state. Many in Judao-Christian tradition see the Genesis creation as symbolic rather than literal.
I don't view the Bible as infallible and probably many important scriptures were left out because they were not understood.
But whether the fundementalist/literalist or symbolic interpretations are correct, I have difficulty conceiving Creation being imparted, shaped and propelled by accident and randomness. The unity of mechanism in the universe must surely have originated in the mind of God and the intricacy, capacity, creativity and transcendant intelligence of its beings brought forth by a Creator.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 04:27pm PT
|
Jennie is the one with the brains here.
Thank God ....
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 04:27pm PT
|
Blight is a troll that ordinarily comes out of his cave only when evolution is discussed.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 04:29pm PT
|
Good post, Jennie. Your position is very reasonable.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 04:37pm PT
|
|
|
DJS
Trad climber
wherever my mind exists
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 04:57pm PT
|
Well put Jennie. Your viewpoint opens up more avenues for open minded discussion.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 05:01pm PT
|
I'm surprised that you agree with Jennie's post Jody, after declaring that the priest that agrees with evolution is dead wrong. The model that Jennie is presenting allows for evolution as a mechanism created by God to lead to man. This could include speciation and God igniting the spark of life in the primordial ooze.
This line of thinking allows for the scientific method to explore the rules set out by God without demanding it to rigorously agree with a literal interpretation of the Bible. No system is too complex for God right?
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 05:02pm PT
|
Accident and randomness may be (some of) God's tools to ultimately arrive at life and consciousness, given billions of years for it to work it's magic.
Edit: Accident and randomness are the "imparted" part. "Shaped" is natural selection, or the reproduction of valuable characteristics, which is not a random process, but benificial in the eyes of God/nature.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 07:40pm PT
|
Metaphors are useful
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 09:21pm PT
|
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 09:53pm PT
|
AND I SAY, WHAT WOULD WE ALL AT ST DO WITHOUT OUCH ? LOVE YOU MR. OUCH, YOU ARE A SPECIAL DUDE !
Big smiles from Lynners
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 10:16pm PT
|
LOL! Thanks Lynne. I'll ask 46 to be nice to you at Facelift.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:09pm PT
|
Did you know that Lord Buddha preached atheism even though he was a bona-fide incarnation of God.
This one is difficult to understand for those not in the Brahma disiplic succession.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:13pm PT
|
why the Brahma disiplic succession when Buddha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu?
disciplic?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2008 - 11:25pm PT
|
Brahma disiplic sucession is the bonafide succession going back to Visnu.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 16, 2008 - 02:06am PT
|
"Dating methods assume constant decay rates."
Which doesn't seem a particularly positive way to think about about our love lives.
Another probably vain thread highjack attempt. I suppose I could just delete the first post, to get some peace and quiet. I would also spare myself the embarrassment of seeing a 600+ post thread with which I am haplessly associated, where nothing much new has been said for 500+ posts.
Though I did like Jody's pretty diagram a few posts back.
Edit: I looked, and there very much still is an edit button on the first post. In fact, I think that stays permanently - it's just that all the subsequent posts to a thread can't be edited or removed after seven (10?) days. I noticed that on another thread that popped up recently - it was from a while ago, but still had the edit button on the first post. Assuming, that is, that the button actually works - no reason it shouldn't.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 02:48am PT
|
Random chance? I don't think so.
That's the 'I can't understand it, therefore my God did it' argument.
Even the judge in the Dover case understood how complex systems can evolve when explained.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:13am PT
|
There are three types of people;
Those that see something that complicated and 'Know' there must a guiding hand.
Those that see something that complicated and know that there can't have been a guiding hand.
those that know that there are more than three ways to look at this.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:25am PT
|
"That's the 'I can't understand it, therefore my God did it' argument."
Actually it's not. Of course Jody said no such thing. You're conflating two completely separate questions:
"Can complex systems evolve spontaneously?"
and
"Did God create complex systems?"
The reason you're combining them is clear - to avoid having to answer the very real critcism that Jody is levelling at your beliefs.
He says, reasonably, that probability, selection and mutation as we understand them are highly unlikely to produce the illustrated system because it's so interdependent.
That's a fair comment.
In response, instead of showing that probability, selection and mutation genuinely could have produced the system, you shriek, "YOU JUST BELIEVE GOD DID IT YOU'RE WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!"
So tell me, who doesn't understand the question: someone who's just posted a complete diagram of the system as currently understood and levelled a very real criticism at it?
Or someone whose only answer is to sneer incoherently about their prejudice concerning belief in God - which isn't even relevant to the critcism - and to completely avoid answering the argument presented?
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:35am PT
|
"Those thst see something that complicated and 'Know' there must a guiding hamd.
Those that see something that complicated and know that there can't have been a guiding hand.
those that know that there are more than three ways to look at this."
That's very true!
I'm very interested in this current rehash of atheism and its crude links to science. Of course it's not new - as I mentioned before, it's really just old-fashioned positivism dusted off and repackaged.
There have been many iterations of this version of atheism before, all of which have inevitably collapsed. What's really fascinating is that despite being a rerun, each time the atheists make grandiose claims that it's "the way forward" and that religion is "dying out" (to be replaced, presumably, by science and atheism), apparently unaware that it's all been said before.
The elements are often interchangeable: in one iteration of atheism science is used to "prove" that some races are inferior (thus justifying their mistreatment), in another it is used to "prove" that they are deluded and of low intelligence (thus also justifying their mistreatment). But the key themes remain the same: science used as tool to "prove" the superiority of atheists and proclaimed to be the new saviour of humanity, replacing the old one.
As John Gray said, atheism is just a late christian cult, notable only for its intellectual crudity.
|
|
Tobyslim
Trad climber
Scandinavia
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 05:48am PT
|
I have been reading this thread and have enjoyed it even though the discussion have not really been coherent at all times. However, as a biologist I would like to point out a few things:
On the origin of species was published 1859. The 150 year anniversary was of the paper published by Darwin together with Alfred Russel Wallace where they outlined the theory of evolution through natural selection. His work was founded on the theory of the economist Malthus that a population would grow exponentially when the resources grew lineary, leading to starvation. Even prior to Darwins release a concept of species evolving from each other had been around for some time as a way of explaining the observations of fossils and the organisms that naturalists brought studied all over the world. Often in the form of a tree of creation with Man on top and the "lesser" animals below. This view is sometimes still referred to, people think that there are less and more evolved organisms.
I also would like to point out that what a "species" is can be hard to define even in biological terms. One criteria is usually that they do not form fertile offspring, but many "species" that are commonly thought to be separate can still interbreed. Lions and Tigers for example, but they dont in the wild since they are on different continents. The fact that "species" are not always clearly distinct but are separated by natural barriers (such as being on different islands) is expected from evolutionary theory. Only after some time changes will occur so that two isolated populations become distinct from each other.
Mutations are said to be very rare. This is not the case in sequences that are not under "selective pressure", in other words sequences that no not affect the function of the organism are frequently changed.
The fact that biochemical processes in mammalian cells (or any cell for that matter) are complicated is often a result of that they are made up from what was available. creating unnecessary complicated processes. A designer could often have made it simpler.
These are just a few pointers. Evolution is a scientific theory and does not tell people how to live their lives, but as science it is very solid. Otherwise it would be challenged in peer reviewed scientific journals. Just Imagine how famous you could become...
When it comes to the philosophical implications of evolution. God could create the world in any way he wanted if he exists, he seem to have chosen a way that is after a lot of studies very hard to differ from natural mechanisms. He seems to be a bit shy.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 06:47am PT
|
"God could create the world in any way he wanted if he exists, he seem to have chosen a way that is after a lot of studies very hard to differ from natural mechanisms."
Is it surprising that science has only detected "natural" mechanisms?
I had a similar experience last night: I was hungry and you know what, I really fancied some chocolate. So I went to the cupboard and fetched my metal detector and you know I searched all over the house and didn't find a single bit of chocolate. So know I know that chocolate doesn't exist.
|
|
Tobyslim
Trad climber
Scandinavia
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 07:08am PT
|
In your analogy you search for chocolate but in the case for explaining the biological diversity it is rather that we have all these pieces of a puzzle and try to fit them together. evolution is (so far) the best way to organize the pieces so that they fit. And the cool thing is that when we find new pieces they also fit in the puzzle. Can we prove that this is the right way to fit the pieces. Not until we have found all pieces (which we will never do). But its a very good way to fit the pieces.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 08:07am PT
|
That wasn't the analogy - again as expected you've not only failed to answer the question, you've failed to read it and to understand it - in fact all you've done in the absence of understanding is to trot out another dull little soundbite which you picked up someplace and serves you in place of having any ideas of your own.
The analogy was to your complaint that the way God, if he exists, has created the world looks to science very like it's naturally occurring.
So what? Show that science is the right tool for find a god and you'll have a useful conclusion. Until then there're every possibility that you're looking for chocolate using a metal detector.
|
|
Tobyslim
Trad climber
Scandinavia
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 09:19am PT
|
I seem to have misunderstood you. I was trying to explain the natural world in general and the biodiversity specifically, not looking for god. If I wanted to do that science would be the wrong tool as science deals with understanding the things we see around us in a plausible way.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:31am PT
|
Nop
The real goal of science is to come to the platform of understanding God.
Blight has it perfectly.
It's modern science that has become defective and lost sight of the "real" goal to the answer of everything.
summum bonum
Instead it's theory after theory and nothing but mental speculations which mislead everyone.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:36am PT
|
Tobyslim, Blight is a troll.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 10:41am PT
|
NO HE IS NOT A TROLL
Graniteclimber you are just a gross mental speculator.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:09am PT
|
Blight writes: Is it surprising that science has only detected "natural" mechanisms?
not surprising at all, since that is the domain of science, measuring what is physical. All science seeks to do is to explain physical reality. Those things which exist apart from physical reality, which cannot be measured, quantified, and explained in some logical manner are quite beyond the reach of science.
I thought that I've said that before on other threads...
Blight, it is really you here that have a dusty old view of the division of the world between "natural" and "supernatural," perhaps the most popular recent past movement being in Victorian times. I don't really have any issue with you belief in the spiritual. Ultimately, it comes down to what thoughts and feelings you want to believe as representative of an external reality.
Thoughts have a reality all their own, thoughts exist, but thoughts may not represent an external reality, nor do they have to in order to affect how we perceive and interact with the world. If we "know" that there are supernatural events which defy all our ability to measure physically, but are "perceived" by us then we cannot determine if they actually exist, or if they are just artifacts of the way our brains work.
This does not in anyway "demote" these perceptions (at least in my thinking), and it does take the subject of those perceptions out of the realm of science and empirical verification. They exist as a subjective consensus among many people, perhaps all people (to generalize wildly), but while the idea exists and is agreed upon, that idea may have no physical presence outside of thought.
Once again, this is not a trivial thing, as thought motivates action. But thought requires a thing which thinks, and that which thinks may be physical, and be understood even when what it thinks might be beyond the physical.
There is a duality there which is open to scientific investigation, and confronts your example above.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:18pm PT
|
And above that duality is the real answer.
I guarantee it .....
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:20pm PT
|
jody and blight,
do a either of you have kids?
do they look exactly like you, or your spouse?
do you look exactly like either of your parents?
if so you are observing evolution in action.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:22pm PT
|
"I guarantee it ....."
What do we get if you are wrong? A crackerjack prize?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 12:24pm PT
|
" NO HE IS NOT A TROLL
Graniteclimber you are just a gross mental speculator."
And so are you, unless Blight is your avatar.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 02:01pm PT
|
Jody,
Just trying to truly see if you can extrapolate information.
The example of the virus was to show how in a short enough time of a single human to observe it, change in genetics can happen.
Same with the example of your kids.
Allot of the examples and arguments have been laid out in timeframes that one human can not observe.
So let's extrapolate from my two examples.
If viruses change over time, what would that virus be like in 100 years? 1000 years? 1000000 years?
If your children do not look exactly like you, what will happen during the succeeding generations? Lets say in 1000 generations. Doubtful anyone in your lineage will look anything like you.
If you can understand this, then the concept divergent species is at least possible.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 02:31pm PT
|
Jody there is lots of evidence and many indications of speciation but no absolute proof. The Archaeopteryx has traits of birds and lizards that are exclusive to each species and not found in the other. It is a real stretch to claim that it is a bird and only a bird because it has feathers. There is strong evidence that feathers evolved from scales, that insect wings evolved from gills, that bat wings and whale flippers evolved from hands. The list goes on. I could pit talkorigins.com against answersingenesis.com but that would be pointless.
To me it seems probable to me that the human cell processes evolved and continue to do so to form the web that you tried to confound us with. By analogy (I'm going to regret this since analogies never work) look at computer programming. It is written piece by piece and augmented over time. Occasionally a better section of code is written and the previous one is just commented out but left in there. It builds up into this incredibly complex thing but it is really just a bunch of simple processes that work together in harmony. The same can be said about computer processor design. There is a powerful feedback mechanism in the process. The organism dies if it doesn't work. You will only see the processes that work. It's that simple.
Do you believe that dinosaurs and man walked together and that man may even have ridden dinosaurs as depicted in the Creation Museum in Kentucky?
How did Noah fit the 1.8 million known species on the Ark let alone the millions that have yet to be discovered?
I really hope they find life on Mars. That will make this conversation much more interesting! In what verse do they talk about the creatures of Mars in the Bible?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 02:33pm PT
|
Jody,
What will the people in your lineage look like in 1000 years?
Probably like this with the brain capcity to match......
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 02:33pm PT
|
Today there are Cheetahs, there weren't always Cheetahs. Where did they come from?
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 02:36pm PT
|
Evolution in action.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 03:25pm PT
|
No divergence.
Interesting.
Populations unable to mate with each other.
Creationists redefine divergence.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 03:45pm PT
|
Sorry Jody, subspecies is just a taxonomists term for groups within a species that have some clear distince traits. Implies nothing about not being able to mate.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Species_and_Speciation.html
Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 03:49pm PT
|
Give us the creationists definition of a speciation event.
They do have one right?
Unable to mate is a pretty fundamental test to a speciation event.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:12pm PT
|
I was kinda thinking along Monolith's lines, what is the creationist take on what's going on when new species come to be? They come they go, what's up with that?
Congrats on the 666 post, Jody!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:16pm PT
|
Do bacteria count?
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:29pm PT
|
Give us your definition of a 'new kind'?
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:49pm PT
|
If no new 'kinds' of animals have appeared since Noah, how did he fit the 1.8 million known species on the Ark let alone the 2 to 50 million that are estimated to exist?
If the Noah's Ark part of Genesis is not literally true how does one pick the literally true parts from the metaphorical? Logic? Faith? Divine inspiration?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 04:58pm PT
|
halifax,
Noah did not use a boat, he shoved all 3.6 million animals into Jody's relatives ass.
There must have been enough room, with a head that big shoved up ones ass you probably end up expanding things quite a bit........
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 05:23pm PT
|
"Noah did not use a boat, he shoved all 3.6 million animals into Jody's relatives ass."
UD, if the theory of evolution is true (and especially if it isn't) those relatives are also YOUR relatives. LOL
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 05:25pm PT
|
something like a hyena? has cat and dog characteristics, is fairly recent...
I presume we are ignoring mules, ligers, tigons, commercial bananas, etc.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
|
What about Archaeopteryx? It has features unique to reptiles and birds. It is one of the closest examples we have of a transition fossil. Without dismissing it out of hand can you explain why it doesn't make speciation plausible. It's not proof but it lends itself to the interpretation.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 07:05pm PT
|
There have been 9 Archaeopteryx fossils found to date. All attempts to prove them as being hoaxes have been shown to be misguided.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 07:27pm PT
|
"UD, if the theory of evolution is true (and especially if it isn't) those relatives are also YOUR relatives. LOL"
If Jody is right then you are correct.
If evolution is right, not a chance in hell, (pun intended).
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 07:31pm PT
|
"If evolution is right, not a chance in hell"
No, if evolution is correct they are still your relatives, because they are still on your family tree.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 08:01pm PT
|
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:01pm PT
|
Because one is real and the other is imaginary. But it's okay, you can still blow the whistle on the Jesus train. Probably a good adaptation for you, in your circumstances. Whatever gets you through your life.
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:07pm PT
|
Sure is a lot more palatable than:
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:17pm PT
|
You notice in the Sistine Chapel image how God seems to be saying. Adam, my son, pull my finger. So that's where thunder comes so.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:44pm PT
|
I don't have the temerity to address the main question after 700 posts. But Jody there is distinct point where you separate from the others. It comes when you make an intrinsic distinction between "a compelling case" and something called "proven." There really is no such thing as "proven" in the sense that there is no possibility of refutation. I think this is the sense in which you use the word.
In the real world of ideas there is no such thing as "certainty." Everything is up for grabs - always. A lot of things have so much evidence attesting to their truth that we are willing to build other structures on them as a foundation. But if some astonishing new evidence was found everyone would say "Blimey!" and immediately start changing what needed to be changed. Not because "Blimey" was right. No,No, No. We would start changing things because the new way of looking at things might reveal even more astonishing implications.
The idea of "proven" rests on "magic". Some out of this world force has to be assumed.
We have no data suggesting this force exists. We have yet to see anything that is out of this world. Incredible things? Most assuredly. Out of this world?
Nope.
I have not seen this argument appear anywhere before. So it is not tired. What do you think?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2008 - 11:59pm PT
|
Jody is totally prepared to deny any scientific evidence that would provide a conclusion questioning his belief in the literal interpretation of the bible. Period. End. Stop.
For example, Jody wonders of the constancy of nuclear decay, on which the concept of radionuclide dating rests. He will not take my word as authority on this, and he need not, he can study nuclear physics and draw his own conclusions.
It is actually quite nice that science provides everyone the ability to question the world. Jody could reproduce, step-by-step the experiments that led to the demonstration of constancy of decay rate. He can write down the theory that explains the observations, step-by-step. All this is accessible to him without resort to trusting an authoritative voice.
He can do science himself, it is not a hidden art, it requires no special association, just a few simple rules to guide him, rather general, which we are taught in seventh grade (if I remember my middle school curriculum).
I have no doubt that Jody could demonstrate, himself, that the decay of nuclei are constants of nature, immutable.
What an awesome power, to understand nature. And he wouldn't have to trust the suspect words of establishment science.
Go for it Jody!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
Blight criticizes science for its closed mindedness (though he didn't exactly say that, I'm generalizing with the assumption that he'll correct me later) on the matter of evolution, but a news item in the recent Science Magazine would indicate that there is not quite a unified dogmatic front against any development of the theory, see Science 11 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5886, pp. 196 - 197.
It reports a meeting this week to review the state of evolution and plot a way forward. One of its organizers '...Pigliucci and others argue that the so-called modern synthesis, which has guided evolutionary thought and research for about 70 years, needs freshening up. A lot has happened in the past half-century. DNA's structure was revealed, genomes were sequenced, and developmental biologists turned their sights on evolutionary questions. Researchers have come to realize that heredity is not simply a matter of passing genes from parent to offspring, as the environment, chemical modification of DNA, and other factors come into play as well. Organisms vary not only in how they adapt to changing conditions but also in how they evolve.
Evolution is much more nuanced than the founders of the modern synthesis fully appreciated, says Pigliucci. That doesn't mean that the overall theory of evolution is wrong, as some intelligent design proponents have tried to assert using Mazur's story as support, but rather that the modern synthesis needs to better incorporate modern science and the data revealed by it. More than genes pass on information from one generation to the next, for example, and development seems to help shape evolution's course. "Many things need fixing," emphasizes one invited speaker, Eva Jablonka of Tel Aviv University in Israel. "I think that a new evolutionary synthesis is long overdue."'
sounds suspiciously like science at work.
...'Beyond reason?
As the Altenberg 16 seek to modernize the modern synthesis, other unconventional ideas will be on the table. One is evolvability, the inherent capacity of an organism or a population, even a species, to respond to a changing environment. Introduced about 20 years ago, the concept can help explain why certain groups of organisms readily and rapidly diversified. Consider vertebrate toes: Amphibians have a wider range in digit number than, say, reptiles, which may indicate that the former are more evolvable for that trait, Pigliucci points out. But the question remains whether natural selection favors more evolvable organisms. If the idea of evolvability wasn't radical enough, a few researchers have proposed that organisms can stock up mutations whose effects manifest themselves only when the right circumstances arise.
Both ideas have their skeptics. "I don't believe organisms have a closet where they maintain all this genetic variation," says Douglas Schemske, an evolutionary biologist at Michigan State University in East Lansing.
Even among those coming to Altenberg, there's far from universal agreement. Wagner finds epigenetic inheritance hard to swallow. "I haven't been convinced," he says. And some outside the Altenberg 16 don't see what all the fuss is about. "I'm happy" with the modern synthesis, says George Weiblen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Others note that some of the items on the meeting's agenda, such as the role of plasticity in looks and behavior in evolution, have fallen in and out of favor for decades. "It's like selling old wine in new bottles," says Thomas Flatt of Brown University.
But these criticisms don't faze Altenberg's organizers. The modern synthesis emerged from at least a decade's worth of discussions. "The crucial point of the workshop is bringing these concepts together," says Müller. And no one truly expects a scientific Woodstock. "Woodstock was an immensely popular event celebrating a new musical mainstream," says Newman. "I imagine this will be more like a jam session circa 1962."'
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
Yes, Jody... we recognize that is what you've argued. And we continue to note how poor of a job you're doing trying. Though I will admit you did an even worse job trying to somehow inject doubt into decay rates.
What an awesome power, to understand nature.
You might think that's awesome but personally I think I'm rather difficult to understand. Nice try. Next!
On a side note I really do like what Douglas Brooks writes (a top Tantric philosopher and one of my teachers)." The greatest certainty is only the most certain probability."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:10am PT
|
no Jody, you are arguing against science.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:26am PT
|
Jody
It is confirmed in Padma Purana that the species of life evolved from aquatics to plants, vegetables, trees; thereafter insects, reptiles, flies, birds, then beasts, and then human kind.
This is the gradual process of evolution of species of life.
But .....
Darwin has no clear conception how the evolution is taking place, neither he has any idea about whose evolution.
He simply takes account of the body.
A body never evolves.
It is the soul within the body that evolves, transmigrates from one body to another.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 12:31am PT
|
Jody writes: I am sorry, that isn't good enough for me.
I think we understand that. Why do you persist in arguing when you know the argument will never be resolved?
It may not be good enough for you, but for people who actually do the science it seems more than good enough.
Sounds like your problem.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:13am PT
|
Jody,
Schools don't teach Evolution as fact; they teach the facts that support Evolution. They teach the scientific method and critical thinking skills, and they teach the evidence; evidence that is constantly being built upon. They teach about this solid foundation to modern biology.
We cannot provide you with absolute proof and absolute certainty of Evolution; there is none.
But you don't want it do you? Because that would contradict everything you are already absolutely certain about.
We put people in prison without absolute proof and absolute certainty. We execute people without absolute proof and absolute certainty.
Hypothetically speaking, if next year or the year after, new breakthroughs in the study of genetics and proteomics allowed researchers to map, re-create and demonstrate in every change, every detail, that led a population of animals of one species--upon being geographically separated into two populations--to become two species, unable to breed with each other after many thousands of years, would you still doubt Evolution?
Hypothetically speaking, if next year or the year after, little green men landed on Earth--who were part of a vast multi-species civilization of 100 nonillion inhabitants, that was formed tens of millions of years ago, was spread over billions of star systems in several galaxies, and traveled via a vast network of wormholes--and when they were asked what sort of God they worshipped they said that they (except for one backward population in the Scutum-Crux Arm) evolved beyond the need for such things several million years ago--would it affect your belief in God?
What would it take to convince you of Evolution?
What would it take to shake your faith in God?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:19am PT
|
Jody I was never taught to believe in Newton's Law. I was told it was a good representation of the way things are under certain conditions. That our knowledge of the world has improved and we now know more about how Newton's Law has to be changed under some of those other conditions.
You have a problem with quality of instruction.
Ed and yourself are now in full agreement!
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:50am PT
|
Poor Jodster, battling the gang single handedly.
You manage to try to poke holes in the science of evolution Jody but you've never admitted (which is itself an admission if you ask me) how old you think the earth is.
7000 years right? I bet there is Plenty of evidence to shoot that theory down.
and a simple minded interpretation of what was never meant to be literal.
Think about it man. Jesus didn't care what people thought about science or ancient myth. What matters about religion is in the heart and connection to Spirit, not in what you think about evolution
Peace
Karl
PS, Werner check your email
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 01:54am PT
|
Karl, are we the Sharks or the Jets?
and Blight should be waking up sometime soon...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:42am PT
|
How did this thread get to 721 posts? it evolved legs.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:47am PT
|
A hoax is something that is deliberately faked in order to fool someone. My point was that the archaeopteryx fossils are real and that the people that tried to show that they were faked failed.
I tried to leave the door to interpretation open by stating that they are believed to be the closest thing we have to a transition fossil. Just because it isn't a direct line to the modern bird does not mean that there wasn't a stage in the development of the bird that looked a lot like the archaeopteryx. Again that is my interpretation. You can capitalize not all you want but it still doesn't make a scientific argument.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 04:22am PT
|
there are earlier, similar fossils (not as vivid, though)there were other bird reptile transitioners.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:43pm PT
|
Attack of the Super-Intelligent Purple Space Squid Creators
...As I understand it, intelligent design proponents—such as our distinguished Discovery Institute panelists here—fully accept the fact that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old and that some form of life has existed on earth for about 3 billion or so years. If that is the case, it would seem the record shows that the intelligent designers—which I am hypothesizing are super-intelligent purple space squids—evidently spent more than 2 billion years tinkering with single-cell algae and bacteria before they got around to creating multi-cellular species. Do intelligent design proponents have a theory to explain that? Were the space squid creators just lazy?...
...And there is yet another puzzle. Conservative super-intelligent purple space squid creators apparently recycle genes over and over again in new species. Biologists have found that many genes are like Animal Kingdom cassettes or Lego blocks: They can be mixed and matched across vastly different species. For example, biologists have shown that a gene crucial to building a fruit fly's eye—the Pax-6 gene—will trigger eye development in a frog and a mouse.
In addition, now that both the human and mouse genomes have been sequenced, researchers know that 99 percent of mouse genes are similar to those found in humans. Even more amazingly, 96 percent of the genes in both mice and men are present in the same order on their different genomes. Why would this be?...
Also: Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:49pm PT
|
I entered this discussion very early (third comment), then quickly backed out after endorsing a poop hypothesis for the origin of life. For better or worse, I'm entering again--having read only a small fraction of what has been written here.
One issue both Bible-believing creationists and atheistic evolutionists tend to ignore is that the Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook. Scientific concepts are vague (e.g., the age of Earth is never stated). Its purpose was to reveal the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:54pm PT
|
Virtually all well educated creationists who I know believe in microevolution, including the evolution of new species (which many evolutionists consider to be macroevolution, but a single gene or two can potentially code for a reproductive isolating mechanism). Evolution is often defined as simply a change in gene frequencies. If that's your definition, it is a verifiable fact. A designer wouldn't be intelligent if created organisms were unable to change and adapt on a dynamic planet.
To give an illustration of speciation, there are 13 species of "Darwin's" finches in the Galapagos Islands. They resemble each other more than any other bird and they are closely related, often hybridizing, yet there are well documented reproductive isolation mechanisms (check out the prolific research of Peter Grant) that are often incomplete (as in many species of birds). I seriously doubt all 13 species were created in the Galapagos Islands, which happen to be very young geologically, or that all 13 flew out of Noah's ark and flew to the Galapagos from Mt. Ararat without colonizing any other land mass. Clearly they all derived from a few colonists of a finch from South America. Of course they're still finches and are closely related to some grassquits (of the genera Tiara and Volatinia) in mainland South America. Perfect example, in my opinion, of microevolution. There are many species of plants and animals that are unique to a single island, clearly having evolved there. Darwin was right about new species forming.
Creationists are generally divided on the issue of macroevolution, the evolution of novel structures and higher taxa. Some, of course, believe God merely initiated or even guided the evolutionary process. Others believe the basic "kinds" were created with limits to genetic change. For example, we know every gene on many species of bacteria and have subjected them to jillions of mutagens for jillions of generations, but to my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) not one has ever evolved a membrane-bound nucleus or other organelle, X-shaped chromosomes, introns, histones, 9+2 flagella, etc. We've produced all kinds of freaky fruit flies in the lab, but they're still fruit flies. It's difficult to explain how a four-chambered heart or a wing can evolve gradually (what good is a leaky 3.5-chambered heart or half a wing?). Can it happen? I don't know. There are seemingly intermediate fossils between major vertebrate taxa that are very, very difficult to explain if you don't believe in macroevolution. Archaeopteryx is one of several.
I happen to be a Christian which makes me a creationist, but I live with utter uncertainty regarding the origin of the universe and life on planet Earth. It's an intriguing issue. I have many friends who are creationists and many who are secular atheists. My acceptance of Christianity is not based on science, which is limited in studying the past and even if life is one day created in the lab from basic elements (without starting from complex molecules), it doesn't mean that's how it all began. I respect the views of all, because nobody knows with certainty what the truth is. Well, maybe some of you do, but I certainly don't.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 02:58pm PT
|
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 04:29pm PT
|
Of course. People believe what they want to believe.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 04:46pm PT
|
Being Christian DOES NOT make you a creationist, that IS Blasphemy.
It's just one of those optional add-ons.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
|
One of Jody's last statements really finally made it all clear for me. And the best part of Jody finally made me realize he's fighting a losing battle. He has problems with Evolution being taught in schools. It's there to stay and it's only augering itself in deeper each and every day. It's there to stay.
The truth of the matter is it is there for very good reasons. Reasons Jody won't accept. No worries though as it's not about to change. No matter how many times Jody repeats to himself and no matter how many people he tries to reach out to to "see the truth" Evolution is a part of our school systems.
It's there for simple reasons. It fosters logical and analytical thinking. It's not based in a belief system (your turn now Blight) out of some old book who's validity can be questioned at the very surface. It's based in observation. It's based in the scientific method. Good science can get you far in life. Good religion, from a career point of view, won't get you much father than on stage as an evangelical pounding the pulpit and asking for money in the name of God (and not that it's a bad paying job it's just a tough job to nail down).
So in the end Jody really does help those of us who see science in its true and pure form by keeping our wits sharp and our minds aware of how illogical argument may approach. So thank him for that - he keeps us on our toes.
But at the end of the day as science continues to march on, challenging its theories and doing its thing, we can take heart knowing that tomorrow brings only more pieces of the puzzle to put together. And in the end, bit by bit, the truths and falsehoods of the Theory of Evolution will play itself out. Darwin was a bright man. Early in this thread I stated that much of his observations are taken out of context (by being taken into the modern day and piling 150 years of additional science on top). Darwin's Theory has morphed itself.
I'm amazed that Ed went on as long as he did. OR perhaps I'm not. He's an excellent scientist and when you're buried deep you know all to well how there is always discussion and you know you must continue to engage.
I find one thing interesting though, not a single person pointed this out: for each "missing link" provided (discovered) in/to the fossil record TWO additional missing links are created. Find those two and now you have FOUR. It's an exponential curve and it's a logical fallacy road that Jody lures some down. He wants (apparently) a complete fossil record from the beginning of time (which i was only 7000 years ago so what's the problem, yes?) up until the present. It doesn't take much free thinking to realize that almost all of the fossil record has been destroyed (you do believe in plate tectonics and geological processes, right Jodster?). So that which he seeks simply does not exist. He might argue that since it's not there then it never was and thus you can't prove it to him. But yet, another logical fallacy. The smart scientist won't get trapped by that. Ed sure doesn't.
My two cents... ya'll's deserve change.
"The greatest certainty is only the most certain probability"
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:19pm PT
|
I think it was from Attenborough’s series “In the Underbrush” where I
learned our cranial design is as poor as it is due to the fact we evolved
from the fishes. Our neurological routing and cranial passageways are a
near disaster, because the fish evolved for a quite different
environment.
Up-thread we were asked which we preferred, a rendition of the meeting
of man and god as found in the Sistine Chapel, or a reconstruction of
Lucy who died some 3,000,000 years ago. I surely appreciate flights of
pure fancy, particularly when painted by such a talented person, one who
experimented so assiduously to discover his art. But, truth be known, I
am much more interested in learning. Being a low-grade intellect I do have
great trouble managing my aversion to anyone who wishes to limit my
ability to learn or feels they have a right to control me. The selfish
impulse to control is possibly the very basest facet found in our nature.
A facet we, hopefully, will soon lose as we evolve further.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:34pm PT
|
The fossil record is more complete than is widely believed. It can be tested by quantifying the preservation of modern taxa in the fossil record. Check out:
Foote, M., and J. Sepkoski, Jr. 1999. Absolute measures of the completeness of the fossil record. Nature 398:415-417.
Here is their abstract:
Measuring the completeness of the fossil record is essential to understanding evolution over long timescales, particularly when comparing evolutionary patterns among biological groups with different preservational properties. Completeness measures have been presented for various groups based on gaps in the stratigraphic ranges of fossil taxa1,2 and on hypothetical lineages implied by estimated evolutionary trees3, 4, 5. Here we present and compare quantitative, widely applicable absolute measures of completeness at two taxonomic levels for a broader sample of higher taxa of marine animals than has previously been available. We provide an estimate of the probability of genus preservation per stratigraphic interval6,7, and determine the proportion of living families with some fossil record8, 9, 10. The two completeness measures use very different data and calculations. The probability of genus preservation depends almost entirely on the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic records, whereas the proportion of living families with a fossil record is influenced largely by Cenozoic data. These measurements are nonetheless highly correlated, with outliers quite explicable, and we find that COMPLETENESS IS RATHER HIGH FOR MANY ANIMAL GROUPS [emphasis added].
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:43pm PT
|
Floyd, interesting read. I'm a little surprised by that. But then it's been over 10 years since my mind penetrated deep into the biological sciences.
Still... it's not complete enough for Jody. Though I doubt any level of completeness would change his beliefs. Works for me though...
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:43pm PT
|
Foraminifera are rather well represented, study those or even just spend extended time perusing the catalogs and you will be convinced what nonsense anti-evolutionary thought is. It's more decadent than you think.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 05:51pm PT
|
Being Christian DOES NOT make you NOT an evolutionist. Many believe in evolution to some extent.
I was surprised to read in one of my anticreationist books at home (can't remember the title), written by an prominent evolutionist, that abiogenesis isn't evolution, because evolution is based on mutation and natural selection--which can't occur until AFTER a living cell is formed. Most Christians think of evolution as the evolution of life from non-life, but if evolution excludes abiogenesis, it is much more palatable to skeptics of abiogenesis. Incidentally, there is at least one prominent Nobel laureate--Francis Crick--who is (or at least was) a skeptic of abiogenesis.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 06:06pm PT
|
The fossil record is entirely incomplete and defective.
Many cultures cremated their bodies for millions of years so there is no record of those advanced civilizations in the fossils.
Trying to understand the truth with defect instrunments made by defective human beings only results in bewilderment.
Get the right tool for the job man.
Like they say "THINK" .........
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 06:13pm PT
|
Well now we have it from the unimpeachable source that cultures have existed for millions of years.
That settles that.
Screw all you evolution science types, what do you really have to say now?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 06:32pm PT
|
Werner gets a pass because, despite his unconventional exhortations, he will actually do all he can so that you don't meet your maker.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 07:20pm PT
|
hey there radical (riley) say, that is interesting to wonder what other folks sit down to have long drawn-out talks about... thanks for triggering out imagination that-a-way.... (oh, say, i had forgot... thanks for sharing about your dad.... i love to hear stories about our folks---yours, mine, etc---especially when we learn stuff we never thought we knew)....
say, floyd hayes, say, i like that "rock of ages" being revealed, note you posted... i have fun seeing that point of viewing when i read the ol' "good book" as the old folks used to call it.... the other issue-stuff is too complicated for me... i just drop in to see how you all are doing here...
i like to "hear" all the guys getting into a good shareing of the mind, hearts and souls...
god bless to all....
edit----ooops, didnt mean to forget you wanda, say, i liked the werner-rescue insight comment... :)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 08:52pm PT
|
U.S. Lags World in Grasp of Genetics and Acceptance of Evolution
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.
Among the factors contributing to America's low score are poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians, the researchers say.
“American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalist, which is why Turkey and we are so close,” said study co-author Jon Miller of Michigan State University.
There is more http://www.livescience.com/health/060810_evo_rank.html
Edit: Here is a chart from the study.
This chart depicts the public acceptance of evolution theory in 34 countries in 2005. Adults were asked to respond to the statement: "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." The percentage of respondents who believed this to be true is marked in blue; those who believed it to be false, in red; and those who were not sure, in yellow.
A study of several such surveys taken since 1985 has found that the United States ranks next to last in acceptance of evolution theory among nations polled. Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 09:07pm PT
|
Evolution education state by state
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 09:27pm PT
|
I knew I lived in the wrong state.
What a bunch of propeganda...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2008 - 10:29pm PT
|
When did a monkey ever become a human being.
What a crock of sh'it.
The monkey was already there and so was the human.
The human acted like a stupid monkey therefore in his next life was given the body of a monkey.
That's evolution in action, although you can't see it happening with your eyes just like you can't see radio waves with your naked eyes.
Some climbers will be monkeys in their next lives, just wait and see.
What else you wanna know?
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 12:20am PT
|
..." at least one prominent Nobel laureate--Francis Crick--who is (or at least was) a skeptic of abiogenesis..."
Do you have a reference for this?
--------------------------------------------------
"When did a monkey ever become a human being..."
And there we have in a nutshell Mr. Braun's grasp of the concept against which he's been arguing lo these many posts.
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2008 - 12:29am PT
|
"And there we have in a nutshell Mr. Braun's grasp of the concept against which he's been arguing lo these many posts."
Right on Werner, I couldn't have said it any more concise than that.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2008 - 12:49pm PT
|
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2008 - 12:54pm PT
|
|
|
the museum
Trad climber
Rapid City, SD
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2009 - 12:26am PT
|
bump for some more good debate...
L posted up on this a lot!
So did Ouch!
Ah the memories..
|
|
yossarian
climber
WA
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2009 - 10:24am PT
|
Another computer simulation-The evolution of a clock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0&eurl=
For me these simulations make clear the concept that complexity can arise out of simple beginings. This is a radical idea that is very counter intuitive.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 13, 2009 - 11:08am PT
|
This is by far the longest thread I ever started, albeit unintentionally. How embarrassing!
|
|
the museum
Trad climber
Rapid City, SD
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 12:23am PT
|
Mighty Hiker this is an awesome thread. There are some awesome posts. Thanks!
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 11:02am PT
|
" When did a monkey ever become a human being. "
I could have sworn you said you read Darwin, Werner. If you had, you would know that he never said anything remotely like that.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 11:45am PT
|
Don't get any loose ideas in your head jaybro.
I said that, not Darwin.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 12:00pm PT
|
The question is for YOU,
Now ...When did a monkey ever become a human being?
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 12:43pm PT
|
"Now ...When did a monkey ever become a human being?"
when language appeared on the scene.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 01:07pm PT
|
denial : More than just a river in Egypt
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 01:49pm PT
|
yeah jennie,
i dig what your saying.
grunts, howls, screams, or
"pyows & hacks" are things
many creatures can do, but
a language they do not make.
prose, poetry, and lyric is where it's
at. telling of the past and things to
come. jokes and lies.
cool article, thanx.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 02:01pm PT
|
Cool, Werner, glad that's cleared up.
But I think we all know humans who have Become monkeys...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 02:19pm PT
|
You are an idiot.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 03:42pm PT
|
Do you two need a time out?
Labels only take us farther apart. They are a shorthand to narrow down a more complicated situation, making everything less percise and less clear.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 04:07pm PT
|
Thank you Jaybro.
Name calling and labels add nothing positive to a conversation
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 04:31pm PT
|
Yeah, right, just how positive can this kind of conversation ever be anyway? Two opposite opinions with no real middle ground. Straw-men and ad hominem rhetoric pushing everyone around. And inevitably everyone is irritated and still believes what they want and choose to believe.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 04:45pm PT
|
No one really seems to know eactly what it is with you Werner. You barge into these threads like Mr. Super Guru, push people around and act like a dick. Even your buddies seem to wonder what's up with the aggression. But I'm no fool, so you can sincerely f*#k off on that count. Go rescue somebody, big guy.
Oh right, and if you're pissed at Norton for something off topic, start a new thread about it. WTF.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Feb 14, 2009 - 04:55pm PT
|
Stalk you? As in answer some of your comments every so often? Dude, lose the cabin fever.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
SoCal
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2010 - 12:36am PT
|
I just finished reading "The Voyage of the Beagle" Darwin's first book detailing his 5 year voyage round the world as professional Naturalist on the a mapping detail let by Captain Fitzroy. Small climbing connection there.
It's a great read as an adventure book. Darwin reveals much of his personality and is a nice guy. His observations are fascinating. Most of the trip is spent in South America.
|
|
Brokedownclimber
Trad climber
Douglas, WY
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2010 - 12:53am PT
|
Here's some additiona grist for the mill: Astronomers have recently discovered both naphthalene and anthracene in interstellar gas clouds. Both of these compounds, in combination with water and Ultraviolet radiation can form amino acids, essential building blocks of life.
Recovery of the Japanese "Hyubasa" space probe return capsule, sent to sample the surface of an asteroid, may also determine if amino acids are present on the surface of another astronomical body.
One of the newer but well-received theories is referred to as "panspermia" or that life is everywhere, We just need to look for it.
|
|
Tricouni
Mountain climber
Vancouver
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2010 - 02:46am PT
|
One of the newer but well-received theories is referred to as "panspermia" or that life is everywhere ... It's actually an old idea. The idea (and the term) were coined by the Swedish chemist Arrhenius in 1908. (Arrhenius, BTW, did some good calculations on the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere and came up with a value which is close to the presently accepted value.)
The panspermia idea was pushed by British astronomer Fred Hoyle, beginning in 1964. The hpothesis doesn't say much, in itself, for or against Darwinian evolution. Life may have originated here on earth (the standard model) or on some other planet (panspermia). But no matter: once here, life still had to bootstrap itself to be what we see today.
|
|
TrundleBum
Trad climber
Las Vegas
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2010 - 01:33pm PT
|
Let me introduce my friend 'Chris Smither'
He can explain it all quite simply when it comes to:
Origin Of Species
"Lions don't eat cabbage and in spite of that old adage...
You'll never see one lie down with a lamb!"
|
|
| Messages 1 - 569 of total 569 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!