Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 303 of total 303 in this topic |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jul 21, 2008 - 04:18pm PT
|
Losing Sight of Progress
How blind salamanders make nonsense of creationists' claims.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008, at 11:34 AM ET
It is extremely seldom that one has the opportunity to think a new thought about a familiar subject, let alone an original thought on a contested subject, so when I had a moment of eureka a few nights ago, my very first instinct was to distrust my very first instinct. To phrase it briefly, I was watching the astonishing TV series Planet Earth (which, by the way, contains photography of the natural world of a sort that redefines the art) and had come to the segment that deals with life underground. The subterranean caverns and rivers of our world are one of the last unexplored frontiers, and the sheer extent of the discoveries, in Mexico and Indonesia particularly, is quite enough to stagger the mind. Various creatures were found doing their thing far away from the light, and as they were caught by the camera, I noticed—in particular of the salamanders—that they had typical faces. In other words, they had mouths and muzzles and eyes arranged in the same way as most animals. Except that the eyes were denoted only by little concavities or indentations. Even as I was grasping the implications of this, the fine voice of Sir David Attenborough was telling me how many millions of years it had taken for these denizens of the underworld to lose the eyes they had once possessed.
If you follow the continuing argument between the advocates of Darwin's natural selection theory and the partisans of creationism or "intelligent design," you will instantly see what I am driving at. The creationists (to give them their proper name and to deny them their annoying annexation of the word intelligent) invariably speak of the eye in hushed tones. How, they demand to know, can such a sophisticated organ have gone through clumsy evolutionary stages in order to reach its current magnificence and versatility? The problem was best phrased by Darwin himself, in his essay "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication":
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
His defenders, such as Michael Shermer in his excellent book Why Darwin Matters, draw upon post-Darwinian scientific advances. They do not rely on what might be loosely called "blind chance":
Evolution also posits that modern organisms should show a variety of structures from simple to complex, reflecting an evolutionary history rather than an instantaneous creation. The human eye, for example, is the result of a long and complex pathway that goes back hundreds of millions of years. Initially a simple eyespot with a handful of light-sensitive cells that provided information to the organism about an important source of the light …
Hold it right there, says Ann Coulter in her ridiculous book Godless: The Church of Liberalism. "The interesting question is not: How did a primitive eye become a complex eye? The interesting question is: How did the 'light-sensitive cells' come to exist in the first place?"
The salamanders of Planet Earth appear to this layman to furnish a possibly devastating answer to that question. Humans are almost programmed to think in terms of progress and of gradual yet upward curves, even when confronted with evidence that the past includes as many great dyings out of species as it does examples of the burgeoning of them. Thus even Shermer subconsciously talks of a "pathway" that implicitly stretches ahead. But what of the creatures who turned around and headed back in the opposite direction, from complex to primitive in point of eyesight, and ended up losing even the eyes they did have?
Whoever benefits from this inquiry, it cannot possibly be Coulter or her patrons at the creationist Discovery Institute. The most they can do is to intone that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away." Whereas the likelihood that the post-ocular blindness of underground salamanders is another aspect of evolution by natural selection seems, when you think about it at all, so overwhelmingly probable as to constitute a near certainty. I wrote to professor Richard Dawkins to ask if I had stumbled on the outlines of a point, and he replied as follows:
Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution. Why on earth would God create a salamander with vestiges of eyes? If he wanted to create blind salamanders, why not just create blind salamanders? Why give them dummy eyes that don't work and that look as though they were inherited from sighted ancestors? Maybe your point is a little different from this, in which case I don't think I have seen it written down before.
I recommend for further reading the chapter on eyes and the many different ways in which they are formed that is contained in Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable; also "The Blind Cave Fish's Tale" in his Chaucerian collection The Ancestor's Tale. I am not myself able to add anything about the formation of light cells, eyespots, and lenses, but I do think that there is a dialectical usefulness to considering the conventional arguments in reverse, as it were. For example, to the old theistic question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" we can now counterpose the findings of professor Lawrence Krauss and others, about the foreseeable heat death of the universe, the Hubble "red shift" that shows the universe's rate of explosive expansion actually increasing, and the not-so-far-off collision of our own galaxy with Andromeda, already loomingly visible in the night sky. So, the question can and must be rephrased: "Why will our brief 'something' so soon be replaced with nothing?" It's only once we shake our own innate belief in linear progression and consider the many recessions we have undergone and will undergo that we can grasp the gross stupidity of those who repose their faith in divine providence and godly design.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 04:36pm PT
|
Bump....
|
|
Bart Fay
Social climber
Redlands, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 04:46pm PT
|
Wait for the knee-jerk... wait for it...
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 04:51pm PT
|
Ho Hum ...: )
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 05:07pm PT
|
Creation and evolution aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 05:52pm PT
|
I don't understand why creationists try to "prove" their beliefs. I even saw a guy in the coffee shop a few weeks ago with a book he claimed "proved empirically" that there was a God. Unfortunately he wasn't trolling.
Belief is a wonderful thing. But believe what you believe because you believe it. Religion isn't based on evidence, so don't try to defend your beliefs with empiricism or faux-science. You either believe it or you don't.
|
|
Grant Meisenholder
Trad climber
CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 06:03pm PT
|
What you fail to realize is that god has extra parts stashed around for use in an emergency. These salamanders are just hanging around for Armageddon when there will obviously be plenty of eyeballs needing to be installed.
Since we've only just barely scratched under the surface of the Earth, it should come as no surprise that we will increasingly discover these caches.
Sheesh! Heathen!
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 06:28pm PT
|
Pretty much what I'd expect from Christopher Hitchens. . .
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 06:44pm PT
|
hmmmm
Ann Coulter, design but not intelligent, knee jerk... Anyone who dares to answer at this point has already received an ad hominem slap from the scholastics of the 21st century. Its called group think. ha
Let's clear up a few things; there are no doubt "creationists" who so overly simplify the argument as to be embarrassing. There are also (even more I suspect) neo-evolutionists who so oversimplify their purely mechanistic views as to be an embarrassment to true always open minded science. And I'm not arguing here that the forms of species don't change over the eons, but can that change be explained simply by neo-Darwinian theory. And if not then how?
Darwin argued for changes in the dominant traits of a particular species in response to the environment and improved survival advantages of particular traits. Brown rabbits survive better in the forest than florescent red ones. And if an ice age comes the species will trend toward white. fair enough.
But neo-evolutionists are no longer talking about changes in superficial traits. They are forcefully - dogmatically I'd say -arguing that all life in all its variability and complexity is the mere outcome of Darwin's accidental mutation combined with "the weak are killed off" pruning mechanism.
So that brings us to Ann's eye (I do sooo hate to be on her side on this one); Irreducible complexity is a serious argument;
Even if cosmic radiation (or whatever) caused a mutation is the DNA of a particular cell of a particular individual, and even if that cell could suddenly "sense light", what would that mutation achieve? There also needs to be an impulse sent from that cell to the conscious center of the creature, an optical nerve (made up itself of millions of cells) to carry that signal, a brain (made up of billions of cells) to receive the signal, intelligence (what ever that is) to interpret the signal - all resulting and pushing toward the unconscious result of increased survival and reproduction (the "selfish gene" is a complete misconception - the "Darwinian evolution argument" is an a-teleological mechanism - that is it has no pre-existing "goal" - only accident, but that's another story). Without all of these simultaneous mutations, one light sensing cell alone adds no survival or reproductive advantage to the individual. He/she dies off like all the others in its species and the one freak light sensing cell mutation is lost to the stream of life as the original dominant structure of the species returns. Remember, it is only IF the mutation increases reproductive success that the mutation becomes standard.
All of the organs in advanced life are similarly not single cells and therefore not available or useful to single cell mutations and can't be explained by "one cell at a time" mutations over millions of generations. They are incredibly complex systems that only work as a functioning unit. A spark plug has no "survival value" to a car without simultaneously the existence of a cylinder and of fuel. So one cell at a time adds no advantage and can't explain the eye. Another tact is to argue that thousands or millions of cells could all mutate accidentally in one generation - thereby giving an individual an advantage - but this also requires an almost religiously fanatical faith in a purely mechanistic universe - and also has been demonstrated to be a statistical near impossibility. In fact at that point,IMHO the argument moves from science to militant a-theism. They are digging deep not in search of the truth but only to try to explain away any concept of God or higher purpose in the univers.
And all this isn't even to touch on the arguments of the very source of life itself. (nor the source of the first atom of the material universe) A pool of amino acids and a stroke of lightning. "abiogenesis". That's a Frankenstein theory that was once left behind in the middle ages.
At some point humans have to confront the wonder of reality without explaining it away. Yes the concept of preexisting consciousness and purpose may seem outrageous. But no more so and certainly no more naively so than claiming amino acids and lightning leads to slime mold leads to sharks leads to crying babies sucking on their mother's breast - all by accidental mutation and dog-eat-dog competition.
Reality is divine, and we are always in the hands of a gracious God. That's my final opinion.
carry on
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 06:59pm PT
|
"So that brings us to Ann's eye (I do sooo hate to be on her side on this one); Irreducible complexity is a serious argument;
Even if cosmic radiation (or whatever) caused a mutation is the DNA of a particular cell of a particular individual, and even if that cell could suddenly "sense light", what would that mutation achieve? There also needs to be an impulse sent from that cell to the conscious center of the creature, an optical nerve (made up itself of millions of cells)..."
The complexity isn't irreducible. The eye didn't have to start out as a complex multi-cellular organ in complex organisms and it didn't. Some single-cell organisms that have primitive eyes in the form of photo receptive proteins and the complex eye evolved from something like that.
The "impossibility" of the evolution of the eye is an old out-dated argument. It falsely assumes that a complex eye had to spontaneously develop in one mutation. Now that eyes at all levels of complexity from eyes like ours to the very primitive have been identified and so its just not a plausible argument anymore.
|
|
Bart Fay
Social climber
Redlands, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:04pm PT
|
Damn you Evilution ! Florescent red rabbits would have been so cool.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:45pm PT
|
Norton:
Getting a statement and particularly a statement this ambivalent from an expert is rather an accomplishment. I would guess, sooner or later, you will see your logic appear in print. Props.
If we divert our attention for a moment from "the invisible friend for adults", of course there is no difficulty at all understanding why an organ becomes vestigial when a new environment does not require it. As I understand it the human image processing system takes a very substantial portion of our resting energy budget. If an organism living in the dark no longer has this overhead they stand a better chance of success when food is scarce.
I would make one other comment about the argument that we "cannot conceive of how monkey's evolved into humans so therefore we may rule out that eventuality." (In many cases even the absurd challenge of asking how an individual monkey could suddenly become an individual human the next day is posed. Here one need merely avoid having one's time wasted.)
I think the answer to the more general challenge is to say, "If I have it correct you are saying you expect there is nothing in this world to which the answer is not clear to you at this moment. You cannot conceive of it so it cannot be. You expect that you understand everything - just as does god. So is it not fair to say your objection means you believe you are on a par with god?"
Now when god-created events cause us to suffer cruelly, and if we are creatures on a par with god, must we not conclude he is not being exactly friendly toward us? If we are on a par with him we surely cannot plead we just are too stupid to figure out his plan. We cannot have it both ways.
Some part of your wonderful tapestry has to be given up. Which part would you like to cast aside?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:47pm PT
|
"The "impossibility" of the evolution of the eye is an old out-dated argument. It falsely assumes that a complex eye had to spontaneously develop in one mutation."
that's not the objection...the ID theory uses the complexity of the eye to argue against darwin's natural selection...the eye is not simply a complex structure but an irreducibly complex system...a mousetrap has 5 parts: base, bar, spring, catch, and latch; remove any ONE of these parts, and the trap becomes just a pile of useless pieces; which means that any ONE part of the system offers no evolutionary advantage; which means, according to darwin, that the mutation would not survive
so, say you have a simple organism called a base; one base mutates and develops a spring; without the other three parts, the spring serves no advantage to the base's survival and, therefore, would not be passed on...or, if it were passed on for some unexplained reason, it would remain useless until all three additional mutations occured--in a single organism...this really doesn't make any sense
i do not doubt evolution...i see it almost everyday with the black squirrels that have become rather common in my area over the last 20 years...however, evolution does not explain everything...so i keep my mind open
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:48pm PT
|
I AM PROUD THAT I COME FROM A TREE SHREW! GIVE ME AN AMEN!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:51pm PT
|
"if we are creatures on a par with god"
somebody correct me if i'm wrong, but i think religion is based on god's superiority; in other words, we are NOT "on a par with god"
the "unfriendly" suggestion is an oversimplification...again, i'm speaking from ignorance, here, but i think the idea is that god has shown us--repeatedly--how to save ourselves from misery, but we refuse to pay attention
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:51pm PT
|
Waiting for hair color to evolve so I can stop spending $$$'s to evolve it myself. I have noticed a slight change. Like the eyeballs the way they are hope they don't change. Do People Change ? hehe lrl
OOPs! Hope I am not being disrespectful.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 07:55pm PT
|
Wonderful that you bring up tree shrews! My favorite speculation. If we were tree shrews we would have faced tree climbing snakes during the night as a serious predator. If that were true we would have today, hard wired in us:
hatred for snakes
a desire to be able to fly
a desire to see in the dark
None of these is true so we cannot have evolved from tree shrews.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 21, 2008 - 08:12pm PT
|
People who were enculturized from childhood to believe in tooth fairies and santa claus should reach behind themselve's and feel their Coccyx, the remains of their tailbone, which is still a distinctly shaped part of the human skeleton, yet has not served any useful purpose since the earliest humans came down from the trees in Africa. Use it or lose it, and so "we" gradually are doing just that.
Evolution does NOT say that humans evolved from monkeys, or tree shrews, and lemmings, or ducks, so stop insisting that you know the definition of Darwinian evolution, you do NOT.
It does say that both humans and other primates had a common ancestor some 3 million years ago. BIG difference.
If logic and science can not be refuted, then one should always attack the messanger personally, such as in this case to say what do you expect from Christopher Hitchens, without any establishment of base evidence for that supposition.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 08:14pm PT
|
Which is easier to explain: the gradual evolution of a lens eye or the gradual degeneration of a lens eye?
The processes are very different.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 08:26pm PT
|
"that's not the objection...the ID theory uses the complexity of the eye to argue against darwin's natural selection...the eye is not simply a complex structure but an irreducibly complex system...a mousetrap has 5 parts: base, bar, spring, catch, and latch; remove any ONE of these parts, and the trap becomes just a pile of useless pieces; which means that any ONE part of the system offers no evolutionary advantage; which means, according to darwin, that the mutation would not survive
so, say you have a simple organism called a base; one base mutates and develops a spring; without the other three parts, the spring serves no advantage to the base's survival and, therefore, would not be passed on...or, if it were passed on for some unexplained reason, it would remain useless until all three additional mutations occured--in a single organism...this really doesn't make any sense"
You are starting with a false conclusion, that it is irreducible. Even some algae have primitive eyes--a photoreceptive protein. Your argument is that the complex eye must have evolved fully formed in one overnight leap. As you say, that would not make sense.
What does make sense is how a photoreceptive protein could evolve, for example, from a protein involved in photosynthesis, and evolve over time.
The eyespot apparatus (or stigma) is a photoreceptive organelle found in the flagellate (motile) cells of green algae and other unicellular photosynthetic organisms such as euglenids. It allows the cells to sense light direction and intensity and respond to it by swimming either towards the light (phototaxis) or away from the light ("photoshock" or photophobic response). This helps the cells in finding an environment with optimal light conditions for photosynthesis. Eyespots are the simplest and most common "eyes" found in nature, composed of photoreceptors and a signal transduction system generating a phototactic response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyespot_apparatus
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 09:07pm PT
|
"Vestigial eyes, for example, are clear evidence that these cave salamanders must have had ancestors who were different from them—had eyes, in this case. That is evolution."
Now that's an interesting comment coming from someone who claims to be in the know. That's actually "adaptation", not evolving from one creature to another. Most creationists have no problems with adaptation. What I (a creationist) have challenges with are the arguements that one species evolved into another. Just as Darwin said in the Origin of Species, if his theory is true (Evolution...one species slowly evolving to another) the fossil record will have abundant evidence. So far that's just been a bunch of hoaxes.
The salamander is still a salamander...sorry.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2008 - 10:15pm PT
|
Flatfish like flounder have both eyes on one side, which allows them to swim with the other flat side very near the sea floor, without getting dirt in their eyes.
Creation science proponents have used these fish as a common example in their arguments, saying there are no fossils that show how eyes evolved to move both onto the same side.
Those fossils have now been found - see recent news.
Illustrating the problem of a "science of gaps," in which most of a theory consists of saying the other theory hasn't filled in all the gaps. Gradually the gaps are filled in.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
"...Irreducible complexity is a serious argument..."
Bzzzzzzzt! Thank you for playing.
Serious argument? Really? Irreducible complexity (IC) assumes that whatever is currently known is all that will ever be known. And we know that's not true, don't we, kids? After all, IC goes way back to what, 1802? Not a new idea, is it?
Here's a mathematical example:
Take an infinitely long string of digits. Say the following is but a snippet of some random section of it:
...2349823656239928347234982357234524958245729458724958745242948...
Can you tell if these digits were strung together as a result of some mathematical function, say, these are the umpteenth decimal places in pi (reducible), or simply the result of some half-bored dude typing at random (not reducible)?
Answer: you can't.
This must be then an example of irreducible complexity!
But wait! Back in the 19th century, IC was popular even before Darwin published his tome. Look at any form of life--isn't it amazing? Isn't it complex? No way that can be reduced to some mathematical function--it's beyond comprehension! God's hand writ large!
Then Mendel's work was rediscovered, and guess what, we learned of the wonders of DNA. Now every single life form ever discovered is reducible right down to the base pairs in its genome. Uh oh, ICers. Game over.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 12:19am PT
|
Eyes are still good, hair not responding at all....
The horse has not only died, but all of his ancestors...
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:20am PT
|
Double D: "That's actually "adaptation", not evolving from one creature to another."
Where do you draw the line between "just an adaptation" and "evolved from one creature to another?" You admit that adaptation can happen. If one adaptation can happen, so can a second a third... and a hundredth and thousandth... With enough adaptations you have new creatures and before you know it you have enough new creatures to fill Noah's Ark hundreds of times over.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:23am PT
|
I never did figure out how Noah prevented the tyrannosaurs from eating everybody else on the ark.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:26am PT
|
"Just as Darwin said in the Origin of Species, if his theory is true (Evolution...one species slowly evolving to another) the fossil record will have abundant evidence."
If you acknowledge the fossil record there is no controversy,whatsoever, there Is abundant evidence. Look at one of the Foraminifera catalogs; speciation, time and time again.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:45am PT
|
The Tyrannosaurs were "evil fallen angels" and were drowned in the flood. Uh-huh.
Wouldn't have wanted this to happen.
|
|
rockermike
Mountain climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 02:03am PT
|
drgonzo, your argument cuts both ways. wait and see - why presume that because the mechanistic scientists can explain a little that they will ultimately explain it all?
Jaybro, the argument - at least my version of it - doesn't deny the change in life forms over time, but the mechanism or directing force behind those changes. Accident or purpose? Did reality begin with rock and evolve to humans, or begin with conscious purpose and descend to creatures, and planets and inert rock?
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 02:13am PT
|
Rockermike, interesting point of view, I don't know how to debate that one, either way. Fascinating question. I guess I'm a 'rock firster', but I don't know how it could be proved empirically one way or the other. Well spoken, I appreciate and respect, your viewpoint.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 04:25am PT
|
jesus is ..
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 06:47am PT
|
"Where do you draw the line between "just an adaptation" and "evolved from one creature to another?"
For me it's real simple, a fish is still a fish, a salamander is still a salamander. A salamander with bad eyes is still a salamander.
The Bible declares "after it's kind" and not "from another kind" so that settles it for me. The lack of proof for evolution is merely icing on the cake. It's a personal choice to believe in God's word or not. I do.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 07:34am PT
|
I'm kinda surprised that Hitchens made such a big deal of this. There are like 10,000 zoological obsevations like this that fly in the face of any kind of designer explanation yet are trivially explained by evolution.
|
|
Patrick Sawyer
climber
Originally California now Ireland
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 07:50am PT
|
I’m dying to get involved in this debate but I...........
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 09:34am PT
|
DoubleD said:
>>"Where do you draw the line between "just an adaptation" and
>>"evolved from one creature to another?"
>>
>For me it's real simple, a fish is still a fish, a salamander is
>still a salamander. A salamander with bad eyes is still a
>salamander.
So are you saying that you accept evolution, but only within large orders of life forms? So, like, all fish might have a common ancestor? And ditto with amphibians?
GO
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 10:51am PT
|
We're back to this.
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:22pm PT
|
"OK, How do you know that the Bible is "God's word?"
Fulfillment of prophecy and lots of it, personal experience of confirmation, the testimony of many. But don’t get me wrong, I don’t think the creation/evolution debate is very relevant to what the Bible has to say. Read for yourself. I believe it will change your life.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2008 - 01:53pm PT
|
Granite Climber, jesus's words work.... : )
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 01:37am PT
|
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 01:46am PT
|
graniteclimber that dinosaur cartoon is awesome. And by awesome I mean horrifying.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 02:00am PT
|
Heaven is boring..... I'll let you know when I'm there. : )
but "highly" doubtful....
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 01:48pm PT
|
TOP TEN MYTHS ABOUT CREATIONISTS
1. Creationists reject the Big Bang theory.
2. Creationists believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
3. Creationists believe the universe was created within 6 days.
4. Creationists believe every species was created within 6 days.
5. Creationists believe no new species has ever evolved.
6. Creationists believe no new structure has ever evolved.
7. Creationists believe humans lived when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.
8. Creationists believe the entire Earth was covered by Noah’s flood.
9. Creationists believe representatives of all living species were in Noah’s ark.
10. Creationists believe all fossils were buried during Noah’s flood.
There is considerable variation in what creationists believe. Some might accept all of these beliefs, but some don’t believe in any of these yet still believe in an intelligent designer. I know several dozen biologists, chemists and physicists with Ph.D. degrees who believe in an intelligent designer, and few of them would accept more than a few of these beliefs. A lot of creationists are more accepting of evolutionary theory--what they like to term "microevolution"--than many people think.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 01:57pm PT
|
As I pointed out in an earlier thread, both sides of the debate often ignore the point that the Bible was not intended to be a scientific textbook. Its purpose was to reveal the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 02:22pm PT
|
LEB, you asked about fulfilled prophecies.
Christians differ in their views of prophecy, but I think all belive that Jesus fulfilled the prediction of a suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53. Many believe the year in which Jesus began his ministry as the Messiah fulfilled the time prediction of Daniel 9:25 (though there is some disagreement of the exact year when the Messiah began his ministry). Many believe other texts accurately predicted the circumstances of the following events:
1. Birth of Jesus: Psalm 2:6-7, Isaiah 7:14, 9:6-7, Micah 5:2
2. Ancestry of Jesus: Genesis 12:3, 22:18, Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, Jeremiah 23:5-6, 33:15
3. Ministry of Jesus: Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 9:1-2, 35:4-6, 40:3, 42:1-7, 49:6-7, 61:1-3
4. Death of Jesus: Psalm 22:16-18, 34:20, 41:9, Isaiah 50:6, Zechariah 9:9, 11:12, 12:10, 13:7
5. Resurrection of Jesus: Psalm 16:9-11, Isaiah 53:10-11
Many believe the sacrificial system of the Jews, such as the Day of the Atonement (Leviticus 16), symbolized the sacrificial death of the Messiah.
Some skeptics contend that these messianic prophecies were added to the Old Testament texts after Jesus died. But these were ancient Hebrew scriptures, faithfully copied through the centuries by Jewish scribes who rejected Jesus as their Messiah and would not allow Christians to insert such passages. Furthermore, most of these prophecies, including Isaiah 53, are found among the Dead Sea scrolls, which apparently predate Jesus since no mention is made of him. Secular scholars concur that the scrolls were transcribed during the first or second century before Christ.
Others assert that the events of Jesus’s life as recorded in the gospels were simply twisted to fit the messianic prophecies. But if so, early historians corroborate at least a few key events in his life that could not have been concocted, such as the timing of his ministry prophesied by Daniel, his agonizing death as foretold by the psalmist, Isaiah and Zechariah, and his rejection by the Jews and general acceptance by many Gentiles as predicted by Isaiah.
In addition to Messianic prophecies, there are historical and apocalyptic (end of time) prophecies which many Christians find convincing. For example, the statue of Daniel 2 and the four beasts of Daniel 7 are believed by many to represent the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek and Roman empires, respectively (the first three are even mentioned by name in Daniel). There is less agreement about apocalyptic prophecies so I won't go there.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 02:57pm PT
|
Anyone for deism? "The belief that a supreme god exists and created the physical universe, but does not intervene in its normal operation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism One branch of deism is the Unitarians.
Of the U.S. founding parents, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Madison, John Adams, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine and possibly Alexander Hamilton and George Washington were deists. Deism is one reason for the constitutional separation of church and state in the U.S. (Others being the vicious European religious wars of the 16th - 18th centuries, and of course the Enlightenment.)
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 04:27pm PT
|
Mighty Hiker, can't put him in a nice tidy either/or slot.... such as he does get involved or he doesn't get involved.
"god" is like an unexplored country...as you walk you never know what you'll find...life is an incredible gift to each of us. Jesus words work on this grand adventure. Grace is one of many resources in this country of vast discovery. Being a pilgrim is something climbers can identify with...just passin' through. smiles, Lynne (and thanks for the reminder, I get to firmly attached sometimes)
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2008 - 10:35pm PT
|
BUMP
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2008 - 11:47am PT
|
LEB "DoubleD
1. Which particular prophecies have been fulfilled?
2. What is the personal "experience of confirmation" you reference? "
I would be more than happy to forward you, or anyone else my testimony, just email me. In fact I will even go a step further and email out a weekly inter-active Bible study if you (or anyone else) is interested. Floyd Hayes has already listed a handful of prophesy fulfilled for you. The Bible is an endless source of fascination and wonder for study. I do hope you find what you are looking for, if you are at all looking. (-;
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2008 - 12:35pm PT
|
Funny how all those prophecies mentioned so far are thousands of years old, and were full filled back then as well, and can't be verified for sh!t, and actually might as well be fairy tales.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 12:02am PT
|
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 12:09am PT
|
Yeah thousands of years old and can't be verified they say.
Birth, death, disease and old age are prophesied and have already taken hold of you ......
Verified .....
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 12:24am PT
|
Weenie, your statement is so stupid it defies belief.
Maybe you should try actually thinking about what you write once in a while, instead of parroting your cherished nonsense.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 12:32am PT
|
It defies belief.
Because it's true.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 01:48am PT
|
Poo Angels.
There are little, invisible Poo Angels that guard every poo you leave in the woods.
It defies belief.
Because it's true.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 10:51am PT
|
Exactly Juan.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 11:42am PT
|
This religious prophecy stuff is complete and 100% BULLLL SHHHIITTT.
Just like evolution, because you can only reference things that supposedly happened in the past that you can not verify.
After the fact - therefore because of the fact load of crap.
Can't wait 'till religious zealots die and nothing happens, the world and life goes on with out them.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 12:19pm PT
|
You will die too, and something will happen.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 09:05pm PT
|
Wanda (perhaps troll)... Dirt in Eye and Uncle Doug,
Why such belligerent responses ? Opinions are to be considered. BITD's it was called debate and was carried on in an orderly fashion...pulling out a double barrel and blasting the other side was faux pas. Think we should considerately respect peoples opinions. IMHO of course....now go ahead, blast away...smiles, Lynne
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 10:25pm PT
|
"Birth, death, disease and old age are prophesied and have already taken hold of you ......"
WBraun nailed it! Can't argue that, sinners!
Birth, death, disease, and old age did NOT exist until it was prophesized in The Bible. That's a historical FACT because it's written in The Bible.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 11:34pm PT
|
Call it belligerent if you wish, but when someone claims that birth, death, and disease are prophesy my bullsh!t alarm goes apesh!t.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 11:44pm PT
|
The religious point of view is like looking at the sun through a magnifying glass and claiming that it is the only light.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2008 - 11:52pm PT
|
Dirt in Eye, why so hostile ? Can people not calmly converse about their differences of opinion ? What a crazy world it would be if we all agreed with one another.
Billy Graham said once, "If my wife and I agreed on everything, one of us would be unncessary."
Peace and Joy on a beautiful Friday evening. LRL
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 12:59am PT
|
Lynne,
Sometimes Wanda is trolling, but usually she is just another fish called Wanda.
I don't have the emotional investment in my belief in logic, probability and the efficacy of the scientific method that someone of faith has in his or her beliefs. Faith is based on emotion; it can be intellectualized, but it is an emotional component of your identity.
So when I say something silly, about some made up faith, though it is meant to gently mock the illogical, improbable, untestable, baseless statements of the faithful, it can sound to the faithful as harsh and mean and hurtful.
When Werner criticizes science, or when someone is intentionally obtuse about Evolution, I don't take it personally, and it doesn't hurt my feelings; I just find it frustrating that grown people that I otherwise respect, and find to be sensible in many other areas, are so willing to believe in a fairy tale that promises all the answers, but doesn't have any evidence except the believer's own strong emotions.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 01:28am PT
|
So Wanda, potential troll, which I am not I am just Lynne.
First, my faith in jesus is most definetly not based on emotion.
No fairy tales for me. If what jesus said did not work in my life I would have jettisoned it immediately.
Jesus is real and loves us and has a plan for each of our lives.
People can change...jesus will give us the power and ability to do so.
Peace and Joy along with much Grace, Lynnie
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 02:27am PT
|
It is not possible to prove that God exists, just as it is impossible to prove that God does not exist.
But even if it were possible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no God, some people would still choose to believe.
When I was a child of six, Santa Claus brought me joy and happiness, as he did for other little children. It is important to try to preserve some of your inner child, some of the wonder, but there are times to put away childish things. The message of Santa Claus works. We grow and realize that Santa is not real, but hopefully we still want to be nice rather than naughty.
I'm not saying the words and ideas attributed to Jesus are not meaningful, only that when someone relies on magical, mystical miracles to explain the way the world works, they don't know when it's time to put away childish ideas.
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 07:41am PT
|
My, my, my it's interesting how the venom spews when the name Jesus or the bible comes into the picture! Mention any other name connected with a major religion or cult and you really don't get the same heated reactions. Interesting.....
There's power in that.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 08:43am PT
|
So it's hostile to call a fairy tale a fairy tale?
Indeed.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 09:22am PT
|
DD: My, my, my it's interesting how the venom spews when the name Jesus or the bible comes into the picture! Mention any other name connected with a major religion or cult and you really don't get the same heated reactions. Interesting.....
There's power in that.
Indeed. Which explains Christianity's long record of human rights abuses. Yahweh was a war god, and no matter how much peroxide Jesus pours on that, the roots are always black. At least Islam is honest about it. Buddhism, on the other hand, has no doctrinal imperative to conquer and convert, and so has not built up a history of smug and ruthless oppression all in the name of goodness and light.
Jesus is a guilt trip.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 10:43am PT
|
Atheism has become like a religion. It's followers carry themselves around with an attitude no different than a hardline Christian or Muslim.
It has become the defining characteristic of that person. They feel the need to "spread the word" of atheism.
God is/has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 10:55am PT
|
"God is/has been proven beyond the shadow of doubt."
No it hasn't. And it never will be.
I don't think atheists are out there "spreading the word". We just get a great deal of amusement out of making fun of weak minded individuals such as yourself.
It HAS been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the concept of "god" exists simply because some people NEED it to exist. "God" is nothing more than a parental figure for those who are too weak to grow up. It's nice being a child, isn't it?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 10:55am PT
|
HAHAHA, yeah, like there's all those rabid atheists running around wanting to torture and kill because you don't beleive what they believe.
Keep talking Wernner, you're batting 1000.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 11:08am PT
|
God is the Supreme intelligent creator of the entire cosmic creation/manefestation.
You can only create havoc with your inferior unalined conciousness.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 11:34am PT
|
God likes havoc. Keeps things interesting, I guess. You can get awfully bored sitting around forever, after all.
I come very briefly to this place. I watch it move. I watch it shake.
Kumowaku yamano. Watashino sakebi. Watashino koewo.
Ushano kokoku. Watashiwa sokoni. Watashiwa asobu.
Mountain with clouds. A cry. My voice.
Home of the brave. I'm here now. And lost.
They say the dead will rise again. And here they come now.
Strange animals out of the Ice Age. And they stare at you.
Dumbfounded. Like big mistakes. And we say: Keep cool.
Maybe if we pretend this never happened, they'll all just go away.
Watashiwa sokoni. Watashiwa asobu. Mewotoji. Mewotoji.
Kikunowa kotori. Watashino sakebi. Watashino koewo.
I am here in this place. Losing. My eyes are closed. Closed.
Birds are there. Hearing something. Shouting. My voice.
(And yet, we could all be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.)
Kumowaku yamano. Watashiwa sokoni. Watashiwa asobu.
Kumiwaku yamano. Kikunowa kotori. Watashino sakebi.
Mountains with clouds. I am there. Lost.
Mountains with clouds. Birds are there. Hearing something. A shout.
They say the world is smaller now. Small world.
They say that man is taller now. Tall man.
They say the stars are closer now. Thank you, lucky stars.
You come very briefly to this place.
Jikanwa tomaru. Ushano kokoku.
Time is stopped. Home of the brave.
And on a very distant star, slimy creatures scan the skies.
They've got plates for hands. And telescopes for eyes. And they say: Look! Down there, a haunted planet, spinning around.
They say: Watch it move. Watch it shake. Watch it turn. And shake.
Watashiwa sokoni. Watashiwa asobu. Kumowaku yamano.
Watashino sakebi. Watashino koewo. Mewotoji. Mewotoji.
I am there. Lost. Mountains with clouds.
A cry. A shout. My eyes are shut. Shut.
And we say: Watch us move. Watch us shake. We're so pretty.
We're so pretty. We say: Watch us move now. Watch us shake.
We're so pretty. Shake our hands. Shake our heads. We shake our feet.
We're so fine. The way we move. The way we shake.
We're so nice.
--Laurie Anderson
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 11:40am PT
|
My favorite part about mocking religious people is taking their words, and then turning those words around on them.
They take their opinion and state it as fact. So, just for fun, I then like to state MY opinion as fact. Of course, they never seem to get it. But some people do. Here's an example:
"God is the Supreme intelligent creator of the entire cosmic creation/manefestation. "
Actually, the only thing "god" has created is a mental condition that affects people worldwide.
"You can only create havoc with your inferior unalined conciousness(sic)."
Actually, YOU can only create havoc with your inferior unalined conciousness(sic).
I once read a book that said my opinions are right. Therefore, I can state them as fact. And you can't argue facts!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 26, 2008 - 11:46am PT
|
Hahahaha
Too funny. I can get you guys so riled up.
Hahahahaha ......
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 12:11am PT
|
LEB and Cintune, good evening !
LEB, you said, "How do I know it's jesus and not some other force or scenario causing these effects I perceive or believe in."
When I was 23 I left my husband and toddler son. When marriages have problems it is usually never just one person causing the problem...it takes two to make it work or not.
Looked like the end of our little family. Someone told Dan and me about jesus and the bible. Dan made a commitment. Took me about 6 months longer. jesus and his words saved our little family...grew our family to four kids...our marriage and love grew...Dan just died, but I'm ok thanks to jesus and many family and friends including you all on ST.
I am actually writing a book, LEB, cause jesus has been so real and there for me during my life. Practical, loving, getting it down when I screw up. He's my best friend and I spend good time early with him every day.
I know him, LEB,,,it's not effects I perceive or other force or scenario....he is my friend. He has always been by my side, watching my back, he gives me hope when I have none, help when I'm desperate and if I just listen he tells me what up...so that's the very very short version....Lynne
Cintune, "jesus is a guilt trip". What up with that ? Check out Matthew, Mark, Luke and John....he didn't even make Judas feel guilty.
Saved the woman taken by the Pharisee's from being stoned to death for adultery. Only people he was ever harsh to were the Pharisee's and the moneychangers in the temple. He kicked their .......out for taking advantage of people that wanted to worship, said to them, "You've made my Dad's house a den of thieves."
Of all people ... jesus does not do guilt trips. smiles, Lynne
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 10:39am PT
|
Lynne, about the guilt, I'm referring to the "Passion of the Christ" mentality surrounding the inexplicable "He died for our sins" dogma. Maybe that's not your particular cup of tea when it comes to what you like about the Jesus story, but it seems to have a morbid attraction for many people, and has pretty much kept the franchise going for 2000 years. As a way of feeling good about ourselves it goes back even further to the fertility religions that gave birth to Judaism. Nothing like a public human sacrifice to get people's minds off their problems. Instead of one a year, though, we'll just keep referring back to this special instance and pretend that it made some kind of cosmic difference forever. That is the only difference, and I suppose it's an improvement. Expecting that I will live forever thanks to some rehashed, proxy, cannibalistic ritual, however just doesn't fit my view of things, but you are free to draw your own conclusions.
"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine. My sins are my own, they belong to me." - Patti Smith
"Too many people have died in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call, So many people have lied in the name of Christ that I can't believe it all." - Graham Nash
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 12:18pm PT
|
Here's something that seems ironic to me...
If you take a strictly scientific, materialistic view of nature and consciousness, then intelligence is just the result of evolution refining the interaction of physical, chemical processes.
Seems to me, if you believe that, you have to believe in intelligent creation, since the formation of the universe, including life and us, would be a similar process of the interaction of physical, chemical processes.
In this way, no matter what you believe, there is still a God if you reject preconceptions of anthropomorphic images of a superhero that looks like us. Science tells us that everything is essentially vibrating energy arranged by information (information is just the best word for it, DNA is 'information' that structures our physical bodies)
You can call the totality of that energy "God" and can't argue that it isn't intelligent without denying that we aren't intelligent. After all, it became all this. If science says intelligence and consciousness are material, then the totality of material is also acting in a coherent, cohesive, systematic fashion.
So then the question becomes, how self-aware, and aware of us, is this totality? We should be careful in jumping to conclusions because, just as there is a huge difference between our own awareness and the awareness of an Ant, how awareness and intelligence function in a universal being is undoubtedly a stretch or impossible to conceive with our earthbound relative understanding.
Now I'm not saying that "material" is "God" nor that its function is any particular way. It just seems like some folks are saying that "we are intelligent and conscious and the universe is not." That's a mixed definition for which I don't see much evidence. We look at ourselves as Gods and the universe as inert but science tells us that it's all the same.
peace
Karl
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 12:29pm PT
|
"My, my, my it's interesting how the venom spews when the name Jesus or the bible comes into the picture! Mention any other name connected with a major religion or cult and you really don't get the same heated reactions. Interesting.....
There's power in that. "
Not really. The vast majority of participants here are from the U.S.
And, in case you're not up on current events (kidding!), the U.S. has had 8 years of an installed regime that panders to the most deluded of the deluded of Christian fundamentalists. Even shunting tax money their way in clear violation of the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
So really, the fundies "declared war" on the rational few first, which then catalyzed the upwelling of atheistic activism--consider the best sellers by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins of late. That's where the venom comes from.
Add to that add the current U.S. regime's scandal-a-week track record and the everyday neocon's flaccid acceptance of same, by simply parroting the sound bites from Faux Noise as if they passed for real thought.
Otherwise, good atheists are just carrying out their charter not to allow the deluded an uncommented-upon free pass to express their beliefs in fairies and whatnot.
Besides, everyone's having fun here--otherwise these religion threads wouldn't grow to hundreds upon hundreds of posts in length. And Jody hasn't even gotten into this one yet...
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 12:59pm PT
|
Those images are quite a juxtaposition Gonzo!
Maybe God, or chance, has a sense of humor!
or photoshop
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 11:47pm PT
|
KARL WROTE:
"If you take a strictly scientific, materialistic view of nature and consciousness, then intelligence is just the result of evolution refining the interaction of physical, chemical processes.
Seems to me, if you believe that, you have to believe in intelligent creation, since the formation of the universe, including life and us, would be a similar process of the interaction of physical, chemical processes."
You want to explain how you get from the first sentence to the second in logical terms?
It seems you are trying to claim that evolution of intelligence implies intelligent creation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2008 - 11:58pm PT
|
A tiny mosquito flew in the sky that landed on the dirtineye.
He started to itch and scratched.
It is such a simple thing to see and understand.
That love comes from our heart .....
Then the "learned" men came and told us it's not.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 12:24am PT
|
Dirt wrote
"KARL WROTE:
"If you take a strictly scientific, materialistic view of nature and consciousness, then intelligence is just the result of evolution refining the interaction of physical, chemical processes.
Seems to me, if you believe that, you have to believe in intelligent creation, since the formation of the universe, including life and us, would be a similar process of the interaction of physical, chemical processes."
You want to explain how you get from the first sentence to the second in logical terms?
It seems you are trying to claim that evolution of intelligence implies intelligent creation. "
More or less... if intelligence in a human is merely the product of physical materials interacting in an ecosystem of information, how is that so different than the workings of the greater universe? Is intelligence only a human quality? Ant colonies are said to have a collective intelligence. What's that and how does that work? We always see things from a human perspective. Suppose the human brain was implanted in dolphins with no opposable thumbs or even limbs. What different kind of intelligence would we display and how would an observer know it?
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 12:41am PT
|
So Werner, you say that the sky landed on me-- what are you, chicken little?
Come back when you can write a coherent sentence.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 12:52am PT
|
Oh ....
So you finally admit you have no clue what you're talking about.
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 02:13am PT
|
Karl, it sounded like you questioned whether the universe is inert, dead, unliving, unintelligent.
I see several ways of thinking about this.
1) The universe is inert and unintelligent. We are intelligent. Therefore:
a) an intelligent force outside of the inert and unintelligent universe intervened for us and gave us intelligence. or
b) unintelligent processes somehow become intelligent under some unknown conditions, perhaps at some particularly high level of complexity.
2) The universe is unintelligent and we are also unintelligent. Meaning intelligence is some sort of illusion that inert, unintelligent processes are capable of having.
3) We are intelligent and are part of the universe, therefore intelligence must be a basic aspect of the universe, from which we arose.
I like the third idea for a lot of reasons. It encourages me to think about the nature of intelligence. How is my intelligence different and similar that that of other people, to that of other animals, to that of bugs and plants, to atoms and quarks. In what ways can an atom or a clump of dirt have intelligence, or life, or free choice, or any of the qualities that we think are valuable in ourselves?
I think science can give the impression that the physical world has no intelligence, life, freedom.... intangible something, because it is a lot easier to study aspects of the universe that are predominantly deterministic. We study the simple stuff first.
I can understand creationists objecting to the idea that intelligence and life can spontaneously arise from non intelligence and non life.
I don't think we have a very good understanding of what our own intelligence is or of what life is. I think we have much less grasp of the greater universe which some consider as being unintelligent and unliving.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 03:06am PT
|
If you want to go a bit further down the rabbit hole, consider this...
Absolutely everything we know and experience of life and the world is filtered through our consciousness. Since every single perception we have comes to us through this medium, we really have no evidence that the world exists in the way we assume it does. It could be one amazingly complex and consistent dream for all we know.
After all, in a dream, other dream objects are relatively the same density as we are, and there appear to be other people with separate identities and histories, yet we created them. The world could easily be the dream of God.
Sounds farfetched but remember, according to science, in a black hole, the entire mass of the earth could be compressed smaller than a tennis ball. The world around us isn't as dense as we perceive it to be at all.
Time and space, according to science, don't exist in the way we perceive them either.
The world is not as we see it. We've just become domesticated by our assumptions and routines.
I don't think fundamentalist creationists have it right, but I think the arrogance of science is way off too. Things are mysterious, even though we try to grasp at order for the sake of our sanity.
Peace
karl
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 09:32am PT
|
Intelligence, or consciousness, is a product of organic chemistry. There is no known intelligence or consciousness in a black hole, or a supernova, though they are necessary for life and intelligence to evolve. Attributing anthropocentric attributes to inorganic entities is how this god bullshit all got started in the first place.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 10:50am PT
|
"Intelligence, or consciousness, is a product of organic chemistry. There is no known intelligence or consciousness in a black hole, or a supernova, though they are necessary for life and intelligence to evolve. Attributing anthropocentric attributes to inorganic entities is how this god bullshit all got started in the first place."
Actually, these are all anthropocentric assumptions on your part. You have no idea how consciousness might exist outside of the mechanisms of organic chemistry and if intelligence can manifest through the vehicle of chemical interactions, who is to say it can't manifest through other chemical or electrical interactions as well?
By the standards of strict materialism, computers may eventually have a more refined awareness than we do and we'll have to afford them "human" rights. Stuff is stuff right?
We humans don't know squat and assume we're the center of the universe and the only important or valid intelligence of the cosmos. That's pretty arrogant for a species that has so recently evolved from apes and a few hundred years ago had a whole different set of completely different, but equally sure, beliefs.
Consciousness, is far beyond a chemical interaction. Being conscious yourself should give you some insight into the miracle of it. Consciousness is all we know and experience. Science, chemistry and our belief in anything verifiably have arisen and exist within consciousness. You absolutely can't prove this world isn't some kind of dream and then the whole world is basically built of consciousness.
Peace
Karl
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 11:54am PT
|
" Author:
WBraun
climber
From:
Oh ....
So you finally admit you have no clue what you're talking about."
NOOO, but you have left a colossal clue that you can't even make a coherent sentence in English, much less make a logical argument.
Why don't you just say you believe what you believe cause you want to, regardless of any evidence or argument an nothing will ever change your mind?
You could make a case for that.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 12:13pm PT
|
Dingbat,
You seem to be obsessed with buttplugs lately.
Learn another word, it will be good for you.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 12:39pm PT
|
Yes, skip, but does Truth come in ANY forum?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 01:05pm PT
|
No No no
Proof positive exists.
Mosquito lands on dirtineye's head and draws blood. That's intelligence.
That intelligence has to come from somewhere "originally".
From the Supreme intelligence.
Then dirtineye gets intelligence to figure out how to combat that pesky mosquito (me) ... hee hee hee
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 01:11pm PT
|
I have personally heard some rather incredible stories from Christians I've known quite well, stories of personal intervention in their lives that defy explanation, and because I know the individuals well it's hard for me to accept that the stories were mere lies or coincidences. I'll relate one of my own.
Feeling a bit jilted about a gal who I had a crush on many years ago, I wandered alone in a very large athletic field (with three softball fields) one night and asked God out loud whether a particular gal was the right one for me. Immediately I heard a loud "No!" The voice sounded like it came from nearby. Astonished, I looked around me but I was definitely all alone (there was some light from buildings near the fields). It was NOT the answer I wanted, I did NOT want to believe it was true, and I walked home feeling dejected.
A few years later I was heading back home for Christmas break. Still doubting the voice I heard that night, I prayed that if the gal gave me a phone call it would be a sign that she was the right one. After a week or so I finally decided to call her as a hint to let her know I was in town, but her brother started teasing her and she abruptly hung up the phone. It was a very rude act, of course, and I was so happy knowing she was going to call back to apologize, for we were still good friends. But to my chagrin she didn't. I finally accepted it as an answer to prayer.
In retrospect she was definitely the wrong one and my wife of 20 years has been fantastic.
Every day I question the existence of God. Maybe those of you who claim there is a God are right, yet I still remember hearing that voice, plus there have been many other events in my life that convince me not to abandon hope in a personal redeemer. I doubt anybody will ever find God unless they heed the advice of Jeremiah 29:13: "And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." It won't happen unless you genuinely search with all of your heart.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 01:16pm PT
|
"WBraun
climber
From:
No No no
Proof positive exists."
OK demonstrate.
"Mosquito lands on dirtineye's head and draws blood. That's intelligence."
Prove it please. Your second sentence does not follow from your first sentence.
"That intelligence has to come from somewhere "originally"."
Maybe so, but first you have to show that it is indeed intelligence, and you have not done that, so anything you say that depends on your prior unsupported unproven statements is suspect.
"From the Supreme intelligence. "
This is just a non sequitur plain and simple.
Your arguments are full of holes. to support the idea of the holy logically, you need to make unholy arguments, ROTFLMAO!
Lois: Not to worry, I am sure Dingbat washes his buttplug carefully after every use. If indeed he ever removes it, which appears to be somewhat doubtful on close examination.
I do find that he relies on the buttplug accolade more and more to make his life simpler as he gets older. Old foggies have a hard time keeping up and need for things to be simple. Pretty soon all posts from dingbat will consist of that one word, "buttplug", as he fall deeper and deeper into early onset alzheimers.
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 01:37pm PT
|
LEB, I don't have all the answers. I've never seen a ghost.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 02:10pm PT
|
Karl Baba
"Intelligence, or consciousness, is a product of organic chemistry. There is no known intelligence or consciousness in a black hole, or a supernova, though they are necessary for life and intelligence to evolve. Attributing anthropocentric attributes to inorganic entities is how this god bullshit all got started in the first place."
Actually, these are all anthropocentric assumptions on your part. You have no idea how consciousness might exist outside of the mechanisms of organic chemistry and if intelligence can manifest through the vehicle of chemical interactions, who is to say it can't manifest through other chemical or electrical interactions as well?
No one, but chemistry is chemistry and electricity is electricity. Before we knew what they were, they were magic too. Today there's this stuff, or non-stuff we call dark matter and dark energy. All your gods might be hiding there, but more likely it's just a bunch of stuff that has evolved in ways we still can't imagine and maybe can't even comprehend... altough the fact that we're on to them seems to indicate that we can.
By the standards of strict materialism, computers may eventually have a more refined awareness than we do and we'll have to afford them "human" rights. Stuff is stuff right?
There's a lot of speculation about that, obviously.
We humans don't know squat...
Awwwww. You sure about that?
...and assume we're the center of the universe and the only important or valid intelligence of the cosmos....
Only religious bigots assume that these days.
That's pretty arrogant for a species that has so recently evolved from apes and a few hundred years ago had a whole different set of completely different, but equally sure, beliefs.
Science constantly revises. It keeps the degree programs going.
Consciousness, is far beyond a chemical interaction. Being conscious yourself should give you some insight into the miracle of it. Consciousness is all we know and experience. Science, chemistry and our belief in anything verifiably have arisen and exist within consciousness. You absolutely can't prove this world isn't some kind of dream and then the whole world is basically built of consciousness.
Can't ever prove a negative. Maybe it's like in the Matrix.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 02:21pm PT
|
skipt
"There is no known intelligence or consciousness in a black hole, or a supernova, though they are necessary for life and intelligence to evolve. Attributing anthropocentric attributes to inorganic entities is how this god bullshit all got started in the first place."
Hmmmmm....
>So let me see if I have this right. If WE admittedly DON'T KNOW of any intelligence or consciousness in something then we can with absolute knowledge say it doesn't exist.
Uhhhh, no.
>Or even more so, say it doesn't exist in the creation of it.
What?
>Sounds to me like this is the true leap of faith.
That's called a straw man argument, no one can prove that God, or fairies, or whatnot don't exist, even "in the cration of it." We can say that there is no evidence to support the idea of these things existing. Show me the creator. Show me trace evidence of the creator, even. No such evidence exists. The universe is what it is, but if it was "designed" to be this way, then what designed the designer?
As for "Attributing anthropocentric attributes to inorganic entities..." and claiming it as the basis for religion I think you show a serious deficiency in knowing what religion is all about. You need to try again.
Man made God in his own image. You try again. :)
You ever notice that all of these "arm chair" scientists want nothing to do with all the wrong headed scientific claims made throughout the ages but want to use other's history to make their own point?
Science is open to revision. This is what the God delusion tricks you into misunderstanding. All those wrong headed theories you seem to know something about were disproven by other scientists, because it's an open-ended pursuit. Unlike religious dogma, which claims to be infallible despite its own long record of screw ups.
Kinda' odd, don't you think?
Yup.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 02:31pm PT
|
Evolution. Evilution. Argument from design. Creation. Creation "science". god. Atheism. Agnosticism. Separation of church and state. Real problems facing the U.S. and the world.
See you all in a few hundred posts.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2008 - 02:36pm PT
|
I will agree that traditional religion often has it's head in the sand and resorts to its historical simplistic, even mythological interpretations. I don't know why religious folks would expect that old school prophets would have delivered accurate scientific information and history to the ignorant people 3000 years ago. If your 4 year old kid asks you where babies come from, do you give them a lecture on sex, and the biology of reproduction?
Most religions have a mystical side where adherents look to actual experience and contemplation for answers. It takes an open mind and the answers many have discovered have predated scientific confirmation by hundreds or thousands of years.
peace
Karl
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2008 - 10:29pm PT
|
Bumpity bump bump bump.
Unlike religion, science marches on.
"A New Way to Think About Earth's First Cells
June 4, 2008
A team of researchers at Harvard University have modeled in the laboratory a primitive cell, or protocell, that is capable of building, copying and containing DNA.
Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment approximately 3.5 billion years ago.
The protocell's fatty acid membrane allows chemical compounds, including the building blocks of DNA, to enter into the cell without the assistance of the protein channels and pumps required by today's highly developed cell membranes. Also unlike modern cells, the protocell does not use enzymes for copying its DNA..."
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2008 - 10:54pm PT
|
"the god delusion"....thankfully he's a large god and he can handle flak from the kids big time. When you have a great dad you should not diss him all the time, but check him out.
Kids always know betta, ya ?...nodda
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 12:44am PT
|
Here's a nice purport: hee hee hee
Lord Kalki will appear in the home of the most eminent brahmana of Sambhala village, the great soul Visnuyasa.
Of course, fanatical materialists may argue that this picture of Lord Kalki is a mere anthropomorphic creation of the human mind, a mythological deity created by people who need to believe in some superior being.
But this argument is not logical, nor does it prove anything. It is merely the opinion of certain people.
We need water, but that does not mean man creates water. We also need food, oxygen and many other things that we do not create.
Since our general experience is that our needs correspond to available objects existing in the external world, that we appear to need a Supreme Lord would tend to indicate that in fact there is a Supreme Lord.
In other words, nature endows us with a sense of need for things that actually exist and that are in fact necessary for our well being. Similarly, we experience a need for God because we are in fact part of God and cannot live without Him.
At the end of Kali-yuga this same God will appear as the mighty Kalki avatara and beat the pollution out of the demons.
|
|
monolith
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 12:57am PT
|
Thanks dr, very interesting.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 03:25pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 07:55pm PT
|
Brilliant, Norton! I just read your opening post for the first time, and without reading any of the rest of the thread, I just have to say: BRILLIANT! It IS amazing an amazing eureka moment!
Here evolutionists have been spending all their time trying to demonstrate how complexity has been ADDED, and YOU come along to point the way to the REALLY IMPORTANT question: how complexity can be LOST!!!
Those stupid creationists! Can't they see that the thing that really threatens THEIR view is the second law of thermodynamics? One of THE laws of the universe as we know it is that information is lost, useful energy is lost, complexity is lost, and so forth. And the process appears to be irrevocable!
So, these misguided evolutionists have always thought that they needed to account for how information/energy/complexity could be ADDED to organisms, how an organism could in effect get something from nothing; but NORTON is the FIRST to recognize that the real puzzle is how information/energy/complexity could be LOST to organisms, how organisms could get nothing from something! BRILLIANT!!!
Most people (stupidly, now that we see Norton's brilliance) are interested in the implications and processes of how an eye could come to BE, but NORTON alone realizes the profound implications of the process by which an EXISTING eye degenerates to nothing!!! Wow! de-evolutionary processes! The new wave of science! That information/energy/complexity could be LOST... the implications are STAGGERING!!!
Now creationists are REALLY on the ropes! WHAT a eureka moment, Norton!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Walla Walla, WA
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 08:08pm PT
|
Ok, I've read the thread. Same old arguments; same old misunderstandings; same old straw men. Ho hum.
But DE-evolutionary evidence... now THAT'S BRILLIANT! Nothing from something... now THAT'S STRIKING!!!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2008 - 08:34pm PT
|
Finally, after some 136 very diverse and entertaining replies,
someone really "gets it", the emphatic final nail in the coffin
of those who insist on believing in santa, the tooth fairy, and a conscious entity somewhere given the name of god.
Madbolter, you make me blush with pride and gratitude. I am sure the original madbolter, beloved Batso Harding, would agree.
Thank you, thank you, for recognizing the true nature of darwinism!
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 08:38pm PT
|
Evolution is not about increasing or decreasing complexity, it is about change. Species change over time. Also, some species go extinct and others develop.
The salamanders lost their eyes but probably developed a more sensitive senses of smell and hearing. You can call that de-evolution if you want, but it is evolution.
Looking it that way, humans were the product of de-evolution also. Proud strong apes turned into a hairless, scrawny weaklings. But like the salamanders we made up for it in other ways.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 08:47pm PT
|
So I am hearing that most of you absolutely believe there is no other higher being..a human is it. The human and all life got created from evolutionary life .... A big blast, fish to human, (no relection on you Mr. Fish) etc. That's what I hear you all saying, is that truly what you mean ?
WBraun, "we experience a need for god because we are in fact a part of god and cannot live without him." I agree
Have said over and over, read jesus words in the bible, and come back and debate...no one has, so why ?
ps, he really didn't say alot, but what he did say changes lives for great.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 08:51pm PT
|
Q: Are we not men?
A: We are Devo.
(Insert photo here.)
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 08:57pm PT
|
" So I am hearing that most of you absolutely believe there is no other higher being"
Lynne, by "higher being" do you mean a creature with more intelligence than humans? There are probably millions of different kinds of such creatures. But they are probably many light years away from us.
If the sun were a grain of sand, the stars in our galaxy would fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
If our galaxy were a grain of sand, the galaxies would fill several olympic-sized swimming pools.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 31, 2008 - 09:07pm PT
|
Just so long as whatever they are, they don't evolve, devolve, or have divinely created Wings of Plywood. That would be the unkindest cut of all.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 31, 2008 - 09:13pm PT
|
Lynne, YES, you got it, that is exactly what "we" believe,
We also believe that the bible was written by many different people over many centuries, by people who believed in their heart of hearts that the earth was flat, had never been more than 25 miles from their place of birth, and, were so hard wired to NEED to believe that somehow their own lives simply MUST have some importance and somehow go on after death, that they CREATED all known religions, cultures, jesuses, buddas, etc,
etc,. Wanting so badly to believe, sadly, gives no validity to the belief itself. Long before any organized religion, some 40,000 or more years ago, before homo sapiens, cro magnum people in europe buried their beloved friends and relatives along with some personal physical item that person liked, in the desparate HOPE, and thus belief, that the beloved would need such an item in the "afterlife". Even back then, the concept of accepting the finality of the end of consciousness, was too unbearable to accept. Yes Lynn, when you die, it is as final as the death of your pet dog, or a blind salamander. Deal with it, it's time.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
And only lunatics and small children believe in fairy tales.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes
For you it's a fairy tale.
You have no power .....
|
|
Mtnmun
Trad climber
Top of the Mountain Mun
|
|
Jesus said, look under any rock and you will find me. The spirit that moves through all things, God, lives within us all. God is in every molecule and atom, we are God, as are the rocks, plants, animals....etc. The miracle of life, welcome to planet earth spinning 900 miles per hour.
Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Shiva, Krishna, all one God, the God that is everywhere and everything.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
This is a fine example of the near-fanatical dedication of atheists to extreme ignorance, as I've described in previous posts.
When reading Norton's posts I wonder, how many simple errors and vast sweeping assumptions can one man cram into his posts?
"people who believed in their heart of hearts that the earth was flat"
"cro-magnum"
"had never been more than 25 miles from their place of birth"
"when you die, it is as final as the death of your pet dog"
Of course, any of these mistakes could have been avoided with only the briefest of investigations - and yet, curiously, Norton has done no such thing.
The desperation to believe, it is clear, is on Norton's side. So desperate is he to believe that he spouts half-formed, misunderstood ideas and simple factual errors. So desperate to believe that he needs to start forum threads to push, panting and sweating, his agenda - but not even his own ideas, just a straightforward, zombie-like repeating of someone else's ideas.
Don't hate Norton, folks. He doesn't understand his own material - all he wants more than anything else is something - anything - that will show that he is right and the hated religious people are wrong. And he's driven to such a state of panic that he'll accept absolutely anything no matter how flawed or misunderstood as proof.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
You're pretty desperate, aren't you, blight?
The eloquent Norton and Werner, are both sides of the same coin, why is that so hard to grasp?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Well Werner, if power comes from believing the CRAP you believe, then I do not want any.
I'd be ashamed to fall for such drivel as you have embraced.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"You're pretty desperate, aren't you, blight? "
That's a good example of another key point I made earlier and of the same problem Norton has: namely that atheism and atheists are typically devoid of original thought when it comes to these issues.
Atheism, as anyone can see, is a knee-jerk reaction: "a-theism", "without god" and not an authentic idea in its own right - it's literally just the opposite of theism and entirely dependent on theism to reaosn through the key ideas which it then "opposes".
Jaybro demonstrates how that lack of substance continues into most areas of atheists' "thinking" - instead of tackling any of the points I made with reasoned arguments, he just says the opposite of what I did: thus "norton is desperate" becomes "no, you are desperate". There is no rationale or thought behind it at all.
As has been said many times, atheism is chiefly a late christian heresy, notable only for its intellectual crudity.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Well let's see Blight (good choice of name, as that is what religion is for humanity) the operating idea for religion is some thing like this:
" Hmmm I need something over me, some higher power to exist, that explains stuff I can't understand. No problem, I'll make one up."
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
You might want to actually pay some attention to what people are saying to you, Blight. instead of pimping your own agenda at any cost. the world doesn't hate you, you just have to listen sometimes instead of spray. I'll buy you a club soda..
are you calling me an atheist? How presumtive. But you must know... being omniscient and all.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"are you calling me an atheist? How presumtive. But you must know... being omniscient and all. "
No, I'm showing how you display classic atheistic thinking. Beside that how you choose to describe yourself is trivial and not as interesting as you clearly think other people should find it!
Again though we see the pattern - as I said earlier, it's very important for anti-religious crusaders to demonise those they hate. The reason for this is simple: while religion at large has occasionally been responsible for terrible atrocities in its distant past, the average christian or muslim, at whom the venom of the anti-religion bigot is directed, has seldom committed any crime beyond the exceedingly petty.
So crimes are concocted and the religious accused of them - they are variously held responsible for "attempting to drag civilisation into the dark ages" or "brainwashing children" and so on and so on.
The overspill is what we see here: notice that both Jaybro and Dirtineye rush to attribute wholly false ideas to me. Of course I didn't say I was omniscient, nor did I comment on the underlying foundations of theology. Yet in their haste to make sure I'm guilty of some kind of fallacy, anything at all, and not finding anything they can effectively attack in what i did write, they are reduced to nothing more than lying through their teeth.
Still, that's the way it is with anti-religious thinking!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Atheism, as anyone can see, is a knee-jerk reaction: "a-theism", "without god" and not an authentic idea in its own right - it's literally just the opposite of theism and entirely dependent on theism to reaosn through the key ideas which it then "opposes".
What a dopey statement. I think Norton said it all quite eloquently.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"What a dopey statement. I think Norton said it all quite eloquently."
Exactly: you show no reasoning, there's no thought or rationale behind your assertion, just the general catch-all that what someone else told you is entirely correct.
It's the key failing of anti-relgious zealots: the total lack of analysis or consideration that dogs their actions.
Religious people of course attend seminars, study theology and form informal discussion groups an a weekly basis, and are thus quite well-armed with their own ideas, argued and reasoned out with their peers. It's so sad to see that those who hate them so much are by and large dependent, as we see here, on being told what to think.
What a way to live your life.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Blight, the least interesting thing about evolution is whether it is true or not. It is an avocation of mine (having studied and worked as a geologist) to keep up with all of the amazing new findings with respect to evolutionary biology and related fields. I believe that it is quite interesting to learn exactly how we evolved from our common ancestor with the other apes and, for that matter, how life came about from non-life. Frankly, debating whether evolution is true or not is like debating whether the earth really goes around the sun or not.
With respect to research, as a scientist, I have to read tons of stuff just to keep up. Let's see, what do you guys read? The bible and a bunch of crap that people with similar views as yours have written ABOUT the bible. That's not research.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Life comes from life
not "how life came about from non-life"
And we never evolved from ape to man.
Your research is defective, you have missed the most important link.
The car will not start or move with out the driver ......
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Over the last eight years my attitude towards religion has changed, markedly I must admit. Before then when I hit a preacher on the radio I would stick around because some were good speakers and sometimes there would be decent music. Now when I hit one I think only it is time to do away with tax advantages for corporations that do not believe in separation of church and state and have the purpose of forcing me to know only what they know. And yes they are corporations intent on gaining ever more money and power. Sometimes led by charlatans who are doing all the things they decry – and more.
We can sit and theorize about what the bible is maybe even talk about what King James had in mind for the bible he had written. But really the important thing is what is happening here and now. On both sides of this divide there are good people who want to let others live to their own light.
What really comes across?
Religion has no connection whatsoever with whether a person is “good” or “bad”, “right” or “wrong”.
Religion is a choice. A choice that has yet to acquire the honesty it takes to accord others the same freedom.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Again you just prove my point.
I've never said that I'm a creationist, in fact I'm not. Yet you rush headlong to claim I am and to attribute all sorts of nonsense habits to me in order to legitimise your dislike.
As WBraun's also pointed out there's still that striking lack of original thought in your ranting -
"how life came about from non-life"
Well then you'll have some observations of that happening, won't you? Some carefully thought out analysis with experimental evidence of the spontaneous appearance of living matter.
Right?
Because obviously if you don't then you're reduced - again - to parrotting what you've been told to believe.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Religion is a choice. A choice that has yet to acquire the honesty it takes to accord others the same freedom."
Tell me Jstan, was this thread started by a religious person, prehaps quoting religious texts or maybe a famous preacher in an effort to discredit the claims of atheists?
Or was it started by an atheist, quoting an atheist in an effort to discredit the claims of some religious people?
So then, who does this thread show to be intolerant and unwilling to live and let live?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Blight:
"was this thread started by a religious person?"
You cannot start a discussion by requiring others to answer an unanswerable question. We used to try and drown people to discover whether they were "one with god" or were possessed.
I stated my opinion that much of what we take these days to be religion lacks - honesty.
Without honesty human relationships like religion surely is, are impossible.
Since no one here is stupid, one has to conclude much of the religion we see is not primarily interested in human relationships.
There is some other agenda.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
"it's very important for anti-religious crusaders to demonise those they hate"
Naah, we hate the sin - but love the sinner. So to speak.
How convenient it would be if we all got in the "anti-religion" box for you. Not likely. Being critical of religion isn't anti-religion. Even the blight agrees that religion, and believers, have done evil and are doing evil. (Free will and all that.) Even the most strident atheist, agnostic, or pagan probably agrees that religion and believers have done some good, and that we can often learn something from what the religions say about how we should live together, however absurd and controlling their dogmas and beliefs.
It's usually more effective, and more entertaining, to simply make fun of the absurdities of all faiths, and to refute the 'arguments' on which they are supposedly based, which are ultimately founded on belief. You either believe, usually because that's what you were told when young, or you don't.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I stated my opinion that much of what we take these days to be religion lacks - honesty. "
And is it honest to refuse to answer a direct question, Jstan?
You claimed that religion is intolerant. But who started this thread to abuse the beliefs of others?
Please be honest.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Only recently did I learn Hillel's purportedly original phrasing of the Golden
Rule. "Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."
Does the fact I think there is basic truth here, make me "religious?"
Yet again we have fallen prey to the "UNDEFINED." After 10,000 years,
perhaps more, this term means something different to each person. And
so means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Might we carefully take all our beliefs, all our bibles, all of our baggage
and put them aside, and then ask ourselves, "Do I believe there is truth
there? If we believe there is truth there, then we have to ask ourselves
if that truth has affected in any way what we did that day.
If people were simply to become comfortable both with their successes
and their failures in the pursuit of this truth, and it will never be more
than a pursuit, we would be blessed. Graced by the integrity and the
honesty we have discovered residing in our own minds.
Blight:
You need to read my reply. You did not ask an answerable question.
A very old device leading to no answers.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Might we carefully take all our beliefs, all our bibles, all of our baggage and put them aside"
Put aside the source of your truth and you turn aside from the other truths you might find there.
Keep it open and search other sources too and you'll not be left with the only one idea, you'll be blessed with many.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Oh and the question was perfectly answerable.
You just didn't have the courage to face the answer because it made a nonsense of your petty claims about religion.
That's your problem, not mine.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Come on, Blight is just that-- a blight on reason, LOL.
He is a sophist, a rhetoritician, and full of tricks that lead in circles.
Hey blight, show ONE instance of how you are presenting logical reasoned arguments that DON'T rely on "Well, it's a matter of faith. You just have to accept it."
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
For Blight, Werner, and their peeps.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Hey blight, show ONE instance of how you are presenting logical reasoned arguments that DON'T rely on "Well, it's a matter of faith. You just have to accept it."
Did I say that?
Of course I didn't.
You have some sort of deep-seated need to believe that I did, but that only says how messed up you are.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Ha! Ha! Ha!
I love that guy! And the film was just brilliant.
Thanks Gonzo!
:)
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Blight:
Why would I put aside something I believe true? In order to fill my basket with more, more, more, more? Yet leaving the truth unfulfilled?
Is this not greed?
Why would I strive for 100 truths, none fulfilled?
This is evil.
Evil: "Something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity."
None fulfilled?
Calamitous!
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Um hey blight, you failed to conprehend what I wrote (not so unexpected).
I said, YOU have not made any reasoned argument on the behalf of your beloved fairy tales, yet you are having a hissy fit claiming the other side does not make rational arguments or have original thoughts.
So tear yourself away from your rhetorical treachery (hard for you I know) and pony up.
OR, you can just choose to relegate yourself to the waste bin of the truly FOS.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
> Why would I strive for 100 truths, none fulfilled?
You said yourself that it's good to accept that the search is just that, a search.
Yet now you reverse yourself and claim that the search is a kind of greed.
You're so busy congratulating yourself on finding truth in the golden rule that you've forgotten that most small children can find that same truth: it's one of the first and very very simplest truths in religion.
It's clear that a further search might bring more insights. In fact that why most people practice religion: it's a fulfilling and ongoing search. But instead you look for excuses not to search: "it's greedy" "it's evil" and so on.
Have you stopped to ask yourself why?
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
"Because obviously if you don't then you're reduced - again - to parrotting what you've been told to believe."
EXACTLY Blight - YOU are parroting what you've been taught to believe, just like the others you are accusing of the same thing.
Arrogant hypocrisy from the one who knows all.......
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I said, YOU have not made any reasoned argument on the behalf of your beloved fairy tales"
Yes, that's what I'd expect you to think.
Of course I've never posted more than the barest sketch of what I actually believe - and yet you feel driven to characterise it as "fairy tales".
This is just your need to pigeonhole me safely; to avoid the need to address what I really believe by establishing your total iognorance of it and lumping it together as automatically false.
You don't have a clue what I believe - if you did of course you'd quote and criticise it directly. But you can't, resorting instead to the most pathetic of unthinking fallbacks: the claim that whatever I believe it must be wrong.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
> YOU are parroting what you've been taught to believe
Then you'll be able to show where I source my material from.
Quotes, references, simple stuff like that.
I occasionally quote John Gray and others but 98% of what I write here is my own.
If you think it's not, go right ahead and prove it.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Well dude, the reason we don't have a clue is because you repeatedly refuse to make any statements about or defending your beliefs.
Instead you attack everyone else's with the same old tired BS tricks that your ilk always use.
And at any rate, your current bitching is just a way for you to side step what we asked you for. Twist and turn, always avoid the issue, side track, obscure-- that's what you do.
But you do apparently have a use-- you got Doug B to make a short clear statement that hit the nail right no the head.
But, since you've refused to engage in any sort of meaningful debate, after repeated requests, it's time to ignore you and your prattle.
Troll.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Well dude, the reason we don't have a clue is because you repeatedly refuse to make any statements about or defending your beliefs"
Why should I defend my beliefs if they're not being attacked?
It would certainly fit with the pattern of your pathology atht you want me to post up what I believe in with the express intention that you should then attack it.
Again, that only says that you're excessively agressive about this issue - the very use of "defending" as if an assault is to take place speaks volumes to your attitude.
"it's time to ignore you and your prattle. "
But you won't.
That's the true, squirming furstration of athiesm. Far from being "without god", the vast majority of atheists are obssessed by god and religion. Far from being content and peaceful without religion, you just can't stop talking about it. That is the source of the discomfort you then blame people like me for.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Yes faith and belief must be there in the beginning steps, but still they are not the end all. There must be proof.
Yes, no sane man will go on belief and faith alone without the ultimate truth and proof.
A man lost in the desert dying of thirst comes upon an inhabitant that lives there. He asks him if there is any water near by. The man tells him to go 1/2 mile farther and he will come upon a certain marker and then offer his obeisances unto it and then he will be lead to water.
The lost dying of thirst soul will have to have faith and believe this person is telling the truth. So he goes the half mile.
He gets to the marker and says this is all bullsh'it.
I don't see any fukin water man!
He forgot to follow the instructions correctly.
He did not offer his obeisances.
Oops .......
Follow instructions correctly, it's the scientific method.
Yeah .....
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
Blight,
All your own.....Bull sh#t, or I should say Blight-sh#t.
It is all from that rag of a book called the bible that was written between 6000 and 1800 years ago by a bunch of tribal idiots who were trying to make sense of the world they lived in at the time.
All of your thoughts did not miraculously just pop into your head. You had to have had input from somewhere.
If you contend that the information you are spewing DID just pop into your head, I say we put you away for ever and categorize you in with "son of sam" who heard voices telling him what to do.
You are such a f*#ked up, brain-washed person.
Agnostics like me are not arrogant as#@&%es like you and don't pretend to know it all.
Were just as#@&%es.
For both you and werner..
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Even the simple idea of proof evades the believers.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
It would be fun one day to sic a Jesuit on the creationists around here, and then sit back and watch.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
What happened to the Uncle?
Did he see something in the mirror that wasn't suposed to be there?
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
Wern, this is the Age of Hypocrisy and Quarrel; what are you doing taking part in this sinful atmosphere???///
Shouldn't you be busy chanting, "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare," or something???///
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Not having convictions or principles leaves atheists in a curious quandary: without principles, after all, one can't have the courage to stand up for them. Indeed in the intellectual arena it leaves them without courage at all.
This is well expounded in this thread: repeatedly we see atheists, all unaware of the irony, complaining that their ideals are attacked. In a thread designed by an atheist to abuse the beliefs of religious people, based around an article designed by an atheist to abuse the beliefs of religious people, this is richly comical.
Of course this kind of gutless whining is widespread amongst atheists: the desire to be able to act the school bully, abusing whomever they choose - but without those they abuse being permitted to stand up for themselves.
Lok for example at the furore surrounding the Danish mohammed cartoons. The cartoons were deliberately abusive and offensive, in fact that was their sole purpose. Yet when the Muslim communuity worldwide was offended at their beliefs being so abused, atheists everywhere complained bitterly that it was so unfair and irrational of them to defend themselves in protests and anger.
Who but a snivelling coward starts a fight then complains when the person they start it with defends himself?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Bight, please got martyr yourself elsewhere.
Your OBVIOUSLY flawed crapspew has ceased to be funny. That you can believe what you write is incomprehensible.
Pointing out your numerous and self-evident errors has no effect on your continued verbal flatulence, so, it's time for nice cup of STFU, moron.
|
|
UncleDoug
Social climber
N. lake Tahoe
|
|
Sorry to be an as#@&%e but sometimes one has to do this to make a point. Take on the role or stance that the "other side" thinks you are taking even though they are completely wrong.
What you are hearing (reading) from me, is the same thing I and many others hear coming from you when you state that people who do not believe in a christian god have no morals and can not see what is right in front of them, or at least need to open their eves to see. This belief is usually, I'd venture to say 95% of the time, completely wrong.
When you "attack" science and the scientific method you are doing the same thing you are accusing "non believers" of doing, and vice versa.. Which to me is very odd since science and the scientific method is what has allowed us to post to SuperTopo and get into this rigamarole.
There seem to be quite a few stereotypes that need to be erased.
1. That all believers in God are against or don't recognize science as a legitimate form of thought process.
2. That all believers in science and the scientific method do not believe in god and are moral degenerates.
Both of these examples are absolutes in a "shades of grey" world and do no good to either side of an argument that is very simple but gets complicated by human ego.
I filled up 3 pages of text in expectation of posting it all in reply to this thread.
Then I came by this site that explains my thinking and rationale all too well.
Speaking of faith - Einstein and the Mind of God.
Some points I do not agree with but the main point and premise, that probably the most influential person in science in the modern era was a devoutly religious person , is what I'm trying to point out.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Einstein was trying to understand the mind of god through the scientific method. Which in all reality is probably his greatest contribution to society, which goes largely unrecognized.
Werner,
When you go out on a rescue do you think about how your anchors are placed to make sure they can handle the load you are placing on them? This is science. Do you say a prayer to yourself when you make a "sketchy" move to get to a victim? That is religion and your own personal faith. You use both to get the job done. No mutual excusivity there at all.
Does thinking about how to set up the anchor system challenge your faith?
Does your faith in god preclude you from thinking about the best way to set up that anchor?
I'd venture that you'd respond no to both counts.
From my perspective you are on a similar path as Einstein. Having devout faith but using science to help you get through life and help others.
It's clear in the basin for the first time in 2 months, got to go commune with "god" outside.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Uncle Doug, you're hopeless...literally. It's people like you that I pray for mostly. I got your back.
Quit being so bitter.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Uncle
LOL
In my post above I said; "Follow instructions correctly, it's the scientific method."
The scientific method is the bonafide authorized method for understanding all knowledge.
So where do you get the crazy idea I'm against science?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Ok, I am going to wander just a bit here, but others on this Thread have. Plus I won't be bitter, vitriolic, mean, angry and @###.
(So now that no one will read this.....hehe)
Many of you Argue, Argue...about your philosophies of life. For me what is important in life is what really WORKS to make your own life and the lives of those around you better, happier and trying to fill life with love, joy, peace, giving and forgiving, sharing, helping....the important things.
I would not adopt many of your shared beliefs because of the anger etc. that flows from your posts.
In my life, when put into practice, the words of jesus actually WORK.
I challenge all of you to just go to the bible and read only the words of jesus, (reading the whole bible is great, but some people have an aversion to reading "directions" for how to make something work.) They are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Jesus never put anyone down except the hypocrites of his established church (temple). Those he actually threw out and turned over their sales tables. Only time, I think, jesus got angry.
All he ever wanted was for people to have the best life possible.
FINALLY AND MOST IMPORTANT. I have tried (and failed often of course) to follow jesus. If I am wrong about him, hey, his words ....if you ever read them are the way to an incredibly great life. So, if he isn't the son of god (which I believe he is) I have lost nothing....
My life has been the best, filled with love, hope, peace, joy, patience, perserverance, forgiveness all applied in large doses to myself and those who come into my life. And on the bad days I get forgiven.
So, I have no guilt, I live each day with hope and I have the hope of eternity.
Like I said if I'm wrong, oh well, it's given me an incredible life. Lynne
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Lynne- I'm right there with you girl and I wish you much love on that path. If that embodied the reality of what many churches preached and followers practiced I'm sure we'd all be pretty happy with the results.
*edit* The Quakers I have to say are probably the most admirable Christians I've ever seen. They truly embody the principles of forgiveness, sacrifice and community that were the concepts I was most impressed upon when I was in church as a child. I wish that my school program had done a better job educating us on them when we visited a Quaker community. The strength they showed after that shooting last year (year before) was just inspiring.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
They were Amish, not Quakers. Their fortitude is admirable, yes, but one does not necessarily need a mythological worldview to develop such emotional maturity. But if it works for you, hey, fine. No hatred here, as long as you don't start pushing your god into the lives of moral people who can do just fine without him, thanks.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
You are right, sorry. I often mix Amish/Quaker/Shaker.
And no you do not, however it has been a powerful tool to that end. If it didn't work so well it wouldn't be so prominent in human culture. I'm an agnostic myself but I appreciate the authentic aspects of all the religious texts and cultures. Jesus was a wise dude as he is portrayed in the Bible. Lots worth reading there even if you don't believe in his divinity.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
I agree that there is wisdom in just about all religions, but the signal-to-noise ratio tends to be a turnoff. And I personally don't buy the idea of eternal life, much as that would be a nice thing. Consciousness is fascinating,though, and science provides daily examples of just how fascinating the universe and our comprehension of it are. Morality is a matter of cooperation, and maintaining a sense of proportion in our relationships. Also, evolution is true, creationism is not. Other than that, I have no arguments with the cultural values of faith, especially when we didn't really know how so many things actually worked. But there's a time to put away childish things, as they say.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
" I challenge all of you to just go to the bible and read only the words of jesus, (reading the whole bible is great, but some people have an aversion to reading "directions" for how to make something work.) They are found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Lynne, I challenge you to explain how the Old Testament provides "directions" on how to make the Gospels work.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
I can't be bothered to read all the new posts in this thread, so this may have already been covered.
But I have two questions for the creationists:
Do you have toenails?
and for the men:
Do you have nipples?
If so, perhaps you could take a moment and explain why God gave you those things.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
Is there Any verifiable proof that there was Jesus?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
God gave toenail so rock climber can stand on dime size edges.
Andy is still a monkey with nipples so he can't boulder yet.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
LEB: "Well, the problem is that we can't read the words of Jesus because Jesus wrote down no words for us to read. At best we can read are accountings of what someone else claims he said. The other problem is that hundreds of years later, someone else (a pope, to be exact) chose which particular accountings we could read. Said pope selected the books (including the gospels) according what he believed was "best" as per his judgment and motivation. So if Christ reputedly said or did something that this pope did not approve of then we don't get to read that either."
Good post. I can't wait to see the response to this.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
I had an educational aide who is a creationist and has had her big toenails removed (for reals) on a good day she can stand on a ground size edge. Is she Devo?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
My understanding is that there is a fairly solid historical record in support of the existence of Jesus. I couldn't quote you anything but that is my recollection.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Historicity is my new favorite word.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
I've heard that High... I don't know either way. 'evidence' seems anecdotal. I could be wrong. Doesn't seem like science thought. Any two 'original sources (are there any?)agree on major points?
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
I wonder if Jesus had toenails and nipples.
Since his dad never intended for him to do any clawing or nursing, I doubt He would have given those things to His son.
I wonder why he gave them to us.
I guess this is one of those things that is intended to "test our faith". Isn't that how the religious folks dismiss all the evidence that disproves their theory? They write it off as a "test"?
|
|
Double D
climber
|
|
Evidence? There's more evidence for Jesus than any other recorded literature's accuracy prior to the printing press.
Read Josh McDowell’s book, “A Case for Christ” then we can talk. Or better yet, read the Bible in its entirety and you will find agreement between roughly 40 authors in 66 books, some were nomads, some were kings and some were shepherds.
Of course I don’t expect many of you will have the courage to truly look into the “perfect law of liberty.” My experience is that those who pose questions really don’t want to look truthfully into the Jesus or the Bible, but I do hope I’m wrong. It’s way easier just to bag on Christians without any real ammo! (-;
Best wishes to all who are searching.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
It's not a cheap thing.
So .....
He heard there was a master of the higher spiritual understanding. I will go and "see" if this is true said the
so called scientist. Since he had no knowledge of this higher truth how could he even begin to have any preconceived "see".
Anyways he goes to visit the masters abode. He knocks on the door and master appears.
Aaacckk! the scientist "sees" an ordinary looking person appear at the door, nothing he "expected".
You are the great master I heard, he says. The master did not reply and just stood there.
Nothing happened so the master closed the door while saying nothing. The so called scientist went home and said to himself this is bullsh'it that guy was bogus for sure!
The real scientist came and the same thing happened, except he didn't leave after the master closed the door.
He waited outside the door all night and froze his ass off. In the morning the master went to the door and saw the scientist and asked why you still here?
He answered "I want to learn the real truth."
The master closed the door again, and the scientist remained outside to freeze his ass off again.
A a short while later the master open the door and gave him a blanket and some food so the scientist wouldn't die. Heh heh
For each test the master thru at the scientist and each real test the sincere scientist threw at the master there was an honest recipient which went on for many many years ........
Until .......
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"My experience is that those who pose questions really don’t want to look truthfully into the Jesus or the Bible, but I do hope I’m wrong"
Sadly, you're not wrong.
It's obvious to any moderately intelligent person that there is a glaring contradiction in what atheists and agnostics here (and indeed everywhere) are saying.
On the one hand, we see them say that religious people are wrong. Flat out incorrect. Their beliefs, we are told, are irrational and nonsensical.
Then almost immediately, the discussion turns to whether Jesus existed or not.
Doesn't that strike you as more than a little odd? What we're seeing are people who have reached a firm and pretty radical opinion about religion and christianity in particular, but who don't even know that most basic building blocks of that religion.
Let me clarify that: we're talking about people who say that religion is definitely wrong, but who don't know the first thing about it.
So how do they know that? Is it rational or even sensible to claim that something you know nothing about is defintely wrong?
The answer to you question about the honesty of atheists is right here in this thread for the reading.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
ROTFLMAO, Blight, the most dishonest and disingenuous of all posters on ST, questions the honesty of others.
Go fvck yourself you human turd.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Go fvck yourself you human turd."
:)
Do you think you're proving me wrong with your agression and abuse?
Do you think you're showing that atheists are caring, thoughtful and forgiving?
Or are you showing that you really, really don't like it when it's time for you to look in the mirror?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Sheesh, I hate to get myself back into the fray here, but I am truly interested in what makes folks like Blight tick. Your aversion to atheism is such that it would seem that believing in ANYTHING theological would be preferable to not believing in God. I guess if I believed in Odin or Thor that would be preferable to being an atheist.
Seems to me, the only thing you have to be afraid from atheists is a little derision. You are far more likely to be killed by someone who believes in God in a way different from you.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Your aversion to atheism is such that it would seem that believing in ANYTHING theological would be preferable to not believing in God."
Again, everyone knows that I didn't say anything of the sort. I think HH The Dalai lama said it best when he said, "For those who may not find happiness to exercise religious faith, it's okay to remain a radical atheist, it's absolutely an individual right, but the important thing is with a compassionate heart -- then no problem".
"Seems to me, the only thing you have to be afraid from atheists is a little derision. You are far more likely to be killed by someone who believes in God in a way different from you. "
Actually neither of these statements are true.
For the first, in my many years on the web I have never, ever been so much as spoken to harshly by a religious person. Atheists on the other hand have banned me from message boards, tried to hack my email accounts, threatened me with violence more times than I could count, slandered me over and over and threatened to kill me and my family.
For the second, almost all the top five mass murderers of all time were atheists. Between them they were responsible for the deaths of more people than every religious war, skirmish and supertopo thread in history combined. The often-repeated nonsense about who awful and violent religious people are is just a relic of ancient history.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
Thanks for the clarification, Blight.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Author:
Blight
Social climber
From:
"Go fvck yourself you human turd."
:)
Do you think you're proving me wrong with your agression and abuse?""
NO, I think I am fighting fire with fire, for the entertainment value only, because all you can do is squirm around and irritate people, and you never offer anything of substance, You idiot. All you deserve is abuse.
""Do you think you're showing that atheists are caring, thoughtful and forgiving?""
YOU do not deserve any forgiveness or any caring. You are a vile slug, and you need to crawl back under your rock. And I do not speak for 'atheists' (another one of your idiotic bad logic tricks) I speak for me, and I say, you are a human turd.
""Or are you showing that you really, really don't like it when it's time for you to look in the mirror?"""
HAHAHA as if you are the mirror? Give me a break. You are a great hairy reeking TROLL, nothing more. A rock has more spirituality than you have. A rock has more honesty too.
YOU give those who truly follow the best aspects of religion a bad name, and denigrate their cause with your crap.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
Entertainment value?... check.
Compassionate heart?... check.
Mutually exclusive?... Nah.
Whatever gets you through the Blight, it's alright.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Idaho Falls
|
|
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
Ha ha ha!
Best Fiction Award?
;)
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
LEB, How can you critique chocolate cake if you've never tasted it? "Taste and see, the lord is good, he tastes like honey in the rock". smiles and a good Monday to you. Lynne
I know, I've been tasting the goodness for over 30 years.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Jennie is my goddess.
I even have graven images of her.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Blight
The great atheist Sankaracarya, aka (Lord Shiva)....
Sankaracarya purported the theory that there is no God and that one can go on with his work and imagine God in any form just to keep peace and tranquillity in society.
This is also more or less based on this idea of chance and necessity.
Anyways ..... Sankaracarya came and preached his nonsensical philosophy because the Supreme lord told him too. A certain class of people will want this type of knowledge although false and will ultimately mislead them the supreme lord will grant their wishes.
Just as the father of a small boy.
The child is admant that he wants to stick his finger in a moving fan to satisify his curosity even after his father told him what will happen if he so chose to do anyways.
The kind father unplugged the fan and let it slow down a bit and then yold the child "go stick your finger in there now".
Yeeeoooowwww! hahaha
Anyways ... The great atheist Sankaracarya in the end couldn't stand misleading anymore and preached against the very philosophy he was told to instruct onto their deaf ears.
One must be very careful if one attacks atheists without understanding the full picture and all the subtle naunces behind the motives.
Mortals like us better leave that to the liberated souls who know how to turn the fan off correctly.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
granite climber, I did not write that very clearly. sorry, let me try again.
I believe the whole bible is among other things an instruction manual for life. I liken it to the DVD for our very complex auto. I don't understand alot of it but I guess I trust the manufaturer knows about his product so I keep after it til I understand it or someone explains it to me. Some parts I simply don't get. But I don't throw it out because of that.
But, I know that many get bogged down in reading the entire bible starting at the beginning.....so I was suggesting that people start with just the words of jesus in matthew, mark. luke and john.
Here are a few that have meant alot to me.
Matthew 6...."Do not store up for yourselves treasurers on earth...For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
"Who of you by worrying, can add a single hour to your life....Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye ?"
And Finally Matt. 11 "come to me all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."
Like I said to LEB, hard to critize being a jesus follower if you've never done it.
A good Monday to you, granite, and thanks for your post on the K2 thread. Lynne
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
It's not what you think or believe.
It's what you are and how you are that counts.
That's why Lynne could be wrong about the Bible and still be right in her heart and with us, because she stays true to that heart
Peace
Karl
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Hi Karl, like I said before it works....and for anyone that follows the words. Nice thing about it, it only leads to better. Of course, I screw up but being a jesus follower he gets me back on the right course.
It encourages me to care about others.
To forgive myself and others
To stay the course of life
To work on healthy priorites
To not let any roots of bitterness grow
To not have fear (one of my biggest challenges)
To avoid making things a priority in my life.
Healthy perspectives
and lots more
Lynnie, is a weak sister, on her own she would be a mess. jesus isn't a crutch, he's a chauffeur driven limo. hehehe
oops! Maybe I should say 4 wheel drive jeep.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
"Of course I don’t expect many of you will have the courage to truly look into the “perfect law of liberty.” My experience is that those who pose questions really don’t want to look truthfully into the Jesus or the Bible, but I do hope I’m wrong. It’s way easier just to bag on Christians without any real ammo! (-; "
Er...yeah. Something like that. I guess it's just as easy to be passive aggressive than make an actual point.
I'm with Karl and Lynne. As I said in an early post, "facts" have nothing to do with religion or belief so who cares. The best parts of the Bible or any religious text speak to things for which the only evidence is human experience. Historical record makes no difference if you're talking about being kind, being good to your neighbors and forgiveness in all things. The conflict comes when allegory is insistently made into historical record. Whether there was a talking snake or not is irrelevant...it's what we can learn from the story that is important.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Karl wrote,
"It's not what you think or believe.
It's what you are and how you are that counts."
Actually, how you are is an indicator of what you really believe. You may consciously believe that fighting is bad, but then fight. This would indicate to you that in your subconscious is the belief that fighting is okay or is productive. So one can then use their actions to help them understand what is in their subconscious, then if one wants to change, one can use that as a guide as to whether change is really occurring.
Jesus said to put on the mind of Christ and leave off the carnal mind/ego. It is the ego that leads us astray. The way to tell if you still have ego is to watch your reactions and actions.
Peace Love and Joy are Christ emotions. Anger, fear, pride, lust and greed are ego emotions.
Your beliefs create your thoughts,
your thoughts create your emotions,
your emotions give impetus towards action.
So if you feel anger, then that is a sign that you are still controlled by your ego/carnal mind and you need to work on that.
Example, A certain person here on the forum pisses me off seemingly to no end. This is an indicator to me that I still have ego and that I need to work on it if I don't want to experience anger,fear ect. All is consciousness and it is our consciousness that creates our experience. If I want a better experience, then I have to change MY consciousness, not this persons consciousness. This is what it means to take the beam from my own eye before I attempt to take the speck from someone else. Clear the ego out and then you can see with the Christ mind. I figure I have some more work. haha..
Laughing at ones own ego reactions is one way to send the ego packing. This only works if one is laughing at ones own ego. It doesn't work to laugh at someone else's ego unless you are laughing with them.
|
|
cintune
climber
the Moon and Antarctica
|
|
Langue D`amour
-Laurie Anderson
Let's see. Uh, it was on an island. And there was this snake.
And the snake had legs. And he could walk all around the island.
Yes. That's true. A snake with legs.
And the man and the woman were on the island too.
And they were not very smart.
But they were happy as clams. Yes.
Let's see. Uh...then one evening the snake was walking about
in the garden and he was talking to himself and he saw the woman
and they started to talk. And they became friends.
Very good friends.
And the woman liked the snake very much. Because when he
talked, he make little noises with his tongue, and his long tongue was lightly licking about his lips.
Like there was a fire inside his mouth and the flame
would come dancing out of his mouth.
And this woman liked this very much.
And after that, she was bored with the man.
Because no matter what happened, he was always as happy as a clam.
What did the snake say? Yes! What was he saying?
OK. I will tell you.
The snake told her things about the world. He told her about
the time there was a big typhoon on the island
and all the sharks came out of the water. Yes.
They came out of the water and they walked right into your house
with their big white teeth.
And the woman heard these things. And she was in love.
And the man came out and said: We have to go now!
And the woman did not want to go. Because she was a hothead.
Because she was a woman in love.
Anyway, we got into their boat and left the island.
But they never stayed anywhere very long.
Because the woman was restless. She was a hothead.
She was a woman in love.
And this is not a story people tell.
It is something I know myself.
And when I do my job, I am thinking about these things.
Because when I do my job, that is what I think about....
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Moosie, very well written. You know ego kept me from loving, living, learning and commitment for quite awhile. Still can be a problem if I don't think about things before I speak or do. Better for me if I don't react, but take a while and respond thoughtfully...
but all of us get that blind left hook to the temple every once in awhile, and the reflexes are all about right back atcha and double, that's where my man jesus comes in, my guy in the corner of the ring telling me to cool it and fight the good fight, not the dirty fight.
cintune, I'm gonna have to think about that one......for awhile
Joy and Peace today, lrl
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
"I believe the whole bible is among other things an instruction manual for life. I liken it to the DVD for our very complex auto. I don't understand alot of it but I guess I trust the manufaturer knows about his product so I keep after it til I understand it or someone explains it to me. Some parts I simply don't get. But I don't throw it out because of that."
Thanks for the explanation. It makes more sense to me now.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
Yikes what fun this is.
I think Karl said it best.
I'm with Lynne when she says the Bible is an instruction manual. That is a good thing, as a sometimes scientist I have to disagree with using it as historical, scientific proof, of anything.
I disagree with the people who say that science is dismissable because it can't be proved but you're an idiot if you don't take blight's opinion on faith. Has he ever looked into anything? He
won't say, nor will he answer a direct question.
I'm with Lynne's, 'make use of the positive' approach. Blight's fire and brimstone condescention is something else; any time he would like to elaborate he has the floor.
Werner how do you stand with Shiva? There is a lot there to look into, it seems to me.
"For the second, almost all the top five mass murderers of all time were atheists. "
We're leaving Popes, Hitler, and the spanish inquisition, etc out of this? Why?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
graniteclimber, I know tongue in check sarcasm when I hear it...I was taught by the best on, of course, Supertopo ! haha, hey blondie's getting a tad bit smarter.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Well, Jaybro, at least we are enjoying conversing. What's with all the animosity up above a few posts ago? Gezzz, you can't curse, swear and beat someone to death and then wonder why they don't seriously consider your take on life.
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
Lynne, I did not try to be sarcastic. I was serious. I thought that you were stating that the rest of the Bible offered clear instructions on how to make the Gospels work (that you understood and could explain to us). This did not make sense to me because I find the Old Testament contradictory in places to the Gospels.
Instead you were thinking of the Bible as a technical instruction manual which you have trouble understanding. That is not what I understood you to say originally, but it makes a lot more sense to me.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
I'm starting a new religion. Ain't gonna be handling poison snakes.
Gonna be handling something sweeter and more holy.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
ooooooh
I want to be a twinkie preacher. How do I learn? Does it cost a lot?
Please please please teach me.
Do I get to eat them when I am done preaching?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Thanks granite, I thought you were pulling my leg. Hey there are several GOOD things happening here.
1) We are working through our communication problems instead of letting them cause conflict.
2) We are finding common ground that we can talk about and some consensus.
3) We are not berating and belittling one another.
Maybe we're the ones that should be running the government. hehe
But granite, question. You said that the old testament has problems with the gospels....if you have the time, could you give me one example that I can think about? Thanks, Lynne
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Ouch, nice rug on the dude ! snakes over twinkies......
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
" You said that the old testament has problems with the gospels....if you have the time, could you give me one example that I can think about?"
Parts of the Old Testament permit slavery and tells us to take an "eye for an eye," a "tooth for a tooth" and a life for a life. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us not to follow these old rules.
Have you ever seen the "open letter to Dr. Laura." It raises other problems with relying on the Old Testament. http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html
Lynne, from reading what you've written I think that Karl is correct in saying that you are following the truth that is in your heart, not just following some old text blindly.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
What I find more ironic is that modern-day Biblical literalists still find ways to sneak out of a lot of it. Jody has said on this forum that certain excerpts were "meant for shepherds" while other seemingly archaic sections are still apropos.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Just a thought, then get back to main topics.... being a jesus follower does not mean you nail life or you NAIL right or right way of living (definition of righteousness). It's always a work in progress, to me.
Gee, I'll be having a great day and then this thought or idea or I'll do something that is so out there, will occur...and I'll think WHERE did that come from....then I say hey jesus, gonna need you to help me process this.
Gotta get rid of this junk. jesus is my junk processor, sometimes it takes a WHILE, but he always comes through for me.
Just lately was obsessing on stuff you guys would wonder why I was even concerned about. But I knew in my heart and mind it wasn't right for lynne. So we been working at it...and so glad I follow him cause the junk I don't like is being shredded in the shredder. YAH ! We be free from stuff that is not right.
Relief, freedom, joy and peace...
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
granite, I will be thinking about your post...it takes me awhile to process stuff and think about it, sorry, wheels are not as quick as some (which is ok by me, "I yam who I yam"... )smiles, Lynne
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Praise the Holy Twinkie, praise it with great praise!
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
Twinkies--more poisonous than snakes...
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I find the Old Testament contradictory in places to the Gospels."
Well, it is.
And it's supposed to be.
Some parts of the bible are an instruction manual which tells us what we should do. But a lot of it tells us what not to do. It's not just an instruction manual, it's a history of christian thought, with bad stuff from the past left in so we can learn from past mistakes - "those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it".
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
Tell us about the part where Jesus rode dinosaurs.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"Peace Love and Joy are Christ emotions. Anger, fear, pride, lust and greed are ego emotions"
What a fashionable mix of buddhism and christianity. Nice buzzwords. Completely out of context and misunderstood though.
Jesus was often angry. And exasperated. And irritated. His disciples made him very angry many times with their small-minded attitudes towards things like the romans and women.
Jesus was afraid too. When he was given up to be crucified he said that he didn't want to go through with the suffering and pain.
We often hear it said that christians should be calm, passive - doormats really. We hear it said that a christian should "turn the other cheek", taken to mean that they should allow themselves to be abused without ever defending themselves or their beliefs.
I've touched on the reason already in this thread: those who abuse christians would like them to be passive because abusers want to play the bully without risk of retaliation. But there's nothing, not a thing, in the bible or in the life of christ to suggest that jesus or his followers were passive or silent.
The early christians were passionate and driven. They travelled huge distances to spread the word, shouted it in city squares and to huge crowds, and were often tortured and killed for their beliefs.
I'm sure a great many atheists would love for christians to be meek and quiet becasue that would mean they weren't a threat anymore - and indeed we Moosie mixing it up with some trendy cherry-picked ideas from buddhism to try to make exactly that point. But that's not how Jesus lived his life and not how I live mine either.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Blight quotes Santayana, a popular quote no doubt we're all familiar with... here is another:
“History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten.”
—Life of Reason: Reason in Science, Scribner's, 1906, p. 45
And Santayana is an interesting philosopher to quote in this long discussion... especially given how he lived his life and for what his philosophical thoughts were.
here is the longer quote:
"History is always written wrong, and so always needs to be rewritten. The conditions of expression and even of memory dragoon the facts and put a false front on diffuse experience. What is interesting is brought forward as if it had been central and efficacious in the march of events, and harmonies are turned into causes. Kings and generals are endowed with motives appropriate to what the historian values in their actions; plans are imputed to them prophetic of their actual achievements, while the thoughts that really preoccupied them remain buried in absolute oblivion. Such falsification is inevitable, and an honest historian is guilty of it only against his will. He would wish, as he loves the truth, to see and to render it entire. But the limits of his book and of his knowledge force him to be partial. It is only a very great mind, seasoned by large wisdom, that can lend such an accent and such a carrying-power to a few facts as to make them representative of all reality.
Some historians, indeed, are so frankly partisan or cynical that they avowedly write history with a view to effect, either political or literary. Moralising historians belong to this school, as well as those philosophers who worship evolution. They sketch every situation with malice and twist it, as if it were an argument, to bring out a point, much as fashionable portrait-painters sometimes surcharge the characteristic, in order to make a bold effect at a minimum expense of time and devotion. And yet the truly memorable aspect of a man is that which he wears in the sunlight of common day, with all his generic humanity upon him. His most interesting phase is not that which he might assume under the lime-light of satirical or literary comparisons. The characteristic is after all the inessential. It marks a peripheral variation in the honest and sturdy lump. To catch only the heartless shimmer of individuality is to paint a costume without the body that supports it. "
George Santayana
[url="http://books.google.com/books?id=A7ye4YrD0VkC&pg=PA323&dq=intitle:life+intitle:of+intitle:reason+inauthor:Santayana+date:1900-1910&lr=&as_brr=0#PPP16,M1"]Life of Reason[/url]
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Blight, we are all uniquely made blessed with different personalities which express themselves in a variety of ways. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter all acted differently.
Peter cut off someones ear and jesus had to make a repair. John always spoke about love.
I am a jesus follower, not a hindu, buddhist etc. I believe the bible is the inspired word of god.
I do not think jesus was "Often" angry.
Have a great Tuesday,
Joy and Peace with lots of the love of christ thrown in. Smiles
Lynne
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Now thats funny. Blight, your main complaint on this thread is that people attack creationist without provocation. Then, without provocation, you go and make fun of my beliefs. I am a creationist.
Grow up dude. Study the ego. And yes, I believe that both Jesus and Buddha were the Christ. Krishna also. Many people have become the Christ. It is the Christ mind that is the only way to Peace. The Christ mind is the Way, the Truth and the Light. Any of us can become the Way the Truth and the Light when we put on the Christ mind. Putting on the Christ mind is a process. Jesus still had ego and did not give up the ghost of the ego until on the cross.
Read Kim Michaels book "I Love Jesus, I Hate Christianity".
Or make fun of me. Its your choice.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Come on, people!
I'm still looking for answers about toenails and man-nipples.
Blight, you sure are long winded. How about taking a moment and explaining why God gave me those things.
The presence of nipples on men might suggest that we all have descended from females (or perhaps an asexual primate). But the Bible says that Adam was the first human, and then Eve came from him.
Why did God give Adam nipples? And what the f*#k are my toenails for? God gave them to me, so I'm sure they must serve a purpose. But so far, us humans haven't been able to figure it out. Is there something in the Bible that I missed? Or is this yet another example of religious people ignoring the facts that are right in front of their eyes?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
I know I know!!
God gave you toenails so you'd have something to pick the blight out from under, after a barefoot walk in a well used cow pasture.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"I do not think jesus was "Often" angry."
Then you should read your bible! Jesus shouted at his disciples on quite a few occasions and he really lost his temper with money-changers in the temper and once even had a hissy fit with an olive tree!
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"without provocation, you go and make fun of my beliefs. I am a creationist."
I didn't even mention your beliefs about creationism. I certainly criticised your misappropriation of buddhist ideas and your mixing them with christianity, and I'll continue to do so, but if you can't handle your ideas being criticised then the internet may not be the place for you.
"Read Kim Michaels book "I Love Jesus, I Hate Christianity"
Kim Michaels claims to be the personal representative of Jesus Christ and to speak directly for him. That's not a view that's well supported by the bible. If you find something interesting in his books, good. I hope it benefits you. But I'd be very, very wary of anyone who claims that they speak for God perosnally and that everyone else is wrong.
"Grow up dude. Study the ego."
I have. And I agree with the view that, as has been said by several scholars, buddhism and christianity are compatible on a superficial level only. If you practice them superficially, mixing some buzzwords here with a dash of pseudo-psychology there, you may come up with something which looks attractive and smells okay.
However, go deeper and you'll find irreconcilable differences, particularly on the subjects of ego, dualism and interdependent origination.
Be clear about this: I disagree with you. My own findings and those of many scholars differ from yours. This is not making fun of you, it's just having a different view. Please don't take this personally.
|
|
Blight
Social climber
|
|
"the Bible says that Adam was the first human, and then Eve came from him."
Actually the bible says two different things: in genesis 1 it just says he created them, male and female, on the sixth day. In genesis 2 it gives the account of Adam being created first then Eve being created from one of his ribs.
Actually it gives a different order for the creation in the two chapters as well - in the first chapter God makes the animals first then man, in the second he makes man and then the animals.
I wouldn't treat the Bible as a chronological history of the world if I were you, it's only a couple of thousand pages long so you may have to face the fact that it's edited a bit.
;)
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
Wow! The Bible contradicts itself?
No shit!
So, in order to beleive what the Bible says, you have to completely ignore other parts of the book? Even if the contradictions begin within the first few sentences of the book, and then continue throughout?
That's a great religion you got there, blight!
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Andy, you need to take it all in the context it was written in.
I think you know this but are either trolling or are in some kind of atheistic denial.
...either way, whatever. Jesus and God prolly still love ya. Prolly.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
The father, the son, and holy spirit. Said to be all the same.
Are the son and holy spirit avatars?
Does this make the father a troll?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
I hear ya Ouch. Ask a Catholic or a Jew if their the same though. It is the Holy Trinity, but are they really the same?
God created everything. Jesus saved us from ourselves by representing God on earth.
Just like Satan, God does not show himself. That's what faith is for. You must take one path or the other.
One is lies, deceipt, and confusion. The other is pure love, truth, and compassion.
It's really simple to me.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Satan showed himself to Jesus, a man at the time.
It says so in the bible, so it must be true.
Sorry Bluer, yer wrong about the devil not showing himself.
Unless of course you don't believe the bible.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
did he show himself to man?
if he did he would lose the eternal battle.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
"One is lies, deceipt, and confusion."
Ain't that the truth. In the 15 years I spent going to church and pursuing christianity, I noticed those three things to be prevalent.
The Bible is full of lies. Some of it is open to interpretation, but much of it is purely false. This leads to deceit, an essential part of creating followers. And ultimately that deceit leads to confusion among anyone with half a brain.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
"anyone with half a brain."
We got lots of halfbrains around here.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Blight, If one can not seek the Truth wherever it is found, be it Buddhism or Christianity, and the two religions can not be blended, then which religion do you ascribe to?
As for Kim Micheals, you should read the book before you criticize it. He doesn't claim to be the only person speaking for or to God. The Christians are the ones who do that.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Andy, your mind is polluted.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
In other news...
Members of Christian bike gang arrested in raids
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
(08-06) 08:46 PDT Anaheim, CA (AP) --
SWAT teams have raided several Orange and Riverside county homes to arrest members of a Christian motorcycle gang in connection with several stabbings.
Anaheim police Sgt. Tim Schmdit says eight members of the "Set Free Soldiers" gang were taken into custody early Wednesday for investigation of attempted murder.
No injuries were reported.
Police served 11 search warrants in Anaheim, Costa Mesa and Rancho Santa Margarita in Orange County and Norco in Riverside County.
Schmidt says the raids were prompted by a fight in a Newport Beach bar last week between members of the bike gang and the Hell's Angels. Three people were stabbed in that confrontation.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
One more time blue, since you seemed to miss it.
Satan showed himself to Jesus, a man at the time.
Read your bible!!
Jesus was a man. He chose to be one. Says so right in the bible.
SO, again, you're wrong about Satan not showing himself to man.
Unless you don't believe your bible.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Good grief DrGonzo, don't you know, those Christian bikers still sin, they're just forgiven!!
They'll probably get a medal in heaven for sending all those unrepentant heathens to hell.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Dirt, don't you think Satan only did that because he knew it was the son of God? It's obvious. Satan exists to taunt and tempt man into corruption of morality.
God exists (and the Bible) to teach morality. I don't know how you people don't see this.
Although, I guess if your mind is already polluted, it may seem reasonable and right.
Up is down.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
bluey,
Learning about Christianity didn't "pollute" my mind. It simply allowed me to see things from a different perspective.
There's no harm in knowledge.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
And that knowledge is that the Bible teaches hatred, bigotry, and prejudice?
The Bible was intended as a guidebook of things to do, or not to do, to better yourself and society as a whole.
Why is it that all 5 major religions have a common denominator?
Can you explain that?
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
Yes, god teaches morality.
He turned two women into salt for looking back at the destruction of a city. Certainly destorying a city is a mral act right?
And it would sure be moral to murder two women for something as trivial as looking behind them because you told em not too. that is actually something a murderer would do in fact.
And it was moral to torture Job I guess. that's what it was really, torture.
Trying to get Abraham to kill one of his sons, that's moral. Well, it would be if I tried to do it, but I guess the standard is different if you are an all powerful being and you get to decide what is moral and what is not. Pretty nice work if you can get it I'd say.
And killing every living thing on the planet, except for a family ans a few animals, just because you didn't like the way things turned out, hey, that would make god a rather unstable mass murderer, wouldn't it? But I guess that's moral, somehow. Sort of sets a good example for Stalin, Hitler, and a few other historical figures who took the lesson to heart, no doubt.
Yes, this certainly has shown me that god teaches morals, if you believe in a do as I say, not as I do kind of god.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Why did he really do those things, dirt?
What caused his wrath?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
bluering is right. God's lesson was that vengeful acts are ok as long as you can think of a good reason.
|
|
Ouch!
climber
|
|
I saw where God sent Pat Robertson a word of knowledge that he had just cured some dude's sinus problem.
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
uh, bluey.....
I agree with you. I agree that God was invented to teach morality. I agree that the Bible was supposed to be a "guide" of sorts.
Problem is, it didn't exactly work out that way. Jesus did, in fact, try to correct a lot of it. And the only way to accomplish that was to claim he was the son of God. But even his teachings have been misinterpreted.
All religions start out with good intentions. But they ultimately end up doing more harm than good. Why do you think our founding fathers were so adamant about the separation of Church and State?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Because of England, andy.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Blight, can you agree to say jesus was angry on occasion ? You sited 4 times. But, when I read your post it makes me think that jesus was an angry person and that just isn't so.
OBTW, I taught a women's bible study for quite sometime. So, yes I read my bible....nearly daily. smiles. lrl
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
What caused his wrath?
LOL, a woman and her daughter LOOKED at something that God said not to look at, so he killed them.
If you or I did that, it would be murder, but I guess it's not if you make the rules.
As for Abraham, God just wanted to mess with his mind. I'd call that cruel and sadistic.
Yep, your god is a great guy. I'd love to hang out with someone like that.-- A power tripping, hair trigger, homicidal sadist.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
graniteclimber, Sorry ! It has taken me so long to get back to your very good question re: old testament vs. new. (OBTW, I have not looked at the Dr. Laura Link yet)I would just like to address your question now.
First let me say I am not a bible apologist. Not my role in life. Like I have said before, I am a jesus follower. I have led bible studies for the purpose of how to live ones life.
To me the old testament overall is the foreshadowing of the coming of jesus in the new testament. When jesus came he said he came not to destroy the law (all the stuff in the old testament, but to fulfill it). To me, jesus, and not all these crazy arguments about how people appeared here on the planet etc, is the "crux of the pitch", so to speak in the bible.
I re read all the arguing on this thread, again, I think the crux of the matter is what you think of jesus.
graniteclimber, you are right about the eye for an eye and slavery....all that changed when jesus came. He spoke to people about a different level of living.
He wanted to show people a better way, a new and living way.
For an example. The jews and samaritians mostly did not like each other. And women were, well lets just say they did not enjoy the status that American women do.
So one day jesus was by himself on a journey back to Galilee. He had to pass through Samaria. He was tired and sat down by a well. A Samaritian woman came to draw H2O and jesus asked for some.
She says, "why do you ask me for a drink?" (jews didn't associate with samaritians)
ASIDE FROM LYNNE: Life never changes does it ?
jesus said to her, (very nicely of course) "gal, if you knew who I am you would ask for living H2O."
Long story short....you can read the whole thing in John 4,
The lady doesn't understand about the living H2O so she asks Jesus WHERE the right place was to worship... on the mountain in Samaria or in Jerusalem.
DO YOU SEE HOW PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO GET DISCUSSIONS GOING ABOUT THE "RIGHT" CREATION THEORY, THE "RIGHT" PLACE TO WORSHIP ETC.?
Jesus took it up a notch. Not only did he present the living water he told her that god doesn't care where you worship; as long as you worship in spirit and in truth.
He told another guy, he must be born....again..Jesus was always kicking it up a notch...getting people to think.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Not going to argue with you, Curt. Will say this. You watch a man give his little son a really hard spanking. What a jerk, you may think. What you don't know is that the son ran out in front of a truck and could have died.
It's all about context. I can't address your remark because it needs to be put in context. If you were like gc, carrying on an amicable conversation I might take hours and hours of my time and develope a dialogue with you. But somehow I don't think that is what you are looking for.
I like you tho. Smiles, Lynne
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Hi Lynne,
You might want to be careful what you call the Law. It is not ALL of the stuff in the old testament. The laws given by man are not true Laws. The law Jesus spoke of was Spiritual Laws such as "You reap what you Sow".
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Hahahaha well looky here.
They are actually having a bible class in this thread unconsciously.
Just see the preacher Dirtineye in action.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
Sorry, WBraun, I pro stepped over the line....
granite asked a good question, but I pro elaborated beyond the beyond.
I really don't plan these things like some...I am pretty much an unplanned poster. You can tell can't you ? I'm not trying to convince, arm twist, but just share some stuff that has been good to me in my pretty crazy life. always smiles cause life needs joy every day. lrl
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2008 - 12:09pm PT
|
Now a spanking is not usually fatal, last time I checked. Parents who kill their children for disobeying most often go to jail. You think maybe that's why god does not put in any appearances on earth? Maybe some other gods put him in god jail for screwing up?
Face it, god was just really pissed at those women. So he killed them.
IF you can't come up with a reasonable explanation for god's behavior, I won't be surprised. If god had any scruples, he'd feel bad about killing those women for looking over their shoulder.
But if he were all loving and omniscient, he'd have known they were going to look anyway, and he just might have had a little compassion, and just made em ugly or something.
He's god, he coudla done that ya know.
BUT instead, it had to be, "Do as I say or DIE!".
God should be ashamed of himself.
And whatever you might think, I'm serious about this. God screws up an awful lot and acts just like a vengeful mean, unstable human an awful lot of the time, especially if you are supposed to be a god full of love and understanding.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2008 - 12:25pm PT
|
Dirt, It is all symbolism. The city represents the corruption/ ego in your own soul. The female represents your soul. What the story is about is what happens to each of us if we hold on to the ego. Eventually our ego and anything it represents will be dissolved in what is called the second death. At some point all of us are called to surrender our ego/carnal mind because our ego is the antiChrist. In fact, if you are sensitive to what is happening to you right now, then you will see where the ego has led you.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2008 - 12:31pm PT
|
NO John, the bible is the infallible word of god. All that stuff really happened.
I just don't like god's attitude, or his outlook, or how he does things.
I think If I were omniscient, omnipotent, and couple of other things god is, I could do a much better job.
I think I'd be a kinder gentler god.
But then that would not be hard, given god's track record.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2008 - 01:35pm PT
|
Thanks, Moosie, I was being to generic with the word, law.
drgonzo, some interesting reading.....there will always be "snake oil" people out there and those willing to be duped.
Have a great Friday !
Lynnie
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2008 - 10:23pm PT
|
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2008 - 10:43pm PT
|
Stupid logic (cartoon above). This is how ignorant people spew their nonsense as sense.
You had a father and he had a father and the fathers go back and back until you come to the "Original Father" who is eternally unborn.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2008 - 11:09pm PT
|
Agree with WBraun...thanks for the post WB
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2008 - 11:17pm PT
|
I totally agree with WBraun.
If you state your beleifs as facts, and then call the other people "ignorant", then you've won the argument!
Looks like the evolutionists are the ones taking a called strike here! They are wrong. And that's a fact, because they disagree with my views.
|
|
hafilax
Trad climber
East Van
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2008 - 11:18pm PT
|
You had a father and he had a father and the fathers go back and back until you come to the "Original Father" who is eternally unborn
Isn't that the same as "Blackjack, no tagbacks"? Sounds the same to me.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 12:17am PT
|
"You had a father and he had a father and the fathers go back and back until you come to the "Original Father" who is eternally unborn."
Oh OK. That makes sense...
ROFLMAO
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 12:33am PT
|
Do you all apply your theories to every day living....to making life count for you and helping the people around you ? Or is your word sparing (for lack of a better word) just one upmanship and trying to prove a point.....that pro can't be proven.
Smiles on a Monday Nite.
I went deep sea fishing and I am literally swaying back and forth on my chair....hehehe it was really rolling out there today. Lynnie
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 12:17pm PT
|
HAHAHA, OK Werner, the earth is flat, and sits on the back of a turtle, who sits on the back of another turtle, and BTW, it's turtles all the way down.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 09:16pm PT
|
You guys are brutal. Could you not insert a little humor once in a while. Or maybe it's just a Mars Venus thing....Jugular vs. Jewelry. :D
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 10:12pm PT
|
Lynne,
there's plenty of humor in this thread. The religous folks state their humorous views, and the smart people mock them with sarcasm (a form of humor).
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 10:21pm PT
|
andanother says, "and the RELIGOUS folks" now would that be the RELI Gorgeous folks,,, ? hehe
So what you're saying is we're stupid BUT we look good.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2008 - 10:48pm PT
|
The creator himself
And in the Sata Yuga he comes as a Turtle.
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2008 - 02:11am PT
|
Remember:
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 12:13am PT
|
Like the last two pics. Great color in Werners...not to sure abut organized snakes...kinda like them one on one with me in the wild.
drgonzo, classic...
So, what about a person that simply believes god created...no specific time frame is important cause it really can't be proven... like one and one makes two can be proven.
Why is the time frame so important ? What am I missing?
Can't a creationist simply believe god created ? Lynnie
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 01:01am PT
|
Believing is all right but proof must ultimately be there.
The proof that the Supreme Lord created the whole cosmic manifestation exists. The materialists are too lazy and too stubborn to seriously seek it out. They want to do everything independently, not knowing that they are controlled by the very force they are trying to be independent of.
In order to understand God one must submit to him just as the materialists are force to submit to material natures superior power.
Even the materialists can not ultimately prove any of their theories and thus they remain perpetually bound in their fruitative activities which cast them further and further from the real truth.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 01:56am PT
|
Werner, how can you be so obtuse?
Do you even understand what PROOF is?
I think not, from how you write about it.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 02:18am PT
|
Dirt in eye, WBraun is anything but obtuse. We need to get on the same page if possible ....don't know if syntactics is the word...I think another one is better but can't recall.....
If we get on the same page,,,,playing ground,,,, we can at least share ideas and really listen to each other. Lots to learn and think about.
I don't know if I concur with all that WBraun thinks and feels, but I have never sat down and discussed.....so we all need to withhold judgement and get together.....hey dirtineye...any chance you can go to facelift ?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 02:28am PT
|
Sheee, finally thought of the word....semantics which is the study of meanings ...people can say something and you can interpret it entirely differently from what they are trying to convey.
I've seen this on the Taco causing bombs to explode.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 03:39am PT
|
"Believing is all right but proof must ultimately be there.
The proof that the Supreme Lord created the whole cosmic manifestation exists. The materialists are too lazy and too stubborn to seriously seek it out. They want to do everything independently, not knowing that they are controlled by the very force they are trying to be independent of. "
NO Lynne, sorry, this stuff is utter NONSENSE.
If you can't see that, you're just as bad.
It would be better to say you have to take it on faith and faith alone, than to make the moronic claims that Werner makes.
|
|
coward
Trad climber
Boulder, Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 10:42am PT
|
Yes, Werner seems to be somewhat of a mystic.
It seems like you've got to have some "faith" that there's actually some sense in much of what he writes.
It's like a poem that's really out there. You have to read it like three times to "get" the jist of it, and then it's only because you've somehow convinced yourself that there is actually something to what he is saying.
Werner, come down here maannn....don't you get dizzy in the clouds?
|
|
coward
Trad climber
Boulder, Wyoming
|
|
|
Aug 30, 2008 - 10:59am PT
|
Oh, one more thing - you guys aren't actually convinced that modern concepts of morality BEGAN with the Bible and religion, are you? All in one fell stroke, human beings learned the wise ways of Jesus? Please...
Perhaps beliefs themselves went through an evolution of sorts...not to say that they all stemmed from one single overarching belief (as Werner would assume, maybe?)
Anyway, for any person to presume that they know how matters of this sort worked absolutely are simply full of sh#t. No scientist would make a claim to have an exact idea of how things went down...unless they were religious fruits of course!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008 - 12:58pm PT
|
Good morning ST,
You know what blows my mind is the fact that people on ST want our govt. to sit down at the table with the UN and the mideast and try to resolve the problems and conflicts peacefully.
Yet, when one espouses their thoughts, ideas and beliefs on ST there's all kinds of attacks and name calling. I just pretend you're all kidding when that happens. : )
Think I smell a double standard here. Opinions and belief's should be applied to all aspects of one's life, not just to "W".
What's SCARY is that I am actually beginning to understand what WBraun is saying....I think !?
|
|
andanother
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008 - 02:49pm PT
|
Believing is all right but proof must ultimately be there.
The proof that the Supreme Lord created the whole cosmic manifestation will never exist. The creationists are too lazy and too stubborn to seriously seek it out. They don't want to do anything independently, because there is too much comfort in the herd mentality.
In order to understand "god" one must deny him and grow up, just as children must eventually start a life of their own, seperate from their parents protective shell.
The creationists can not ultimately prove any of their theories and thus they remain perpetually bound in their fruitative activities which cast them further and further from the real truth.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008 - 06:09pm PT
|
werner has proof... it's just... well... semantics. his definition of proof just doesn't match "our" definition of proof....
at all...
Om namah shivaya
edit: and oh.... I'm alright with the idea of supreme conciousness - non-dualism seems to be working for me... but... the thing is... I have no way to prove there's such a thing as proof so the ultimate reality of it all is you can't prove anything.... except well... I guess... unless you are werner? I mean hey... my very existence proves nothing.. cuz like... you can't prove I exist... Am I really here?
It depends....
|
|
drgonzo
Trad climber
east bay, CA
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008 - 06:43pm PT
|
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008 - 06:55pm PT
|
drgonzo
Hiranyakasipu tried that too, but he failed.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2008 - 07:46pm PT
|
Nature, "am I really here ?" Ask Ed H. he'll know. : )
Coward, I guess it's not important for me to search and know the beginning of life or the beginning of morality. No one seems to be able to prove the beginnings to anyones satisfaction anyway.
They both exist, life and morality. I take all the information I can find and apply it to how I live my life and how I can positively impact the lives of people around me. To me that is supremely important in this short life.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists present what they believe are facts. I take their information and weigh it. If it fits in the puzzle of life and what makes sense and what works for my beliefs and life, I keep the info.
I was raised with the notion that there is absolutely no evolution. Read and learned about threshold evolution ....incorporated into my belief system.
To me, proof that it is god that creates are things like the earth, wind, the universe which seems endless....the human body....especially the eyeball and so much more.
To me it takes more faith to believe that everything evolved.
And OBTW, I separated from my parents. But they were great parents so I don't deny them.
Peace and Joy, Lynne
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2009 - 09:22pm PT
|
Science News
Common Ancestor Of Humans, Modern Primates? 'Extraordinary' Fossil Is 47 Million Years Old
ScienceDaily (May 19, 2009) — Scientists have found a 47-million-year-old human ancestor. Discovered in Messel Pit, Germany, the fossil, described as Darwinius masillae, is 20 times older than most fossils that explain human evolution.
See also:
Known as “Ida,” the fossil is a transitional species – it shows characteristics from the very primitive non-human evolutionary line (prosimians, such as lemurs), but is more related to the human evolutionary line (anthropoids, such as monkeys, apes and humans). At 95% complete, the fossil provides the most complete understanding of the paleobiology of any Eocene primate so far discovered.
The scientists’ findings are published in PLoS One, the open-access, peer-reviewed journal from the Public Library of Science.
For the past two years, an international team of scientists, led by world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist Dr Jørn Hurum, University of Oslo Natural History Museum, has secretly conducted a detailed forensic analysis of the extraordinary fossil, studying the data to decode humankind’s ancient origins. At 95% complete, Ida is set to revolutionize our understanding of primate evolution.
"This is the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage," said Dr. Hurum.
"It’s really a kind of Rosetta Stone," commented study co-author Professor Philip Gingerich, of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan.
The fossil was apparently discovered in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: the lesser part was restored and, in the process, partly fabricated to make it look more complete. This part was eventually purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by one of the authors (Jens L. Franzen) who recognized the fabrication. The more complete part has just come to light, and it now belongs to the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). The PLoS ONE paper describes the study that resulted from finally having access to the complete fossil specimen.
Unlike Lucy and other famous primate fossils found in Africa’s Cradle of Mankind, Ida is a European fossil, preserved in Germany’s Messel Pit, the mile-wide crater and oil-rich shale is a significant site for fossils of the Eocene Epoch. Fossil analysis reveals that the prehistoric primate was a young female. Opposable big toes and nail bearing tips on the fingers and toes confirm the fossil is a primate, and a foot bone called the talus bone links Ida directly to humans.
The fossil also features the complete soft body outline as well as the gut contents: a herbivore, Ida feasted on fruits, seeds and leaves before she died. X-rays reveal both baby and adult teeth, and the lack of a ‘toothcomb’ or a ‘grooming claw’ which is an attribute of lemurs. The scientists estimate Ida’s age when she died to be approximately nine months, and she measured approximately three feet in length.
Ida lived 47 million years ago at a critical period in Earth’s history–the Eocene Epoch, a time when the blueprints for modern mammals were being established. Following the extinction of dinosaurs, the early horses, bats, whales and many other creatures including the first primates thrived on a subtropical planet. The Earth was just beginning to take the shape that we know and recognize today – the Himalayas were being formed and modern flora and fauna evolved. Land mammals, including primates, lived amid vast jungle.
Ida was found to be lacking two of the key anatomical features found in lemurs: a grooming claw on the second digit of the foot, and a fused row of teeth in the middle of her lower jaw known as a toothcomb. She has nails rather than the claw typical of non-anthropoid primates such as lemurs, and her teeth are similar to those of monkeys. Her forward facing eyes are like ours – which would have enabled her fields of vision to overlap, allowing 3D vision and an ability to judge distance.
The fossil’s hands show a humanlike opposable thumb. Like all primates, Ida has five fingers on each hand. Her opposable thumb would have provided a ‘precision grip’. In Ida’s case, this is useful for climbing and gathering fruit; in our case, it allows important human functions such as making tools, and writing. Ida would have also had flexible arms, which would have allowed her to use both hands for any task that cannot be done with one – like grabbing a piece of fruit. Like us, Ida also has quite short arms and legs.
Evidence in the talus bone links Ida to us. The bone has the same shape as in humans today. Only the human talus is obviously bigger. X-rays and CT scanning reveal Ida to be about nine months old when she died, and provide clues to her diet – which included berries and plants. Furthermore the lack of a bacculum (penis bone) means that the fossil was definitely female.
X-rays reveal that a broken wrist may have contributed to Ida’s death – her left wrist was healing from a bad fracture. The scientists believe she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas whilst from drinking from the Messel lake: the still waters of the lake were often covered by a low lying blanket of the gas as a result of the volcanic forces that formed the lake and which were still active. Hampered by her broken wrist, Ida slipped into unconsciousness, was washed into the lake, and sunk to the bottom, where the unique conditions preserved her for 47 million years.
The findings of the two-year study will be revealed exclusively by Atlantic Productions in a documentary film, "The Link," to be screened by History on Monday May 25th, 2009 at 9pm ET/PT and BBC One in the UK Tuesday May 26th, 2009 at 9pm BST. It will also be broadcast on ZDF, NRK and around the world. A book, "The Link," will be published by Little Brown and Company, a division of Hachette Book Group, on Wednesday May 20th. An interactive, content-rich website about Ida has been launched at http://www.revealingthelink.com.
"This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals," said renowned broadcaster and
naturalist Sir David Attenborough.
"The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing."
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
climber
dangling off a wind turbine in a town near you
|
|
|
May 27, 2009 - 09:49pm PT
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 30, 2009 - 06:55pm PT
|
Scientists Visit the Creation Museum
by DowneastDem (DK)
Tue Jun 30, 2009 at 02:41:39 PM PDT
The Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky opened in 2007 to present an account of the origins of the universe, life and mankind according to a literal interpretation of the Bible. The museum is used by many evangelical Christians as a backdrop to attack the moral relativism that they believe is ruining America. Visitors to the museum learn that the universe was created 6000 years ago (in six days) and dinosaurs and humans cohabited the earth.
Yesterday a group of scientists visited the Creation Museum.
The University of Cincinnati was hosting a conference for paleontologists from all over the world. During a break in the activities, a group of 70 scientists made the short trip to the Creation Museum. While the Americans are accustomed to the general hostility to science among many of their fellow citizens, many of the foreign scientists were shocked at what they found.
Tamaki Sato was confused by the dinosaur exhibit. The placards described the various dinosaurs as originating from different geological periods — the stegosaurus from the Upper Jurassic, the heterodontosaurus from the Lower Jurassic, the velociraptor from the Upper Cretaceous — yet in each case, the date of demise was the same: around 2348 B.C.
"I was just curious why," said Dr. Sato, a professor of geology from Tokyo Gakugei University in Japan.
Poor Dr. Sato. Has he never read the Bible? Doesn't he know that 2348 BC was the year of the Great Flood?
Of course, the godless Europeans were also taken aback by the exhibits:
"I’m very curious and fascinated," Stefan Bengtson, a professor of paleozoology at the Swedish Museum of Natural History, said before the visit, "because we have little of that kind of thing in Sweden."
It's fun to laugh at the museum and the people that actually believe in the junk science presented there. But not all the scientists were amused:
"It's sort of a monument to scientific illiteracy, isn't it?" said Jerry Lipps, professor of geology, paleontology and evolution at University of California, Berkeley.
Lisa Park of the University of Akron cried at one point as she walked a hallway full of flashing images of war, famine and natural disasters which the museum blames on belief in evolution.
"I think it's very bad science and even worse theology -- and the theology is far more offensive to me," said Park, a professor of paleontology who is an elder in the Presbyterian Church.
"I think there's a lot of focus on fear, and I don't think that's a very Christian message... I find it a malicious manipulation of the public."
More than 750,000 people have visited the museum since it opened. Each day, busloads of children from Christian schools throughout America arrive at the Creation Museum for special guided tours.
Rec list? There is a God!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 1, 2009 - 12:32pm PT
|
Remember the Republican Primary Debate?
Remember when every single one of the "candidates" refused to
raise their hand when asked if they believe in "evolution"
And they wonder why they keep losing elections.
F*#king 11th century morons, every one of them.
That's right, you morons voted to put Carribou Barbie one
heartbeat away from being Commander in Chief.
That's how little you value national security. MORONS
|
|
Footloose
Trad climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
Noshoes... that is funny!
I saw the original. To any 21st century modern... so embarassing... you just wouldn't believe it-- that someone could think like that-- if you hadn't witnessed it.
I swear, with this Forum (you guys are so smart, interesting) who needs a newspaper anymore!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Norton, the thing is I don't think they all reject evolution. For example, I really doubt Guiliani believes that gobblygoop creationism stuff. But evidently they all feel that saying that life evolved over billions of years--i.e., saying that the long settled, accepted science is correct--is a politically risky thing to do.
Yes, that tells us something about the Republican Party today.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Footloose, I just saw noshoesnoshirt's post. Man that's great stuff! :-)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 10, 2009 - 11:59am PT
|
ONLY SIX PERCENT OF SCIENTISTS ARE REPUBLICANS
A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.
Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.
The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 66 percent described themselves as either "liberal" or "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37 and 25 percent.
Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (66%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.
"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues."
The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.
Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have favored liberal views in numerous past studies.
Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent of scientists claimed either.
"Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.
The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the general public.
"The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the Huffington Post.
"It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample, there are really not that many," he said.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 303 of total 303 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!