The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match!
POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Friday, August 24, 2007 16:50
VIEWED: 27784
PAGE 2 of 4
Heya leadb,
The confusion and misunderstanding that arises from trying to discuss this topic is pretty daunting to me. I thought Causal was just not listening to me, had his own agenda, major prejudices about anyone who disagreed with his notion of God, etc. I kinda figured he was a zealot or something with a program for dealing with the "unbeliever" and I just wasn't fitting his template. But here I am having a lot of the same trouble getting my point across with you.
Perhaps the lesson for me is to stay out of these God/no God debates. By and large, I do think they are silly and I'm beginning to think irretrievably so. My very nonstandard understanding of the Divine, rather than livening things up, just seems to confuse people and piss the believers off.
I'm finding that believers who engage in these discussions have made themselves comfortable with the problem of atheism. They seem to have an endless enthusiasm for the back and forth of that sort of controversy. In that context they hold all the cards, they can make God whatever it suits them to make Him and all they have to deal with is the on/off switch presented by atheism. But if I come in with my yes-to-god-but-no-to-their-God third option, well, we perhaps get a tiny hint of why human history is soaked in the blood of religious conflict.
So, I hear I'm not playing by your rules. You tell me the rules were plainly stated at the top of the thread. But, leadb, threads change on the internet, evolve, die out and are reborn. The "philosophical grudge match" never materialized in the first place, Rue's hardly even posted. If my thoughts on theology and psychology have no place in your thread then why do you try to argue with me in the first place? If someone shows up to a chess tourney with a cribbage board, don't you just tell'm to go home?
Anyway, I appreciate your reply to my last post, but I don't think we've gotten very far at all in terms of understanding one another.
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Some folk will do exactly as you say, while other will seek out a father or mother figure. Some want a savior. Others will portray whatever they feel will frighten those they wish to control.
Okay, here you're switching context on me. And this is not the first time. Sure, different people conceive of God differently--that's at the heart of my own argument. But I wasn't talking about just any conception of God, my beef is with the "all-powerful" One. I'm talking about how folks define that God. Not Goddess, not Jesus, not the Boogie Man. I'm not saying that all conceptions of God are a problem (I am not an atheist), only the all-powerful conception thereof.
Quote:
In any event, the question has to be asked, what if the Abrahamic God (AG) is real; in which case any projection becomes meaningless, and the quest is not to entertain what people will -project- onto AG, but instead, what is the reality of AG. How does one successfully peel off the projections to understand the truth? That becomes the question, which I surely don't have the answer to.
We could start by looking with discernment at peoples' accounts of AG, as I did with Genesis above, showing that the God portrayed in the Bible is not all-powerful. But if AG isn't all-powerful, and yet millions of believers think He's all-powerful, it might have more to do with human psychological needs than with the nature of the Divine.
Quote:
At this point, I understand your distinction between the church and AG. I certainly can't quibble that no matter how you look at it, an all-powerful God must, by definition, be at the top of the 'food chain'; however, I don't know as that necessarily supports the 'psychopath' assessment.
Here's a thing, leadb: show me an all-powerful God and I will show you a Being who puts His enemies in a fiery pit to be tortured for all eternity. Don't you find it at all interesting that there is no religion in human history (correct me if I'm wrong) with an all-powerful God at it
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
multi-post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bad bad multiples
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The confusion and misunderstanding that arises from trying to discuss this topic is pretty daunting to me. I thought Causal was just not listening to me, had his own agenda, major prejudices about anyone who disagreed with his notion of God, etc. I kinda figured he was a zealot or something with a program for dealing with the "unbeliever" and I just wasn't fitting his template. But here I am having a lot of the same trouble getting my point across with you.
Thanks for saying this, HK. This is the entire reason I left. It wasn't because I was uncomfortable with being contradicted--that I can handle just fine. It's because there's just no way to have meaningful dialogue with someone who's pegged you as a "zealot with a program for dealing with the 'unbeliever.'"
May I humbly submit that if you consistently encounter the same problem getting your ideas across, it might actually be the case that the trouble lies with your communication of your case, and not with the people with whom you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you are unable to accept the possibility that you're not correct? That would certainly account for your disinclination to actually argue your positions.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK: You make my head hurt ;-) Ok, I'm working up a reply... ***turns thinking cap up to high***
====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I understand what HK is saying.
When I opine that religions are all about control, I may be drawing just on the AG lineage of religions. It may be that other religions are less ocntrolling.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mal4prez-
I believe the need for God follows from self-awareness, from being small creatures in a big world. Now, the step of first becoming self-aware, of being able to observe nature and ask "why?", is a larger question, and I'm no expert. My guess is that those who study this hypothesize a gradual process of increasing intelligence in humans. From learning to make tools and hunt, to developing language, to having agriculture. And then we had time to sit in our huts and talk to each other and think, and stuff started really happening.
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point... i have no need to account for a gap between our 'creation'(or that key transition from our missing link), and our current state. i believe once we were 'created', civilization began to appear automatically... so i look at recorded history as my reference point. ill speculate as far as 10,000bc, maybe taking into account the events prior to the flood, in NOAHS time(where the myth of Atlantis probably originated)... but we can only speculate
Quote:
And it's still changing. 500 years ago, logical thought didn't exist as it does now. Read some stuff about Sir Francis Bacon - he pretty much introduced inductive reasoning.
oh.. im quite familiar with Francis Bacon; perhaps youve heard of his "new atlantis" concept, and subsequent relations to secret societies(like the freemasons)?
Quote:
In fact, what I see of history (though, again, I'm certainly not an expert!) are early gods who were closely tied to nature - one for water, one for air, one for death, one for the crops, etc...which have been largely replaced by a White Male in Charge figure.
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth. to start, even the aborigines of Australia had(prior to the europeans) a similar 'Creator'(and flood))story as the Israelites. its actually an interesting story, but heres an example of an indigenous people, who likely werent influenced by the Sumerians, one of the oldest recorded civilizations(which also have a similar flood story), or any other mesopotamian culture for that matter. the claim that the Israelites plaguerized and hegemonized all these beliefs is absurd.. they all exist in relation to each other
Quote:
Interestingly, this shift has happened since we got more control and understanding of nature. (Our gods fit our needs, is how I interpret that.)
maybe.. i dont rule that out as an occurance; but i also dont use that to blanketly discredit and illegitimize every belief(which you may not be doing.. but it sounds this way)as illusory or psychological. also, if our gods fit our 'needs', define our needs? does that include lust, revenge, etc? i think you begin a slippery slope when you deny an absolute set of correct principles, or 'morals'
Quote:
Anyway, perhaps there was a single span of time when these "nature gods" sprung into existence. But that would be because the human race had evolved to the point of sufficient awareness to ask those "why?" questions.
evolved to ask why? shouldnt we know.. it didnt exactly happen over night(but rather.. MILLIONS OF YEARS!!..). ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes(if you're willing to see it)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK,
Well these exchanges are getting pretty long; I'm going to minimize the quotations as much as possible to keep the post to something resembling a moderate size; I hope it doesn't lead to confusion:
Quote:Me too; though I rather expected it after seeing some of Causal's exchanges in previous threads. It can be the mind bender.
HK.
... pretty daunting to me.
Quote:Sadly, it's a different problem; because I'm a different person. Much of of the problem is getting the frames of reference consistent. I once spent about 5 post exchanges with Causal just getting our terms straighted out; we finally did.
.. the same trouble getting my point across with you.
Quote:If it helps any, you haven't pissed me off yet; I just am trying to refute a claim you've made.
... piss the believers off.
Quote:As I mentioned in my intro, I'm also a 'yes to god but no to their God' kinda guy. Obviously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate (tho in this case, I suppose I'm playing AG's Advocate ;-) ).
... But if I come in with my yes-to-god-but-no-to-their-God third option, well, we perhaps get a tiny hint of why human history is soaked in the blood of religious conflict.
Quote:It's not my thread, it's Causal's. In any case, to keep the metaphor somewhat straight, I'll just say I'd rather have played Chess, but for you, for at least a while, I'll play Cribbage
So, I hear I'm not playing by your rules. You tell me the rules were plainly stated at the top of the thread. But, leadb, threads change on the internet, evolve, die out and are reborn. The "philosophical grudge match" never materialized in the first place, Rue's hardly even posted. If my thoughts on theology and psychology have no place in your thread then why do you try to argue with me in the first place? If someone shows up to a chess tourney with a cribbage board, don't you just tell'm to go home?
Quote:One of the problems with this type of discussion (as opposed to the philosophic) is there's an easy tendency to not explain things as you go; so in this case I'll have to clarify a bit. I will posit that the following items exists:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Some folk will do exactly as you say, while other will seek out a father or mother figure. Some want a savior. Others will portray whatever they feel will frighten those they wish to control.
Okay, here you're switching context on me. And this is not the first time. Sure, different people conceive of God differently--that's at the heart of my own argument. But I wasn't talking about just any conception of God, my beef is with the "all-powerful" One. I'm talking about how folks define that God.
Many folks who believe that AG is an all-powerful god and percieve 'him' in a 'father figure' way.
Some folks who believe that AG is an all-powerful god and percieve 'him' in a 'mother figure' way. (IE: despite being 'maybe' male, having motherly characeristics)
Many folks who believe that AG is an all-powerful god and percieve 'him' in a 'savior' way.
This was directly to refutre: "One's concept of God is equivalent to one's ideal self--ideal, not necessarily possible." I maintain I was not switching context, I was merely disagreeing with you, and providing examples of how this might not be true. If you are not willing to grant that these items exist, we have a point of contention to resolve.
Quote:I know, specificly you claimed in your original post "Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath" It is -exactly- this point I'm trying to 'disprove'. So, to be clear, I am attempting to prove that the following item -could- (but does not necessarily) exist:
... I'm not saying that all conceptions of God are a problem (I am not an atheist), only the all-powerful conception thereof.
An 'all-powerful god' which is -not- 'a dangerous psychopath'.
If you feel I have proven that this is a -possibility-, we can stop. (or at least, I'll let you pick the next 'fine point' we wish to haggle out) I'll risk that you are not yet convinced, and
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK- i suggest you actually read the bible in its entirety. i considered responding to your comments, but you are obviously someone with some deep prejudices against christianity(or maybe all faiths), despite what i would consider a perverse and inaccurate understanding of its message. you have been pretty condescending, and i wish i better understood these supreme standards, absent from my faith, that you feel compelled to judge us by(..since, there seem to be a 'lack' of established principles under atheism). human beings do/and justify what they want, by nature, regardless of their faith(or faithlessness), and even when they know better. 'right' and 'wrong' may be relative to man, but they arent to God
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you claiming that God is 'messed up in the head', HK?
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
show me an all-powerful God and I will show you a Being who puts His enemies in a fiery pit to be tortured for all eternity.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say torture is wrong. Really wrong. Anybody who engages in it has gotta be messed up in the head.
Or just that the primitive dudes that wrote the Bible who thought that the threat of everlasting torture would make peeps 'good' were?
Iron Maiden Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Anti- are you so completely thick-headed that you don't recognize a different faith? HK is not an atheist! HK has SAID he's not an atheist! HK has even give some info on the kinds of gods that he believes in!
HK- i suggest you actually read the bible in its entirety. i considered responding to your comments, but you are obviously someone with some deep prejudices against christianity(or maybe all faiths), despite what i would consider a perverse and inaccurate understanding of its message. you have been pretty condescending, and i wish i better understood these supreme standards, absent from my faith, that you feel compelled to judge us by(..since, there seem to be a 'lack' of established principles under atheism). human beings do/and justify what they want, by nature, regardless of their faith(or faithlessness), and even when they know better. 'right' and 'wrong' may be relative to man, but they arent to God
And I know that you believe (in the nicest possible way of course) that your God is the only real god and that everyone else is doomed if they don't believe as you do, but not only do you come across as insufferably condescending you come across as so utterly unable to see anything outside of your own little world as to be incapable of discussion, or even dealing with a reality outside of your narrow visions.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So Anti, as far as you're concerned "history" only started with recorded history? Well then! All I can say is - at least you finally stopped pretending to look at rocks, water, air, lead decay, the sun, magnetism, electricity, living organisms, DNA, and pretty much the entire non-human world. At least now you've clearly dumped biology, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, the "basic sciences" and the concept of cause and effect into the trash. We will no longer fruitlessly discuss the natural world or science with you, because for you it doesn't even exist.
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point... i have no need to account for a gap between our 'creation'(or that key transition from our missing link), and our current state. i believe once we were 'created', civilization began to appear automatically... so i look at recorded history as my reference point. ill speculate as far as 10,000bc, maybe taking into account the events prior to the flood, in NOAHS time(where the myth of Atlantis probably originated)... but we can only speculate
Quote:Logic and reason are just traps by the Devil? So we can dump logic and reason too. Thank goodness, It sure limits the conversation.
oh.. im quite familiar with Francis Bacon; perhaps youve heard of his "new atlantis" concept, and subsequent relations to secret societies(like the freemasons)?
Quote:Not only have you finally rejected pretty much the entire non-human real world, you've also rejected anyone else's recorded history besides yours!
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth.
Quote:Yep, pretty much. Else how do you explain human sacrifice, religious use of hallucinogens, rape by the elders, holy prostitution, the egregious collection of wealth and power by various religions, and some of the other weird shit that various religions used to promote? OH! I KNOW! THAT'S DIFFERENT. THOSE beliefs aren't 'real" religions. Those beliefs are from Satan. Or they're freely-willed perversions of the real message! Or they've been historically garbled. Because 'real' religion is only what Anti says it is! Well, I say thank GOD you've decided to dump most of recorded history in favor of your narrow set of beliefs. At least we know not to fruitlessly discuss history with you either.
also, if our gods fit our 'needs', define our needs? does that include lust, revenge, etc?
Quote:Oh yeah. If we could only dispense with all that... that... that 'stuff' right in front of our eyes...evidence... fossils, layers of rock, DNA, living beings.... then we could all see the purity of truth as Anti sees it!
ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes (if you're willing to see it)
*shakes head*
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How do you account for 4 billion year old rocks? Or stellar phenomena that has taken billions of years to form? Or, for that matter, the fact we can see through telescopes things that are so far away, their light takes billions of years to get here?
Originally posted by antimason:
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point... i have no need to account for a gap between our 'creation'(or that key transition from our missing link), and our current state. i believe once we were 'created', civilization began to appear automatically... so i look at recorded history as my reference point. ill speculate as far as 10,000bc, maybe taking into account the events prior to the flood, in NOAHS time(where the myth of Atlantis probably originated)... but we can only speculate
Quote:Aborigines came to Australia between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, bit more than 10,000 years eh
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth. to start, even the aborigines of Australia had(prior to the europeans) a similar 'Creator'(and flood))story as the Israelites. its actually an interesting story, but heres an example of an indigenous people, who likely werent influenced by the Sumerians, one of the oldest recorded civilizations(which also have a similar flood story), or any other mesopotamian culture for that matter. the claim that the Israelites plaguerized and hegemonized all these beliefs is absurd.. they all exist in relation to each other
.Though I'm afraid you're just dead wrong on their beliefs. Some believe as you say, but that's because they're Christians, converted by the missionaries that started arriving with the British colonists in the 1780's. The original native belief though, is a little different. There's no great flood that I'm aware of in the aboriginal creation myth, though every tribe has significantly different dreaming stories. In fact Aboriginal native religion is about as far from Christianity as you could hope to get. The aborigines don't even really have a god or gods that we'd recognise.
There are reasons for the prevalence of flood myths though, it's called the ice age. Huge tracks of land were uncovered by water because it was locked up in huge ice flows. The ice melts, and there are massive floods across the entire globe as sea levels rise. That's why there are prehistoric settlements in areas around the world that are now underwater.
Beliefs intermingle, so the beliefs of the Abrahamic religions, have pretty much extended out from the Sumerian.
Polytheistic religions did indeed appear prior to monotheistic, evidence suggests the native peoples of Europe, prior to cultural contamination by Rome, believed in various gods and goddesses, often the goddess would be supreme and would copulate with a god to give birth to the new life of the following year.
Even in the great civilisations of the era we're looking at polytheism long before monotheism, consider ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and Rome prior to Roman Catholicism. In fact evidence suggests that the Abrahamic religions themselves grew out of a polytheistic religion, starting life as a cult of one of the Canaanite gods, Ba'al.
Quote:Inquisitiveness is a consequence of higher intelligence.
evolved to ask why? shouldnt we know.. it didnt exactly happen over night(but rather.. MILLIONS OF YEARS!!..). ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes(if you're willing to see it)
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen
Quote:But that's not what the Bible says, so clearly it's not true! History started 10,000 years ago, I tell you! You're only basing that on carbon dating, paleoecology, geology, and a bunch of other speculation!
Aborigines came to Australia between 70,000 and 40,000 years ago, bit more than 10,000 years eh
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
there seem to be a 'lack' of established principles under atheism.
You seem to be implying a lack of morality amongst atheists. All I can say is that, based on personal experience, I'll hold the morality of the average atheist up against the morality of the average Christian any day. I prefer relying on moral reasoning rather than hearsay for my principles.
Regardless, I think there's a way to understand HK's bitterness. How would you feel if someone came to your door selling something and told you, and your children, that you'd be tortured for all eternity if you didn't buy what they're selling?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Because Anti means it in the nicest non-condescending non-judgmental way possible.
Regardless, I think there's a way to understand HK's bitterness. How would you feel if someone came to your door selling something and told you, and your children, that you'd be tortured for all eternity if you didn't buy what they're selling?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not wanting to pile on anti. He usually presents his convictions clearly and honestly and that's all we can ask.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not wanting to pile on anti. He usually presents his convictions clearly and honestly and that's all we can ask. I think he does us a service standing up for a viewpoint that wouldn't get much 'airplay' around here otherwise.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I am.
I'm not wanting to pile on anti.
/rant on/
I expect more from Anti than brainless proselytizing or outright delusion- I expect that Anti might actually listen from time to time to the people s/he intends to converse with. That is the definition of "discussion", which one assumes might take place on a "discussion board".
Unfortunately, much as I happen to personally like Anti, who I perceive as sincere and well-meaning, I feel that s/he is is a deeply religious nutter who makes no attempt to see anyone else's POV and who rejects evidence of the senses, history, logic, science, simple conversational skills, and pretty much everything else in order to maintain a very VERY narrow belief structure. I bet you dollars to donuts that if another Xtian fundamentalist were to argue against one of Anti's core beliefs.... his/her paranoia about the Masons for example... and argue the Bible verse for verse w/ Anti- you'd see that Anti's view has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with "They're" all deluded, only I know the truth.
Rejecting senses and reason in favor of a single-minded belief puts one in the very dangerous position of delusion. That is how people come to believe that God told them to kill their child. I can either respond to Anti as if s/he is open to discussion, or I can respond is if s/he is... in psychoparlance... completely florid. Right now, I'm giving Anti the benefit of the doubt with a gentle smack to the head.
/rant off/
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And here we'll just have to disagree. There is actually strong, strong evidence for evolution found in several independent lines of research.
Originally posted by antimason:
see.. this is where we run into problems: thats a fair hypothesis, as long as you believe in the strictly evolution theory. but i believe that evidence is shaky, so since i dont believe we ascended from primates, ever, at any point...
Quote:No, we can do much more. We can look at nature with open eyes, and listen to what it's telling us. But I've lurked these threads long enough to know that I won't be convincing you to open your eyes and see it. You've clearly rejected all that, preferring to believe words in a book rather than nature.
... but we can only speculate
Edit to clarify: I should say "preferring to believe *a narrow interpretation of* words in a book..."
Quote:Others have replied to these statements much better than I could. Except to add - you're seeing things through your own goggles, anti, and only allowing for tid bits that fit your theory.
thats the common secular myth, but i hardly believe thats the truth. to start, even the aborigines of Australia had(prior to the europeans) a similar 'Creator'(and flood))story as the Israelites.
...snip...
also, if our gods fit our 'needs', define our needs? does that include lust, revenge, etc? i think you begin a slippery slope when you deny an absolute set of correct principles, or 'morals'
Quote:Um... "shouldn't we know?" Huh.
evolved to ask why? shouldnt we know.. it didnt exactly happen over night(but rather.. MILLIONS OF YEARS!!..).
So the ancient Greeks should have seen lightening and said - "well, obviously that's a discharge of electrons that have built up in the storm cloud, and the loud sound after is merely a shock wave due to the super-heated expansion of the air around the plasma..."
Uh... not so much. But they got a comforting sense of control - and were entertained - by the idea of a powerful human-like God standing in the clouds throwing bolts at anyone who pissed Him off. This way, humans could make sacrifices and pray at alters and feel somewhat safe to be on His good side.
Quote:LOL! This does call for some snark... it's just funny, coming from someone who ignores piles and piles of what nature is showing us...
ive noticed that any evolutionary predisposition to this subject will only skew and disorient what is right in front of your eyes(if you're willing to see it)
I know, I waste time saying this, but: There is no "evolutionary predisposition." The theory of evolution come after piles of obversations, as a logical conclusion. Evolutionary theory is not blind faith. It is not of human creation. It is what nature has told us. You don't agree with it? Go argue with nature.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i think you begin a slippery slope when you deny an absolute set of correct principles, or 'morals'
I missed replying to this part...
So... why do you assume that because I don't acknowledge a higher power standing over me with a paddle, I have no morals? Why must morals only exist as some outside force telling me how to behave? Can't it come from within, or from the human community?
Ironically, I was considering this very issue as I drove to work this morning, related to a long ago RWED thread which filled up and went by before I could post to it. Oh... but now I'm tangenting, hijacking, which I'm trying not to do anymore. Will stop.
Except to say: No, I don't believe morals are absolute. Yet, my feet are on solid, level ground. No slippy slopes here!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti- are you so completely thick-headed that you don't recognize a different faith? HK is not an atheist! HK has SAID he's not an atheist! HK has even give some info on the kinds of gods that he believes in!
HK said he believes 'gods' are necessary figments of the mind.. am i wrong? so i ask, what do you form your beliefs on then?
Quote:
And I know that you believe (in the nicest possible way of course) that your God is the only real god and that everyone else is doomed if they don't believe as you do,
once again.. quote me 1 time, on this board, that i threatened damnation.. PLEASE?! and ill gladly eat my words. otherwise, accept that i do not do such things, because they are against the scriptures. it seems to me that you all are a bunch of cry babies, who like to make yourselves out to be the victims of some cruel ideology. look.. if you dont believe in hell(or a place unlike 'heaven'), then what do you even care??? please, explain this to me, surely you dont feel guilty in theory
Quote:
but not only do you come across as insufferably condescending you come across as so utterly unable to see anything outside of your own little world as to be incapable of discussion, or even dealing with a reality outside of your narrow visions.
yes, i am skeptical of the age of the earth.. because scientists view phenomenon in a vacuum, and then pretend it amounts to empirical data. that seems equally as condescending, if not arrogant, to claim we know certain things, like through carbon dating, when we have only recorded 50 years worth of data. what are your references? the logic seems entirely circular to me.. based on your presuppositions of evolution. but regardless, until we find more compelling evidence for a protein/fish/?/ape/?/human transition, then i will continue to be skeptical of your artificial timelines
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym- I expect more from Anti than brainless proselytizing or outright delusion- I expect that Anti might actually listen from time to time to the people he intends to converse with. That is the definition of "discussion", which one assumes might take place on a "discussion board".
what.. like you 'listen' to my views? you hear me, but youre not 'listening'; it goes both ways. do you think ive never heard the evolutionary theory, or the secular academic view of the universe and its beginnings? but i have my own personal opinions(as you do), largely based on the fact that we know nothing about human beings beyond 10 years ago, outside of speculation and anecdotel inferences
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti, I know your views so well I could probably say them before you do. I doubt you could say the same about me.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I just re-read HK's posts and as far as I can tell HK said nothing of the sort. What I gather from HK's posts is the the real gods were in everything even in ourselves. What we have done is replace the real gods with false gods: the gods of projection and denial. I'm not an animist so I'm sure HK can explain far better than I, but IMHO HK clearly believes in gods. Just not yours.
HK said he believes 'gods' are necessary figments of the mind.. am i wrong?
Quote:What makes you think I have "beliefs", as you understand them?
... so i ask, what do you form your beliefs on then?
Quote:Oh no Anti, YOU would not threaten damnation. You would simply point out, in a concerned way, that God - whose ahem! humble servant you are on earth
quote me 1 time, on this board, that i threatened damnation.
has a bad place prepared for all non-believers. Quote:Well, there's the annoyance factor...kind of like you might feel if I rather kindly asked you in every thread if you had gotten rid of your delusions yet, and sincerely hoped that "they" weren't coming to take you away soon.
it seems to me that you all are a bunch of cry babies, who like to make yourselves out to be the victims of some cruel ideology. look.. if you dont believe in hell(or a place unlike 'heaven'), then what do you even care???
Quote:Not at all. What I feel guilty about is very specific and very real-life.
please, explain this to me, surely you dont feel guilty in theory
Quote:No Anti, "skeptical" doesn't quite cover it. "In denial" is closer. Since you (far as I know) have not progressed to seeing things that aren't there, only to denying thhings that are, I suppose "delusional" is too strong a word.
yes, i am skeptical of the age of the earth
Quote:The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum". Unless of course you consider everything outside of your beliefs to BE a vaccum. I which case you have just more or less junked the world of evidence. Which is pretty much what I figured.
because scientists view phenomenon in a vacuum
Quote:MY artifical timelines? What, do you think people just pulled these numbers outta their *ss? There are lots of lines of evidence to show that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Now, you may quibble that some results may be off by ten thousand years here and there, but ice core histories (going back over 700,00 years, which can be counted in annual layers back 50,000 years), carbon dating, lead decay, sediment layers, rates of mountain growth and so forth all show that the earth is much, much older than 10,000 years. Your approach to everything that doesn't square with your ideas is to plug your ears and say "I can't hear you".
and then pretend it amounts to empirical data. that seems equally as condescending, if not arrogant, to claim we know certain things, like through carbon dating, when we have only recorded 50 years worth of data...i will continue to be skeptical of your artificial timelines
I prolly should give you the answers I would give any monomaniac ... my eyes will glaze over, I'll mumble a few "Hmmm boy howdie"s every once in a while, and give up on the concept of having a mutual dialogue. But at some later date (when I have a little more time), just to prove that I can, I will restate YOUR case just to show I've been listening.
---------------------------------
Can I have my reality check now, please?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Since you (far as I know) have not progressed to seeing things that aren't there, only to denying thhings that are, I suppose "delusional" is too strong a word."
SignyM - I believe delusion is the correct term, which is an illness of thought. Hallucination is the term used when people sense things that aren't there.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I just re-read HK's posts and as far as I can tell HK said nothing of the sort. What I gather from HK's posts is the the real gods were in everything even in ourselves. What we have done is replace the real gods with false gods: the gods of projection and denial. I'm not an animist so I'm sure HK can explain far better than I, but IMHO HK clearly believes in gods. Just not yours.
if i'm mistaken then i apologize.. perhaps it was Fred(and someone else agreeing with him) who left me with that impression... but i digress.
Quote:
What makes you think I have "beliefs", as you understand them?
then explain them to me.. perhaps this is exactly my point. people love to criticize our moral principles, what we perceive to be IN THEORY positive ethical guidelines put down by God.. so explain to me your principles and where you derive them(and why yours are better)? otherwise, don't you see that government is necessary only because man cannot establish absolutes by which to self govern? if everyone decided for himself, based on his own logic what was 'right' and 'wrong', there would be no order, because people wouldn't even follow their own rules. in point of fact, its precisely this inconsistency that necessitates centralized government, not our beliefs(as some of you would suggest)
Quote:
Oh no Anti, YOU would not threaten damnation. You would simply point out, in a concerned way, that God - whose ahem! humble servant you are on earth
i wish you wouldn't throw heretical catholic church dogma in my face.. even i will refute that. i know, probably better then you(and i don't mean this condescendingly), just how many false teachings were perpetuated by the Roman papacy.. but none of it was based on biblical teachings. Martin Luther went as far as to call the pope the 'anti-christ'..ok! in Hebrews, Paul essentially says that a 'Jew' is someone who does Gods will, and Jesus says (throughout the gospels) that it is our actions, and whether we produce 'good fruit'(and as the saying goes.. "narrow is the gate"..)
Quote:
Well, there's the annoyance factor...kind of like you might feel if I rather kindly asked you in every thread if you had gotten rid of your delusions yet, and sincerely hoped that "they" weren't coming to take you away soon.
what are you doing that people are condemning you for? i mean seriously.. i've never had anyone tell me, but jokingly, that i'm 'going to hell', for anything; but if anyone did, i would engage them on it.. because that is ultimately Gods judgment(hello?)
Quote:
No Anti, "skeptical" doesn't quite cover it. "In denial" is closer. Since you (far as I know) have not progressed to seeing things that aren't there, only to denying thhings that are, I suppose "delusional" is too strong a word.
fine.. but you weren't there, and don't really know for sure Sig
Quote:
The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum".
they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia
Quote:
Unless of course you consider everything outside of your beliefs to BE a vaccum. I which case you have just more or less junked the world of evidence. Which is pretty much what I figured.
just viewing it through a different lens.. one that doesn't so thoroughly strip us of our divine uniqueness
Quote:
MY artifical timelines? What, do you think people just pulled these numbers outta their *ss?
i think its unproven and speculative yes
Quote:
There are lots of lines of evidence to show that the earth is older than 10,000 years. Now, you may quibble that some results may be off by ten thousand years here and there, but ice core histories (going back over 700,00 years, which can be countedNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM - I believe delusion is the correct term, which is an illness of thought.
Hallucination is the term used when people sense things that aren't there.
you mean like the 'missing link'? global warming?.. what
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anti "they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia"
Hmm, well two months ago, I might have agreed I didn't know enough to say anything about either group. Luckily (or not, since I'm not sure how much the research will benefit beyond these discussions), I've reviewed enough of the two groups approach and claims to say that, for Creationists; that for the presentations to be correct, either
1) God went to a lot of trouble to deceive us (which has interesting theological implications).
or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.
For ID, logic is presented, but several problems have been identified at various points in time, and those problems make it clear to me that ID is not supportable.
The above is not based on non-conformation with 'standard science' as it is based on my understanding of how the world works. For instance, if Creationism is correct and God isn't playing mind games by making the world look old when it isn't, then nuclear reactors wouldn't function; crystallization would not occur. The universe as would then be defined would not support life.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rap
"Hallucination is the term used when people sense things that aren't there."
Hallucinations are things that are seen, heard, felt, tasted or smelled by a person, or some combination of sensations, that aren't there. As usual, you misunderstood a simple word - in this case the word "sense".
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're confusing "ethics" and "beliefs" which in my book are not the same. "Ethics" (to me) are a subset of "beliefs", in that ethics describe a person's specific beliefs about right and wrong, whereas beliefs can be about any topic: Whether purple drangons fly faster than blue ones, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
What makes you think I have "beliefs", as you understand them?-Signy
then explain them to me.. perhaps this is exactly my point. people love to criticize our moral principles, what we perceive to be IN THEORY positive ethical guidelines put down by God.. so explain to me your principles and where you derive them(and why yours are better)? otherwise, don't you see that government is necessary only because man cannot establish absolutes by which to self govern? if everyone decided for himself, based on his own logic what was 'right' and 'wrong', there would be no order, because people wouldn't even follow their own rules. in point of fact, its precisely this inconsistency that necessitates centralized government, not our beliefs(as some of you would suggest)
oops gotta go. later dude.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.thadguy.com/comic/the-proof-is-in-the-poseidon/209
Just a comical little tangent related to the "slippery slope of morals" comment.
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'll get to this later.
i wish you wouldn't throw heretical catholic church dogma in my face.. even i will refute that. i know, probably better then you(and i don't mean this condescendingly), just how many false teachings were perpetuated by the Roman papacy.. but none of it was based on biblical teachings. Martin Luther went as far as to call the pope the 'anti-christ'..ok! in Hebrews, Paul essentially says that a 'Jew' is someone who does Gods will, and Jesus says (throughout the gospels) that it is our actions, and whether we produce 'good fruit'(and as the saying goes.. "narrow is the gate"..)
Quote:No Anti, it's because they ignore perfectly obvious evidence- just like you do- in favor of bible-scribblings. Now, I know I've been down this road with you before, and each time I get to some very specific question, one that boggles you, you quietly disappear. I'm NOT going to engage in any further discussion with you on the age of the earth unless you agree to answer my questions with direct, on-point answers, all the way to the end. Do you agree? If not, this conversation is over.
The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum".-signy
they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
http://www.thadguy.com/comic/the-proof-is-in-the-poseidon/209
Just a comical little tangent related to the "slippery slope of morals" comment.
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire
Good comic, but I'm laughing at your tag line more LOL!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A witty saying proves nothing
Wow. Recursive logic... does not compute... must reset... KA-BAM! (head blows up)
Anti- I didn't have a lot of time to post my last which prolly sounded baselessly accusatory and demanding, so I'm gonna provide some background.
In our last episode...
You had asked me how fossils from different ages could get mixed up. I basically said fossils from different eras could be exposed, eroded, and then deposited in a jumble. I also added that this is NOT the order on which we typically find fossils.
YOUR explanation for the fossil record was the Big Flood, which would account for extinctions and fossils. Then I, and (I believe it was Leadb) asked you how one big flood could explain the non-hydrological sorting that we see today. At which point, as I recall, you kind of faded from view.
Now here you are, with what sounds like it's gonna be the same crap all over again. So you'll pardon me if I don't want to engage in another lengthy discussion that ends with you running away because things are going bouncy off your brain-pan. If you really want to have a discussion in detail, fine. But I'd like some commitment on your part to see it through.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
The fact that scientists don't include your particular religious mutterings in their calculations does not mean that they consider phenomena "in a vacuum".
they do, they're called ID'ers and Creationists.. but you don't consider them legitimate scientists, because they don't entirely agree with secular academia
Actually no that's not why, I came across this list recently and figured I'd post it.
Quote:
Let's compare real science to "scientific" creationism.
1. Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.
Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.
2. Real scientists publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.
Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.
3. Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. (Remember the cold fusion flap?) Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.
Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!
4. Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly disappear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a novel idea.
Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma, not advancing new ideas that might question that dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.
5. Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.
Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.
6. Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.
Creationists take their science straight from the Bible. Many creationist leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. That's not science!
7. No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance toNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
LeadB
Anti
(for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct
or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.
Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Every time you pull up this delusion I just want to put my head through a wall. Anti, let's start with something simple.... the age of the earth. Do you think the earth is not older than 10,000 years? If so, what is your evidence?
Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab.in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective
Do you reject the hypothesis that the earth is 4 billion years old? If so, what evidence specifically do you reject and why? And don't give me that same hand waving "we haven't been able to reproduce it in the lab. Be specific.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
LeadB
Anti
(for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct
or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.
Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective
First, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism.
Second, any approach that tries to place humans as being on the earth less than 10,000 years is also in conflict with much basic science.
The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things.
I've tried explaining this to you a few times, but you tend to wander away when we get to this level of detail; I'm not going to bother again unless you agree to stick thru the discussion.
If you a feel there's a form of Creationism which is not bound to the 10,000 year clip limits on either aspect, feel free to provide a few details and we can, again if you will indicate that you will stick thru the discussion, some of the weaknesses that end up contradicting basic sciences can be discusssed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab.
Naturalistic theories of cosmology and evolution can be tested and indeed have been tested, they have been shown to be correct time and time again. Can we reproduce the Big Bang? No. Can we figure out what the universe should be like if there was a Big Bang and look for the evidence that shouldn't be there if there was no Big Bang? Yes, and we have. Can we recreate a complete tree of life from abiogenesis to the modern day in the lab? No, as the conditions necessary for the evolution of specific sets of traits in a specific order would be absurdly difficult to reproduce even if we knew exactly what they were. Can we make predictions about how the biosphere should look if evolution is true and look for the evidence that shouldn't be there if evolution is not true? Yes, and we have.
Quote:
in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data.
This has been done, guess who won? Sure you can say "but it looks like creation fits better to me" but that's only because you've already decided that creation is right and will only see things that support it. When evolution was first proposed most biologists were creationists, the evidence for evolution (even in it's unpolished original Darwinian form) was so overwhelming that those creationists almost universally abandoned creationism (though not religion), why do you think that was?
Quote:
we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective
Because it isn't true, the rules of science were developed mostly by believers who thought that science would vindicate creation, a young earth and probably the necessity (if not the existence) of god. Evolution was discovered by Darwin when he was still a Christian, he was a Christian until several years after his discovery and evolution had little if anything to do with his loss of faith. At the time of evolutions discovery creation was the dominant belief by far (though the young earth belief had already been abandoned by educated people), creationism fell by the wayside because the evidence pointed exclusively to evolution.
Your perspective is not excluded, your ideas are given the same treatment that all other ideas are given which is to say that they are judged based on their merits. Unfortunately (for you) ID has been judged on its merits and completely rejected by the scientific community due to lack thereof. ID lacks a coherent hypothesis, evidence and a willingness to accept peer review, the behavior of most of the ID proponents indicates that they have no interest in proving their idea (ID doesn't really deserve the title of hypothesis) instead they want their idea to be unquestioningly accepted by the scientific community, this is simply not going to happen.
If you want your perspective to gain support among the scientific community then you need to give them some reason to support it, make a coherent hypothesis, provide evidence (not Bible quotes or "it looks designed to me!" but rather objective evidence), accept criticism and peer review and modify your hypothesis accordingly. If you want your perspective to be taken seriously don't launch baseless long-debunked attacks against your opposition, don't insist that your ideas are just as legitimate as the prevailing theory until it has been demonstrated so, and don't try to turn your perspective into a PR campaign.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not wanting to pile on anti.
I've been thinking about this lately. One of the complaints that comes out of the Creation\ID camp occasionally and from anti in this thread, is the idea that science treats creationism unfairly. In the interest of fairness we should pile on to anti everything we have. Why? because that's what scientists do, when a theory is proposed they don't try to be nice to the proposer and make sure his feeling aren't hurt, they mercilessly point out every flaw and explain how and why the idea is wrong. To do otherwise would be to treat anti unfairly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
LeadB-
first, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago
im not saying the earth is only 10,000 years old... im saying we do not accurately know how old the earth is. however i did say that i find it strange human history, or civilization(more appropriately), has been recorded entirely within this period... and not the past hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years, like an evolutionist hypothesizes. more importantly though, they believe this is a result of incredible chance, necessitated by perfectly aligned variables, on a magnitude mathematically unfathomable. all preconceived notions aside, this is one isolated conflict of data that doesnt support the evolutionary theory, yet proponents will barrel on with the 'theory' that evolution, over millions of years is the sole mechanism responsible for our current state. can that be proven as of yet? no. we can attempt to justify it within our chosen frame work, but that doesnt mean its the truth
Quote:
is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism.
personally, the indeterminate age of the universe is less important to me than whether there was a natural or supernatural cause to everything(or not). i am willing to concede that the bible doesn't give an age to creation (except that man was created on the final day). my dispute is that people begin with an a priori assumption, that the causes are strictly material and chaotic, and from there deduce that an incomprehendable amount of time and chance was necessary for the universe to form(then conform the data to fit the hypothesis). the data to me says that life teeters on a very delicate balance, intricately designed, likely beyond probability, and that something had to guide these things in order for them to function as they do. if we dont know what took place prior or immediately after the 'big bang', what initiated this expansion of matter from nothing and so on.. how can we do anything but speculate on these things? i am aware of the methods that are used.. but they cannot possibly take into account all variables, given our extremely limited vantage point
Quote:
The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things.
If you a feel there's a form of Creationism which is not bound to the 10,000 year clip limits on either aspect, feel free to provide a few details and we can, again if you will indicate that you will stick thru the discussion, some of the weaknesses that end up contradicting basic sciences can be discusssed.
the crux of my argument centers around design. i am not a scientist, or an expert in the fields of cosmology or astronomy or astrophysics like many of you are apparently.. so i am not the best person to argue the ID side. but its also not an easy task, given that no one will concede that you have fixed the debate to include only what fits within your naturalist paradigm. i will certainly try to lay out our side(as best i can), but only if we can agree to start from a clean slate. otherwise, you all can safely settle back into your comfort zones where no one questions the naturalistic theories of our origins
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To do otherwise would be to treat Anti like we might treat a nutcase muttering on a street corner- with tolerance or fear, but definitely not engagement. If Anti want to have a real discussion, I'd be happy to discuss seriously. Heck, I'm even capable of respect and emotional neutrality from time to time!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
LeadB-
Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.
its not that i 'ignore' them.. i just dont pretend i know the absolute truth about everything. why do we even discuss this subject, if your side cannot possibly be wrong?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Evolution was discovered by Darwin when he was still a Christian, he was a Christian until several years after his discovery and evolution had little if anything to do with his loss of faith.
so why did Darwin admit that the biggest flaw of his theory was the absence of transitional lifeforms.. the so called 'missing links', paramount to the evolutionary thoery? seems we still dont have any of these half creatures walking around
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Im not saying the earth is only 10,000 years old
Quote:However, we DO know that it is on the order of "billions" not "thousands". Let me give you something simple: I can extend the earth's time line back at least 200,000 years on the basis of simply counting layers in ice cores. So, will you concede that the earth is at least that old? If not, why not?
im saying we do not accurately know how old the earth is
Quote:First of all, you're wrong that human history has only been recorded over the past 10,000, years. There are human-made markings- pictures etc.- well over 30,000 years old and human-made artifacts from well before that. So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?
however i did say that i find it strange human history, or civilization (more appropriately), has been recorded entirely within this period
Quote:Uh...are you implying that humans should have been recording their own evolution????
and not the past hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of years, like an evolutionist hypothesizes.
I hope not, because if you are that sets the conversation back quite a ways, starting with "Why fish can't write". Quote:No. Anti. We've been through this before. "Chance" is not the only natural action. nature is full of all kinds of consistencies and sorting and ordering mechanisms. Just stop thinking of nature as random chaos. It isn't.
more importantly though, they believe this is a result of incredible chance
Quote:So what is so all-fired special about our particular state of being? That we're so intelligent? That we have such a refined moral sense? That we're capable of such convincing mental models that we can not only form language, we can also delude ourselves in hundreds of self-destructive ways? Right now, I'd say that we're not acting like a very successful experiment, and our long-term chance of survival isn't looking very good. Maybe the next species to come along will do better.
necessitated by perfectly aligned variables, on a magnitude mathematically unfathomable. all preconceived notions aside, this is one isolated conflict of data that doesnt support the evolutionary theory, yet proponents will barrel on with the 'theory' that evolution, over millions of years is the sole mechanism responsible for our current state.
AFA "fixing the debate to a naturalist paradigm"... tell me, Anti, what IS the "naturalist" paradigm?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so why did Darwin admit that the biggest flaw of his theory was the absence of transitional lifeforms.. the so called 'missing links', paramount to the evolutionary thoery?
First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution. Second, unlike creationists scientists freely admit weak points in their own theories, for Darwin to have done otherwise would have been quite strange. Third, Darwin wasn't right about everything, indeed if all you've read is Origin then you do not understand the modern Theory of Evolution. Fourth, we have an abundance of transitional forms, we have a clear fossil record of the transition of whales from land animals to sea animals, we have fossilized ants that clearly show their development from wasps (or rather wasp-like ancestors), we have a good transitional series showing human evolution, once again, your unwillingness to see the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fifth, he has been intentionally misquoted by creationists to support their own opinions: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html quotes 2.4 and 2.6.
Quote:
seems we still dont have any of these half creatures walking around
By definition all living creatures on the planet are transitional except the ones that will go extinct without a speciation event. Your comment about half-creatures represents a distorted view of evolution, dogs evolving into cats would not get the head and hind legs of a cat one generation and then the body and front legs of a cat the next generation, instead it would very slowly change bit by bit, forming many complete species in between.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym-
However, we DO know that it is on the order of "billions" not "thousands". Let me give you something simple: I can extend the earth's time line back at least 200,000 years on the basis of simply counting layers in ice cores. So, will you concede that the earth is at least that old? If not, why not?
thats possible.. but how can you be sure ice core samples are reliable? how do you 'read' an ice core sample, and by what observation to you determine its age? i am highly skeptical of the accuracy of these types of claims, because they tend to use the same circular logic that i have been decrying this entire thread. and even then, we are only talking a few hundred thousand years.. which is much more in the realm of testability then something "on the order of billions"
Quote:
First of all, you're wrong that human history has only been recorded over the past 10,000, years. There are human-made markings- pictures etc.- well over 30,000 years old and human-made artifacts from well before that.
and im perfectly aware of this.. but ive seen the inconsistencies in carbon and radioactive dating methods, and i am inclined to believe that these types of marking and paintings could easily have been done by native, indigenous peoples from any period of time. if you believe man evolved from a primate, with our intelligence coming progressively over time, then you tend to try an map these things to prove your hypothesis
Quote:
So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?
anything acquired through speculative methods
Quote:
Uh...are you implying that humans should have been recording their own evolution???? I hope not, because if you are that sets the conversation back quite a ways, starting with "Why fish can't write".
so we were once a fish? you said it yourself.. where is the evidence? once again, that is part of your hypothesis, not something that has actually been observed or verified
Quote:
No. Anti. We've been through this before. "Chance" is not the only natural action. nature is full of all kinds of consistencies and sorting and ordering mechanisms. Just stop thinking of nature as random chaos. It isn't.
your claim is that every single living organism began from nothing, and designed its own functions, thereby finding its own niche and particular function. this is your claim about the entire universe, all the order and complexity. how fortunate we are then that the earth settled where it did, by 'chance'.. or no life would be possible
Quote:
So what is so all-fired special about our particular state of being? That we're so intelligent? That we have such a refined moral sense? That we're capable of such convincing mental models that we can not only form language, we can also delude ourselves in hundreds of self-destructive ways?
what other species exhibit this behavior? was this a product of selection and our environment? if there is no purpose for our being here, but that we happened into existence, it makes the case for moral and ethical absolutes impossible(but by all means... show me the flaw in my logic)
Quote:
Right now, I'd say that we're not acting like a very successful experiment, and our long-term chance of survival isn't looking very good. Maybe the next species to come along will do better.
will this species be based loosely on our own? i dont really see any up and comers breaking the mold in any-way. instead, i see the same 'kinds' of species that have always existed, with nary a cross transitional form to be found
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The earth has seasons. right? Let's assume one winter and one summer per year. More dust falls in summer, more snow falls in winter, creating visible annual layers. Until the ice becomes so compacted (deep ice) that the layers become indistinguishable, except through detailed chemical analysis, it is possible to COUNT the annual layers- just like rings in a tree- to determine the number of years if ice accumulation. It's called Visual (or visible) stratigraphy.
thats possible.. but how can you be sure ice core samples are reliable? how do you 'read' an ice core sample, and by what observation to you determine its age? i am highly skeptical of the accuracy of these types of claims, because they tend to use the same circular logic
www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JD005134.shtml
There is nothing at all "circular" about it. There is no assumption of the amount of snow accumulation as creationists mistakenly claim. Furthermore, the visible lines in the ice core are used to correlate other methods of ice core analysis.
So, do you have any problems with the notion that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, based on counting the visible annual layers in ice cores?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution.
alright.. what about primates? what were they prior to their current form? you have a variety of human skeletons, and ape skeletons, that you artificially try to link.. but what about the rest? this line of reasoning is so weak on evidence its really pathetic Fred. if you want to believe we were once Fish, by all means..
Quote:
Second, unlike creationists scientists freely admit weak points in their own theories, for Darwin to have done otherwise would have been quite strange. Third, Darwin wasn't right about everything, indeed if all you've read is Origin then you do not understand the modern Theory of Evolution.
you mean Darwins theories have been surpassed(or refined)? does that mean he wasnt entirely correct a hundred years ago? well.. society sure fooled me .. who knows, maybe we still dont have the final word
Quote:
Fourth, we have an abundance of transitional forms, we have a clear fossil record of the transition of whales from land animals to sea animals,
no you dont. you have a relatively baseless collection of fossils that you have attempted to tie together because('suprise') all species share the same designer(and therefore, the same elements)
Quote:
we have fossilized ants that clearly show their development from wasps (or rather wasp-like ancestors),
ah.. but they never became anything other than insects. quite a bit different then changing from an amoeba to a 5-6ft bipedal creature
Quote:
By definition all living creatures on the planet are transitional except the ones that will go extinct without a speciation event.
thats your definition as an evolutionist, but you cant prove it, its simply your hypothesis.. dont you see that? you cannot point to one species right now which is in the process of changing its archetype
Quote:
Your comment about half-creatures represents a distorted view of evolution, dogs evolving into cats would not get the head and hind legs of a cat one generation and then the body and front legs of a cat the next generation, instead it would very slowly change bit by bit, forming many complete species in between
my view is distorted? you believe we came from an amoeba. if you couldnt rely on speculative amounts of time, you would have no observable evidence to support your claims. you are simply interjecting your hypothesis as fact.. nevermind that we have yet to witness any of these changes personally
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The earth has seasons. right? Let's assume one winter and one summer per year. More dust falls in summer, more snow falls in winter, creating visible annual layers. Until the ice becomes so compacted (deep ice) that the layers become indistinguishable, except through detailed chemical analysis, it is possible to COUNT the annual layers- just like rings in a tree- to determine the number of years if ice accumulation. It's called Visual (or visible) stratigraphy.
and i understand that. but they use these same methods in geology, yet you cannot predict, nor do you factor in: mudslides or floods or extreme weather variations. you take a single method, and apply it.. and whatever your results are, you disregard any unpredictable variables, and state your claims as fact
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, that's not true either. Extreme snowfall, for example, would show up as an extra-tall layer of ice, just as a big mudslide would show up as a tall layer of sediment. But if the ice were to melt away, or if several layers of sediment were to be washed away, the error would be to LOSE years not to add them, so the error in visible stratigraphy would be towards underestimating the age of an ice core, not overestimating the age.
and i understand that. but they use these same methods in geology, yet you cannot predict, nor do you factor in: mudslides or floods or extreme weather variations. you take a single method, and apply it.. and whatever your results are, you disregard any unpredictable variables, and state your claims as fact
You would have to start speculating that the earth had many summers and winters in one year, or that the orbit of the earth around the sun was once many times faster than it is today, in order to claim that the earth is significantly YOUNGER than indicated by ice cores.
So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?
and im perfectly aware of this.. but ive seen the inconsistencies in carbon and radioactive dating methods, and i am inclined to believe that these types of marking and paintings could easily have been done by native, indigenous peoples from any period of time.
Quote:What is a "speculative" method?
So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?-Signy
anything acquired through speculative methods-Anti
Quote:How do you know that? Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible. In deep rocks. In superheated, poison-laden undersea vents. In a hard vacuum, under intense solar radiation. (The space station has a significant mold problem.) In jet fuel. I'm not so sure that "life" is as limited or a fragile as you think.
your claim is that every single living organism began from nothing, and designed its own functions, thereby finding its own niche and particular function. this is your claim about the entire universe, all the order and complexity. how fortunate we are then that the earth settled where it did, by 'chance'.. or no life would be possible.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym-
So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.
unless some other piece of data contradicts this. whats important is why 200,000 yrs? if that is all the strata our ice cores are capable of retaining(identifiably), then its possible we're quite a bit older yes... but we need to know that to be true first. otherwise i can argue that we may be no older based on that same data
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym-
So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?
mostly historical and archeological evidence. i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily.
on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account, and try to take into account generations even prior to the BC era, the Adamic generations(ie 'Atlantis'). i believe these kinds of legends just lend credence to my (albeit misinterpreted)'historical' timeline of human history
Quote:
What is a "speculative" method?
carbon 14 is a good example. something not consistently verified, or not able to account for all variables(my method falls under that as well- but i admit this)
Quote:
Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible.
i would'nt argue otherwise.. but i think our view of 'life' might differ. IMO life doesn't create itself, it exists because it was created
Quote:
I'm not so sure that "life" is as limited or a fragile as you think.
i don't happen to think it is, and that isn't my problem. i'm just curious how life originates(under your view), and where it derives the foresight to assume its role and function in the universe
heres an interesting link on the Flood stories
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/flood.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hence the term "at least". The earth MAY be older but that has not yet been demonstrated. So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, the earth is at least 200,000 years old?
So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.-Signy
unless some other piece of data contradicts this. whats important is why 200,000 yrs? if that is all the strata our ice cores are capable of retaining(identifiably), then its possible we're quite a bit older yes... but we need to know that to be true first. otherwise i can argue that we may be no older based on that same data
Quote:SUCH AS? Archeological evidence by itself doesn't have a "date" attached to it. So how are archeological finds dated? Also, what kind of "historical" evidence?
So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?-Signy
mostly historical and archeological evidence-Anti.
Quote:Anti, you missed the point. YOU'RE the one who said that conditions would need to fall into a very very narrow range in order for "life" to come about. I countered by saying that "life" is more durable than we previously thought, and is capable of thriving in a much lagre ste of conditions that you might think. I gave specific examples, not of where life might exist but where life actually does exist. Little shrimp at volcanic vents. Bacteria in solid rock. Archaebacteria requiring poisons like cyanide and hydrogen sulfide as food. What does my "view" of life have to do with the point under discussion?
Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible-signy
i would'nt argue otherwise.. but i think our view of 'life' might differ. IMO life doesn't create itself, it exists because it was created-anti
Quote:that's one question
i'm just curious how life originates(under your view),
Quote:What "role" does "life" have? Can you describe it?
and where it derives the foresight to assume its role and function in the universe
------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym-
So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, we can agree the earth is at least 200,000 years old?
did you read my previous comments? you seem to want to sidetrack me from the design aspect, when i conceded before that the bible doesn't even specify the earths age(therefore, it is not relevant to my hypothesis). my point is that a Creator chose earth for us, a planet perfectly suitable for life, along side a solar system of other planets incapable of supporting us otherwise. is that something you would ever consider? if our being here isnt chance or randomness, what would you call it(odds.. surely not 'luck')?
Quote:
So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?
you're putting words in my mouth, i didn't once state my 'speculation' as fact. the Sumerians date to 4000bc, thats 6 thousand years.. i 'estimate' a few additional thousand years after that. the masonic calendar begins at 4000bc, that might be significant.. but notice this is just historical insight. why do you correlate the age of the earth with the age of man? it's not 'impossible' that we were a recent creation...the bible even says that we came along on the final 'day'
Quote:
SUCH AS? Archeological evidence by itself doesn't have a "date" attached to it. So how are archeological finds dated? Also, what kind of "historical" evidence?
thats the realm of historians, don't you agree? if you want to dispute the accuracy of history, lets start a new thread. like i said, carbon dating may be accurate, but only to a point... and so we agree, and am encouraged to see your skepticism
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti, you missed the point. YOU'RE the one who said that conditions would need to fall into a very very narrow range in order for "life" to come about. I countered by saying that "life" is more durable than we previously thought, and is capable of thriving in a much lagre ste of conditions that you might think. I gave specific examples, not of where life might exist but where life actually does exist. Little shrimp at volcanic vents. Bacteria in solid rock. Archaebacteria requiring poisons like cyanide and hydrogen sulfide as food. What does my "view" of life have to do with the point under discussion?
what elements are a human being made of? explain to me how they 'intelligently' took on their unique functions? the entire universe is this way.. you seem to believe that protons or amoebas or microbes or whatever always existed. if thats what you believe, state that.. because that is actually pantheistic to assume the universe is self existing
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, you pulled 10,000 years out of thin air?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Folks;
I promptly left for an all day hike after my last post, so missed the above discussions in 'real time'.
I'd like to say some very interesting discussions; and while I do feel a certain 'tension' in the air (which is understandable as this is a very contentious topic); the discussion has been fairly civil. I'm very glad to see that, and I'll ask folks to try to continue down this path.
I'm working up a reply, should be along in a bit.
====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, you pulled 10,000 years out of thin air?
I believe he pulled 10,000 years out of analysis of the Bible and other historical data. There's not a lot of 'directly readable' material that is older than 10,000. I believe Anti's point is that his Creationist perspective is -satisfied- by an age of earth of 10,000 years; and thus if you wish to support any age older than that, it becomes your responsibility to support. On the other hand, if you wished to argue the world was only 1,000 years old (and I can see why some people would argue this (I think they'd be wrong; but that's a different matter)), then he'd counter that the world is at least 4,000 years old (or perhaps 6,000; whatever the bare minimum number is to support his position) This is a legitimate position to take from a philosophic discussion perspective.
Anyone:
Off hand anyone know what the oldest written language (and I'd be content with hieroglyphics) is? (Context: mainstream scientific position.)
Edit: 10:33 ET; I subsquently found that oldest is likely dating 5,450 years back. Not sure that helps the discussion much.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Folks;
Having missed the 'real time' discussion above due to a hike to the top of Hunter Mountain in the Catskills (beautiful view from the fire tower at the top; but I'm digressing ;-) ).... I'm not going to attempt to comment on every element of interest to me in the above; too much material; but I am going to hit a few points here and again...
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Saturday, August 04, 2007 09:29Quote:
LeadB
Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.(...)
its not that i 'ignore' them.. i just dont pretend i know the absolute truth about everything. why do we even discuss this subject, if your side cannot possibly be wrong?
I don't pretend to know absolute truth either, if that helps.
I'm not clear on if you are stating that I think my side cannot possibly be wrong (a), or if you are using a common english contruction to state you feel your own side cannot possibly be wrong (b).
In the case of (a), I wouldn't say my side cannot possibly be wrong; but if it is, in the interest of my understanding of the natural world (which I too believe was created), I'd like to see where my understanding is flawed, and correct the flaw.
In the case of (b), that's up to you to find the reason; however, it would be helpful in the future if you don't wish to discuss it to so state. Possible reasons you might wish to discuss:
1) You tend to make claims in ongoing discussions where you seem to wish to advocate positions which others dispute; if you do not discuss these sorts of things, it may weaken your position. For me, I feel I see items you present which, if logically followed back to their source, would end up countering some basic science.
2) You may help other folks in their own internal balance of 'faith' and 'science'
or whatever motivates you. In any event, I see a fair bit of 'good faith' discussion above, so I will presume you have found your reasons to discuss it; and I've already stated mine.
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason Friday, August 03, 2007 - 21:53:Quote:
LeadB
(for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct
or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.
Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective
Well, I'm going to assume by your use of the word 'science' above, you mean 'basic science', and I will assume further that you do not consider 'evolution' (a scientific theory) to be part of 'basic science'.
First, let's be clear; I don't know of any main stream scientist advocating evolution as needing to take trillions of years; any who did would be promptly dismissed by the general scientific community (and myself personally) unless said scientist -also- came along with a legitimate theory placing the age of the universe above 13 billion years. I believe it is communities outside of the scientific community who content 'it would take trillions of years for this to happen.' Thus the scientific theory of evolution as presented by 'main stream scientists' will always be some amount of time less than 13 billion years.
I understand neither can be produced in the lab at this time, and certainly will likely not be in our lifetimes and perhaps not even in our grand children's lifetimes (and possibly never).
I agree this must provide
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hmmm... I see your point; but there's a few realities here.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm not wanting to pile on anti.
I've been thinking about this lately. One of the complaints that comes out of the Creation\ID camp occasionally and from anti in this thread, is the idea that science treats creationism unfairly. In the interest of fairness we should pile on to anti everything we have. Why? because that's what scientists do, when a theory is proposed they don't try to be nice to the proposer and make sure his feeling aren't hurt, they mercilessly point out every flaw and explain how and why the idea is wrong. To do otherwise would be to treat anti unfairly.
First, Anti has (or will if you read ahead) concede this is not an area of expertise for him; as a consequence, at the very least, countering various arguments may require substantive research or other effort on Anti's part, and at some point, he's going to he's simply going to say 'uncle'; so while I would not discourage full exploration of the topic; keep in mind that if you dump 20 things on him at once, there's just no way he's going to be able to keep up; and should he miss a point in the 'deluge', you will need to keep in mind, he's only human. So... at least be respectful of this fact and try to keep the 'points on the table' to a managable number.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ANTI
Quote:The reason why I keep asking about this is because people (myself included, no fingerpointing here) have been tossing out discussion points like confetti. I'm trying to tackle these points in a systematic manner. AFAIK there is only one way to take points OFF the discussion table: either you agree to agree on a point, or you agree to disagree. Can we agree to agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old and then move on to something else so we can weed-whack the discussion down to its central issues? Yes or no?
So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, we can agree the earth is at least 200,000 years old?-Signy
did you read my previous comments? you seem to want to sidetrack me from the design aspect, when i conceded before that the bible doesn't even specify the earths age(therefore, it is not relevant to my hypothesis).
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
< original content of this post deleted; replaced with the following:>
After reading Sig's post just above (which was posted while I was composing), I've decided I'm just adding fuel to the fire; and retract this post for the time being.
< Edited to clarify that material of original post that was in this spot was removed; leaving only a statement of retraction. >
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Leadb- No need to retract. Your point is correct. We can't get thru a discussion by peppering Anti from all sides.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig; :-) Glad you concur; but >that< wasn't the post I was retracting. I've deleted the post in question; it will for the moment suffice that you didn't see what I retracted ;-)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists? Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?
I fleetingly got this insane desire to try and fill that gap, to find references for some of the many independent lines of research that support the age of earth and the evolution of life, but I don't have time to be a teacher to a closed mind. Maybe, someday...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists? Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?
That is exactly what many creationists give the impression of believing, check out the feedback page at talkorigins and you will see dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!". The problem is quite simple, many people like anti get all their information from creationist sources, the creationist sources use arguments that sound good and cast scientists in a bad light as they should be obvious and damning. The problem is that the arguments are wrong so it looks like scientists are stupidly ignoring the Second Law, probability, evidence for a young earth etc when they aren't, the arguments are actually incorrect.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm kinda waiting for Anti's response to concept that the earth that might be at least 200,000 years old. I know it sounds annoyingly perservative (Ever deal with a kid who repeats the same thing over, and over, and over, and...? That's perservative behavior. 
) but it's the only way I know who to get thru this thicket of topics: one by one.
Anti: After we get this topic off the table, how about if you suggest ONE topic, we hash it out, and then I suggest ONE topic, and we hash it out?
My next topic would be one that has already been introduced: How are archaeological finds dated?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution.
alright.. what about primates? what were they prior to their current form?
I don't know and as I fail to see the importance I will decline to do the research for you. If you actually want to know you can ask the talk.origins newsgroup, someone there probably knows. Note that the talk.origins newsgroup and the talkorigins website are related but separate, the website is completely pro-evolution but the newsgroup is neutral ground where both sides post.
Quote:
you have a variety of human skeletons, and ape skeletons, that you artificially try to link.. but what about the rest?
We know that evolution happens, not even you can deny that (though you deny the extent of it), we have a set of fossils that, when placed in chronological order, show a clear progression from an ape-like form to modern humans. What is the more reasonable conclusion, that the fossils show an evolutionary progression or that a designer sequentially created a species, killed them off, replaced them with another slightly more developed fully formed species, kill them off, repeat ad infinitum?
Quote:
you mean Darwins theories have been surpassed(or refined)? does that mean he wasnt entirely correct a hundred years ago?
Refined, not replaced, the three underlying ideas of Evolution, Natural Selection and Common Descent have not been significantly challenged, but the explanations of how they work have been advanced greatly from Darwins time.
Quote:
.. who knows, maybe we still dont have the final word
Almost certainly not. But evolution, while it almost certainly will be refined, is absurdly unlikely to be overturned at this point.
Quote:
you cannot point to one species right now which is in the process of changing its archetype
You are right I can't, partially because of issues with archetypes, and partially because we shouldn't expect to see that.
First you would have to give a usable definition of "archetype" which you most likely can't do, by usable I mean a definition whereby I can tell clearly where the delineation is instead of having to continuously come back and ask "are these different archetypes?". Without a clear, usable definition of "archetype" it is entirely subjective and you will simply always say "that's not an archetype shift" regardless of the amount of change involved. That being said from your stated examples of "archetype" a new problem emerges.
Your stated examples are so broad that we will not see shifts happening outside of the examples in the fossil record (which you refuse to consider) for millions of years, evolution does not work on demand it must be coaxed along slowly or left to it's own devices. Also there's a problem with the idea of an "archetype" shift in the first place.
You seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief of Gradualism which was the idea that evolution proceeds at a steady pace all the time, this is simply not true. As Gradualism didn't fit with the evidence it was abandoned in favor of Punctuated Equilibrium (henceforth, Punk Eek), Punk Eek shows evolution progressing quickly for short periods and then slowing to a near stop when the species in question has reached equilibrium with it's environment. So what we expect to see is most species not changing much, the only species we expect to see undergoing significant changes are ones that have changing environments or that received novel mutations that break the equilibirum. If we took desert foxes and dropped them in the arctic we could expect to see rapid evolution (provided they lived long enough), but as long as they are in the desert they have little evolutionary pressure and thus are not expected to undergo significant changes. Howeve
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Debating with Anti is oddly like arguing with my mom. If I manage to wade through the emotional reaction enough to address the actual issue, she runs away. And then there's this unwritten law that if enough time expires, the issue must never be brought up again...
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, I'm kinda waiting for Anti's response to concept that the earth that might be at least 200,000 years old.
OMG... do you think Antimason is really my mom??
Quote:This is a fabulous topic. Of course, my approach would be to dig into the science behind C-14 dating. I would also look for corroboration - actual examples where independent evidence agrees with C-14 dates. A case study even.
My next topic would be one that has already been introduced: How are archaeological finds dated?
Fred: ...dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!"
And then you ask if they've ever actually *studied* thermodynamics, and I bet they disappear from the thread. Or claim that they don't need to study. They just know... intuitively... it comes to them on a ray of light...
No wonder ID-ers think science is a belief system, that's how they treat it LOL!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily.
Actually no you don't, surprisingly enough scientists are aware that the rates of carbon-14 generation vary and take that into account.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
And while there is certainly margin of error in carbon-dating (we can't expect to know what day a 40 thousand year-old tree died via carbon dating but we can tell what century it dies) it works quite well out to far beyond what YEC's will accept regarding the age of the earth.
Quote:
on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account
Which one is accurate?
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Theres a couple hundred (guesstimating) wildly different stories, they can't all be accurate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Fred: ...dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!"
And then you ask if they've ever actually *studied* thermodynamics, and I bet they disappear from the thread.
That appears to be the typical response, I don't actually participate in the talk.origins newsgroup but as I understand it they get a fairly continual influx of creationists who post a great deal of long-debunked arguments, get chewed out for it and are never heard from again.
Quote:
Or claim that they don't need to study. They just know... intuitively... it comes to them on a ray of light...
No, from what I understand they never try to defend their position (it's truly indefensible and all but the most fanatical and deluded wouldn't try). What I hope they do when that happens is they actually investigate, find out that the creationist sources they use almost never have the slightest idea what they're talking about and abandon those sources. More likely what they do is retreat to creationist forums where they can ignore reality to their hearts content.
Quote:
No wonder ID-ers think science is a belief system, that's how they treat it LOL!
Indeed, this can be seen in many different ways, they frequently imply or outright state that scientists are hiding information that contradicts evolution. A religion would hide information that went against it's teachings, scientists gain fame by replacing old theories with new ones so if there was scientific evidence that went against evolution it would be trumpeted by it's finders not hidden away.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:OMG Mal4Prez- Do you think YOUR mom is MY mom?????
Debating with Anti is oddly like arguing with my mom. If I manage to wade through the emotional reaction enough to address the actual issue, she runs away. And then there's this unwritten law that if enough time expires, the issue must never be brought up again...
OMG... do you think Antimason is really my mom??
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh - does Fox news have creationist forums?
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
More likely what they do is retreat to creationist forums where they can ignore reality to their hearts content.
Quote:Yeah, this kills me. Creationists don't understand that every scientist would love to be able to strike down something as huge as evolution. Anyone who could do that would have all the fame and fortune they could possibly want. Folks have been working ferverishly for decades, and yet the theory only looks stronger all the time.
A religion would hide information that went against it's teachings, scientists gain fame by replacing old theories with new ones so if there was scientific evidence that went against evolution it would be trumpeted by it's finders not hidden away.
Scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. Like this: http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm
The guy who first suggested plate tectonics was resisted, mocked, shunned. But evidence kept turning up to support him. That's how science works Anti - we fight each other up one side and down the other until the evidence is too overwhelming to be denied. And then the one proven wrong sits around gossiping about the other person's bad smell or something.
BTW, great link Fred. I just got through:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1
It covers C14 dating, references and all. Good stuff!
signym - LOL! It's like there's a universal mom-logic!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
BTW, great link Fred...It covers C14 dating, references and all. Good stuff!
Yeah, talkorigins is great, they cover nearly everything that the creationists throw out.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeh, and that's the reason I tend to have a fairly high confidence level in main stream science; there's -always- someone ready to rip the guy down off the top of the hill.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. Like this: http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm
The guy who first suggested plate tectonics was resisted, mocked, shunned. But evidence kept turning up to support him. That's how science works
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am loving this website Fred! (And getting no work done today LOL!) That guy Gish seems to use a similar approach as some in RWED...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"
huh
?Quote:
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists?
i would ask you the same question? at least i admit that i dont know the truth.. apparently you are the omniscient one(although, you dont posses the truth yourself, you rely on indoctrinated 'scientists'). if i were omniscent, i would know whether God exists or not.. but then id be God, because i would know everything everywhere, and God would then exist
Quote:
Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?
yes
Quote:
I fleetingly got this insane desire to try and fill that gap, to find references for some of the many independent lines of research that support the age of earth and the evolution of life, but I don't have time to be a teacher to a closed mind. Maybe, someday...
sure, the sources on evolution are innumerable.. and hypothetical and theoretical, and unsubstantiated. it takes a lot of gall, and more then a little ego, to state that you know we were once 'a fish'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, Anti... Now that Sunday is over, can we agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, and possibly older, as evidenced by the visible annual layers found in ice cores? It's not a terribly important point, but I would like to get thru it so we can move on to other things.
I suggest that you ask me the next question, and I will do my best to answer it w/o introducing irrelevant topics, until we reach a conclusion.
The I will ask the next question, and so on, and if we cant' come to resolution maybe we can at least come to some sort of delineation on where we agree, where we disagree, and what we each think the vital questions are.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:huh
Originally posted by mal4prez:
As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"
Translation: Science is a language. It takes years to learn the "basic grammar" of math and chemistry and physics, and to build on to the more complex theories from there. If you are interested in contending the theories of science, you need to learn the language.
You've said that you are not a scientist, but then you smugly deny the accuracy of ice core and radioactive dating methods, and refuse to engage in conversation which would "teach you the language." The arguments you bring up against these methods show that you clearly don't understand the principles behind them, and when we try to explain you disappear or ignore the posts.
Example: discussing ice cores, you said: "yet you cannot predict, nor do you factor in: mudslides or floods or extreme weather variations" If you had done any research into this method, you would know that scientists DO facter these things in. Signym explained that, though - go figure - you never acknowledged his post.
Example #2: "i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily."
*sigh* Yes, the method takes the variation into account. Necessarily. Also, carbon 14 dating has been verified countless times. Please, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html#R1 and compare the factual, observation based arguments they offer to your statements, which go as:
"on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account, and try to take into account generations even prior to the BC era, the Adamic generations(ie 'Atlantis'). i believe these kinds of legends just lend credence to my (albeit misinterpreted)'historical' timeline of human history "
Why do you believe this? What actual proof is there? As in - proof written in the structure of nature?
One more example: "you mean Darwins theories have been surpassed(or refined)? does that mean he wasnt entirely correct a hundred years ago? well.. society sure fooled me .. who knows, maybe we still dont have the final word"
How many times do we have to explain that science is a gradual process? Of course he wasn't completely 100% right. Of course the theory isn't complete yet. In fact, the theory has been fought by scientists, and was only accepted after many many many observations of nature showed that evolution is overwhelmingly the best explanation.
Quote:Quote:
Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists?
i would ask you the same question? at least i admit that i dont know the truth..
ROTFLMAO!! You do? Whoa - I missed that. What I see is you dismissing all kinds of scientific research out of hand, without offering one shred of evidence as to why, other then you *believe* it to be so.
BTW, I started looking at the science behind creationism almost 20 years ago. I took the time to learn about scientific methods - to speak the language and understand the arguments - before I made up my mind. And I still listen to the arguments of ID looking for something solid. I've yet to see anything.
Quote:No, I don't. I went to college. I studied. I questioned. I learned.
apparently you are the omniscient one(although, you dont posses the truth yourself, you rely on indoctrinated 'scientists').
And that "indoctrinared" truth is all stated for you to argue with as well. You can go learn the language and fight it all you want. But you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."
Quote:
if i were omniscent, i woulNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Mal4prez-
you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."
and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, Anti... Now that Sunday is over, can we agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, and possibly older, as evidenced by the visible annual layers found in ice cores? It's not a terribly important point, but I would like to get thru it so we can move on to other things.
sure.. it may be. im not going to state that as a fact, but its probable
Quote:
I suggest that you ask me the next question, and I will do my best to answer it w/o introducing irrelevant topics, until we reach a conclusion.
we can engage later.. ive got to get back to work
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
so where are all these missing links
They're being found all the time.
Quote:
(and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)?
All these years? Do you mean since the beginning of recorded history or something much farther back? If you mean recorded history because there hasn't been enough time for a massive change to occur, if you mean for the the last hundred million or so they haven't, there's probably a dozen or more species in the human progression alone that are no longer around and if you researched the evolution of the other primate species you'd probably find dozens more extinct species.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is not providing proof, antimason. This is changing the subject by making an ill-conceived attack. Note that you haven't followed up on the matter of the ice cores and the C14 dating. Did you bother to consider my rebuttals? Are you going to bring up these arguments again at some point in the future without ever finishing the discussion here? That gets the debate nowhere!
Originally posted by antimason:Quote:and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis
Mal4prez-
you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."
Re the primates: you are again making a basic mistake. Evolution does not say that we are descended from primates. Primates and humans are decended from a common ancestor which was neither primate nor human. Today's primates didn't exist millions of years ago.
As for the evidence - there is a reason why it takes ~10 years of schooling to make a scientist. It truly is a different language that has to be learned, from the alphabet up. I can't possibly present it all here, especially when you seem so unwilling to learn. But the evidence supporting evolution includes the following:
the fossil record: I'll post an example in a separate post. It's ugly, but you asked for it!
spatial distribution of fossils/plate tectonics I'm sure you've heard the story behind this... I'll get into it if you want. I have figures.
Evidence in DNA This is a cool new field of research, but so complicated and over my head that I'll just give you this: http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/12.Molecular.Evolution.HTML
homologies: meaning similarities between currently living species. This is from a large scale - bone structure - down to the structure of a single cell. The degree of similarity agrees with what is seen in the fossil record; the longer in the past two types of creatures split, the less they have in common.
I stress: the tree structure that links different families through time (simple example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_03) is also seen in spatial distribution of fossils and in DNA studies. This is what I mean by several different independent lines of investigation confirming each other.
This list is not detailed and not complete, but it's more observation based than anything you've ever presented, antimason. And if you question me about any part of it, I can provide more details. Unlike you, I am able respond to rebuttals with facts, not short denials and subject changes.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And here is an example from the fossil record.
FYI - evolution does not deal with the first emergence of life. That is something evolution cannot explain - note *again* that science is very clear about not being able to explain everything, because we cannot observe everything. Hopefully, in time, we'll have more observations and more complete theories.
In any case, evolution, by definition, deals with the path of life from the earliest observable forms through what we have today. And note - it is NOT a random process. Mutation is random, natural selection is not. The environment of our world has directed the process. The climate gets colder, furry creatures survive. The sun gets hotter, dark skinned primates survive. That is very clear, non random direction.
OK, so I cannot possibly list the entire fossil record. What I will do is copy one step, taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html It is the best documented transition between vertebrate classes: reptiles to mammals.
I've left off the descriptions of the fossils and the gradual changes they underwent as they evolved from reptiles to mammals. I don't expect any of us would understand it all anyway, not without a big ass dictionary of paleontology on hand. But Kermack (1984), Kemp (1982), and Szalay (1993) go into more detail, including where the fossils were found and descriptions of changes in the body structures.
I assume that you know same basic terminology - like the difference between "species" and "family." (if not, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) "Ma" means million years ago. A table of the ages (Pennsylvanian, Permian, etc) are shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_timescale
Antimason: I stress - if you want to discuss and dismiss the findings of science, the onus is on you to make an effort to learn the language. (ie If you want to tell an Italian what prego means, best read an Italian dictionary first...) So before you dismiss this, get those books, check the sources, and look at the fossils. Find something solid to actually argue about.
Transition from reptiles to mammals
So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known. But the family sequence is quite complete. Each group is clearly related to both the group that came before, and the group that came after, and yet the sequence is so long that the fossils at the end are astoundingly different from those at the beginning.
* Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian)
* Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian)
* Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian)
* Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian)
* Varanops (early Permian)
* Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian)
* Biarmosuchia (late Permian)
* Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -
* Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian)
* Thrinaxodon (early Triassic)
* Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier)
* Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus)
* Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America)
* Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina)
* Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America)
GAP of about 30 my in the late Triassic, from about 239-208 Ma. Only one early mammal fossil is known from this time. The next time fossils are found in any abundance, tritylodontids and trithelodontids had already appeared, leading to some very heated controversy about their relative placement in the chain to mammals.
* Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Ma)
* Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Ma)
* Adelobasileus cromptoni (late Triassic; 225 Ma, west Texas)
* Sinoconodon (early Jurassic, 208 Ma)
* Kuehneotherium (early Jurassic, about 205 Ma)
* Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (early Jurassic, ~205 Ma)
* Peramus (late Jurassic, about 155 Ma)
* Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
They're being found all the time. there's probably a dozen or more species in the human progression alone that are no longer around and if you researched the evolution of the other primate species you'd probably find dozens more extinct species.
this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype). within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see. the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"(
) or cat, followed by the lynx, or lions etc. i dont dispute that kind of variation.. but how do you explain how each 'kind' established its 'archetype'? it appears to me that this happened by design, otherwise there are a lot of assumptions you have to make(in those unknown years) NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just curious, you have a list...
Originally posted by antimason:
this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype). within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see. the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"(
"there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis
Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied? The "missing link" claim is nice hook to hang your creationist hat on because there will always be missing links.
What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not. Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?
Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance. I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype).
More or less, they're all pretty closely related.
Quote:
within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see.
Evidence? You are claiming that all the DNA needed for every species is contained in each species, this is pretty out there and I'm pretty sure impossible, particularly when you consider that many species have very small genomes.
Quote:
the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"(
Common ancestor, each group that you would refer to as a "kind" came from a relatively small population that speciated off of a parent group, the new group would develop it's own adaptations and then begin speciating off more groups that retain most of those traits.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied?
An infinite amount, as long as there is not a perfectly smooth continuum from the first self-replicator to modern man they will continue to complain about "missing links"
Quote:
What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not. Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?
Last time I asked him this he kept insisting that I needed to prove that there was no such barrier, then when after a couple repetitions of me telling him that it's his to prove and not mine he stopped responding.
Quote:
Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance.
I can answer that, the answer is both. Ignorance from not investigating the information they are given from their creationist sources (after all why would a Christian lie?), and deliberate distortions from said creationist sources.
Quote:
I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.
Head over to talkorigins and all doubt will be removed. Particularly the quote mine project: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html
You could argue that much of the mistakes made by the creationist leaders are born out of ignorance, narrow-mindedness and an inability to admit error, but in the quote mine project there is many things that must have been knowingly taken out of context to mislead. The only possible way to think those people meant what the creationists say they meant is if you somehow only read that single sentence out of the entire page.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
LeadB-
Just curious, you have a list...
"there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?
i dont believe so.. but this is where i differ from these other guys. its my opinion that the variety of 'races' make up the human 'archetypical' range, different tones or features etc.. but still 'man'. i do not believe we were ever part of the primate family, which is IMO a completely separate species. for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied?
im not sure thats as proven as you believe. how do we know that our alleged missing links werent just highly 'speciated' primates or abnormal human beings? aside from that, what about the missing links between primates and their predecessors?
Quote:
The "missing link" claim is nice hook to hang your creationist hat on because there will always be missing links.
thats because we dont know how (for example)primates acquired or 'evolved' their distinct archetypical characteristics. they clearly share a distinct design.. but the people on your side always assume strictly natural causes, because the alternative(ID) is out of the question. i see how you attempt to link us with them due to our similar bipedal stature.. but then you have to wonder what primates were before their current form; you have to wonder that about every species! to me, they clearly fit into their 'kinds'
Quote:
What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not.
are their differences between cats and dogs? or did they share a common ancestor? the extinction of dinosaurs allowed for the dominance of mammals, right.. so what preceded the bear, or the gazelle, or the lion? the cat species share all the same characteristics that they always have, as do primates as do most reptiles. this is something the fossil record actually does confirm
Quote:
Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?
show me what the cat species was before they were cats? the burden of proof is in fact on you
Quote:
Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance.
look.. you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont. i take the data, and i see intelligence and purpose.. you relegate everything to a natural order(which exhibits intelligence). its as simple as that.. and im not ignorant because i choose otherwise
Quote:
I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.
what is the difference between Earth and Venus(or Pluto or Mars)? we either exist here, by design, or by mathematical chance
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
An infinite amount, as long as there is not a perfectly smooth continuum from the first self-replicator to modern man they will continue to complain about "missing links"
thats ridiculous.. so one day, an ape was born hairless and upright, with newfound mental abilities? maybe this only happened over a few generations.. but what caused it? this view becomes more absurd the more you try to rationalize it
Quote:
i can answer that, the answer is both. Ignorance from not investigating the information they are given from their creationist sources (after all why would a Christian lie?), and deliberate distortions from said creationist sources.
what.. is lying immoral? says who
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Uh, bonobos.
Originally posted by antimason:
...for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i should have clarified(i meant as a fixed genetic trait), but then again...your image is sufficient
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This primate stuff you're bringing to the table is so odd to me. Where did you get it? Who's telling you that speciation among primates is so distinctive?
From my own study of the subject, speciation among primates is more fluid than a lot of mammalian orders (I still have a tough time seeing the elephant in the hyrax). First ya got your tree shrews, with their weird little "hands" and their rat faces; then lemurs with fingernails and canine faces; marmosets with monkey-like faces and squirrel-like behavior; monkeys; macaques; apes; humans.
Sure, humans have a number of morphological distinctions from other primates, but the distinctions are all explicable if we posit the semi-aquatic adaptation of protohominids--our "upright" stance having developed in the ocean as an adaptation for swimming, f'rinstance. This also conveniently accounts for the spotty fossil record, since our semi-aquatic ancestors would have lived along tidal flats, a notoriously fossil-free environment.
I was wondering: what about Australia and the marsupials? You got all your "archetypes" down under, but they're all based on a separate design from the rest of the world. How do you account for parallel evolution if you discount the legitimacy of evolution?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
what about the missing links between primates and their predecessors?
Since every single generation represents subtle changes from the previous, I suppose we'll never find enough 'missing links' to satisfy you. I don't care so much, as long as you don't try to shovel the ID nonsense to my kids in school.
Quote:
..thats because we dont know how (for example) primates acquired or 'evolved' their distinct archetypical characteristics.
Actually we've got a pretty good idea. That's what evolution explains. There's plenty of evidence for it, but you don't want to accept it because you're convinced it conflicts with your religious faith. That doesn't seem a necessary implication, but it's up to you what you believe.
Quote:
... they clearly share a distinct design.
They clearly do not.
Quote:
but the people on your side always assume strictly natural causes, because the alternative(ID) is out of the question.
It's out of the questions because there's no evidence for it. Come up with that, or even a plausible argument, and I'll consider it.
Quote:
the burden of proof is in fact on you
Well, the way I see it lots of evidence exists for evolution. Didn't you actually acknowledge it as a process at some point? Everything we know about genetics and biology points to evolution as the mechanism for species diversifying over time. You may not accept the evidence, but I ask you, where's the evidence for imagined 'archetype' barrier'? You ignored the question, so I can only assume you don't know of any.
Quote:
look.. you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont.
This is my favorite bit of nonsense that comes out of the fundi sales pitch. When you claim that 'faith' in scientific principles is a religion, you water down the concept of faith to the point that it's meaningless. By that reckoning every single assumption a person makes is a religious statement. If I wear a raincoat because the weatherman is calling for a storm, then that's a religious act of faith?
In fact it isn't. My 'faith' in scientific understanding lasts as long as it keeps working. Prove any of these 'beliefs' false, and I'll thankfully change my mind. That's the difference. You won't. This is just more of the sophistry that IDers resort to because they can't come up with real arguments.
Quote:
... and im not ignorant because i choose otherwise
I'm not saying that you are. But I appreciate you bringing up the issue because it seems to be just below the surface of most of the discussions I have with fundamentalists. Why all the insecurity? I have good friends who are devout Christians. They're very intelligent people and I respect them a great deal. They aren't fundies and they don't base their faith on the notion that the bible is the literal final word on human knowledge, but they are sincere in their beliefs.
That's the trap IDers have fell into. When you insist on taking a particular translation of the bible (or the koran, or the torah, or whatever) as literal fact in every regard, you're destined to always be at odds with reality. I'd even say (if it doesn't seem to be too presumptious) that you're missing the point of religious faith in the first place. My understanding of religion is that it's concerns are spiritual, not physical. You're wrapped up in trying to defend your faith in rational, naturalistic terms and it's pointless. Spiritual faith is by definition supernatural and irrational (or at least not bound by rationality).
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SargeantX-
Since every single generation represents subtle changes from the previous, I suppose we'll never find enough 'missing links' to satisfy you.
i acknowledge micro changes, like the different varieties of primates. a macro change, such as an amphibious organism, over time, evolving to become a primate.. i mean what is your evidence for this? what you're saying is that a species either evolves, adapts, or wills itself into changing its nature. to me, the difference between a spruce seed and a grain of grass is inherent, the grass seed will never change what it is(only its variety). every species or plant of its 'kind' is designed for a purpose, with their own inherent uniqueness. this is what we mean by order, which by contrast makes your view appear chaotic
Quote:
I don't care so much, as long as you don't try to shovel the ID nonsense to my kids in school.
right, because our view is a 'religion', and well, yours is just the truth. what your saying is that we should teach people there is no Creator, because thats what you think is the truth. it seems the difference is we aren't indoctrinating your kids(with our world view)
Quote:
you're missing the point of religious faith in the first place. My understanding of religion is that it's concerns are spiritual, not physical. You're wrapped up in trying to defend your faith in rational, naturalistic terms and it's pointless. Spiritual faith is by definition supernatural and irrational (or at least not bound by rationality)
i'm not missing the point, perhaps you are Sarge. i stress more then anything the work of a Creator, a 'great architect', which established the laws of the universe(including the role of matter/elemnents/morality etc). how can i be missing the point, when its me making the argument FOR a Creator? if one exists, we would see signs of its 'design', and i believe we do. if i deny this, i undermine the reality of his existence. where does our sole develop? in the physical.. so this the perfect time to acknowledge our Creator
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME