The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match!

POSTED BY: Causal
UPDATED: Friday, August 24, 2007 16:50
VIEWED: 27784
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

LEADB

Friday, August 10, 2007 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
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

Thanks for explaining. Is there someplace you can reference which draws out the 'archetypes' and what is 'in' each, since it isn't obvious to me.

Edit: Would you take a look over -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

"The species is distinguished by an upright gait"
Would seem to counter your 'for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear'. Are you inclined to drop that from the archetype distinction, or are there other features you would call out?

Specificly, recent DNA results suggest... "More recent studies have shown that chimps are more closely related to humans than to gorillas.[8] The most recent genetic analyses of chimpanzee and human genetic similarity come from whole genome comparisons and have shown that the differences between the two are more complex both in extent and character than the historical 98% figure suggests."

SERGEANTX

Friday, August 10, 2007 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
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).

\

But evolution doesn't deny a Creator. You reject evolution, not because it denies a creator, but because it doesn't line up exactly with your literal interpretation of the old testament creation myth. As I mentioned, I have many mainstream Christian friends who don't have any problem accepting the discoveries of science as new understandings of God's 'creation'. They still honor the bible as God's word, but they recognize the pointlessness of using it as a guide to biology and science.

And that gets to what I mean by missing the point. Is Religion really suppose to be the final word on scientific discovery? Does that really have anything to do with the deeper spiritual aspect?

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

LEADB

Friday, August 10, 2007 11:36 AM

Sarg's post raises what to me is an interesting question.... a raise of hands if you don't mind...

All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

My reply would be yes, though not a very conventional one.

SERGEANTX

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:20 PM

Good question. I'm slightly surprised that I'm not totally sure how to answer. I guess it depends on how you define 'theist'. If you define it as someone who believes gods are real, then I'm a theist. But I believe they are very different entities than their followers generally imagine.

But I don't follow a particular god (unless you count 'evolution', as anti insists, or perhaps the weatherman) and I don't believe that gods are supernatural, nor responsible for 'creation'.

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

LEADB

Friday, August 10, 2007 12:37 PM

How I define a theist? Personally, I'm content to take whatever you define a theist to be; then indicate if you consider yourself one or not. I'll leave it to someone else if they want to sort out 'real theists' from 'self-proclaimed theists' ;-)

FREDGIBLET

Friday, August 10, 2007 10:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

I believe that none of our religions are correct, I believe that if there is a god it has not chosen us to receive special treatment, I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god-like supernatural entity but do not believe that such an entity exists. I am an Atheist with minor concessions to Agnosticism.

FREDGIBLET

Friday, August 10, 2007 10:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
are their differences between cats and dogs? or did they share a common ancestor?

Yes and yes.

Quote:
the extinction of dinosaurs allowed for the dominance of mammals, right.. so what preceded the bear, or the gazelle, or the lion?

Are you going to ask us for a complete list of every single species that ever existed?

Quote:
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?

That requires looking at the fossil record which you refuse to accept.

Quote:
the burden of proof is in fact on you

No it isn't, we've been over this before. Evolution has no logical endpoint except extinction, none, there's no logical reason for it to not progress to extreme levels. YOU are saying that there is a reason that it can't, YOU need to demonstrate the "archetype barrier".

Quote:
the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism.

This has been covered before as well and it's a blatant lie that devalues both science and religion.

Quote:
what is the difference between Earth and Venus(or Pluto or Mars)? we either exist here, by design, or by mathematical chance

No, we exist here because Earth can support life, the only chance involved is that we are on Earth instead of some other life-supporting world. If we had appeared on Mars that would be great evidence for ID as there's no way we could have evolved into our present forms there. The origin of life is not randomly picked, life doesn't have an equal chance of appearing and evolving in deep space or in the middle of Jupiter as it does on Earth, life appeared on Earth because the conditions were favorable, if they were favorable on Mars or Venus life would have appeared there.

RUE

Friday, August 10, 2007 10:24 PM

I'm not a theist, though I've been considering HKC's idea of gods being in everything.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Friday, August 10, 2007 10:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
thats ridiculous.. so one day, an ape was born hairless

Actually possibly, ever hear of Human Werewolf Syndrome? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis There's apparently only a couple genes that need to switched to go between covered in hair and almost hairless.

Quote:
and upright, with newfound mental abilities?

Not in a short period no, there was probably a few hundred generations at least including a few complete species between our common ancestor with chimps and us.

Quote:
maybe this only happened over a few generations.. but what caused it?

Hairlessness I can barely even guess at, maybe sexual selection, I heard it might have been because we moved from the forest to the plains and thus lived in warmer areas.

Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion, plus the extra height gives us a sight advantage that we lost when we left the trees.

We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages.

RUE

Friday, August 10, 2007 10:39 PM

Hairlessness I can barely even guess at ... the aquatic ape theory draws parallels between other mammals who went back to warm water and became hairless, or nearly so (dolphins, whales, elephants, pigs)

Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion ... it's faster to run with four legs than two. Living your life wading in water would make an upright position mandatory.

We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages ... the big increase in brain size, our biochemistry regarding fats, the composition of the human brain ("fish oil" is the largest single component after water) indicate that humans increased their brain size on a fish diet. The shore would also be a good place to have improved hand skills and a great place to develop tools for smashing shells, digging clams, carrying water etc.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Friday, August 10, 2007 11:15 PM

Quote:
Fredgiblet-

Evolution has no logical endpoint except extinction, none, there's no logical reason for it to not progress to extreme levels.

thats your hypothesis though Fred, we have only ever witnessed micro changes

Quote:
YOU are saying that there is a reason that it can't, YOU need to demonstrate the "archetype barrier".

can cats and dogs mate? theres your archetype barrier right there. cats HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CATS.. they were never(for example)amphibious organisms(at least, as far as we can 'prove')

Quote:
No, we exist here because Earth can support life, the only chance involved is that we are on Earth instead of some other life-supporting world.

like which one? we don't know of any others.. so what are you basing that on? what we do know is that we couldn't survive on any of our nearest planets. so again, either we are here by chance, or by design

Quote:
If we had appeared on Mars that would be great evidence for ID as there's no way we could have evolved into our present forms there.

what IS evolving on mars?

Quote:
The origin of life is not randomly picked, life doesn't have an equal chance of appearing and evolving in deep space or in the middle of Jupiter as it does on Earth, life appeared on Earth because the conditions were favorable, if they were favorable on Mars or Venus life would have appeared there.

ok.. so is this by chance, or by design? you cannot fault me for believing differently then you

LEADB

Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not a theist, though I've been considering HKC's idea of gods being in everything.

Ok, I believe HKC's is a pantheistic approach, which is a type of theist.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:47 AM

Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:53 AM

Quote:
Do you consider yourself a theist?

No. Nor do I consider myself an atheist, just as I do not consider myself an aZeusist. Nor do I consider myself and agnostic. However, I'm against all forms of "belief", which I consider to be intellectual poison.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:55 AM

Quote:
Rue-
Hairlessness I can barely even guess at ... the aquatic ape theory draws parallels between other mammals who went back to warm water and became hairless, or nearly so (dolphins, whales, elephants, pigs)

lol Rue.. this has to be speculation

Quote:
Upright posture would be the natural result of leaving the trees, we can move faster upright and we're more agile while in motion ... it's faster to run with four legs than two. Living your life wading in water would make an upright position mandatory.

i agree with you in theory, but these are just our observations. i believe a species does have a 'barrier', after which point it will become extinct due to natural selection. otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive? why not all the time? primates may be comfortable now, but they have to envy our frugality.. so is it only a matter of time?

you believe in the global warming theory right? i don't think the cat species would ever become amphibious if the earths surface becomes inundated (over time)by water. the species might adapt to become proficient swimmers, maybe better lung capacity and so on, but it will still be of the cat family; at some point, it will be beyond its 'niche', and selection will run its course to extinction. we don't know that they would, or even can, turn into sea lions.

as for primates, why cant we be a different species altogether? all mammals share a common internal 'design', a heart, eyes, ears a nose and a mouth. maybe its because we share a 'designer', who created us of the same elements(with the same intelligence), and we exist, in all our varieties, in the same environment. primates walk upright, and have a skeletal structure designed for versatile movement.. it makes sense that they might resemble us in some ways. but that doesn't automatically make them our descendants

Quote:
We've covered intelligence before, intelligence improves tool use, tool making and teamwork, all evolutionary advantages ... the big increase in brain size, our biochemistry regarding fats, the composition of the human brain ("fish oil" is the largest single component after water) indicate that humans increased their brain size on a fish diet. The shore would also be a good place to have improved hand skills and a great place to develop tools for smashing shells, digging clams, carrying water etc.

these are still just circumstantial observations.. every species makes use of its designed 'niche', we just happened to be created for a *special purpose

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 12:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!

hey, what about abiogenesis... just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?

RUE

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:04 AM

mei got ... I've been told there's no such thing as a dumb question ... but ...

HEY ! if this is a contest I've got one just like it ...
Whatever makes an object decide to fall to earth, even if it hurts ?

And another one -
What do electrons get out of flowing through a conductor toward a positive charge ?

Oh and here's one too-
Why does light refuse to go around corners ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:27 AM

Quote:
Rue-

HEY ! if this is a contest I've got one just like it ...
Whatever makes an object decide to fall to earth, even if it hurts ?

unfortunately, the law of gravity is impartial. perhaps the better question is whether gravity is necessary for life

Quote:
And another one -
What do electrons get out of flowing through a conductor toward a positive charge ?

i know.. how mindless?? they're like robots fulfilling their assigned duties or something

Quote:
Oh and here's one too-
Why does light refuse to go around corners?

good question.. when i speak to God next, ill ask 'him' what he meant by 'let there be light'

RUE

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:52 AM

Wow, do your answers hopscotch all over.
Gravity - impartial law
Electrons - fulfilling their assigned nature
Light - god only knows why it want to do what it does !

So, if gravity can be an impartial law, can the random combinations of atoms also be an impartial law ? Or do atoms get to "decide" what they do, while gravity doesn't ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:58 AM

no im consistent, they each fulfill their designed roles, within their designed niche. whats your answer? how rediculous to assume that everything in the universe randomly ordered itself to function. can a computer or car build itself? but our DNA, and the laws of the universe just settled themselves into working order..

RUE

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:59 AM

Did the solar system decide to come into being ? Or was it a random accretion that, through inevitable loss of unstable parts, achieved stability ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 2:11 AM

Did the solar system decide to come into being ? Or was it a random accretion that, through inevitable loss of unstable parts, achieved stability ?

whats the difference? this seems to be what you advocate, absent a 'designer'

i believe in a power not bound by the universe. in this case God created the elements, designing them to fulfill their purposes( ie to allow for order; rather then mathematical odds and randomness)

RUE

Saturday, August 11, 2007 2:13 AM

"this case God created the elements, designing them to fulfill their purposes"

So a complex solar system came about from simple parts, as god designed them to. Perhaps life also came about from simple parts as god designed them to.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 2:28 AM

perhaps.. and i am willing to concede this much. is that a step youre willing to take? it has greater implications obviously

RUE

Saturday, August 11, 2007 2:45 AM

No.

I'm not here to proselytize or be proselytized.

I was truly wondering if you could imagine, starting from your beliefs, that a god that could make it the nature of matter to come together under gravity, to have opposite charges attract, to have light EM go in straight lines, and even to self-assemble into solar systems - might be able to make matter whose nature is to self-assemble into life.

I've discovered I'm more comfortable as a non-theist, though in a few years I may decide about the possibility of god in everything. Currently, though, I don't consider a western-style god as the ultimate origin of it all.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SERGEANTX

Saturday, August 11, 2007 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive? why not all the time? primates may be comfortable now, but they have to envy our frugality.. so is it only a matter of time?...

anti, if I had the same misconceptions about evolution that you do, I'd reject it too. I don't know what you're arguing against exactly, but it's not evolution, which as nothing to do with 'will' or animals 'changing into other animals'.

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

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:54 AM

Quote:
Rue-

I was truly wondering if you could imagine, starting from your beliefs, that a god that could make it the nature of matter to come together under gravity, to have opposite charges attract, to have light EM go in straight lines, and even to self-assemble into solar systems - might be able to make matter whose nature is to self-assemble into life.

yeah i can imagine that. it seems more logical to me then elements intelligently ordering themselves. so if i follow this to its logical end.. we have to consider the 'designer'. it is not my intention to argue with people over this, im not trying to force my personal belief on anyone(although i do respect a fair, open forum), but more then anything i just try to emphasize the philosophical implications of our theory

also one thing i should point out.. its misleading to characterize our theoretical Creator with a small 'g', since we are talking about a singular, infinite God. typically, we refer to the various pantheons as 'gods', since they do not really fit the 'omni' requirements

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:37 PM

Quote:
Anti- You have your chance to ask me a question. If I were you, I'd ask me about abiogenesis. But mebbe that's just me!- Signy

hey, what about abiogenesis... just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?- Anti

Urghh. I can't answer that question as framed, since the theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with inspiration and intelligence. And maybe that's where we have our biggest disconnect: It's your QUESTIONS that are causing communication problems, not your answers.

If you had asked me "how" abiogenesis occurred ...instead of "what" ("who" actually, in your usage) caused it... I would have been able to answer the question!

And, if you had asked me "how" abiogenesis had occurred I would have said.... But that's cheating. Can you rephrase your question into something I can understand? Remember, I'm a "how" kind of person just as you are a "who" kind of person. And my answer will surely surprise you!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 11, 2007 1:40 PM

Quote:
yeah i can imagine that. it seems more logical to me then elements intelligently ordering themselves. so if i follow this to its logical end.. we have to consider the 'designer'.

Anti- do not mistake intricacy for intelligence. Snowflakes: intricate but not intelligent. Which, once we get past the abiogenisis question, will be my question to you: What is the purpose of the universe?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Saturday, August 11, 2007 3:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
All:
Do you consider yourself a theist?
I believe that none of our religions are correct, I believe that if there is a god it has not chosen us to receive special treatment, I acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a god-like supernatural entity but do not believe that such an entity exists. I am an Atheist with minor concessions to Agnosticism.

Yeah - what Fred said.

Anti, you're killing me. I gave you evidence of evolution, and you ignored it. I know - textbook posts aren't as fun as hand-waving and saying "I believe this and I believe that" with no actual substance behind it. Too much mental effort, I guess. But your inability to ingest new information makes you look more and more like a man in pretty serious levels of denial... fingers in ears, singing "LA LA LA LA" really loud.

"...all mammals share a common internal 'design', a heart, eyes, ears a nose and a mouth. maybe its because we share a 'designer'..."

We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution. BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Yeah - what Fred said.

Anti, you're killing me. I gave you evidence of evolution, and you ignored it.

I AM NOT IGNORING IT! i am being realistic about its limits. you seem to think that a hand full of elements, given enough time, will properly order themselves to create something complex(like a human being)

Quote:
I know - textbook posts aren't as fun as hand-waving and saying "I believe this and I believe that" with no actual substance behind it. Too much mental effort, I guess. But your inability to ingest new information makes you look more and more like a man in pretty serious levels of denial... fingers in ears, singing "LA LA LA LA" really loud.

am i the close minded one? as far as i can tell i include every belief in mine, evolution, polytheism, theism... and it still makes sense(to me). you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct. maybe you are the one in denial

Quote:
We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution.

so youre a pantheist.. finally, some honesty! thats not quite the same as atheistic evolution.. you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Urghh. I can't answer that question as framed, since the theory of abiogenesis has nothing to do with inspiration and intelligence.

maybe it does. my question will always be 'what initiates an abiotic change'? at some point, the object(inanimate or otherwise) literally has to 'will' itself to change.. does it not? even if it is already composed of a combination of microbes or proteins, they still have to progressively order themselves to 'ascension'. isnt this the explanation for the origins of all living organisms on earth?

Quote:
If you had asked me "how" abiogenesis occurred ...instead of "what" ("who" actually, in your usage) caused it... I would have been able to answer the question!

i did want to know your answer.. i was (poking fun at myself, and)just being stereotypical

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 11, 2007 6:05 PM

Well, since you clarified!

My answer to the question "How did abiogensis occur" is I don't know. So perhaps the question really is DID abiogensis occur and my answer is still I don't know. There are all kinds of self-assemblying molecules: crystals (even snowflakes), DNA, prion proteins, and all the fancy stuff now being done with nanotechnology. But one of the things that all self-assemblying molecules have in common is there has to be a high enough concentration for the molecules to find each other so the forces of assembly aren't over taken by the forces of dissolution.

I haven't spent a lot of time on the abiogenisis argument. My guess is that if it occurred, it would have to take place in an area where chemicals are close to precipitating- where a hot sea-vent outflow meets colder ocean water, for example, or in a shrunken lake or even an underwater cave. But the chemicals involved in those examples (salt, cyanide, sulfide etc) are not the chemicals involved in life as we know it (amino acids) so I would have to posit conditions that are a far cry from what see see today, and I'm simply not enough of a geologist or biochemist to speculate what that might be. So for now, the answer (for me) is unknown.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 11, 2007 6:20 PM

well thank you for clarifying.. i appreciate and respect your honesty, and thats all i'm asking for; i don't have all the answers myself, which i think is why i personally connect with the spiritual, theistic side of the argument, since it 'feels' tangible to me

LEADB

Saturday, August 11, 2007 7:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, since you clarified!

My answer to the question "How did abiogensis occur" is I don't know. So perhaps the question really is DID abiogensis occur and my answer is still I don't know. There are all kinds of self-assemblying molecules: crystals (even snowflakes), DNA, prion proteins, and all the fancy stuff now being done with nanotechnology. But one of the things that all self-assemblying molecules have in common is there has to be a high enough concentration for the molecules to find each other so the forces of assembly aren't over taken by the forces of dissolution.

I haven't spent a lot of time on the abiogenisis argument. My guess is that if it occurred, it would have to take place in an area where chemicals are close to precipitating- where a hot sea-vent outflow meets colder ocean water, for example, or in a shrunken lake or even an underwater cave. But the chemicals involved in those examples (salt, cyanide, sulfide etc) are not the chemicals involved in life as we know it (amino acids) so I would have to posit conditions that are a far cry from what see see today, and I'm simply not enough of a geologist or biochemist to speculate what that might be. So for now, the answer (for me) is unknown.

I'm going to throw in my version of "I don't know."....
Personally, it would not 'offend' me if it turns out God reached down and 'kicked off' life; and I cannot rule that out. I suspect that instead, much in the same way snowflakes and some other rather simple structures form; the Creator designed the universe so life was likely (and almost 'certainly' given the size of the universe) to come into being via abiogensis.

FREDGIBLET

Sunday, August 12, 2007 3:07 AM

Quote:
can cats and dogs mate? theres your archetype barrier right there.

...Wow...you aren't even correctly stating your own argument now. What you have said before is that it is impossible for one "archetype" to evolve into another, it is certainly impossible for species to interbreed unless they are very recent divergences (horses and donkeys for instance), but that doesn't mean that they can't evolve into something very different from what they are now. You still haven't demonstrated a barrier to "archetype" shifts.

Quote:
cats HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CATS..

As of 10.8 million years ago or so...right.

Quote:
like which one? we don't know of any others.. so what are you basing that on?

Trillions of stars with solar systems, chances are good that at least one of them has a planet that can sustain life, this is, however, speculative. Also, it's quite possible that Europa can or even does sustain life.

Quote:
so again, either we are here by chance, or by design

*sigh* There is no randomness involved in where we are, we are here because the Earth can sustain complex life. Maybe the Earth was created for us, I don't know, but there's no chance involved either way.

Quote:
what IS evolving on mars?

Not much if anything, possibly some anaerobic bacteria.

Quote:
i believe a species does have a 'barrier', after which point it will become extinct due to natural selection

And yet you have no evidence for said barrier. Also, extinction is not required unless a better adapted species comes along, if a species hit some sort of mystical barrier in today's highly specialized world it probably wouldn't go extinct without a massive environment change.

Quote:
otherwise, don't you have to assume that a species can willingly change its entire nature(or 'archetype'), if necessary to survive?

As I have said several times before will has nothing to do with it, there's no way to choose to evolve (or at least no way until we get a much better grasp on genetic engineering).

Quote:
just what was it that inspired that first lucky composition of elements to intelligently order themselves?

The rules of chemistry. Given the proper environment complex molecules including amino acids and nucleotides are not only possible but possibly inevitable.

Quote:
can a computer or car build itself?

No, but natural processes frequently create molecules complex enough to have formed a self-replicator.

Quote:
you seem to think that a hand full of elements, given enough time, will properly order themselves to create something complex(like a human being)

And from the evidence we have it is quite plausible, we know that the necessary building blocks for a self-replicator can spontaneously form in several different sets of conditions that may have existed on a pre-biotic Earth, we know that evolution happens, there is no known barrier to the accumulation of changes from evolution, it is perfectly plausible that we exist today because of natural processes.

Quote:
you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct

I can't speak for Mal but I freely admit that it is possible that things are not as they seem, it's entirely possible that humans were created uniquely, it's entirely possible that your as-yet-undemonstrated "archetype" barrier exists. However there is no evidence pointing towards these things and an enormous amount of evidence pointing away from them, until such a time as you produce actual evidence I will continue to consider them as backup ideas.

Quote:
you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?

I'm fairly certain that Mal was referring to the "blind watchmaker" which is to say that nature using non-intelligent methods accounts for the world we see.

Quote:
at some point, the object(inanimate or otherwis

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 12, 2007 4:35 AM

ANTI- If you're satisfied with my answer on abiogenesis, do I get to ask my question? My question is:

What is the purpose of a snowflake?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Monday, August 13, 2007 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
I AM NOT IGNORING IT!

Well, see, I posted a list of fossils that are clear evidence of one body type changing to another. You didn't respond to that, you clearly never went to the web site that lists all manner of such transitions, and a few posts later you're AGAIN saying that there is no evidence of large changes in body types... That's not ignoring the evidence? Wow, I'd hate to see you when you are ignoring something LOL!

And how about C14 dating and ice cores? Are you going to address the flaws we've brought up in your arguments there?

Quote:
am i the close minded one? as far as i can tell i include every belief in mine, evolution, polytheism, theism... and it still makes sense(to me). you wont even consider the possibility that any of these other views are even partially correct. maybe you are the one in denial

To quote my earlier post: "BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists."

I have stated that I know God could exist. I'm not denying that it's a possibility. It's not the thing I personally believe. But that's not the point. What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!

And... when did you allow that evolution could be true? I don't recall you ever saying that... I could have missed it. My presence online is spotty.

Quote:
Quote:
We do share a designer, that designer is nature and the process of evolution.
so youre a pantheist.. finally, some honesty! thats not quite the same as atheistic evolution.. you do realize thats what your saying when you infer that nature inherently 'exhibits' intelligence sufficient enough to randomly order elements(to create the visible universe)?

Um... no, I'm not a pantheist. Here's the thing you don't seem to get: you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness - "God." What I've told you before is that nature is not purely random. It is guided by physical and chemical forces, and those have acted to create order. This is well documented.

To call the set of laws that create order "intelligence" is misleading. This would give the structure and laws of the universe a personality, opinions and such, where it's just not like that. Think of nature as an automated factory of incredible complexity. The big bang (or whatever it was the got things rolling) went in one end, and the universe we live in is at the other. The laws of physics and chemistry are the cogs and machines and such that have made things change in between.

Who built the factory? Who wrote these complex and perfectly balanced laws that have guided the evolution of the universe, and of us? Maybe that's God. And what an incredible God, to be able to design this thing. And maybe this God checks in from time to time, does inspections, so to speak. That's quite possible.

But - here's the thing - it's not necessary. We don't *need* an active hand of God to explain what we observe of life and the universe. The natural "factory" can do it all.

Really, it's mind-blowingly beautiful. I'm sad that you can't see it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

SIGNYM

Monday, August 13, 2007 4:19 PM

BUMP for ANTI: So, if you're OK with my answer about abiogensis (I can't imagine how it could have happened, but then my imagination in this area is limited so I leave that theory as "don't know") then my question to you is:

What is the purpose of a snowflake?

Snowflakes can only be created within a very narrow range of conditions: so narrow that up unlit just recently it couldn't be re-created in a lab. Too cold, and you get ice spindles. Too wet, and you get hail. There has to be water in three phases, gravity, and just the right kind of condensation nucleus. And as simple as they are, and only made of water (with a microscopic bit of dust at its center) we have not been able to mathematically model its creation, with all its beauty, complexity, order, and uniqueness.

God, as you imagine him, imbues the universe with meaning and purpose. Everything has a reason for being. Everything is intentional, and just as God wanted it to be.

So- what is the purpose of a snowflake?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:31 AM

"So- what is the purpose of a snowflake?"

I think that AntiM's asnwer to the 'purpose' of a snowflake is that god is inscrutable, like the Chinese are said to be.

"you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness - "God.""

I think AntiM has a hard time not seeing the entire universe in anthropomorphic terms. Since humans create things for a purpose, the universe was created by a human-like being for a purpose.

I guess what I find amusing is that people say god(s) is huge - unknowable and all powerful. But WE got it(them) all figured out. We know exactly what god(s) wants from you.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:12 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070814/sc_space/hotgasinspacemimicslif
e; _ylt=AuKZz2zqlwdKSbKXfekc3wr737YB

Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations show.

But scientists are hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult it is to define life.

*************************************

Complex things from simple parts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

Well, see, I posted a list of fossils that are clear evidence of one body type changing to another. You didn't respond to that, you clearly never went to the web site that lists all manner of such transitions, and a few posts later you're AGAIN saying that there is no evidence of large changes in body types... That's not ignoring the evidence? Wow, I'd hate to see you when you are ignoring something LOL!

you're right, i didn't check the sites.. i don't check Fred's talkorigins links(anymore)either. even i don't bother posting links on this subject, because i know this thread is far from impartial, and no one will actually objectively read them(otherwise, they could search ID arguments themselves). but i've had my share of the evolutionary theory throughout school, and theres not much new ground to be broken. i will likely always be skeptical and left with the same questions, because no one will ever know what happened 'in the beginning'

Quote:
And how about C14 dating and ice cores? Are you going to address the flaws we've brought up in your arguments there?

C14 no.. ice cores, yes: i don't think they're definitive, but its usable data

Quote:

To quote my earlier post: "BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists." I have stated that I know God could exist.

so you believe God may exist, but you know for sure that my God doesn't..? if its possible, in theory, for a perfect transcendent Creator to exist, then thats what i believe

Quote:
I'm not denying that it's a possibility. It's not the thing I personally believe. But that's not the point. What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!

thats your opinion Mal. i just do not see the kind of evolution you propose.. i see variations in 'kinds', but not the type of 'blank check' scenario that some of you envision

Quote:
And... when did you allow that evolution could be true? I don't recall you ever saying that... I could have missed it. My presence online is spotty.

thats always been my opinion.. i do not believe we are here because over billions of years, elements stumbled and came together, ordering themselves to create the complexity and life that we witness(especially on earth). i believe something infinitely 'intelligent' provided for this

Quote:

Here's the thing you don't seem to get: you seem to think that either nature is completely random or it's guided by an "intelligence" which is similar to human consciousness

yes, thats correct

Quote:
What I've told you before is that nature is not purely random. It is guided by physical and chemical forces, and those have acted to create order. This is well documented.

but how? are you suggesting that the eye, or the complexities of the human brain, given enough time will design and order themselves? i know this is something we cannot possibly duplicate or test in a lab.. so why hinge an entire theory on this premise?

Quote:
But - here's the thing - it's not necessary. We don't *need* an active hand of God to explain what we observe of life and the universe. The natural "factory" can do it all.

maybe not.. you said yourself it was possible 'God' established the universes laws(like evolution); if this is the case, then he WAS/IS necessary

Quote:
Really, it's mind-blowingly beautiful. I'm sad that you can't see it.

don't doubt my appreciation for nature.. i understand how things work, i just give God the credit

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:56 PM

So Anti, at the risk of being a nudge, did you see my snowflake question?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:58 PM

Reposted so it doesn't get lost. There might be a few people interested in inanimate "things" doing what "life" does - all on their own.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070814/sc_space/hotgasinspacemimicslif
e; _ylt=AuKZz2zqlwdKSbKXfekc3wr737YB

Electrically charged specks of interstellar dust organize into DNA-like double helixes and display properties normally attributed to living systems, such as evolving and reproducing, new computer simulations show.

But scientists are hesitant to call the dancing dust particles "alive," and instead say they are just another example of how difficult it is to define life.

*************************************

Complex things from simple parts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 12:27 AM

Quote:
Signym-
So Anti, at the risk of being a nudge, did you see my snowflake question?

i did.. and i had honestly never thought about it before(at least in this context), so i didn't feel i had anything worthwhile to contribute. nevertheless i did some digging around, to see what the ID'ers position is on snowflakes.. this is basically the 'gist' of what i found

"Snowflakes are often cited as evidence against intelligent design as examples of highly ordered structures that form naturally. Snowflakes are highly ordered and possess a somewhat complex, specified structure. While the probability of the exact conformation of each individual flake is quite low, the structure of snowflakes is the predictable result of matter obeying the laws of chemistry and physics under certain conditions. Snowflakes, then, although low-probability and specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which are always and everywhere the same. So the formation of a snowflake is quite different from the natural formation of DNA which is highly ordered, complex, and high in information content." ARN.org

"A snowflake takes on an ordered appearance. That order itself is a result of natural laws and contains no information. On the other hand, if the laws and forces that produce that snowflake were deconstructed, one would find the same precisely fine-tuned laws that govern life’s existence " -Darrick Dean

LEADB

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 2:19 AM

"A snowflake takes on an ordered appearance. That order itself is a result of natural laws and contains no information. On the other hand, if the laws and forces that produce that snowflake were deconstructed, one would find the same precisely fine-tuned laws that govern life’s existence " -Darrick Dean
I like that quote. I might have to use that, myself. It well supports the notion that that these precisely fine-tuned laws were what gave rise to the beginnings of life.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 3:24 AM

Leadb- I was surprised to find that quote attributed to a creationist. I can't even figure out HOW a creationist might even think that quote is at all supportive. Maybe Anti can explain it.

Anti- I wasn't using snowflakes as an evolution analog. I'm using your assumptions, I think. Maybe I misinterpreted but what I'm getting from your posts is that God created everything, and being omniscient he must have created everything for a reason. Mostly, you focus on how humans came into being and what our purpose is, but what about the rest of cosmos? Galaxies, dust clouds, other planets... even snowflakes? What is the purpose of a snowflake? Or another galaxy? Why did God create these other things?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 15, 2007 7:21 PM

bump for Anti

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, August 17, 2007 10:18 AM

Anti, I'm going to clarify my question by quoting you extensively, so as to make my meaning clear:

Quote:
it [evolution] negates or relegates any work done by God to something which happens purely randomly, by chance, with no higher purpose or guidance or design.
if there is no purpose for our being here, but that we happened into existence, it makes the case for moral and ethical absolutes...
... 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...
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
these are still just circumstantial observations.. every species makes use of its designed 'niche', we just happened to be created for a *special purpose

Having re-read your posts, I'm reasonably confident that I've been asking a fair question which should have meaning in your parlance, simply because you've used the key word so often. You see "purpose" in the universe. A grand design created for a reason. So, in the context of the above quotes, I'm going to repeat my question:

What is the purpose of an outside galaxy? Or of a snowflake?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Signym:

what is the purpose of a snowflake?

well... what's the purpose of snow? i think that would be my answer.. snowflakes are part of the infinitely complex and interdependent cycles that exist to provide for and accentuate life here on earth

Quote:
posted by Rue-

I think AntiM has a hard time not seeing the entire universe in anthropomorphic terms. Since humans create things for a purpose, the universe was created by a human-like being for a purpose.

well hold on, i never described the Creator as human-like.. id say rather we may share some of Gods qualities, but we are not infinite or eternal, omnipresent or all knowing. the bible says that no eye has seen God, which i believe... i certainly dont envision an old white guy with a beard. but yeah, i do believe there is a purpose to everything, as opposed to just a roll of the dice. the thought that something as complex as our DNA, or our internal biological functions(like the heart or brain or eyes) forming solely by time and chance, with no blueprint or design.. just seems ridiculous to me

Quote:
I guess what I find amusing is that people say god(s) is huge - unknowable and all powerful.

he would have to be omniscient, in theory, to create the universe. thats what we believe, not many forces which contain the same frailties as the human character

Quote:
But WE got it(them) all figured out. We know exactly what god(s) wants from you.

them? we believe in a single infinite, just force, which is aware of all things; not multiple gods. is that what you propose? because that theory makes even less sense and is not something i have ever promoted

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:19 PM

So Anti- what is the purpose of galaxies outside of our own?

What I'm gathering out of your snowflake answer is that the entire cosmos- the countless stars, galaxies and swirls of cosmic dust billions of miles from ours, other planets, down to the tiniest detail of each countless snowflake: It's all for us. All just to create humans.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:20 PM

Quote:
Fred-
And yet you have no evidence for said barrier.

fred... get back to me when any member of the cat species becomes something else

Quote:
if a species hit some sort of mystical barrier in today's highly specialized world it probably wouldn't go extinct without a massive environment change.

are there any 'endangered species'(is that in dispute)? so why dont they just change and adapt, so they are no longer endangered? i agree that a massive environmental change would occur, because God designed everything to fulfill their unique interdependent niches

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Anti- what is the purpose of galaxies outside of our own?

it could exist for the sake of other lifeforms.. or maybe its our inheritance in the afterlife

Quote:
What I'm gathering out of your snowflake answer is that the entire cosmos- the countless stars, galaxies and swirls of cosmic dust billions of miles from ours, other planets, down to the tiniest detail of each countless snowflake: It's all for us. All just to create humans.

no.. what i believe is that it all exists to serve a purpose. i do not believe its all just here, because some unknown event caused a 'big bang', which summoned all the matter in the universe from its non existant hiding place, to, by pure chance, chaotically order itself to functionality

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:28 PM

You see "purpose" but you don't know what that purpose is. All you can do is speculate.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:31 PM

true.. but you can only speculate about how thousands of elements knew to order themselves, in order to create the human eye. there is no natural process imaginable that could conceivably provide the right conditions for such an engineering feat to take place, let alone on its own, by chance, on the scale of the entire universe. but thats just me.. and where people begin to take sides on the argument

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:50 PM

Wow, everything I posted just disappeared!

Anyhoo...

Quote:
true.. but you can only speculate about how thousands of elements knew to order themselves, in order to create the human eye.

Anti, as a scientist I can do more than speculate. Speculation is only the first step. Your problem is that you can't even do that because in your view God is untimately unknowable. So all you have, really, is a "feeling" that all this just couldn't have happened without some sort of purpose... but what that purpose is - aside from the crowing glory of God's creation (which is ahem, us) is unanswerable.

The universe is often much simpler than it first appears. The complex braiding of Saturn's rings, the shape of galaxies, and the myriad of forms- planets, proto-stars, red giants, white dwarfs, gas clouds and supernovae... all result fomr the action of gravity. Even the human genome is made of only five unique base compounds. I can imagine all kinds of processes that create self-assembling molecules and self-correcting code. And in fact so can others, which is why it's being done in the lab. I have no doubt that in time we will eventually puzzle out how life began. What would you say to that?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:14 PM

Quote:
I have no doubt that in time we will eventually puzzle out how life began. What would you say to that?

we'll have to see.. im a bit more skeptical, but who knows? i would be more concerned about the political and societal repercussions of such a find, especially if the claim was made that it likely all happened on its own.

in your opinion, how would that effect society, if the concept of God were to completely fall by the wayside?

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Anyhoo...
Quote:
true.. but you can only speculate about how thousands of elements knew to order themselves, in order to create the human eye.
Anti, as a scientist I can do more than speculate. Speculation is only the first step. Your problem is that you can't even do that because in your view God is untimately unknowable.

but Signym.. let me use the eye as an example: science has uncovered how the eye works, we know the mechanisms that attach to the brain and how the iris functions etc. but ultimately, we do not know how it formed itself, when the first eye formed, if it was complete in working order, or if it had to occur progressively. a naturalist will just devolve an eye, and make the assumption that the individual elements that make up the eye, over time, progressively ordered themselves to achieve its desired function. thats a hypothetical inference though.. we have no evidence for such a claim, but according to your hypothesis this is how the eye formed. to me, the eye is complex beyond the 'chance' that these particular elements could successfully create the eye, without any prior design or blueprint. these two views represent the opposing opinions on this entire subject.. whether the universe could 'come together' on its own this way, or whether it takes some form of intelligence. while science can verify how the eye works, it cannot prove that the eye developed itself.. so this is my ultimate disagreement with that line of thinking

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:31 PM

Most people who believe in God aren't creationists. Their beliefs are more durable because they haven't thought things through, so they behave as their upbringing, circumstances and biology dictate.

In other words, except for fundamentalists of various religions I doubt very much that things would change.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:36 PM

i see the concept as a restrainer; otherwise, what makes us any different then animals(or our elected governments from treating us like them)? that question may sound foolish, but not if youve sufficiently studied communist ideology

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:42 PM

Quote:
Signym- Most people who believe in God aren't creationists. Their beliefs are more durable because they haven't thought things through, so they behave as their upbringing, circumstances and biology dictate.

what about those who become believers(such as myself)? did we all just stop thinking things through? im not sure if thats what you are implying, but ive heard those kind of statements before, and i truly resent them. my opinion appears perfectly logical to me, and in spite of my continued study of theology my faith continues. for me, the more i analyze the naturalist proposals, the less logical that view becomes.. but im not insinuating that people are ignorant or uninformed for believing that way, i recognize its a philosophic choice, and leave it at that

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:50 PM

We're not THAT much different than animals. We're on a continuum with them, where we differ is by degree and amount. Chimps, gorillas, bonobos, dolphins, elephants, and whales have a sense of "fair". They grieve when their close companions or young children die. They intensively teach their young how to behave in the world, and with each other. They communicate specific messages, not just emotions, like "hawk" or "snake". A few gorillas have learned extensive sign language, and use it imaginatively to joke with their keepers. And humans, despite the fact that we have this incredibly complicated gray matter on top, still have working "animal brains" underneath.

If we actually treated each other the way gorillas and chimps and orcas treat each other, we wouldn't be so badly off. I personally think that we need to find a way to understand our "animal brains", not deny it's existance, because at the core of MOST people (with the exception of born sociopaths) you will find animals who like to cooperate in addition to being sometimes greedy. We're not as bad as you think.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

LEADB

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:54 PM

As sig says; most folks who believe in God are content to say he is the master designer, and brought forth the universe; perhaps via the big bang, perhaps via actions preceding the big bang. There's no particular reason for most folks to have a major faith change at all.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 6:55 PM

Quote:
Most people who believe in God aren't creationists. Their beliefs are more durable because they haven't thought things through, so they behave as their upbringing, circumstances and biology dictate- SignyM

what about those who become believers(such as myself)? did we all just stop thinking things through? im not sure if thats what you are implying, but ive heard those kind of statements before, and i truly resent them. - AntiMason

Perhaps I didnt' make myself clear. YOU have thought things through. That is why there is a tight chain between your belief in creation and your view of society. OTHERS are habitually and circumstantially moral. They tolerate rather large contradictions in their mentation simply because they do NOT insist on things being logical. That is why their behavior is decoupled from abstract events.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We're not THAT much different than animals. We're on a continuum with them, where we differ is by degree and amount. Chimps, gorillas, bonobos, dolphins, elephants, and whales have a sense of "fair". They grieve when their close companions or young children die. They intensively teach their young how to behave in the world...

i completely agree, what im asking is how did this emotion and intelligence develop? i dont mean any offense by this, but you come off as taking this kind of complexity for granted. if i am to believe that immediately after the big bang, the universe was just a rapidly expanding, gaseous 'chaotic'(entirely theoretical) mess, then i have to logically assume that the odds these elements would ever settle, to create anything of the complexity of a tomato seed or our galaxy, or a human being, would be astronomical. the mind and body alone are such complex organisms, full of information(much of it we are only beginning to understand), that we shouldnt just relegate this all to what is quite literally chance (in the naturalist view)

Quote:
If we actually treated each other the way gorillas and chimps and orcas treat each other, we wouldn't be so badly off. I personally think that we need to find a way to understand our "animal brains", not deny it's existance, because at the core of MOST people (with the exception of born sociopaths) you will find animals who like to cooperate in addition to being sometimes greedy. We're not as bad as you think.

well see.. i agree, but i dont think its a coincidence that human beings behave this way. now this is just MO, but i feel the bible is correct when it says that we have become separated from God, and to that extent his creation, because we rejected him as our Creator from the beginning. but then it says we have brought this curse(or cycle of 'death and decay') onto the world, until this age ends and things are 'restored'

ANTIMASON

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:19 PM

Quote:
Signy- Perhaps I didnt' make myself clear. YOU have thought things through. That is why there is a tight chain between your belief in creation and your view of society. OTHERS are habitually and circumstantially moral. They tolerate rather large contradictions in their mentation simply because they do NOT insist on things being logical. That is why their behavior is decoupled from abstract events.

alright, well then im not directing that towards you. but thats a fair assessment, a lot of people are this way, religious and otherwise

LEADB

Saturday, August 18, 2007 10:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
We're not THAT much different than animals. We're on a continuum with them, where we differ is by degree and amount. Chimps, gorillas, bonobos, dolphins, elephants, and whales have a sense of "fair". They grieve when their close companions or young children die. They intensively teach their young how to behave in the world...
i completely agree, what im asking is how did this emotion and intelligence develop? i dont mean any offense by this, but you come off as taking this kind of complexity for granted. if i am to believe that immediately after the big bang, the universe was just a rapidly expanding, gaseous 'chaotic'(entirely theoretical) mess, then i have to logically assume that the odds these elements would ever settle, to create anything of the complexity of a tomato seed or our galaxy, or a human being, would be astronomical.

I knew I'd find this quote handy!
"A snowflake takes on an ordered appearance. That order itself is a result of natural laws and contains no information. On the other hand, if the laws and forces that produce that snowflake were deconstructed, one would find the same precisely fine-tuned laws that govern life’s existence " -Darrick Dean
It well supports the notion that that these precisely fine-tuned laws were what gave rise to the complexity we see. The difference in our position is that you seem to feel that God had to rather periodically 'adjust' the creation, whereas I feel the Creator so carefully tuned the creation 'at' the big bang such that these complexities were bound to develop.

It's left to us as an exercise of curiosity (or not) to study this and use this; which we call science.

SIGNYM

Saturday, August 18, 2007 10:59 PM

Quote:
I completely agree, what im asking is how did this emotion and intelligence develop? i dont mean any offense by this, but you come off as taking this kind of complexity for granted. if i am to believe that immediately after the big bang, the universe was just a rapidly expanding, gaseous 'chaotic'(entirely theoretical) mess, then i have to logically assume that the odds these elements would ever settle, to create anything of the complexity of a tomato seed or our galaxy, or a human being, would be astronomical.

Well, possibly part of my outlook is that I'm not entirely convinced of the "big bang" theory. But even if I accept that theory- with the universe being 15 billion yeas old (or some such) I think part of our very human problem is that we can't really feel what "a billion years" means.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 19, 2007 7:02 PM

Quote:
LeadB- The difference in our position is that you seem to feel that God had to rather periodically 'adjust' the creation, whereas I feel the Creator so carefully tuned the creation 'at' the big bang such that these complexities were bound to develop. It's left to us as an exercise of curiosity (or not) to study this and use this; which we call science.

thats entirely possible, and i certainly dont discount that theory. its about the only way i can make sense of the naturalist view, if instead of by chance, the universe was instead 'designed' to come together to support and enable life; this could explain abiogenesis and evolution(although i would still require more data). i just have trouble imagining these processes coming together in a chaotic, unguided sense(such as we might envision immediately after the big bang)

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 19, 2007 7:08 PM

Quote:
Signym- Well, possibly part of my outlook is that I'm not entirely convinced of the "big bang" theory. But even if I accept that theory- with the universe being 15 billion yeas old (or some such) I think part of our very human problem is that we can't really feel what "a billion years" means.

i actually sorta agree on both counts. do you have an alternative theory to the big bang Sig?

SIGNYM

Sunday, August 19, 2007 7:27 PM

When people saw that stellar spectra were shifted to the red, and that this shift seemed to be more or less proportional to distance, people didn't figure that "something" was interfering with the spectra over distance, they just assumed that the shift was due to the stars racing away from us (doppler effect). That led to the hypothesis of an ever-expanding universe that was getting further and further apart. But because these observations didn't quite square with others, people started inventing concepts like dark matter and dark energy... fudge factors, basically... to make the theories match up, rather than prehaps revisit some basic assumptions.

My concept of the universe? It's very much like your concept of God, minus the purpose and intelligence: Always has been here, always will be here. Infinite.

It's a hard to grasp concept.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Sunday, August 19, 2007 10:18 PM

Quote:
Signym-
My concept of the universe? It's very much like your concept of God, minus the purpose and intelligence: Always has been here, always will be here. Infinite.

its an interesting proposal none the less.. and entirely possible. i guess im attracted to the romanticism and idealism of God, and this type of cosmic conspiracy of dark and light that is supposed to be taking place. that's where i come from with this whole NWO masonic conspiracy angle.. it adds a feeling of tangibility for me, because there really is a lot of depth and truth to it all

Quote:
It's a hard to grasp concept.

hey, believe me.. so is God. if God exists, by definition he would be unfathomable, unless 'he' chose to communicate this to us(which is where i like to believe the 'Adam and Eve' story begins)

FREDGIBLET

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:58 AM

Quote:
you're right, i didn't check the sites.. i don't check Fred's talkorigins links(anymore)either.

Unsurprising.

Quote:
even i don't bother posting links on this subject, because i know this thread is far from impartial

And? Isn't the whole point that you are trying to back up your position?

Quote:
and no one will actually objectively read them(otherwise, they could search ID arguments themselves)

I will objectively read them if you post them, however objectively read does not translate to accept them unquestioningly, but rather give them the benefit of the doubt until they are shown to be wrong.

Quote:
but i've had my share of the evolutionary theory throughout school, and theres not much new ground to be broken.

If the only information you've gotten on evolution was high school and your creationist sources then there's little wonder of how you can have such bad information.

Quote:
Quote:
What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!

thats your opinion Mal

Only partially right anti. Some of your arguments are indeed subjective, for instance whether or not the fossil record is good enough, this is a matter of perspective and an opinion might be unreasonable but can't really be wrong.

On the other hand you use quite a few arguments that are subjectively wrong and indicate that you are getting your information from bad sources. For instance you used the argument that order does not come from disorder, this is objectively false, it can and frequently does. You used the argument that Darwin said there were no transitional fossils, this is false, and not only false but the only way that that argument could have been created was by someone intending to deceive as there's no way that the sentence, in context, can be construed as meaning what you were told it means. While it is true that some of your arguments are subjective many of them are not.

Quote:
i just do not see the kind of evolution you propose.. i see variations in 'kinds', but not the type of 'blank check' scenario that some of you envision

Argument from incredulity, "I don't believe it therefore it didn't happen". Your "archetype barrier" still hasn't been supported with evidence.

Quote:
are you suggesting that the eye, or the complexities of the human brain, given enough time will design and order themselves?

Yes, why not? We know that natural selection works, we know that random mutation can introduce novel features, we have never found a barrier to the accumulation of mutations. In short the development of eyes or the brain is a perfectly logical result of evolution.

Quote:
"Snowflakes are often cited as evidence against intelligent design as examples of highly ordered structures that form naturally. Snowflakes are highly ordered and possess a somewhat complex, specified structure. While the probability of the exact conformation of each individual flake is quite low, the structure of snowflakes is the predictable result of matter obeying the laws of chemistry and physics under certain conditions. Snowflakes, then, although low-probability and specified, are also low in information, because their specification is in the laws, which are always and everywhere the same. So the formation of a snowflake is quite different from the natural formation of DNA which is highly ordered, complex, and high in information content." ARN.org

This argument is based off of specified complexity, specified complexity fails on a variety of fronts such as Dembski ignoring known evidence, misunderstanding the nature of No Free Lunch Theorems (which he named his book after), falling into the false dichotomy that you like between design or pure randomness with a uniform probability distribution (meaning that every possible result has the same probability), as well as a variety of other issues shown here: http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/ not that you (anti) are going to read it but

MAL4PREZ

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
but i've had my share of the evolutionary theory throughout school, and theres not much new ground to be broken.

Science is constantly breaking new ground. You, clearly, are not.

Quote:
i will likely always be skeptical and left with the same questions, because no one will ever know what happened 'in the beginning'

Are you skeptical of your own beliefs, or only of those that disagree with yours?

Anyway, by bringing up the "beginning" you're running away from my point (remember that I said evolution does describe the origin, only the process since then) My point - you repeatedly claim that there are no transitional fossils, that there's no proof that one species ever shifted to another. There is proof, my dear. You refuse to look at it, but it's there. A cartoon example:

The fossils of this transition from toed feet to hooves have been found, in our very earth. I'm sure there are museums where you can go see these fossilized bones set out before you. How do you explain them away? Do you think scientists have faked them? Or do you just try really hard not to look?

Quote:
Quote:
And how about C14 dating and ice cores? Are you going to address the flaws we've brought up in your arguments there?
C14 no.. ice cores, yes: i don't think they're definitive, but its usable data

So you don't believe in C14 dating? Why not? Do you realize that the science behind the decaying of atoms (quantom mechanics) is pervasive - it's the same general understanding that makes the computer you're looking at work. It's the same science that explains the observed spectrum of stars, the behavior of water...

Quote:
Quote:
To quote my earlier post: "BTW, this does not rule out god or God if you insist, it just rules out your literal interpretation of the bible and the incredibly flawed arguments of creationists." I have stated that I know God could exist.
so you believe God may exist, but you know for sure that my God doesn't..? if its possible, in theory, for a perfect transcendent Creator to exist, then thats what i believe

I think it is possible. But I don't think God is so very human as the Bible makes out.

But let's stick with evolution - I certainly don't believe in the literal interpretion of the Bible, and that's I'm debating here.

And - are you saying that if the existence of god is possible, then it must be true? Um... strong logic there. Solid proof. /snark

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not denying that it's a possibility. It's not the thing I personally believe. But that's not the point. What I'm strongly disgreeing with is your arguments against evolution. They're flawed, anti. Very flawed!
thats your opinion Mal.

No, it's not just opinion. "Belief" is opinion, and I have no problem with you believing in God however you choose. The thing is, creationists - including you - have taken this argument into the realm of science, and some creationists - not you, I hope - are trying to repress scientific exploration because it doesn't fit their beliefs.

However, logic is not opinion, and it can very well be flawed, as yours is. You say that there is no evidence of fossil transitions. That is where you are wrong. I gave you evidence, hard and solid. You've given nothing, except to not look at the evidence. I don't think you realize how weak that makes your argument appear.

Really, you're only fooling yourself anti!

Quote:
thats always been my opinion.. i do not believe we are here because over billions of years, elements stumbled and came together, ordering themselves to create the complexity and life that we witness(especially on earth). i believe something infinitely 'intelligent' provided for this

It's not just a stumble. Stars didn't just happen to clump together; there's this marvelous thing called gravity. See? Structures being formed, and not randomly. They're guided by a process of nature.

Quote:
Quote:
What

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

LEADB

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
LeadB- The difference in our position is that you seem to feel that God had to rather periodically 'adjust' the creation, whereas I feel the Creator so carefully tuned the creation 'at' the big bang such that these complexities were bound to develop. It's left to us as an exercise of curiosity (or not) to study this and use this; which we call science.

thats entirely possible, and i certainly dont discount that theory. its about the only way i can make sense of the naturalist view, if instead of by chance, the universe was instead 'designed' to come together to support and enable life; this could explain abiogenesis and evolution(although i would still require more data). i just have trouble imagining these processes coming together in a chaotic, unguided sense(such as we might envision immediately after the big bang)

Never claimed it was easy to imagine ;-)

If at some point you decide you'd like to discuss some of the science behind how fossils are dated, and why it is believed domesticated cats and velociraptors never shared the earth at the same time, I'd be happy to discuss; however, I think we've hit a 'happy medium' here, and am pretty content to let it rest.

====
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

SIGNYM

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:30 PM

Quote:
My concept of the universe? It's very much like your concept of God, minus the purpose and intelligence: Always has been here, always will be here. Infinite.-Signym

Its an interesting proposal none the less.. and entirely possible. i guess im attracted to the romanticism and idealism of God, and this type of cosmic conspiracy of dark and light that is supposed to be taking place. that's where i come from with this whole NWO masonic conspiracy angle.. it adds a feeling of tangibility for me, because there really is a lot of depth and truth to it all -Anti

And this is one of those places where you and I part company. I don't feel that it's necessary for the entire UNIVERSE to be reflecting our struggle with good and evil. In fact it seems mighty vain to think that "everything" was created to play some role in our puny existance. Is it really necessary for your emotional state to think that you are a warrior of light in a "cosmic" conspiracy that has reverberated through the ages?

Urggghhhh.... If so, now I see why we have such problems communicating.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:35 PM

Fred, MAl- you are welcome to continue posting your opinions on evolution, but if you are trying to sway my beliefs then you should know it is in vain. i will always regard part of evolution as theoretical, until i am shown a process by which a complex biological system(such as the eye or nervous system) can design itself from scratch, beginning from literally nothing. unfortunately for your two, there are no other Creationists on this board you can condescendingly brow beat from atop your intellectual pedestals... so you might have to do some trolling to find another unsuspecting 'believer' that you can convert to a random chance materialist. as long as you are comfortable believing in the accidental view of history, be my guest. i choose to believe we have a purpose, and i will likely hold on to this hope until the day i die, and learn the truth for myself. either way, i dont reckon ill be disappointed

RUE

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 11:49 PM

Fortunately for me, I don't need a cosmic purpose to validate my life.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:00 AM

Quote:
Signym- And this is one of those places where you and I part company. I don't feel that it's necessary for the entire UNIVERSE to be reflecting our struggle with good and evil.

thats fine.. i do. i believe God exists, and that God established moral absolutes, so its possible that 'dark and light,' or 'good and evil,' are amidst a spiritual conflict with one another; the extent depending on whether we're alone in the universe or not. this line of thought is not unlike those of the ancient world, so pardon me for lending an ear to our ancestors, rather then completely discrediting them on account of some 21st century armchair know-it-alls

Quote:
In fact it seems mighty vain to think that "everything" was created to play some role in our puny existance.

"puny existence"? pardon me Sig, but I for one don't believe we're here purely by random accident

Quote:
Is it really necessary for your emotional state to think that you are a warrior of light in a "cosmic" conspiracy that has reverberated through the ages?

no.. it helps me make sense of the world. you know, if there wasnt occult symbolism all over Washington or London or Germany, which traces back to babylon and Baal worship, maybe id be less inclined to believe the 'conspiracy'. but given that the all seeing eye of Lucifer(admitted by a 33rd degree freemason) is presented proudly on the dollar bill, i personally cannot see how it can be discounted. but thats just me.. instead, maybe i should be looking through a microscope at ice core samples to figure this stuff out

Quote:
Urggghhhh.... If so, now I see why we have such problems communicating.

this goes back to morality, and whether there are moral absolutes or not. if there is no afterlife, no eternity, and we are just on a continuum with animals, then what we perceive as good and evil is entirely relevant to the situation, and what we regard as the 'rule of law' is entirely subjective and literally worth nothing. maybe this IS where we have communication problems.. because i do believe in good and evil

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:06 AM

Quote:
RUE- Fortunately for me, I don't need a cosmic purpose to validate my life

does that make you feel better about yourself? i never said i did either.. i said i believe this is whats happening. you know.. you sound pretty smug, considering you dont know what happens after death EITHER. but then, unless its theorized by some unknown person in a science journal, it cannot possibly be 'true' to you

RUE

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 12:20 AM

"i choose to believe we have a purpose, and i will likely hold on to this hope until the day i die, and learn the truth for myself."

I have a purpose, but I don't have any need to hope for a cosmic one. Isn't life enough ?

"does that make you feel better about yourself? i never said i did either.. i said i believe this is whats happening. you know.. you sound pretty smug, considering you dont know what happens after death EITHER. but then, unless its theorized by some unknown person in a science journal, it cannot possibly be 'true' to you"

As for this, it's not at all what I believe. I've already said I don't know, and that my beliefs aren't about science.

You remind me of the converters (don't remember which religion) who came to my door, pounding down on science for an hour as if they could bring me to religion by shaking my "faith" in science. I finally told them it wasn't science that caused me to abandon my faith.

They asked with great emotion "Well, what DID?". I said "history and geography" and gently closed the door on their open-mouthed consternation.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:08 AM

Quote:
Rue- I have a purpose, but I don't have any need to hope for a cosmic one. Isn't life enough ?

what is life? some people dont even regard a 2 month old fetus as living; nevermind if theres is life beyond death. i believe God fore-destined each of us, to be unique and to fulfill different purposes, depending on our choices and 'free will'

Quote:
As for this, it's not at all what I believe. I've already said I don't know, and that my beliefs aren't about science.

You remind me of the converters (don't remember which religion) who came to my door, pounding down on science for an hour as if they could bring me to religion by shaking my "faith" in science. I finally told them it wasn't science that caused me to abandon my faith.

the irony in all this is that im the one on the defense. its not me trying to convert you. i am the only creationist(besides possibly casual)even making an opposing argument, so those of you with alternative beliefs feel you need to 'educate' me on the 'facts', because i must be ignorant not to believe the same as you

Quote:
They asked with great emotion "Well, what DID?". I said "history and geography" and gently closed the door on their open-mouthed consternation.

yeah, i know what you mean... i do the same thing to global warming activists

RUE

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 2:56 AM

I see you're on your soapbox again. Climb down offa' there - you don't think too well in the thin air, and besides, you'll get a nosebleed.

Of the many differences between the two of us, I know why these:

• some people dont even regard a 2 month old fetus as living
• those of you with alternative beliefs feel you need to 'educate' me on the 'facts', because i must be ignorant not to believe the same as you
• yeah, i know what you mean... i do the same thing to global warming activists

are complete nonsense.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

HKCAVALIER

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...you sound pretty smug, considering you dont know what happens after death EITHER.

Plenty of us do know what happens after death, at least immediately after death. It's a lot like you'd expect.

I'm just sayin'.

Carry on.

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.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 1:45 PM

Anti- you want so much for the world to make sense along the lines of a cosmic battle between light and dark, good and evil. But what happens if there is NO such battle? What you do envision as a result? Do you - and by extension others- become less special? Are you afraid that whatever wrongs you have suffered will be meaningless? Whatever right you have done will be unrewarded?

It's funny, because when I look up at the night sky and see the stars I take comfort in knowing how very small I am. How insignificant. All of humanity... just a blip in time, a "nothing" in the solar system. All we do right and all we do wrong fades. Thank goodness. I still try to do right, but the bigger perspective makes me less frantic.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:13 PM

bump for antimason- hope this stays up long enuf for you to see it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Fred, MAl- you are welcome to continue posting your opinions on evolution,

And you're free to keep thinking of it as an opinion, if that's the easiest way you can avoid looking at the fossil record and replying to our questions.

Quote:
unfortunately for your two, there are no other Creationists on this board you can condescendingly brow beat from atop your intellectual pedestals...

Hmm... so, you're not able to handle the logic/science arguments, and now you're turning to insults? *shakes head* Predictable.

Quote:
as long as you are comfortable believing in the accidental view of history, be my guest.

If I told you again that this "accidental" idea is something you've invented for yourself, would you hear me?

would you hear me...
would you hear me...

(uh... that was an echo)

Quote:
i choose to believe we have a purpose, and i will likely hold on to this hope until the day i die, and learn the truth for myself. either way, i dont reckon ill be disappointed

Careful, such smugness could be interpreted as: nyah-nyah, I'll be Heaven with a righteous halo on my head and you'll be kissing my sweet smelling toes...

OK, enough silliness. I'm very disappointed that, like Causal, you're bailing out of the debate, just when it gets to specifics. And I won't pretend that I don't have a very solid guess as to why you're doing it...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

LEADB

Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:08 AM

I should bite my tongue... but it's my fingers typing, so I guess I will and just keep going...

Causal gave a good and fair statement of why he discontinued posting here; and frankly, the conversation degenerated pretty much precisely as he predicted. I held my nose and stuck through it because I had hoped to convince a person or two that they had taken hostile positions unsupportable by logic. However, the logic remained un-supported and generally avoided.

I failed rather miserably, and frankly, in the future, am much more likely to take the route Causal did (though probably more quietly, and simply fade into the wood work).

RUE

Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:29 AM

Many people enjoy your measured, thoughtful posts.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

LEADB

Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:08 AM

:-) Thanks Rue.

To clarify the above, I meant on particular topics like that which Causal cited as opposed to 'in general'.

RUE

Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:16 AM

Cool. I'm glad you'll be around.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:01 AM

mmm... Well, I'm still hoping for an answer from Anti.

Anti?

Helloooo?

Oh, and PS...LeadB I like your style.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Causal gave a good and fair statement of why he discontinued posting here; and frankly, the conversation degenerated pretty much precisely as he predicted.

Causal did bow out gracefully, I give him that. But leadb - how did the conversation degenerate? I thought that, for a RWED, there's been a shocking lack of name calling. There may have been unpopular opinions, and HK's psychopath statement certainly was challenging, but I think offense was taken from his posts more than it was given, if you get my meaning.

But here's the thing that I find confusing, and frankly, frustrating...

Creationists say that evolution is all wrong, which implies a certain level of idiocy or even dishonesty in the scientific community. Now, I could get all offended and emotional ("damn you, how dare you knock this stuff I've spent my whole life learning, yada yada yada") but that's just silly. I see no reason to take it personally. But I'll certainly join the debate, and respond with facts as much as I can.

Now, when you take it in the reverse, when it's me saying that the creationists are wrong, and especially when I present compelling reasons why their arguments are flawed, they cry foul. They say this is too much of an insult and offense for them to continue. And this isn't just here on this site; this is, generally, how they handle disagreement.

So... it's okay for them to throw down other people's worldviews, but if someone does it to them that's unacceptable? Hypocracy, wouldn't you say? Or is it simply them avoiding a debate they know they can't win, because they have no evidence to back themselves up?

I'm not trying to be snippy with that last bit.... I ask with 100% sincerity. OK... maybe 90%.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

LEADB

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:20 PM

I tried very hard to get HK to either retract or backup his statement; ultimately he wandered off.

Taken? Given? I found HK's remark very offensive in the sense that he insulted folks I consider to be very good friends. As I indicated, I only stuck to it in hopes to see if he could be shown the implications of his statement. And to be honest, I don't think you 'cared' enough about the implications of HK's statement to understand why it is offensive; especially in light of his ducking out.

For the record, I also find the creationists very frustrating when they claim basic science is not counter indicated by their claims, then decline to back it up. This is entirely different than coming in with an insulting, value based claim which someone does not backup with reasonable support.

Regarding Anti, I've personally reached the conclusion he doesn't understand the science well enough to defend the position he believes in in a 'scientific mode'; so I personally don't see a point in hounding him on the matter; frustrating as I find some of his claims to be. By all means, feel free to continue pursuing; however, I do not feel it is fair to compare Causal's decision to bow out to Anti's inability to defend a position in a particular mode.

SIGNYM

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:18 PM

Well, I've tried pretty hard to strike up a dialogue on Anti's terms. I think I've done a marvelous job of keeping the snark within bounds. Well, I tried anyway. And I'm still interested in understanding what it is that Anti finds so necessary about being part of a cosmic battle. I don't "get" the attraction of that idea. Sounds like a lot of work to me, and I have enough problems just handling everyday life! But here I am, still waiting for an honest reply to a sincere question. A PM would do... it doesn't have to be a public discussion. But I expect that Anti doesn't want to discuss this on ANY grounds.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:46 PM

Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.

Here I list a series of psychological flaws and fallacious premises which I perceive to be inherent in modern monotheism, if not Western Culture as a whole. Do you believe these characteristics describe the God of your understanding? If not, there's a conversation to be had. Can you point to any of Almighty God's actions or prescriptions that speak against hierarchy, control and intolerance?

--------------------------------------

I thought HKC's statements were strongly worded but I didn't find them any more offensive than the things that have been said about atheists.

There were, in his position, things I found useful - and true. And it pointed out to me, again, how focused 'christians' are on the old testament with its strictures and punishments and jealous god. I find that perplexing when Jesus himself said there were only two commandments: love god, and love your neighbor as yourself.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:56 PM

Quote:
but if you are trying to sway my beliefs then you should know it is in vain

That's been pretty clear for a few threads now, that's not really why I'm here, if I managed to "convert" you as it were it would be nice and totally unexpected. My main purpose here is to attempt to keep others from seeing the BS you post go unchallenged, the reality is that most of the anti-evolution arguments sound quite good, are very believable and are completely wrong. If your posts on the subject go unchallenged then someone ignorant of the facts might stumble across a thread like this and end up with the impression that your arguments are valid, not a good thing. It wouldn't be much of an issue if people would check their facts (of course then you wouldn't be using most of the arguments you use in the first place) or if it wasn't so hard to dislodge bad information from most peoples heads after it takes root.

Regarding you I would be happily surprised if I managed to get you to realize that your information sources are largely either ignorant or lying, but I didn't really expect even that. I've heard a few stories about "conversions" and there is a common, though not universal, theme: most of them involve people who scoffed at evolution for years then finally actually started doing their own research instead of trusting creationist sources and discovered that they had been wrong from the start.

Quote:
i will always regard part of evolution as theoretical

Fine, I would ask though that you give the same amount of scrutiny to ID that you give to evolution, but I doubt that that you will.

Quote:
until i am shown a process by which a complex biological system(such as the eye or nervous system) can design itself from scratch

Well...we have shown you that...more than once, you just say "but it couldn't have, it just couldn't have!' when we explain it to you. You refuse to accept that natural selection has as much power as it clearly does so there's really not much we can do, but then that's the whole point isn't it? You say "show me this then I might accept it" and then when we show you you say "I don't see it so I'm not going to accept it" it makes it seem like you are being reasonable when you actually aren't.

Quote:
so those of you with alternative beliefs feel you need to 'educate' me on the 'facts', because i must be ignorant not to believe the same as you

Well anti here's the thing, you consistently use arguments that are factually wrong, many if not most of your arguments are not subjective and are wrong. The problem is not so much that you don't accept evolution as it is why you don't accept evolution, if you demonstrated that you understood evolution but still rejected it on theological grounds then the only thing to say would be that most people get along fine by slightly adjusting their theology. Instead you consistently demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of evolution and then insist that based on your misunderstanding evolution is wrong.

@ Leadb

Quote:
Many people enjoy your measured, thoughtful posts.

Thirded

@ MAl

Quote:
So... it's okay for them to throw down other people's worldviews, but if someone does it to them that's unacceptable?

Indeed and this is a common thread throughout, one of the interesting things to see is the topic of religion in schools, if you propose teaching Christianity then they are all for it, if you mention that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others will get equal time then they aren't so hot on it.

Quote:
Or is it simply them avoiding a debate they know they can't win, because they have no evidence to back themselves up?

I don't think it's quite so well thought out as that, I'm pretty sure that it's not that they say "I don't have the evidence needed to back myself up and win this" but rather more along the lines of "they're too deeply entrenched in their lies to understand why I'm right".

Quote:
Regarding Anti, I've personally reached the conclusion h

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I thought HKC's statements were strongly worded but I didn't find them any more offensive than the things that have been said about atheists.

Agreed, but then I'm an atheist so...

Quote:
And it pointed out to me, again, how focused 'christians' are on the old testament with its strictures and punishments and jealous god.

In their defense, in my experience it's the vocal Christians who focus on the Old Testament, the majority really doesn't. But then I don't spend a lot of time talking about Christianity with the people I'm around.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Taken? Given? I found HK's remark very offensive in the sense that he insulted folks I consider to be very good friends.

But where was the insult? Honestly, I can't find it!

Quote:
As I indicated, I only stuck to it in hopes to see if he could be shown the implications of his statement. And to be honest, I don't think you 'cared' enough about the implications of HK's statement to understand why it is offensive; especially in light of his ducking out.

Please - explain! And it's not that I don't understand the implications, I'm just not so quick to blame HK for conclusions that he didn't draw. Who saw the implications? Him, or Causal?

As I saw it, HK put forth a hypothesis: "in my opinion, the situation A could imply B" This could have been answered many ways, including - A is not how it is, or A does not imply B, or the basis of this whole A/B situation doesn't apply. But the response he got was all about the anger in his post. Where was the anger? I've re-read. I still can't see it. Really and honestly, I can't!

OK, OK... but you're right that Causal's leaving the thread was different then Anti's avoidance. I shouldn't be suggesting that Causal intentionally went away to avoid a debate he couldn't handle - I don't think he did that at all. He's clearly capable of handling any debate he chooses, and why continue if it's no fun? Good for him there!

But... the similarity I see between Anti and Causal is this: (to view it in an extremely mal4prez centered way LOL!) twice now a discussion I found interesting has been cut off, and that's disappointing. Debatus coitus interruptus, as it were. If I had debate balls, they'd be blue.

IMHO, there's a similarity in these walls that have come up. Causal came right out and said he felt attacked, referring to name-calling, although I still can't find any names that were thrown his way. I maintain that what HK said in that first post was not a direct statement about Causal and his beliefs, but, for whatever reason, Causal took it that way. His reaction was where emotion entered the discussion, and I think it's where the degeneration you speak of started. That's what I mean that he took offense that wasn't given. He didn't need to apply HK's statement to himself and take it as an insult. Intentionally or not, Causal turned it into something personal.

As for Antimason, it seems that he also reaches a point where he has no other recourse than to make the exchange into something personal - dismissing me as someone on an intellectual pedestal, for example, instead of replying to my post. BTW - I think Causal's too classy to resort to this kind of silliness, and I apologize for grouping him with Anti that way. It wasn't what I meant.

What I did mean: theists can walk away from a debate because it's too "insulting." I don't think they necessarily do it on purpose, but the end result is the same - it's like their views are somehow beyond a certain level of questioning, even if they're carrying their beliefs into someone else's space (I'm thinking of creationism with that last bit, and not so much the HK/Causal thing.)

So... there's a religious political correctness. It's a double standard, because some theists are perfectly willing to shoot down anything they don't agree with, without apology. Please note I said *some* theists, and I mean it's a minority. But that's the minority that does damage and gives religion a bad name.

As for why I'm carrying on with anti... I've asked myself the same LOL! Honestly, I know I won't be changing his mind an inch. I'm not debating for him, I'm in it for me. I'm learning a lot. I'm learning about evolution, and I'm learning about the arguments creationists make. As a scientist, this is a topic I may be faced with in the real world someday. I like feeling like I've got some experience with it.

And, well... I think it's fun too.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, August 23, 2007 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I tried very hard to get HK to either retract or backup his statement; ultimately he wandered off.

Taken? Given? I found HK's remark very offensive in the sense that he insulted folks I consider to be very good friends. As I indicated, I only stuck to it in hopes to see if he could be shown the implications of his statement. And to be honest, I don't think you 'cared' enough about the implications of HK's statement to understand why it is offensive; especially in light of his ducking out.

Or maybe, after backing up my statement for the umpteenth time only to be told once again that I pulled the descriptive: "psychopath" out of thin air and spite, I gave up trying to get my point across to you. Plenty of folks here have demonstrated that they understood perfectly well what I was talking about (thanks everybody, for speaking up, that means a lot to me), so I don't think the problem lies in my ability to get my point across.

Simply put, if we grant God a psychology, and therefore, discernible motivations, then we should be allowed to psychoanalyse the actions and motives ascribed to Him by scripture. The actions performed by AG in the Old Testament--genocide (the flood, S&G, killing the first borns, etc.), torture (Abraham and Job), racism (chosen people), etc.--these actions (to the extent, I say, that God is a being with a psychology) would be congruent with a diagnosis of severe mental pathology (hence the term psycho-path).

Now, you can say, "But God doesn't have a human psychology" or "His motives are beyond our understanding" and that's fine, but it also DERAILES ANY AND ALL DISCUSSION OF GOD'S PSYCHIC NATURE. Either we are allowed to judge the God of the Bible by His actions, or we are not. If the statement "God loves us" is to mean anything, then we have a right to analyse the form His love takes based on His actions and His defining qualities.

So when I say that an "all-powerful" God would be a "psychopath" it's because of what absolute power does to psychology, what a belief in the justice of absolute power does to those who live under such a regime. If you then come to me and say, "but when God performs acts which to us could be seen as malevolent in the extreme, it's not because he means us harm, it's because we cannot fathom His motives," then you're simply trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

What scares me more than anything about some Christians is that they do judge God's actions in the OT, but rather than being appalled, they find them laudable. They see justice in His genocides, and love in His condemnation. Such folk hold an ideal of Totalitarian intolerance and such folk fuel the central pathology of the present historical moment.

Beyond that, leadb, you simple didn't read what I had to say clearly and sympathetically. In your last post to me you chided me when I said that I'd had the same problem with both you and Causal.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Sadly, it's a different problem; because I'm a different person. Much of of the problem is getting the frames of reference consistent.

This is the statement I got stuck on, the reason I decided to walk away. You're telling me that I cannot have the same problem with two different people. Nonsense. Two separate people step on my toes, I can say they both stepped on my toes. When you and Causal supply completely self-generated context and implications to what I said, based on absolutely nothing that I ACTUALLY wrote, I call that "having the same problem with both of you."

When someone you're conversing with tells you, "You're misunderstanding me," simply telling them they're wrong, that you do understand them, does not improve matters. I presented my case for why omnipotence was not a healthy way of looking at God and you rejected it. Fine. The thing I don't appreciate is when you try simply to undermine my position without supplying any ideas of your own (the downside of playing devil's advocate,

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE