Originally posted by Christine:
So anytime someone uses a metaphor they need to label it? Not disagreeing with you, just....sigh.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Later on (in Part 2), when pressed by Dawkins on this topic, she states that (at this point in the interview) "in the text books and in the museums, whenever they claim to show the evolution from one species to another, it relies on illustrations and drawings, and not any material evidence." They move on.
Dawkins:I confess to being frustrated, it's not about suppression, it's about the fact that I have told you about four or five fossils and you simply seem to be ignoring what I am saying? Why don't you go and look at those fossils?
Wright: And certainly, if they were in the museums which I've been to many times, then I would look at them objectively, but..
Dawkins: They are in the museums!
Wright: But what I go back to is that the philosophy of evolution has lead to ideologies that have been so destructive to the human race...
quote:Dawkins doesn't need to give an inch here. He told her to go to the museum and look for herself, and she responded with WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!1!
Neither side will concede, or even give an inch.
quote:Not in the sense of Dawkins being able to change Wright's mind, but that was never the purpose. The purpose is for the audience to be engaged with the facts and witness the fallibility of certain 'reasoning' methods.
Is this type of discussion useful? Is it helpful? Was this interview a waste of time?
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:Part of the problem is that neither of them really needs to give an inch. After all, they are arguing over something that happened long in the past. Being right or wrong on this issue does not have any obvious consequences to motivate either side to want to give an inch.
Dawkins doesn't need to give an inch here.
quote:Well, I suppose I can see you thinking there are no present consequences or drawbacks to arguing like a crazy person arguing in bad faith...
Part of the problem is that neither of them really needs to give an inch. After all, they are arguing over something that happened long in the past. Being right or wrong on this issue does not have any obvious consequences to motivate either side to want to give an inch.
quote:Tres, is that was the case, they shouldn't be arguing in the first place. But if you're going to sit down and have an intelligent debate, then facts and logic matter, and ignoring facts and logic (as creations generally do) puts you squarely in the wrong.
Part of the problem is that neither of them really needs to give an inch. After all, they are arguing over something that happened long in the past. Being right or wrong on this issue does not have any obvious consequences to motivate either side to want to give an inch.
quote:Well, no, that wasn't my point. There are huge drawbacks and consequenes for arguing poorly, and even huger drawbacks for thinking poorly, in general.
Well, I suppose I can see you thinking there are no present consequences or drawbacks to arguing like a crazy person arguing in bad faith...
quote:Of course, this is precisely a part of the problem. Governments are motivated to fund or not fund certain research initiatives based on popular perception and people enter (or immigrate to enter) certain professions at a rate related to the amount of respect given that profession.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
... Unless people decided to simply stop doing science, evolution won't go away as a model regardless of what people think. ...
quote:I can see a way, but not a way they would accept.
Originally posted by Xavier:
I'd be curious for an example of how an evolutionist could reasonably "give an inch" to a creationist. Not trying to be snarky, I really can't think of any.
quote:So would this allow for the full mechanism of evolution? Would this be a hands-off God at this point?
Originally posted by Stephan:
God created the universe billions of years ago and set in motion evolution.
quote:I don't see this as an inch. I just see it as a reasonable alternate interpretation. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The trouble is that there are some people who take the whole Adam and Eve story a bit too literally.
Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:I can see a way, but not a way they would accept.
Originally posted by Xavier:
I'd be curious for an example of how an evolutionist could reasonably "give an inch" to a creationist. Not trying to be snarky, I really can't think of any.
How about:
God created the universe billions of years ago and set in motion evolution.
As an athiest I would find that more acceptable than God made everything 6,000 years ago.
quote:They both are completely both right and wrong? That's pretty vague.
Originally posted by Geraine:
So I agree with both Wendy and Richard. I think they are both wrong and are both right.
quote:Well part of the difficulty is that the passage does not say, "Hey some of this stuff is symbolic!" It's a leap one has to make without the text necessarily saying to do it.
Originally posted by Christine:
quote:I don't see this as an inch. I just see it as a reasonable alternate interpretation. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The trouble is that there are some people who take the whole Adam and Eve story a bit too literally.
Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:I can see a way, but not a way they would accept.
Originally posted by Xavier:
I'd be curious for an example of how an evolutionist could reasonably "give an inch" to a creationist. Not trying to be snarky, I really can't think of any.
How about:
God created the universe billions of years ago and set in motion evolution.
As an athiest I would find that more acceptable than God made everything 6,000 years ago.
quote:So anytime someone uses a metaphor they need to label it? Not disagreeing with you, just....sigh.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well part of the difficulty is that the passage does not say, "Hey some of this stuff is symbolic!" It's a leap one has to make without the text necessarily saying to do it.
quote:So, do you see God as a "product" of the universe, rather than a "creator" of the universe?
Originally posted by Geraine:
I see God as a being farther along in evolution than man is.
quote:I see God as both. Product of A universe, but also creator of or in our universe.
Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:So, do you see God as a "product" of the universe, rather than a "creator" of the universe?
Originally posted by Geraine:
I see God as a being farther along in evolution than man is.
quote:Well, if certain parts are meant to be taken non metaphorically, it would certainly help if there was a clear way to distinguish between the two.
Originally posted by Christine:
So anytime someone uses a metaphor they need to label it? Not disagreeing with you, just....sigh.
quote:The trouble is, I think, that creationists often try to offer material evidence for their opinion, when in reality their reasoning is based on an appeal to authority. The true reasoning behind creationism seems to be "The Bible says it is true, the bible is infallible, therefore it is true." And if you accept the two assumptions as fundamental truths, no amount of scientific or historical evidence is going to convince you otherwise. Therefore, I'd think the only effective method of trying to refute creationism is by trying to disprove one of those two assumptions - either by arguing the Bible is not infallible, or by arguing it doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old.
I recently engaged in a discussion of evolution vs. creation (two concepts I do not even find to be mutually exclusive), and it's like talking to a brick wall. When someone insists that the earth is 6,000 years old despite the fact that recorded history predates that time, what are you going to do?
quote:No, you don't have to make any leap. You could just conclude that the account is factually inaccurate, and leave it at that. You don't have to try to figure out anyone's intent.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well part of the difficulty is that the passage does not say, "Hey some of this stuff is symbolic!" It's a leap one has to make without the text necessarily saying to do it.
quote:Why would it occur to the people who wrote it down to label what would have been perfectly clear to them?
Originally posted by The White Whale:
When arguments are constructed around the literal interpretations of these metaphors, than perhaps some labeling would help.
quote:I'm not saying it should have been labeled from the beginning. Something like a modern footnote would do.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Why would it occur to the people who wrote it down to label what would have been perfectly clear to them?
Originally posted by The White Whale:
When arguments are constructed around the literal interpretations of these metaphors, than perhaps some labeling would help.
quote:Something like this maybe? (Be sure to use the "look inside" feature to read the notes on Genesis, and the discussion of the two creation stories on page 4).
Originally posted by The White Whale:
I'm not saying it should have been labeled from the beginning. Something like a modern footnote would do.
quote:I am not sure you are implying otherwise, but many devout, weekly church-going, serious, not just in name only Christians, have no trouble reconciling faith and dinosaurs.
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Scientists and evolutionists will continue to lose ground in the general public until they realize that they can't win playing just part of the game. They can't win if they automatically surrender the metaphor to the Literalists, and then fight the facts good science vs bad science. They have to fight on both fronts--fighting both with science and with metaphor--or with diest and biblical arguments that allow the middle ground semi-Christians--the majority Church Going On Easter and Christmas Christians--the CINOS (Christians in Name Only), to be able to retain their faith and their belief in Dinosaurs.
quote:I'm still not comfortable discussing religion with you swbarnes for reasons I've already stated. You're right, the writer themselves might have just been writing something devoid of any fact. I was not dealing with that aspect. I was saying that if somebody wants to deal with the creation story metaphorically, the text itself does really indicate that that is what one ought to do. It's not like when Jesus says, "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto..." I personally subscribe to the school of thought that Adam and Eve didn't literally gobble up fruit and learn about good and evil. But that is because after reading it and other sources I have come to that conclusion, not because the text itself says, "Hey some of this is figurative."
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:No, you don't have to make any leap. You could just conclude that the account is factually inaccurate, and leave it at that. You don't have to try to figure out anyone's intent.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well part of the difficulty is that the passage does not say, "Hey some of this stuff is symbolic!" It's a leap one has to make without the text necessarily saying to do it.
After a whole board where multiple theists sang the prasies of "trusting what you believe" over boring neutrality, and believing whatever you wish unless there is "compelling, certain, irrefutable evidence to the contrary", why is everyone so sure that the author of that part of the Bible didn't do exatly that?
Maybe the author absolutely didn't mean it metaphorically, maybe he or she meant it literally, and was just plain wrong.
quote:That's a very interesting way to look at it! And probably true too, because face it, most people only believe what they want to believe. So scientists must figure out how to make evolution something that is desirable as a belief. How could we do that though? Besides "an understanding of evolution helps create life saving medical technology"?
Scientists and evolutionists will continue to lose ground in the general public until they realize that they can't win playing just part of the game. They can't win if they automatically surrender the metaphor to the Literalists, and then fight the facts good science vs bad science. They have to fight on both fronts--fighting both with science and with metaphor
quote:Ron, you don't live that far away. Someday you have to drop by Chicago and let me introduce you to a friend of mine who curates the Natural History Museum there. I'm dead serious. I think you'd find it very interesting.
Everything claimed to be evidence for it is interpretation based on circular reasoning.
quote:I don't understand how you can say this and still expect us to believe that you understand what a transitional fossil is. What sort of fossil record might demonstrate "one form becoming another," but would not simply look like, say, a skull that's slightly larger than the skulls before it and smaller than the ones after it?
They are not truly TRANSITIONAL fossils, that show one form becoming another.
quote:You understand that this isn't actually a reasonable request, right?
If you are not willing to do this, then do not pretend you are serious about engaging in the creation vs. evolution debate in a truly honest manner.
quote:I'm not convinced that this is necessarily true, perhaps for the American general public. However, if you consider it from a developed-world perspective, this sort of creeping creationist problem is fairly isolated to the US.
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
... Scientists and evolutionists will continue to lose ground in the general public until they realize that they can't win playing just part of the game.
quote:I'm not sure they have to make it desirable in the US. The nice thing about the biotechnology and medical research industries is that not only are they desirable high-tech jobs but the rewards can be quite lucrative. If the American public does suffer from this problem, other countries will (and in some cases are) already stepping up to the plate by targeting these areas that are restricted or inadequately supported.
Originally posted by sinflower:
... So scientists must figure out how to make evolution something that is desirable as a belief. How could we do that though? Besides "an understanding of evolution helps create life saving medical technology"?
quote:This is not how scientific evidence works - scientific evidence does not prove with certainty that a model is correct. Any fossil is going to be a snapshot of one particular species at one particular time - it isn't going to prove that transition has occured. There cannot be a single fossil that truly and unquestionably demonstrates one form becoming another.
There is zero evidence for evolution. Everything claimed to be evidence for it is interpretation based on circular reasoning. For example, citing various examples of primitive human fossil remains does not prove that one evolved into another, or that they represented different branches in a tree of evolutionary development. They are not truly TRANSITIONAL fossils, that show one form becoming another.
quote:And that is very important. Did you know that there are nutty "evolution deniers" out there who use bad science and willful ignorance to pretend that the evidence for evolution is not compelling? Someone has to take a stand and try to educate them, or at least help prevent them from sharing their ignorance unapposed.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Were you aware that the Smithsonian's charter states that the institution is dedicated to promoting evolution?
quote:Demonstrate very specifically what you are talking about. What is a case of 'interpretation based on circular reasoning' that invalidates, say, instances of observed speciation, or models of chromosomal transition.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
There is zero evidence for evolution. Everything claimed to be evidence for it is interpretation based on circular reasoning.
quote:I think it is probably more the other way around: the problem is that many people view evolution as an undesirable belief. Supporters of evolution would need to show why it doesn't make human beings into "just another animal" or discourage belief in God. They need to remove the negatives associated with it.
That's a very interesting way to look at it! And probably true too, because face it, most people only believe what they want to believe. So scientists must figure out how to make evolution something that is desirable as a belief. How could we do that though? Besides "an understanding of evolution helps create life saving medical technology"?
quote:Yes, absolutely!
Tom, size is not one of the key factors looked at to determine similarity of one species to another. There are precise structures that anthropologists go over in great detail.
quote:Where is that exactly?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I have visted the Smithsonian. Were you aware that the Smithsonian's charter states that the institution is dedicated to promoting evolution?
quote:The problem being that human beings are animals and evolution does discourage belief in God.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
... Supporters of evolution would need to show why it doesn't make human beings into "just another animal" or discourage belief in God. They need to remove the negatives associated with it.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Not necessarily. It depends on what one believes about God.
evolution does discourage belief in God
quote:Look! I completely agree with Scott's post!
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Not necessarily. It depends on what one believes about God.
evolution does discourage belief in God
Certainly, it seems to discourage a strictly literal reading of Genesis. That's not the same thing as discouraging a belief in God.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:That's why I used the qualifier "necessarily."
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
I think that it does discourage belief in God to some extent - not that it actively creates reasons NOT to believe in God, but rather that of the people who believe in God, some portion do simply because they couldn't think of a better explanation as to how the world came to be as it is. Education about evolution reduces that particular segment of theists.
quote:I touched on it briefly in social studies. The beginning of 7th grade mentions our hominid ancestors coming out of Africa. I was amazed by how many students had never heard of this before. Just the idea that we are all related to some primate in Africa. I actually had one kid say, "so if we are all related, why is there racism." Nearly brought a tear to my eye.
Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
I think that it does discourage belief in God to some extent - not that it actively creates reasons NOT to believe in God, but rather that of the people who believe in God, some portion do simply because they couldn't think of a better explanation as to how the world came to be as it is. Education about evolution reduces that particular segment of theists.
quote:I dunno. If one is going to eat babies, grilled is better than say, boiled.
Originally posted by Scott R:
This isn't the first time that's happened, especially as concerns interpretation of scripture.
Would you like me to come up with something that we almost certainly disagree on??
:thinks:
Babies taste better grilled.
quote:I disagree of course.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Not necessarily. It depends on what one believes about God.
Certainly, it seems to discourage a strictly literal reading of Genesis. That's not the same thing as discouraging a belief in God.
quote:man, I have no idea how belief in evolution voids genesis written as a metaphorical tale of creation.
Originally posted by Mucus:
Belief in evolution does more than "just" discourage a literal reading of the Genesis, it effectively eliminates it.
quote:Ah, but is a valid and effective method at controlling population growth. It also provides a food source.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Babies taste better grilled.
quote:You should have played SimEarth. (The answer is hyperintelligent Carniferns!)
If I created a planet and used evolution, what would evolve and when?
quote:I didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Where is that exactly?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I have visted the Smithsonian. Were you aware that the Smithsonian's charter states that the institution is dedicated to promoting evolution?
http://www.sil.si.edu/Exhibitions/Smithson-to-Smithsonian/1846act.htm
quote:Not necessarily. Evolution could just result in some individuals becoming better at reproducing than others, with reproductive selection favoring such individuals. Population size would be a problem eventually, of course.
Without death, evolution does not happen.
quote:I'd like to bring up again that the literal reading of Genesis is hurt by a literal reading of Genesis. Genesis, as written, cannot be literally true. The people who hold it to be, in most cases, are putting what they want to believe over what the Bible actually says.
The LITERAL reading of Genesis is hurt by evolution.
quote:I know! but everywhere there's people who insist to me that evolution is an attack on christianity with or without the literal reading. That it is somehow anathema to its principles or something.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
That's probably why he used the word "literal," Sam.
quote:I've heard people on both sides of the issue insist on that.
I know! but everywhere there's people who insist to me that evolution is an attack on christianity with or without the literal reading.
quote:
There is knowledge to be had, after all, about the earth, about the sky, about the other elements of this world, about the movements and revolutions or even the magnitude and distances of the constellations, about the predictable eclipses of moon and sun, about the cycles of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, fruits, stones and everything else of this kind. And it frequently happens that even non-Christians will have knowledge of this sort in a way that they can substantiate with scientific arguments or experiments. Now it is quiet disgraceful and disastrous, something to be on one’s guard against at all costs, that they should ever hear Christians spouting what they claim our Christian literature has to say on these topics, and talking such nonsense that they can scarcely contain their laughter when they see them to be toto caelo, as the saying goes, wide of the mark. And what is so vexing is not that misguided people should be laughed at, as that our authors should be assumed by outsiders to have held such views and, to the great detriment of those about whose salvation we are so concerned, should be written off and consigned to the waste paper basket as so many ignoramuses.
quote:It's easy to find God, too, if one knows what to look for.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Which conclusion, that organized religion has a strong element of control, or that people strongly opposed to evolution on a religious basis have a vested interest in that religious control of information and belief?
I'd say it's obvious, once one knows what to look for.
quote:It's not a given, it's a conclusion from evidence.
Originally posted by Scott R:
I don't accept your argument as a given.
quote:You're not hearing him. He threw size out as a simple proof of his point. The point is that if you have 3 fossils, of 3 distinct ages, and the fossils show a clearly linear set of differences between the oldest and the newest, then it is possible that these represent a continuum of transformation. Spool out that process over hundreds and thousands of fossils over hundreds and thousands of species, and you have pretty strong evidence that species are changing over time.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Tom, size is not one of the key factors looked at to determine similarity of one species to another. There are precise structures that anthropologists go over in great detail. Things that make it possible for someone like a forensic anthropologist to look at a skull and tell if it were caucasian, negroid, polynesian, or whatever.
quote:If people can't make rational judgments based on scientific evidence because it upsets their religious applecart, I feel very sorry for those people. That's a belief system that seems to me to be pretty maladaptive.
Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I've also heard claims that boil down to the idea that since the theory of evolution doesn't require the existence/interference of God, it being correct proves the non-existence/interference of God.
quote:One interpretation, and one that many literalists believe, is that the bible refers to the physical death. Some theologists however would argue that the death spoken of referred to a "spiritual death."
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
I heard on the radio an interesting argument against evolution.
Death was only created after the eating of the forbidden fruit.
Without death, evolution does not happen.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by dkw:
When I've heard that argument it hasn't been from religious people.
quote:Ah, well, same reaction from me. Not a conclusion I find necessary or compelling. I don't believe in God per se, but I don't not believe in God because of evolution.
Originally posted by dkw:
When I've heard that argument it hasn't been from religious people.
quote:You haven't actually argued against that idea, as much as simply refused to believe it.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Mostly I'm arguing against the idea that MC knows what motivates complete strangers
quote:Oddly enough, I don't believe in God because of black holes. When I was sixish I spent a summer learning a lot about black holes and the formation of the planets. A few months later I suddenly realized I didn't believe in Santa Clause anymore, and the reason was that a universe with all sorts of logical rules for how black holes and planet formations existed was not a universe in which a magic man with bag of toys made much sense. (This wasn't necessarily strong logic on my part, it's just what was going on in my unconscious mind for whatever reason)
I don't not believe in God because of evolution.
quote:When I was six, I jumped to a conclusion without any particularly good logic, it just happened. I am not defending that, merely stating what happened. Between the years, of 16-20, I underwent an exhaustive examination of the evidence at hand, and I am quite confident that regardless of the hope, comfort and community that belief in God can bring, the actual validity of that belief is completely baseless.
Raymond, just because your conception of God was childish, does not mean belief in God is necessarily childish. You obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion.
quote:There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:You haven't actually argued against that idea, as much as simply refused to believe it.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Mostly I'm arguing against the idea that MC knows what motivates complete strangers
I don't accept your argument as a given.
quote:Link where the whole article can be read:
"Evolutionary Faith" might well be the title of the elaborate exhibitions in the nation's famed Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. In many beautiful displays, the evolution of the earth and its inhabitants is treated as axiomatic with its histories laid out in impressive diorama and narrative accounts. Yet in all these exhibits, it is impossible to find one single evidence of real evolution! Evolution is apparently a non-theistic religious faith, which a gullible citizenry is expected to believe simply because the "scientists" say so.
The federal government is, both constitutionally and legally, supposed to be neutral in its attitude toward various religions. Yet in its prestigious national museums, especially its Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, it openly seeks to indoctrinate its swarms of visitors (estimated at 17 million annually) in the religion of evolutionary humanism, naturalism, and materialism.
The displays in the Museum of Natural History, under the directorship of Dr. Porter M. Kier, invertebrate paleontologist, depict evolution not only as the preferred philosophy of natural history," but as the only one! No mention at all is made of the Biblical record of origins and earth history, which it flagrantly contradicts, nor even of scientific creationism, which is accepted by thousands of scientists and multitudes of others today. Dr. Kier and his associates, of course, do represent the modern scientific and educational establishments, which apparently are devotedly dedicated to converting everyone to their own materialistic faith, through the nation's schools, museums and other tax-supported educational institutions.
Yet, with all this propaganda, it is remarkable that the host of Smithsonian-related scientists who designed the exhibits were apparently unable to come up with any real evidence of evolution. The recently opened hall entitled "The Dynamics of Evolution" has received considerable publicity and is supposed to tell people exactly how evolution works, but it consists entirely of speculative pretense, as far as vertical evolution is concerned (evolution from one "kind" of organism to a higher, more complex kind). There are numerous excellent exhibits depicting horizontal variation within the kind, but these have nothing to do with real evolution.
. . . .
Another important evolutionary scenario is developed in the hall entitled "Ice Age Mammals and the Emergence of Man." This hall has obviously been updated in recent years, making no mention of such now-discredited specimens as Piltdown Man and Java Man. Furthermore, a diorama of a supposed Neanderthal funeral service points out that Neanderthal Man was truly human, with an artistic and religious nature, and with a cranial capacity higher even than that of modern man.
However, it is still assumed that man is a product of evolution from some form of animal ancestry, though the exhibits admit that the lineage is unknown. It is frankly acknowledged that modern man did not evolve from the Australopithecines, since Homo (possibly Homo habilis, more probably Homo erectus) is said to have existed contemporaneously with Australopithecus.
It is suggested in one diorama that Louis Leakey's famous Zinjanthropus might be an ancestor of man, the same as Homo habilis. A rather detailed discussion of how the artist reconstructed the facial appearance of Zinjanthropus, making him appear as definitely an ape-human intermediate, neglects to mention that other reconstructions from the fragmentary fossils, made by equally competent artists, gave him many different faces, all the way from truly ape to truly human. "Put not your faith in reconstructions" was the admonition of a prominent evolutionary anthropologist of fifty years ago, and it is just as appropriate today.
. . . .
It is also significant that no attempt is made to depict "inferred intermediates" in the fossils, and it is clearly obvious from the exhibits that transitional forms have never been found. If any had been found, it is certain they would have been emphasized in the Smithsonian's transparent attempt at evolutionary propaganda. The amphibian Seymouria is portrayed, for example, as having reptilian characteristics, but without actually claiming it as the amphibian-reptilian link (no mention was made of the fact, of course, that true reptiles pre-date Seymouria). Similarly the question of a transition between fishes and amphibians was left hanging. The "lungfishes" (which still survive, of course) were said to be an evolutionary dead end, though possibly some such fish may once have flipped itself up on land to become the first amphibian. The coelacanth fish, once thought to have been ancestral to the amphibians, is not mentioned in such a connection, apparently since it is now known to be still living in the Indian Ocean.
. . . .
These are not the only exhibits in the Museum which promote evolution--only the most obvious. The various halls of ethnology depict cultural evolution, the dioramas of existing animals place them all in the context of their assumed evolutionary backgrounds, and the halls dealing with physical systems and processes feature the evolution of the earth and solar system.
Nor is this all. The other Smithsonian museums frequently also display an evolutionistic, anti-Biblical bias. For example, the beautiful new National Air and Space Museum repeatedly alludes to the evolution of the moon and planets, the probability of life on other worlds (though, of course, giving no evidence for this) and the great age of the universe. The long-legged, dish-footed lunar lander is exhibited, but with no mention of the fact that the anticipated thick dust layers were not encountered (the reason being, of course, that the expected dust and the costly plans developed on that assumption had been based on the supposed five-billion-year age of the moon).
. . . .
It does seem a shame that the great Smithsonian Institution, supported by the taxes of all Americans and enjoyed by multitudes of visitors from all over the world, should be used to undermine the very principles of Biblical creationism and divine purpose on which the nation was established. In view of the fact that a significant minority (probably a majority) of the nation's citizens still believe in scientific Biblical creationism even after generations of humanistic persuasion in the schools and that a large majority at least favors the objective teaching of both models of origins in public institutions, supported by the further fact that there are now thousands of qualified scientists who have become convinced that creation is a better scientific model, it does seem high time for Smithsonian officials (as well as school officials and the legislative bodies who provide generous appropriations for all of them from our taxes) to restructure their programs to provide a fair and objective exposure of all comers to both creationism and evolutionism. Systematic forced indoctrination in the one universal religious philosophy of evolutionary humanism is contrary to all principles of freedom and justice.
quote:O_o
Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.
quote:O_o
"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."
quote:O_o
Morris wrote that the descendants of Ham "possibly" include "all of the earth's 'colored' races". Morris wrote that they have been "[p]ossessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters" compared to the "Japhethites" who have a comparatively "intellectual and philosophical acumen".
quote:...and think that this is an argument against the Smithsonian's intellectual honesty. What you do not seem to understand -- but which anyone who understands the mechanisms of natural selection should understand -- is that there is no one "amphibian-reptilian link." To say that this one fossil represents some kind of single-event "link" between different "types" is to completely misunderstand, well, pretty much all of the last 200 years of biological science.
The amphibian Seymouria is portrayed, for example, as having reptilian characteristics, but without actually claiming it as the amphibian-reptilian link...
quote:Isn't this assuming a discrete sequence events instead of a continuum?
However, it is still assumed that man is a product of evolution from some form of animal ancestry, though the exhibits admit that the lineage is unknown. It is frankly acknowledged that modern man did not evolve from the Australopithecines, since Homo (possibly Homo habilis, more probably Homo erectus) is said to have existed contemporaneously with Australopithecus.
quote:What's more, with how long he has been on hatrack, unless he has made it a point to avoid every religion thread, he should know that already.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
quote:Which is even sillier.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
quote:Imagine that I claimed to know a PhD Historian who said that airplanes are lifted by magic, because they're made of metal and metal is heavier than air, so they can't fly except my magic.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
So Scott, as usual the first resort of evolutionists challenged by creationist arguments is ad hominen attack. That changes nothing, and answers nothing.
quote:Which part?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Which is even sillier.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
quote:like attracts like
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:O_o
Morris wrote in The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth (1972) that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael.
quote:O_o
"The only way we can determine the true age of the earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since he has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is several thousand years of age, and no more, that ought to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."
quote:O_o
Morris wrote that the descendants of Ham "possibly" include "all of the earth's 'colored' races". Morris wrote that they have been "[p]ossessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters" compared to the "Japhethites" who have a comparatively "intellectual and philosophical acumen".
Man, how do you even find these characters?
quote:It seems like the PhD is relevant in pointing out that he is trained as a scholar. Ron didn't list the guy as an expert on evolution, and the critique posted is not an argument-by-expertise.
Ron, dude: you put your Morris up with the alphabet soup after his name; I don't know why you specified, but sometimes people do that to honor the gods of Credentialism.
If you're holding forth a man's book-learning as a indication that he knows what he's talking about, it would be a good idea to make sure that book learning is applicable to the subject at hand.
quote:I have to disagree with the last sentence, Tres. Here's Ron's intro to Dr. Morris:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:It seems like the PhD is relevant in pointing out that he is trained as a scholar. Ron didn't list the guy as an expert on evolution, and the critique posted is not an argument-by-expertise.
Ron, dude: you put your Morris up with the alphabet soup after his name; I don't know why you specified, but sometimes people do that to honor the gods of Credentialism.
If you're holding forth a man's book-learning as a indication that he knows what he's talking about, it would be a good idea to make sure that book learning is applicable to the subject at hand.
quote:Expertise is implied by the terms "well-informed" and "insightful."
Here are some excerpts from a well-informed and insightful critique of the Smithsonian made by Henry Morris, Ph.D.:
quote:Yet he is. Maybe you didn't realize OSC is a professor at SVU? Or that he teaches writing classes?
I would not presume that person is implying OSC is an expert educator.
quote:I'm not sure that there's a substantive difference between these.
"Henry Morris, Ph.D., says it is true, so it must be true!" then that's one thing. But it seems to me that Ron was simply saying "Henry Morris, Ph.D., makes good points in this article. If you read it I think you'll be convinced."
quote:Yet he is. Maybe you didn't realize OSC is a professor at SVU? Or that he teaches writing classes?
Originally posted by Scott R:
[QB] [QUOTE]I would not presume that person is implying OSC is an expert educator.
quote:You essentially removed the only incentive, Gods worth in being worshiped primarily comes from Pascal's Wager, once you do that, once all power is stripped from you God it loses whatever relevance it may have had.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Which part?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Which is even sillier.
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There are some religions that exist that do not damn you to Hell if you don't belong to a specific church. There are some religions that don't even believe in Hell as classically defined in Dante's Inferno.
No that kinda makes perfect sense, believing in an all knowing, all present, all powerful person who somehow for some reason requires your specific worship and would depending on the denomination damn you to eternal torment if you choose to opt out in an infinite universe where there's clear evidence we evolved outside of interference is kinda childish and is just like believing in Santa Clause.
Some religions don't believe God is a butler (or maid); some don't believe He is all-powerful. Some believe worshipping God is the same as honoring a parent.
You're missing some subtlety, Blayne.
quote:Ha, true, I guess I chose a poor example. How about an article on Olympic figureskating rules? I'm pretty sure he doesn't do that, although I guess I could be wrong...
Yet he is. Maybe you didn't realize OSC is a professor at SVU? Or that he teaches writing classes?
quote:While I agree that many theists make that argument, I don't believe anyone here has done so. Indeed, the last big thread on religion revealed a totally different reason: people worship God because they intend to to believe and hold as true whatever they wish were true, and they wish to believe in God. Why one would wish to believe in an all-knowing God who never has and never will help fallible, limited mortals save the lives of their children with vaccines, for example, is beyond me.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
You essentially removed the only incentive, Gods worth in being worshiped primarily comes from Pascal's Wager, once you do that, once all power is stripped from you God it loses whatever relevance it may have had.
quote:Wait, this isn't true at all. A deity that a person believes in can have worth outside of pascal's wager, which is really only one INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION of justification for belief. It's not the sole hitch for faith.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
You essentially removed the only incentive, Gods worth in being worshiped primarily comes from Pascal's Wager, once you do that, once all power is stripped from you God it loses whatever relevance it may have had.
quote:There is no belief so outlandish or childish or obviously stupid that a large number of people won't argue it in sincerity as the foundation of their religious beliefs.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
A deity that a person believes in can have worth outside of pascal's wager, which is really only one INDIVIDUAL DISTINCTION of justification for belief. It's not the sole hitch for faith.
quote:If you look at God as a father and not just an All Knowing Being (He would be that as well) then it may make more sense to you. If your father had all knowledge and power and provided everything you ever wanted whenever you wanted it, what would you learn? What would you learn about hard work, kindness, sharing, etc if your father just gave you everything the instant you wanted it?
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
While I agree that many theists make that argument, I don't believe anyone here has done so. Indeed, the last big thread on religion revealed a totally different reason: people worship God because they intend to to believe and hold as true whatever they wish were true, and they wish to believe in God. Why one would wish to believe in an all-knowing God who never has and never will help fallible, limited mortals save the lives of their children with vaccines, for example, is beyond me.
quote:Why, given an omnipotent father, is it necessary that we learn from experience? Why are we not created knowing everything, so that our children do not have to die?
If your father had all knowledge and power and provided everything you ever wanted whenever you wanted it, what would you learn?
quote:I think this is demonstrably false.
Life is about experiences, and God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle.
quote:yeah, this goes straight into the 'yeah, you wish' category
I think this is demonstrably false.
quote:Yup. And what a horrid thought that God "gives" you crap that you can just barely handle. Meh.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:yeah, this goes straight into the 'yeah, you wish' category
I think this is demonstrably false.
quote:I think you probably mostly hear this from well-to-do 1st world people because you live in a well-to-do 1st world country. But statistically, poorer 3rd world countries report higher levels of religion.
Funny how it's always well-to-do 1st world people who love to toss out, "God won't give you anything you can't handle."
You rarely hear starving aids babies saying, "It's cool, I can totally handle this. Thanks God!"
quote:Jesus Christ, through the miracle of the atonement and the power of the Holy Ghost has experienced every sorrow and affliction that any human can experience, including permanent separation from God because of sin.
God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle.
quote:God's not omnipotent. He can't give us experience; it's something we have to earn.
Why, given an omnipotent father, is it necessary that we learn from experience?
quote:When I have a question about physics/health/astronomy/biology/history, I trust the knowledge of a physicist/doctor/astronomer/biologist/historian. If they have a PhD, then they have even more clout in their field. I do not go to a physicist with a PhD with a question about Napoleon.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
What is wrong with noting that Henry Morris had a Ph.D.? Is it not proper to note if a person has submitted to the discipline and learning necessary to obtain a doctorate? Isn't this the normal way to refer to anyone? Why is that "putting an alphabet soup" after his name?
Such objections are just plain silly, and lead me to question the maturity of the people who indulge in this typical pattern of sniping.
quote:Not an obvious thing at all.
Most Creationists take Henry Morris to be a fairly responsible and cogent expositor of Creationist thinking, someone that evolutionists do not seem able to answer reasonably--because his criticisms of evolutionist thinking are so obviously valid.
quote:I think you are nitpicking your "evolution defenders." You can roam the internet looking for people who poorly defend a topic you disagree with, and find many of them. Or, you could roam around and find those who ask valid questions and engage them.
As I already pointed out, the typical response of evolution defenders is to attack the people making the criticisms of evolution, not face up to the substance of the criticisms.
quote:When I see this series, evolution pops out. It appears obvious to me. This sequence appears to follow every tenant of evolution. It seems straightforward. Where specifically do you see it failing?
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
quote:Most of his criticisms of the Smithsonian exhibit have nothing to do with evolutionist thinking, but rather that the museum doesn't give fair time to creationist dogma.
Most Creationists take Henry Morris to be a fairly responsible and cogent expositor of Creationist thinking, someone that evolutionists do not seem able to answer reasonably--because his criticisms of evolutionist thinking are so obviously valid.
quote:No, it doesn't. Parents don't watch as their chldren die from preventable disease. Only awful parents kill the first-born children of slaves and prisoners to prove a point about theri power to their children.
Originally posted by Geraine:quote:If you look at God as a father and not just an All Knowing Being (He would be that as well) then it may make more sense to you.
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
While I agree that many theists make that argument, I don't believe anyone here has done so. Indeed, the last big thread on religion revealed a totally different reason: people worship God because they intend to to believe and hold as true whatever they wish were true, and they wish to believe in God. Why one would wish to believe in an all-knowing God who never has and never will help fallible, limited mortals save the lives of their children with vaccines, for example, is beyond me.
quote:You tell me, what did all the chidren who died of measles as infants learn? What did the first born sons of the slave and thr prisoners learn in Exodus What would you learn about hard work, kindness, sharing, etc if your father just gave you everything the instant you wanted it??
If your father had all knowledge and power and provided everything you ever wanted whenever you wanted it, what would you learn?
quote:How do you define "handle"? Do you mean "No one has ever been so overwhelmed by catastrophe that they killed themselves"? Because you can't possible think that's accurate.
Life is about experiences, and God won't give you anything that he hasn't experienced or that you can't handle.
quote:I'm sorry, but the people who were burned alive because of their religious beliefs did not become better people because of their agony, and neither did their torturers. They just became painfully dead, and their torturers became more monstrous human organisms.
Life isn't awesome all of the time, we have times in our lives when the world seems against us. But it is those experiences that help us learn and become better people.
quote:
Originally posted by The White Whale:
And so I ask you again:
quote:When I see this series, evolution pops out. It appears obvious to me. This sequence appears to follow every tenant of evolution. It seems straightforward. Where specifically do you see it failing?
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
quote:(edit: I was mistaken on "numerous"; I'm having flashbacks to previous threads where you have completely failed to respond to extensive, detailed posts. Nevertheless, you have been ignoring substantive critiques in this thread).
What you do not seem to understand -- but which anyone who understands the mechanisms of natural selection should understand -- is that there is no one "amphibian-reptilian link." To say that this one fossil represents some kind of single-event "link" between different "types" is to completely misunderstand, well, pretty much all of the last 200 years of biological science.
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Demonstrate very specifically what you are talking about. What is a case of 'interpretation based on circular reasoning' that invalidates, say, instances of observed speciation, or models of chromosomal transition.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
There is zero evidence for evolution. Everything claimed to be evidence for it is interpretation based on circular reasoning.
quote:TWW, Ron would think you're begging the question of how it was determined that those constitute a "sequence", as well as disagree with the classification.
Originally posted by The White Whale:
And so I ask you again:
quote:When I see this series, evolution pops out. It appears obvious to me. This sequence appears to follow every tenant of evolution. It seems straightforward. Where specifically do you see it failing?
Ron, please explain to me why you don't see the sequence australopithecus, homo habilus, homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens, and modern homo sapiens as evidence for evolution.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
)
quote:No, Ron, we are perfectly willing to allow cold, hard facts into our minds. Not your made-up assertions.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
This is the same old foolishness I encounter constantly with evolution fanatics, who absolutely will not allow anything to penetrate their already made-up minds.
quote:Bless you.
Originally posted by scifibum:
Edit: Oh, forgot. It's "tenet."
quote:According to your interpretation of scriptures, am I correct? You could look at it that way. Another way you could look at it is that God didn't want those children to be brought up in the kind of community that would enslave millions of people. There are multiple ways to interpret something. Keep in mind also the Bible was written by men. Men aren't perfect and can exaggerate. I'm not saying it did not happen that way, I just wanted to point that out.
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
No, it doesn't. Parents don't watch as their chldren die from preventable disease. Only awful parents kill the first-born children of slaves and prisoners to prove a point about theri power to their children.
quote:Again, your interpretation. Let me put it this way. If there was no sickness, would we have learned as much as we do about DNA, the body, herbs, and even more emotional things such as loss, love, and longing?
[QB]You tell me, what did all the chidren who died of measles as infants learn? What did the first born sons of the slave and thr prisoners learn in Exodus What would you learn about hard work, kindness, sharing, etc if your father just gave you everything the instant you wanted it??
"Providing everything I ever wanted" is not the standard. The mroe realisitic standard would include things like "Not letting infants die of tretable diseases". Certainly "killing infants because an unelected monarch was influenced into giving God an excuse to show off his power by killing said infants" is pretty much the opposite of the standard of good parenthood. But Exodus is quite clear that that's what the God of the Bible did.
quote:Please. What you basically said is that we have no choice in anything we do.
How do you define "handle"? Do you mean "No one has ever been so overwhelmed by catastrophe that they killed themselves"? Because you can't possible think that's accurate.
Tell me, how did the son of the slave and prisoner "handle" the experience God gave them? What possible thing could those victims have done to make you conclude "Oh, I guess those poor doomed people coudln't handle what God gave them after all?"
quote:Human actions by evil men, who acted on their own will to commit dispicable acts.
I'm sorry, but the people who were burned alive because of their religious beliefs did not become better people because of their agony, and neither did their torturers. They just became painfully dead, and their torturers became more monstrous human organisms.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:I'm glad.
Originally posted by Geraine:
I'm NOT being sarcastic in asking this, but what does an evolutionist see as the purpose of life? Is there a purpose to our lives?
I like this thread a lot more than others because it seems more civil. I feel more comfortable asking the question here.
quote:We realize to a person, I think, that you believe you are ten times the intellect of anyone on this board. However, you don't prove it through such painfully obvious prevarication.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
fugu13, would you be specific? I do not recognize any responses to my statements about evolution that have any substance, or that I have not indeed answered.
quote:The offer remains, for what it's worth. I think you'd benefit from it.
That and assume that somehow they must be ignorant of science, which is another ad hominen attack. Thus Tom Davidson wants to conduct me on a tour of a natural history museum. Such arrogance!
quote:But it's totally fine for the first born daughters to grow up in a world like that?
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:You could look at it that way. Another way you could look at it is that God didn't want those children to be brought up in the kind of community that would enslave millions of people.
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
No, it doesn't. Parents don't watch as their chldren die from preventable disease. Only awful parents kill the first-born children of slaves and prisoners to prove a point about their power to their children.
quote:Sure. How much research are you claiming all those dead infants got to grow up and carry out? How many deep emotions are you claiming they got to experience?
You tell me, what did all the chidren who died of measles as infants learn? What did the first born sons of the slave and thr prisoners learn in Exodus
quote:
If there was no sickness, would we have learned as much as we do about DNA, the body, herbs, and even more emotional things such as loss, love, and longing?
quote:No, I didn't.
Please. What you basically said is that we have no choice in anything we do.
quote:How can you tell the difference between men's work and God? God told people to burn witches!
quote:Human actions by evil men, who acted on their own will to commit dispicable acts.
I'm sorry, but the people who were burned alive because of their religious beliefs did not become better people because of their agony, and neither did their torturers. They just became painfully dead, and their torturers became more monstrous human organisms.
quote:In other words, "God doesn't give people anything that they can't at the very least commit suicide over."
Originally posted by Geraine:
Secondly, I never mentioned killing ones self. Sometimes that is how people handle it.
quote:link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100317/sc_afp/scienceanimalsdogs
PARIS (AFP) – Husky, shar pei, terrier or mutt, today's dogs descended from wolves that probably lived in the Middle East, not Europe or Asia as many thought, according to a study published Wednesday in the British science journal Nature.
"Dogs seem to share more genetic similarity with Middle Eastern grey wolves than any other wolf population worldwide," said one of its authors, Robert Wayne, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of California in Los Angeles.
The researchers sequenced the genetic code from more than 900 dogs from 85 breeds and 200 wild grey wolves, including wolves in North America, Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.
They analysed more than 48,000 single genetic markers, seeking areas of comparison that would enable them to build a canine family tree.
Its trunk, they found, is rooted in the Middle East, which concurs with evidence for the remains of dogs found at sites from 13,000 years ago.
quote:Please print this "characteristic DNA of dogs", or at least 1 kilobase of it. Yes, yes, of course IUPAC ambiguities are allowed.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The following news excerpt confirms what I have posted earlier in other threads, that when the DNA of wolves was compared to various species of dogs, it would be found that the characteristic DNA of all varieties of dogs is present in the wolf DNA--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation, and contradicting the evolutionist theory.
quote:In the 'Creationist theory of speciation' what definition of 'species' is used?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation.
quote:Actually, they did no such thing since there is only one species of dog. This is why the article never mentions species and consistently uses "breeds" whereas you seem to have misread it as "species."
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
... that when the DNA of wolves was compared to various species of dogs ....
quote:Ummmmm, no. Read the actual paper, specifically the first sentence of the conclusions.
... it would be found that the characteristic DNA of all varieties of dogs is present in the wolf DNA--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation.
quote:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/16/%3Cp%3E%3Ca
The absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in grey wolves suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. However, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the mutations likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs.
quote:Missed this the first time.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Further confirmation can be offered by deliberately seeking to produce various species of dogs by engaging in selective breeding of wolves. The Russians recently reported success in selective breeding foxes and producing tame dogs.
quote:Actually, the Bible quite clearly says that Noah took a pair of wolves and a pair of small dogs onto the Ark.
Originally posted by Mucus:
What they actually found was an element and an allele that was absent in the wolf that explains some small dog breeds.
quote:I would like to know this as well. In another thread, which has since been deleted, you used "species" in reference to animals, and "race" in reference to humans, but you seemed to be using them to mean the same thing. I asked you if you defined them as the same thing, and if not, how you defined each one, but the thread was deleted before you responded.
Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:In the 'Creationist theory of speciation' what definition of 'species' is used?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
--thus proving the Creationist theory of speciation.
quote:None, but presumably the parents of those children felt more deep emotions than they would have otherwise. Maybe it made some of them go insane with grief, but maybe it made others wiser and stronger. Perhaps others were moved by the infants' deaths and realized how precious life is. No, life isn't fair, but on the other hand people really can't appreciate and understand what joy is until they've known suffering, just like they can't really appreciate the free time they have unless they work too, or know what light is without darkness and so on. The world wouldn't be better with no suffering at all. Suffering gives happiness meaning and makes it precious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no sickness, would we have learned as much as we do about DNA, the body, herbs, and even more emotional things such as loss, love, and longing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. How much research are you claiming all those dead infants got to grow up and carry out? How many deep emotions are you claiming they got to experience?
quote:sinflower, do you believe in heaven? And if so, do you believe there will be suffering there?
Originally posted by sinflower:
The world wouldn't be better with no suffering at all. Suffering gives happiness meaning and makes it precious.
quote:lol, that's actually exactly why I had trouble with the idea of heaven when I was a child. I couldn't envision a place where no struggles and suffering existed. I thought it'd be boring and I didn't want to go.
sinflower, do you believe in heaven? And if so, do you believe there will be suffering there?
quote:I’ll believe that this argument is made in sincerity when someone volunteers their life to enhance the emotional richness of their family’s lives.
Originally posted by sinflower:
None, but presumably the parents of those children felt more deep emotions than they would have otherwise. Maybe it made some of them go insane with grief, but maybe it made others wiser and stronger. Perhaps others were moved by the infants' deaths and realized how precious life is. No, life isn't fair, but on the other hand people really can't appreciate and understand what joy is until they've known suffering, just like they can't really appreciate the free time they have unless they work too, or know what light is without darkness and so on. The world wouldn't be better with no suffering at all. Suffering gives happiness meaning and makes it precious.
quote:Oh come on now, cool it with your outraged righteousness. And no, "sacrifice all the babes and innocents to teach a lesson to everyone else!" was NOT what I'm saying at all, and you know it.
Honestly, to argue that the death of innocent children is a mixed blessing? That it's good that some innocent people are sacrificed for the emotional edification of others? This argument is grotesque.
quote:But that's ridiculous. Just because I acknowledge that suffering is a necessary part of life doesn't mean I'm going to actively seek it out. That kind of goes against the definition of suffering, no?
I’ll believe that this argument is made in sincerity when someone volunteers their life to enhance the emotional richness of their family’s lives.
quote:*raises hand*
Who would appreciate how wonderful peace is if war didn't exist? How wonderful wealth is if they'd never been poor?
quote:Frankly, I assume that is because you have neither experienced nor witnessed real suffering.
To me, that's the opposite of grotesque.
quote::points everyone toward the Worthing Saga:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QB]quote:*raises hand*
Who would appreciate how wonderful peace is if war didn't exist? How wonderful wealth is if they'd never been poor?
For that matter, I fail to understand why it's important for children to starve in central Africa so Paris Hilton can appreciate her wealth.
quote:I agree with this. The quantity of happiness is not in itself the sole important thing in the world.
It means I accept that suffering, as well as joy, is part of what gives life meaning.
quote:Who has never experienced real suffering? You writing off sinflower's viewpoint with an assumption that's definitely not true.
Frankly, I assume that is because you have neither experienced nor witnessed real suffering.
quote:But here's the thing: we don't actually get to see the society that the Worthing Saga tells us is flawed. We hear about it after it is over -- and, of course, the author asserts that pretty much nothing noteworthy happened while peace and prosperity and painlessness reigned. But why?
:points everyone toward the Worthing Saga:
quote:Of course, if your God -- like the "gods" of Worthing -- is not truly omnipotent, that's possible. And I agree that this worldview is not internally inconsistent. If your God is omnipotent, however, it is not at all difficult to imagine a Creation without blemish.
in my belief, there were only two ways God could go about creation: either don't do it at all, or do it and accept that Creation is going to have blemishes, diseases, pain, toil, and suffering
quote:I appreciate gravity. And air. Don't you?
I am curious, Tom, how you would go about appreciating something if that something had always been just a fact of life, a constant like gravity...
quote:I'd have to chew on that for awhile, I don't really have an answer as I've never really considered that question.
Another question, of course, also arises: why is appreciation necessary? What is the virtue of appreciating painlessness when there is no possibility of pain?
quote:And, again, that's not a problem for a non-omnipotent God. An omnipotent God, though, certainly doesn't have to.
To me it seems much more simpler and correct that God, like us, experiences the full gamut of emotions when he considers us, his creation.
quote:Even if an omnipotent God could live in a world without pain, would it necessarily follow that it would be better to exist that way?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And, again, that's not a problem for a non-omnipotent God. An omnipotent God, though, certainly doesn't have to.
To me it seems much more simpler and correct that God, like us, experiences the full gamut of emotions when he considers us, his creation.
quote:Not necessarily. That God could have also chosen to make pain necessary for some reason. But why would He do that?
Even if an omnipotent God could live in a world without pain, would it necessarily follow that it would be better to exist that way?
quote:Maybe pain in of itself has effects that are needful, God recognizing that allows it to exist.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Not necessarily. That God could have also chosen to make pain necessary for some reason. But why would He do that?
Even if an omnipotent God could live in a world without pain, would it necessarily follow that it would be better to exist that way?
quote:Don't lie, you told me to do it.
Originally posted by Scott R:
I want to point out that I was not the first one to do a cross-forum game prompt this time.
quote:Yes.
I forget, did you disagree that a God that can do all that can be done instead of being able to do anything was still omnipotent?
quote:Well, fairly, I don't mean "can do contradictory things" by it; that whole "create a rock He can't lift" bit, for example, is right out. But I do mean "can ignore laws of the universe." A God who has no choice but to permit pain to obtain His desired outcome is not an omnipotent God.
Tom is using the word omnipotent to mean that 'can do anything and everything.'
quote:You are correct, which is precisely why we all live on this planet and experience what it feels like to be cut off from God.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
I'd also like to point out that by the "we can't know joy without knowing suffering" argument, one cannot fully appreciate God without there being no god. So I guess only people on hell really appreciate God.
quote:Sigh.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
MightyCow: I'm not sure what you are talking about. It makes perfect sense to me that the universe is populated by those who choose good and evil, with folks all along the spectrum.
quote:In Mormonism, that's part of why we were sent to Earth.
I'd also like to point out that by the "we can't know joy without knowing suffering" argument, one cannot fully appreciate God without there being no god.
quote:Perhaps, but I think malaria, dysentery, HIV, tuberculosis, etc. are harder to explain. No one *has* to get a horrible disease based primarily on accidents of geography and birth, but it happens. And the fact that as our knowledge progresses we are able to mitigate the effects of these diseases, though disproportionately for the wealthiest of the world, also seems to contradict a divine purpose to creating or allowing them unless the purpose was for rich people to be able to learn to protect themselves.
It makes perfect sense to me that the universe is populated by those who choose good and evil, with folks all along the spectrum.
quote:Sigh.
Sigh.
Did the sons of the prisoner and the son of the slave in Exodus choose evil?
Do the children who die of measles as infants choose evil?
Basic fairness demand that innocent people not suffer for the bad choices of strangers. Has your God set up the world such that it works that way?
quote:Isn't the standard Christian view that diseases and other natural causes of death were necessary consequences of Adam and Eve's eating of the forbidden fruit? So God would not have prevented their release any more than he would prevent one person from killing another.
Originally posted by MattP:
Perhaps, but I think malaria, dysentery, HIV, tuberculosis, etc. are harder to explain. No one *has* to get a horrible disease based primarily on accidents of geography and birth, but it happens. And the fact that as our knowledge progresses we are able to mitigate the effects of these diseases, though disproportionately for the wealthiest of the world, also seems to contradict a divine purpose to creating or allowing them unless the purpose was for rich people to be able to learn to protect themselves.
quote:Unless the best outcome logically requires pain; then it would be a logical contradiction if He pursued the best outcome yet also created a universe without pain.
Well, fairly, I don't mean "can do contradictory things" by it; that whole "create a rock He can't lift" bit, for example, is right out. But I do mean "can ignore laws of the universe." A God who has no choice but to permit pain to obtain His desired outcome is not an omnipotent God.
quote:But that could only be the case, granted an omnipotent God, if He wanted it to be the case.
Unless the best outcome logically requires pain...
quote:Saying that you are saying something, when you've changed your argument by dropping the very points I'm critizing simply isn't helpful.
Originally posted by sinflower:
Here's what I am saying: I'm saying that it's good that life has suffering and unfairness as well as joy and fairness. That it's a balance.
quote:Really? In infants?
Yes, there are sometimes painful, unfair things that happen to decent people (I'm not going to say "innocent people" because I don't think there's such a thing; everyone's good and bad in some proportion).
quote:But that's not all you were arguing. You argued that the suffering of some was necessary for the moral education of others. So you are choosing to deny your family the moral edification that they would gain by your death. How can they appreciate how great it is having a whole family without your death to show them how rotten family tragedy is?
quote:But that's ridiculous. Just because I acknowledge that suffering is a necessary part of life doesn't mean I'm going to actively seek it out. That kind of goes against the definition of suffering, no?
I’ll believe that this argument is made in sincerity when someone volunteers their life to enhance the emotional richness of their family’s lives.
quote:Do you think that the guy who watches his family hacked apart by machetes in Rwanda shares your conclusion?
But if I could choose a world where no suffering happened, to me or to anyone, I wouldn't choose it. I like this world better.
quote:Ah! So it's other people's suffering that is necessary, while our own suffering is to be avoided.
But that's ridiculous. Just because I acknowledge that suffering is a necessary part of life doesn't mean I'm going to actively seek it out. That kind of goes against the definition of suffering, no?
quote:I appreciate air in part because I know what it is like to not have air, for example after playing football and being out of breath. The worst example was being sucked under by a riptide at the beach. But when I don't remember those things? No, I really don't appreciate air. I don't even think about it.
I appreciate gravity. And air. Don't you?
Another question, of course, also arises: why is appreciation necessary? What is the virtue of appreciating painlessness when there is no possibility of pain?
quote:Actually, what it does is take a person who lived in painlessness, and then subject them to the pained world, and ask them to decide. And they did. That's a pretty persuasive case, from a storytelling perspective, at least.
The Worthing Saga is a pretty good analogy, sure, but it fails to make its case persusasively; it simply asserts that suffering produces goodness, and then proceeds from that point as if that were the established case. I note, of course, that the case has not actually been established.
quote:It depends on how you frame the question. If the question is, "Why does God see the need for innocents to suffer?" Well, that's a good question. It's also loaded. If you ask instead, "Why does God see a need for a reality which permits the suffering of innocents?" Well, things change. Even if you don't agree, they're still not as black-and-white as you indicate if you ask the latter question instead of the former.
It boggles the mind to imagine a god who sees some need for the death and suffering of innocents, but pain is a natural part of an evolution-produced world.
quote:Now, this I agree with. That's a fundamental reason I wasn't able to be a Christian growing up, until I was exposed to outlooks that didn't demand an omnipotent God.
But that could only be the case, granted an omnipotent God, if He wanted it to be the case.
quote:Except that we don't see that person's painless life. Nor are we given anything but the author's word that the person would "really" have chosen that way. It's not an argument for anything; it's just an analogy to reframe an old rationale.
what it does is take a person who lived in painlessness, and then subject them to the pained world, and ask them to decide
quote:And why can't God just do this?
To do this, the sin problem must be finally and completely remedied.
quote:Why not?
Without true freedom of choice, there can be no real love.
quote:What do you find "cool" about it Blayne?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Gnosticism is a cool religion.
quote:Wait, you mean we aren't robots now? Who, exactly (in your theology), created me with the precise genetic makeup and personality I have? If it was God, then don't my choices reflect the inborn inclinations He gave me? After all, God gave me this brain capable of critical thought, and a personality that finds faith-based answers fundamentally unsatisfying. It's not really something I have control over (and believe me, I've spent years trying). If God is real, and God made me this way, and if God created a world in which evidence points unanimously towards evolution, then isn't it God's own darn fault if I decide to accept the theory of evolution? And if that's enough to damn me to Hell, doesn't that make God, well, kind of a bastard?
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Some ask, Why can't God just make us think what He wants us to? He could. But then we would just be robots, with no volition of our own.
quote:It fits with D&D mythology.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What do you find "cool" about it Blayne?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Gnosticism is a cool religion.
quote:And this is why I don't let my infant play in a pile of knives next to a fireplace. I know perfectly well that he'll hurt himself, so I don't put him in a situation where his nature is going to cause him to do so. I'm not taking away his free will, I'm just protecting him from dangers that I am fully aware of, and he does not yet understand.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
God is the Source of Life, and God placed mankind in charge of earth. When mankind doubted God's goodness and rebelled against Him, this produced a separation from the Source of Life that has resulted in what the Bible calls "curses" on the ground, for our sake.
quote:It does? How?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:It fits with D&D mythology.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:What do you find "cool" about it Blayne?
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Gnosticism is a cool religion.
quote:MC, that was kind of a bad example.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:And this is why I don't let my infant play in a pile of knives next to a fireplace. I know perfectly well that he'll hurt himself, so I don't put him in a situation where his nature is going to cause him to do so. I'm not taking away his free will, I'm just protecting him from dangers that I am fully aware of, and he does not yet understand.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
God is the Source of Life, and God placed mankind in charge of earth. When mankind doubted God's goodness and rebelled against Him, this produced a separation from the Source of Life that has resulted in what the Bible calls "curses" on the ground, for our sake.
I find it sad that I'm a better parent than God.
quote:I magically arrange the universe so that alcohol does not exist and accidents cannot happen, because I'm God.
Your child begins to drink heavily and drive. He ends up causing an accident and getting thrown in jail. You have done pretty well in your life and have the money to bail him out.
What do you do?
quote:Because I'm not selfless, that's why, and I never claimed to be. I don't see why you are so insistent on this point. I am a selfish human being. Happy? (Btw, you're the one tossing out a straw man here. I'm not saying that all suffering is good, just that there's the potential for good arising from all specific incidents of suffering, and that's a totally different thing altogether.)
But that's not all you were arguing. You argued that the suffering of some was necessary for the moral education of others. So you are choosing to deny your family the moral edification that they would gain by your death. How can they appreciate how great it is having a whole family without your death to show them how rotten family tragedy is?
quote:Why not?
But I wouldn't change the system of the world so that such unfair things were impossible either.
quote:Well, for one thing, who am I judge what's fair? There's no objective thing called fairness. In this world, there's the possibility for events to occur that I consider unfair, but they may be events that someone else considers fair. And vice versa. I love the complexity and inexplicableness of the world, and reducing it to somebody's conception of "fair" would destroy most of that complexity.
But I wouldn't change the system of the world so that such unfair things were impossible either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not?
quote:Nobody said God was nice. Maybe he was just feeling capricious that day.
Seems like the kind of thing a sufficiently intelligent (even if not omniscient) God should have anticipated, before putting a suicide-tree next to his kids and then letting them hang out with the worst criminal in the universe, completely unsupervised.
quote:really?
Originally posted by sinflower:
Nobody said God was nice.
quote:This has always been one of my hanging points on any sort of belief in God. I do not claim to even have a partial understanding for the operation of the universe, but there seems to be a lot of innocent suffering and unneeded ambiguity, which has lead to even more suffering. I have trouble believing in a God that could remove the ambiguity and prevent the suffering, or stop or alleviate the suffering experienced by innocent people with bad luck (e.g. terminal children with cancer). If this God did exist and could hear me, I would angrily demand an explanation for this type of completely pointless pain. To try and spin this type of suffering as useful or character building, or meaningful in any way is, IMO, twisted and disturbing.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Seems like the kind of thing a sufficiently intelligent (even if not omniscient) God should have anticipated...
quote:That's fine. I'm willing to accept that an evil God would intentionally tempt Adam and Eve, then plunge the world into 6000 years of suffering for a single mistake.
Originally posted by sinflower:
Nobody said God was nice. Maybe he was just feeling capricious that day.
quote:Does omnipotence include the ability to decide what is logically possible and what isn't? If one could not make 3 into an even number, would that make one not omnipotent?
quote:But that could only be the case, granted an omnipotent God, if He wanted it to be the case.
Unless the best outcome logically requires pain...
quote:Boarding now for the Hyperbole Train to Exaggeration Town! Whoo whoo!
That's fine. I'm willing to accept that an evil God would intentionally tempt Adam and Eve, then plunge the world into 6000 years of suffering for a single mistake.
An evil, omnipotent, deceitful God could and would certainly make the world much like it is today.
quote:Oh snap! I just got told.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Boarding now for the Hyperbole Train to Exaggeration Town! Whoo whoo!
quote:Doesn't matter, unless you think "best outcome" is definitionally "an outcome obtained through the experience of pain."
Does omnipotence include the ability to decide what is logically possible and what isn't?
quote:God being nice and loving was a Christian invention.
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:really?
Originally posted by sinflower:
Nobody said God was nice.
quote:If I thought it might go anywhere, I might have pointed out that the idea that this is the world we'd live in (or 'very much like it') if God were actively evil and omnipotent is pretty silly, because there are tons of people - even those living in 3rd world countries - who do enjoy lots of their lives and consider their lives to be something precious, meaningful, and overall good.
Oh snap! I just got told. [Roll Eyes]
quote:You might, but you're Rakeesh, and would rather make a cheap one-liner than a substantive contribution to discussion - OW! Right back at you
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If I thought it might go anywhere, I might have pointed out ...
quote:With you? Yes. You're a pretty hostile poster lately.
You might, but you're Rakeesh, and would rather make a cheap one-liner than a substantive contribution to discussion - OW! Right back at you [Wink]
quote:It's surprising that when you add in four new words to describe this God you're discussing, your meaning radically changes!
Let's say a somewhat evil, somewhat ambivalent, childish, petty God. A God like that might make things OK overall, but sprinkle in some seriously messed up stuff like serial killers, natural disasters, racial strife, warring religions, child molesters, plagues, starvation, and so forth.
quote:Pointing out that we can't imagine it doesn't earn you any credibility. Lecturing about how awful it is and how much we take for granted doesn't actually mean you empathize with the people. In fact, the way you're discussing it simply reeks of someone up on their pedestal, and unwilling to get down. You're right about one thing, though. Such a grossly imperfect God might very well create a being that would not only waste their time arguing over silly points of theology, but repeatedly and maliciously misinterpret the words of those who disagree with him.
A God like that could make part of the world have so much wealth, health, and freedom that they waste their time arguing over silly points of theology over a magical electronic community, while making other parts of the world so poor and neglected that their standard of living is so low that most of the first group can't even imagine it.
quote:You'd need to add in incredibly incompetent to your list of adjectives describing this God for this to fit. Would you like to change your meaning again? Because the simple fact is, the world now is a much better place now than it was even a century ago-much less tens of millenia ago! So God must be somewhat evil, somewhat ambivalent, childish, petty, and grossly incompetent if he wants to create an evil world...that is steadily improving down through the march of years.
A God who doesn't mind suffering, can't be bothered to care if His creation get along, and intentionally makes His presence and desires nebulous and contentious fits perfectly with the observed world.
quote:Read the Immortals handbook.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Blayne, I don't really see how the concept of demiurge matches with anything I know about D&D cosmology.
quote:Dangit, I only played Runequest. (Avalon's best rpg imo)
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Read the Immortals handbook.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Blayne, I don't really see how the concept of demiurge matches with anything I know about D&D cosmology.
quote:Yes, that is what I'm asking about. If there is an objective concept of good and if pain is definitionally entailed by that concept, would an omnipotent being still be bound by that limitation?
Doesn't matter, unless you think "best outcome" is definitionally "an outcome obtained through the experience of pain."
quote:And yet, I forgive you for doing so.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Such a grossly imperfect God might very well create a being that would not only waste their time arguing over silly points of theology, but repeatedly and maliciously misinterpret the words of those who disagree with him.
quote:Aha! That would be why I hadn't heard of it.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Read the Immortals handbook.
Originally posted by Scott R:
Blayne, I don't really see how the concept of demiurge matches with anything I know about D&D cosmology.
quote:An omnipotent being would be able to define the objective concept of good. You forget that I don't believe in qualia.
If there is an objective concept of good and if pain is definitionally entailed by that concept, would an omnipotent being still be bound by that limitation?
quote:I don't know if I'm understanding you correctly. You think the detection of 2 dimensional patterns in a string of digits of pi would be significant?
Originally posted by The White Whale:
Tres, along a similar vein: that was brought up in Carl Sagan's Contact (book), where somewhere not too deep in pi (in base 11, IIRC), there is a perfect circle of 1s in a square of zeros.
If this were true, that a perfect circle is to be found deep in this constant, that would be a pretty convincing chunk of evidence for an omnipotent being that could even alter the rules of mathematics.
quote:Dunno. The "bible codes" come pretty close.
Originally posted by Scott R:
I thought it was the dumbest religious device ever.
quote:By all means, please point to where I did that.
And yet, I forgive you for doing so.
quote:That's just in this thread. Now, of course you'll argue that these weren't actually malicious misinterpretations, but rather penetrating analyses of real meaning.
Funny how it's always well-to-do 1st world people who love to toss out, "God won't give you anything you can't handle."
In other words, "God doesn't give people anything that they can't at the very least commit suicide over."
By that reasoning, we should encourage torture, violence, and general mayhem, because it's just God's way of teaching us all sorts of good things. I'm going to go rob a store to teach the clerk that money isn't everything [Big Grin]
Ah! So it's other people's suffering that is necessary, while our own suffering is to be avoided.
I guess God wants us to be sadists.
quote:That's all the information I recall being given on the idea; I remember thinking that it wasn't much of a religion at all.
are you saying you think the aliens are dumb for forming a religion around that
quote:Throughout the book, I thought Sagan did a really poor job expressing the religious viewpoint.
or Sagan dumb for coming up with the very idea?
quote:The alien (again-- IIRC) seemed to think that the numbers indicated some form of God. I don't remember there being talk of a mathematical-law-altering miracle, though.
Also: wondering if you agree that Sagan did not mean to indicate the sequence must have been somehow designed.
quote:I hope this doesn't sound snarky - I'm not feeling snarky, anyway - but is it even possible for you to be satisfied with any representation of the religious viewpoint not offered by a believer? (Asked in another way: do you think someone can understand the viewpoint without converting?)
Throughout the book, I thought Sagan did a really poor job expressing the religious viewpoint.
I got the distinct feeling he was writing about things he did not understand, and could not be troubled to try and understand.
quote:Yes. Jay Lake does a good job, and so does Shawn Stewart (if you haven't read Mainspring or Resurrection Man, SHAME!).
is it even possible for you to be satisfied with any representation of the religious viewpoint not offered by a believer?
quote:This was quite explicitly the message he was trying to convey- that even the Aliens with their superior understanding of mathematics, reality, time, space, physics, everything- still deified and revered beings they had never seen before because they simply couldn't accept that the things they saw around them had not sprung from any greater force than their own ability to perceive them.
Originally posted by scifibum:
I don't want to mangle Sagan's meaning by trying to condense it - I recommend reading the last 3 pages of Contact for anyone who wants to; it's easy to do with Google Books - but I'm convinced he didn't mean to imply that a Creator arbitrarily embedded a circle pattern into pi just for kicks. OK, I'm gonna mangle, I guess: he's pointing out that you can find some pretty wonderful things out about reality, just as wonderful as if they were intentionally designed that way, even though they weren't.
quote:Yeah, no. The point was that since π is transcendental, all conceivable numerical patterns can be discerned within it, depending on how you look at the numbers, and what you're looking for. A further point Sagan was making was that there was absolutely no way for even an omnipotent being to make its existence clear to a being not able to imagine it- thus even if the message in pi *is* a message from God or the Architects, it doesn't matter, because it is embedded in a medium that carries no relief- basically it's like trying to paint on the surface of a pond- what you get is not *nothing* but it is not distinguishable.
If this were true, that a perfect circle is to be found deep in this constant, that would be a pretty convincing chunk of evidence for an omnipotent being that could even alter the rules of mathematics.
quote:Specifically, it's not just about the numerals; according to the aliens, God has coded messages to His creation in these patterns. The "easy" ones -- like the one in Pi -- apparently work as pointers to the ones of greater sophistication. So finding a "message" in Pi in Base 11, as she was told to do, is merely a "confirmation" that she's on the right track and should continue looking for similar (but more detailed) messages in other numbers (and in other locations in Pi).
Sagan explicitly has the alien adherent note that their religion is formed around the appearance of those numerals, IIRC.
I thought it was the dumbest religious device ever.
quote:I'm curious how one can hold a belief that one does not understand. If you don't understand it, what exactly are you believing?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I don't know that it is possible to entirely understand one's own religious beliefs much less someone else's.
quote:Not believing in qualia doesn't mean you can't believe in existence of objectively defined concepts.
An omnipotent being would be able to define the objective concept of good. You forget that I don't believe in qualia.
quote:When I read Ender's Game, I believed it to be one of the best books I've read. However, if you asked me to explain precisely what made it one of the best books I've read, I might be able to give you a general idea but I would not be able to explain it fully. I don't think I understand exactly what makes it so good in my mind.
I'm curious how one can hold a belief that one does not understand. If you don't understand it, what exactly are you believing?
quote:There is a difference between not being able to justify a claim, and not being able to articulate it at all. You are equivocating between the two.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:When I read Ender's Game, I believed it to be one of the best books I've read. However, if you asked me to explain precisely what made it one of the best books I've read, I might be able to give you a general idea but I would not be able to explain it fully.
I'm curious how one can hold a belief that one does not understand. If you don't understand it, what exactly are you believing?
quote:But you could learn. You could learn literary techniques, and psychology, and understand how you and the book interact. Lots of other people can explain why they like books.
I don't think I understand exactly what makes it so good in my mind.
quote:If I say "I deeply believe that floobefloob is true", what do you think this means?
In this way, it is possible to hold a belief that you don't fully understand.
quote:Actually, it doesn't surprise me one bit...people can't point out that your beliefs are unevidenced and unreasonable if you refuse to state what they are. People in the past died because they were willing to say striaghtforwardly and honestly "I believe Christ had two natures, one human, one divine", or "I believe the bread and wine is literally the body and blood of Christ". But on this board, almost no one is willing to claim anything concrete, because they don't want their beliefs to be criticized.
I'm not exactly sure HOW it happens that we can have such unclear beliefs
quote:Diax's Rake, from Neal Stephenson's Anathem
You should not believe a thing only because you like to believe it.
quote:It depends on how you're defining "odd." If you mean "not evenly divisible by two," then yeah, I don't see why an omnipotent being wouldn't be able to change the laws of mathematics.
Do you think an omnipotent being can change the definition of the concept of "odd" so that 4 is odd? And I'm not talking about changing the meaning of the word. I mean the concept of odd.
quote:Why are these "illogical?" You can derive them from first principles.
For example, the illogical belief in the intrinsic value of a human life. Or the illogical belief that hurting innocents is wrong.
quote:Something Socrates demonstrated logically a long time ago.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Being omnipotent "within the realm of ethics" is a pretty serious limitation. It amounts to saying that God does not in fact get to decide what constitutes goodness.
quote:What are the first principles you're using to derive the conclusion that there's an intrinsic value to human life, or that hurting innocents is wrong? I'm curious. Are they self-evident/inarguable ones? If not, why are they different from anyone else using their personal beliefs as first principles for logical deductions?
Why are these "illogical?" You can derive them from first principles.
quote:MightyCow, God forbade Adam and Even only one thing. There is only one way in which they could come to harm in all the earth, and that was if they ate the fruit from one, single tree out of all the others. He had to provide them with a choice, so their free will could be real. But what more could He have done to protect them from coming to harm by accident or ignorance? He did warn them explicitly. There was no necessity for them to disobey Him.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
I find it sad that I'm a better parent than God.
quote:Start with "harm is bad." That's usually considered axiomatic, and that'll get you there.
What are the first principles you're using to derive the conclusion that there's an intrinsic value to human life, or that hurting innocents is wrong?
quote:I don't see how that gets me to the idea that human lives are worth more than nonhuman ones. I can kind of see how that could lead to the idea that hurting "innocents" is worse than hurting normal people, but it's rather tenuous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the first principles you're using to derive the conclusion that there's an intrinsic value to human life, or that hurting innocents is wrong?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start with "harm is bad." That's usually considered axiomatic, and that'll get you there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:But that's not what you were saying. You were saying, "everyone has illogical beliefs," not "everyone has logical beliefs which are to some extent informed by their emotional programming."
the reason that most people believe those particular things is because of emotional instincts, not logic
quote:Either God gets to decide what constitutes goodness, or He doesn't. If He does get to decide what constitutes goodness then how could there be a problem of evil? Wouldn't that mean that if God decides suffering is necessary for the best possible world then it literally is so?
Being omnipotent "within the realm of ethics" is a pretty serious limitation. It amounts to saying that God does not in fact get to decide what constitutes goodness.
quote:Well, okay. I'll rephrase if you can explain to me how "harm is bad" logically leads to the examples of beliefs that I provided.
But that's not what you were saying. You were saying, "everyone has illogical beliefs," not "everyone has logical beliefs which are to some extent informed by their emotional programming."
quote:And, indeed, the classic resolution of the Problem of Evil for those who believe in an omnipotent God is that God has decided all this suffering is desirable for some reason, and that this is okay because God must have a good reason (which we simply don't know or understand). Of course, this argument has obvious flaws, but so does the idea of an omnipotent God.
If He does get to decide what constitutes goodness then how could there be a problem of evil? Wouldn't that mean that if God decides suffering is necessary for the best possible world then it literally is so?
quote:I am not saying that "harm is bad" is logically supportable. I am saying that it is axiomatic, and moreover I can think of no one who would reject it as an axiom. Do you?
applying the phrase "it's axiomatic" to such a premise hardly makes it "logically" supportable, since we can posit any belief we hold as being an axiomatic first principle
quote:Very true. I note, however, that your axiom is rather complex and easily challenged.
if you remember to start with the axiom that God is the Source of Life--He alone is self-existent, and all other living beings depend upon Him from moment-to-moment for their very existence, then it is certainly not insane to see that there must be dire consequences resulting from rebelling against God
quote:Unless of course he gets off of seeing us struggle.
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
0Megabyte, if you remember to start with the axiom that God is the Source of Life--He alone is self-existent, and all other living beings depend upon Him from moment-to-moment for their very existence--then it is certainly not insane to see that there must be dire consequences resulting from rebelling against God and allowing a wedge to divide us from Him. That Adam and Eve were not blotted out of existence instantly is the true marvel that should be pondered, for it reveals to us the true nature of God as the Source of true love, as well as life. God must reconcile justice with mercy. This is no trifling matter.
quote:Your axiom wouldn't even indicate that God is sentient, let alone that he has communicated instructions to people (that they might rebel against him, even if they wanted to), or that he would notice their disobedience, or be displeased by it if he noticed it, or that'd he act to punish them upon his displeasure.
if you remember to start with the axiom that God is the Source of Life--He alone is self-existent, and all other living beings depend upon Him from moment-to-moment for their very existence, then it is certainly not insane to see that there must be dire consequences resulting from rebelling against God
quote:In my language (Greek) it's pretty much tautological, as the english verb "harm" would translate to "kano kako" - namely "doing bad". Same as "benefit" would be translated to "kano kalo" - "doing good".
I am not saying that "harm is bad" is logically supportable. I am saying that it is axiomatic, and moreover I can think of no one who would reject it as an axiom. Do you?
quote:Masochism?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Very true. I note, however, that your axiom is rather complex and easily challenged.
if you remember to start with the axiom that God is the Source of Life--He alone is self-existent, and all other living beings depend upon Him from moment-to-moment for their very existence, then it is certainly not insane to see that there must be dire consequences resulting from rebelling against God
Go ahead and challenge "harm is bad." I'll wait.
quote:Ah! You just derived the concept of a greater good! *applause* That's step two.
Masochism?
quote:I actually DON'T derive that human lives are worth more than non-human ones. I think that there is a limit to how much we can be expected to avoid destroying animal life in pursuit of our general welfare, but I think we far exceed that limit. In the abstract, I think a lot of human actions that we consider acceptable are downright evil, but I don't assign blame based on abstract measures of suffering, I assign it based on the effort required to deviate from our basic biological drives.
I don't see how that gets me to the idea that human lives are worth more than nonhuman ones. I can kind of see how that could lead to the idea that hurting "innocents" is worse than hurting normal people, but it's rather tenuous.
quote:Well said. This is partly why I almost automatically reject conclusions drawn my most mainstream economists. There conclusions assume that their method of decision making is correct. I feel that it is very, very wrong. I like it when they are aware of the faults of their system, and make the faults part of the discussion.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If the question is a demand for proof that human lives are more valuable than the lives of another species to some independent arbiter, I suppose the first question that must be asked is "who is this independent arbiter of worth, and why do we assume one exists?"
quote:
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Ron Lambert: Again, I don't put my infant down next to an open bottle of rat poison and tell him not to eat it and then leave the room to give him "free choice."
That's something only an evil or insane person would do.
quote:Wow, I really hope you don't do that (as quoted) with a child Armoth. Any parent who puts his (presumably young) child down next to an open bottle of poison should severely punished.
Originally posted by Armoth:
Actually, parents do it all the time. A good parent leaves his children to develop on their own, and doesn't try to rule their lives.
Parents try to grow other people, and not pawns.
quote:In some versions of Christian theology, like Ron's, it's even worse: it's not just poison that'll kill your kid, but will kill your kid's kids and their kids and ruin everything on the entire Earth for everyone. And before you set it down on the carpet next to him and hide behind the couch, you already know he's going to drink it because you're God and you know these things.
If so, please explain how God does that.
quote:You just said that an omnipotent God has the ability to decide what is bad. Therefore, "harm is bad" cannot be an axiom if there is an omnipotent God, since God could simply will it to be untrue whenever He feels like it.
Go ahead and challenge "harm is bad." I'll wait.
quote:I haven't asserted any axioms. The issue is whether an omnipotent God should allow suffering to occur. You asserted that an omnipotent God would be able to decide what is bad, or else He's not omnipotent. I'm just pointing out that if you make that assertion about omnipotence, and if we are discussing what an omnipotent God should do if He exists, then you can't also assert that harm is necessarily bad.
So you're going to assert another axiom to disprove an axiom? Why not start with "no axiom Tom suggests can be acceptable?"
quote:No, that's where the theists moved it when they didn't like the initial argument.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
[QB]quote:I haven't asserted any axioms. The issue is whether an omnipotent God should allow suffering to occur.
So you're going to assert another axiom to disprove an axiom? Why not start with "no axiom Tom suggests can be acceptable?"
quote:No. That depends on another thing: that their definition of "omnipotence" include the ability to make harm not bad, either by allowing the omnipotent being to redefine the terms involved or somehow undo the tautology. The definition of "bad" under which harm is bad, for example, might be (depending on your assumptions) very different from a definition of "bad" which is defined as the opposite of what God wants.
Do you agree that if someone believes in an omnipotent being, under your definition of omnipotence, then they should not accept "harm is bad" as an axiom?
quote:The anger is not, by and large, coming from Catholics. In fact, it's mainly coming from groups who are known for not being fond of Catholics.
given that the 2 authorities in the largest group of Christians in the last thirty years have both supported evolution, why does so much hate and anger persist?
quote:Given that the leaders of the most populous country in the world support communism, why are so many people still against it?
Originally posted by Jenos:
but given that the 2 authorities in the largest group of Christians in the last thirty years have both supported evolution, why does so much hate and anger persist? [/QB]
quote:If the Bible can be wrong about some things, it can be wrong about other things too. Therefore, some Christians have to deny that any part of it is wrong in anything. And trying to bend part of it by saying "Oh, it doesn't mean what it clearly says, it's just a metaphor" would require people to personally analyze the whole thing, and make personal judgments and draw conclusions, and some people don't want to do that. They want the 100% safe thing. They want to have easy rules to follow, and to believe that they can't be critizied for their chocies, because of course they are doing the right thing, they are living just like the Bible says.
Originally posted by Jenos:
On another note entirely, I'm not sure if this has been addressed in the thread, but why is there so much virulence on the part of some Christians regarding evolution?
quote:Mainstream Chrsitians are not about to open the can of worms that starts "Your theology (about life on earth and the Creation) is simply wrong". There's just no way that they are going to come out of that discussion unbattered. So they don't have it. They let Creationists do what they want, and the Creationists have definite goals, and the resources to achieve them lots of the time.
Both the last two popes have openly come out in support of evolution - they both admit that there is an overwhelmingly large amount of evidence for it,
quote:That the latter is distinct from the former may be your personal belief, but you shouldn't believe that it's a premise that everyone accepts. People do argue the fallacy of consequences, starting with "If man is not fundementally different from other animals...etc".
and that it really doesn't mean anything because the purpose of religion is to develop effective morality and how to better the soul, not necessarily to provide a basis for the existence of the human animal.
quote:Not always. I am a Creationist who also believes in evolution. I simply believe God used evolution to bring man into existence.
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
Or to put it another way, sure Creationism might be precluded based on your premises, which to you are self-evident, but Creationists are Creationists because they reject your premises. So asking how they can draw their conclusion while holding your premises is a non-starter. They don't hold your premises, and presenting your case as if your premises were the obvious and the only ones that people would work from just doesn't help.
quote:You understand that this means countless millions of subhumans had to die horrible, ghastly deaths to produce humanity, right?
I simply believe God used evolution to bring man into existence.
quote:I thought it was clear from context that I was using "Creationist" to mean something more than someone who holds the weak claim that God did something that evidence can't distinguish from what unaided nature would be predicted to produce.
Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Not always. I am a Creationist who also believes in evolution. I simply believe God used evolution to bring man into existence.
Originally posted by swbarnes2:
Or to put it another way, sure Creationism might be precluded based on your premises, which to you are self-evident, but Creationists are Creationists because they reject your premises. So asking how they can draw their conclusion while holding your premises is a non-starter. They don't hold your premises, and presenting your case as if your premises were the obvious and the only ones that people would work from just doesn't help.
quote:So God isn't allowed to have *any* fun. Spoilsport.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You understand that this means countless millions of subhumans had to die horrible, ghastly deaths to produce humanity, right?
I simply believe God used evolution to bring man into existence.