A fair number of creationists must be leaving a certain propaganda movie and getting on to the internet to find targets of their ire, because I’m getting a little surge in hate mail — mostly short, petty whines and accusations. For any who find this site in addition to my email address, I have two suggestions for you:
-
Look up the actual stories of the “expelled”. It seems their martyrdom has been grossly exaggerated.
-
Then compare those stories with more serious case of religious persecution against those who favor evolution.
Creationists, much as I’d love to smack down every one of your silly arguments, I can’t possibly do it one by one. Hang around, ask questions in the comments, and take your turn: we’ll eventually get around to dismantling your ludicrous claims.
Oh, oh. PZ just said, “Bring it on!”
I bet there’ll hardly be any comments in this thread. *shifts eyes*
LOL, Ted. You’re just trying to incite a swarming mob of creationist antics, aren’t you?
This’ll be fun.
/grab popcorn
Maybe we can lure them here with the tales of us eating babies, and our wanton sexploits.
As long as they’re here praying for PZ’s conversion from atheism (although they’ll spell it “athiesm”) and the salvation of his soul (and ours!), they won’t be doing any actual mischief anywhere else. Or perhaps instead they’ll be ignoring the Biblical injunction “judge not, lest ye be judged” and condemning PZ to hell for his lack of faith. That’s fun, too. No doubt there’ll be some collateral condemnation from the sanctimonious shrapnel. Incoming!
Right.
Who’s first?
Oh man, this is gonna be good. I may pull an all-nighter to watch this in realtime :) (puts a bucket of coffee on to help stave off sleep).
This was inevitable, wasn’t it?
Lots of these people never heard of you until last night, now they think they know everything about you. I’m sure you’re the devil to them.
I think you should post some of your more ludicrous responses, and I bet it won’t be easy for you to pick, say, a top 5.
Margaret Cho did a great bit in her “Assassin” routine about gaining the ire of the Right. She said her mail went something like this: “GODDAMN FAGGOT DYKE GOOK COMMIE FAGGOT DYKE. YOU SUCK. JESUS SAVES!”
Sound familiar PZ?
I like your “take a number” approach, PZ. There must have been a lot of people going to see ‘Expelled,” as it opened at #8.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2008-04-18&p=.htm
The movie’s every bit as terrible as advertised.
Of course, these are the same fools that are convinced by a Kent Hovind video…so what do you expect intellectually.
Derik is right. I totally agree.
I actually paid to watch another movie, then snuck into this one after mine was over.
Yeah, I know I know, but I couldn’t bring myself to actually spend money supporting/watching this garbage.
Planet Killer……..come out to playyyyyeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy!!!
Zeno said… atheism (although they’ll spell it “athiesm”)
You are implying that “i before e except after c” is only a THEORY instead of a LAW. Help me Jebus.
Bring on the comic sans!!!
I don’t suspect the sheep that are bused to the movies to be bathed in the inanity and droning of Ben Stein will be very interesting.
Does the 3 comment rule still hold?
Actually, Bifrost, I think it’s worse than that: “i before e” is a social construct, nothing more than a convention. But not to worry: this problem will go away. When our current generation of msg txtrs grow up, vowels will be vestigial or vanished.
Oh, you are *so* going to Hell because of that, Derik.
Blake Stacey’s blog has a good essay on scientists being persecuted and even killed by creationists. Unlike the made up cases in Expelled, these are people getting fired, beaten up, and threatened for real by religious bigots. Well worth the read.
One such horror story out of 12 is below. Really, what kind of animal beats up on a female college professor for teaching evolution.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626
I don’t know where this movie is even playing. They don’t seem to have a link to it on Fandango and that even lists the drive in theaters in my neck of the woods.
I only have one question Dr. Myers. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution. In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat. This is only an example I just want to be clear that I do not mean cross breeding between dogs or cats but actually new species. If so I would love to know when and where this happened, and where I might be able to see the evidence, so that I might look at that information.
. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution.
sure, it’s quite easy, all you have to do is move the “i” after the “c”.
I’ll let my more knowledgeable pharyngulites deal with the yutz @22.
However Zoologix has an interesting article up about rapid reptile evolution (please disregard the poking-fun-at pictures below the fold) Italian lizards
Sorry for the typo my friend. However it doesn’t change my question.
I doubt that Planet Killer can hear you, what with that tremendous plank still stuck in his eye.
James, are you truly serious?
Do you honestly believe that evolution is the metamorphosing of one distinct species into another? Do you not understand what evolution is and how it works?
Riddle me this, O compatriots in reason! What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God? That is, what are the general features that indicate design? Are they not complexity, utility, and organization? Do we not find these in nature? Why then, companions, are we not justified in making the inference to design? Do not spare me your thoughts. Pray tell me.
Yikes.
That’s… wow. Impressive juxtaposition. And, sigh, it’s hard to smack down every last argument. I mean, yeah, the arguments themselves are stupid, but there’s so many of them and it’s hard to logically counter the completely illogical.
If the person reading this would like to make an argument for creationism or ID, please please please do us all a favor and go here first to see if your argument’s on the list:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
James Briggs, it is difficult to observe this because there is not an agreed on definition of “species”. If you say that a species is a population that can only breed with itself because of gamete(Egg and sperm) incompatibility then yes this has been observed. Look at the wikipedia article about “hybrid species” It has been observed that animals like mules,domestic horses, wild horses(including weird pygmie horses of mongolia and indonesia) and Zebras can sometimes reporoduce and create offspring that can reproduce only with hybrids like themselves, not either of their parent’s species.
The biggest barrier to observing evolution in action is that diverse speciation take a long time to happen. Many intermediate generations need to be born and reproduce in order to be selected into different forms.
So the question is: is a Zebra the same as a horse?
@ James Briggs.
I’m not the authority on this, but I think the answer to your question is no. And the reason for this is simple. We have been around as a species for, maybe 100K years. We have had writing for only the last 7000-ish years. Evolution is a slow process–to slow for anyone one person to see a radical dog-to-cat change, let alone even a civilization.
Of course, there is plenty of fossil evidence of just this kind of change. And we see evolution all the time. Just look at the flu virus. Different every year.
(And just to preempt here: the distinction drawn by ID fans between micro and macro evolution is a false dichotomy. They differ in degree only. There’s not some magical chasm between them–as Behe would like us to believe.)
James Briggs #22:
Of course it has. You guys just call it “microevolution”, thinking that it’s a gotcha. Things take time. By the way, acting smug about that cat evolving into a dog argument is going to get you reamed. It’s what we like to call a “tired canard”. Dogs may change into something else over TIME, so may cats, but no one is directing cats to turn into dogs or vice versa. Quack quack, yawn.
@James Briggs
Why do you actually expect that an extant species evolves into an other extant species?
James – yes, it has been observed.
Ummm. Mr. Briggs.
You are obviously not well versed in the science of evolution.
You should pick up a book on evolution by Dawkins or Gould, there’s a lot of them out there.
Or just get the basic by looking up speciation on wiki or talkorigins.
Then come back if anything has confused you.
And a quick answer to your question is, YES speciation has been witnessed in the wild, but not as you misunderstand it.
Flame 821,
I will begin by admiting that I am not a Scienctist. I have take science classes but have not degrees. I am merely an individual who seeks answers.
When I say Evolution I am not refering to the microevolution that comes from a species changing to better suit its environment. I only meant what I would consider Macroevolution which would need to be distinct species to distinct species for Darwinism to be true. The original Single celled organism could not always remain a single celled organism. If I am wrong please educate me to what is right.
Thank you
James Briggs
Riddle me this, O compatriots in reason! What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God?
what are you, a fucking comic strip villain?
anywho, let me answer your question with another question:
How does an anthropologist go about determining whether a particular artifact is man-made?
If you spend a little time figuring out what the answer is that question, your original question will also be answered.
Now, when you have that figured out, come back and tell us how we can determine how a deity of your choice actually acts in the world, and then pick a random organism, and we can get started hypothesizing whether said deity did or did not have a hand in its “creation”.
simple.
And then there’s also the problem that if you witness the change you’ll run into this< .
Paley.
An organism that is genetically impossible to have evolved from any current life form or share an ancestry with a previous life form.
Like a human with wings, and perhaps a nice halo around it’s head.
James:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
William:
There is no proof against the universe being designed. There *can* be no proof against it. You are fully justified in believing that the world was created last Thursday if you so wish. Now, we all have memories of last Wednesday, but those could have been implanted by an omnipotent creator, now couldn’t they?
ANYTHING could indicate design. That’s the fundamental reason it’s not within the boundaries of science. Science can *only* deal with the natural world; it’s part of the definition. So, while many many scientists hold personal religious beliefs, no actual scientific hypothesis can depend on the supernatural or divine. ESPECIALLY not when we have valid, workable models with tons of evidence to support them that point to a materialistic solution.
More for James:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html
Because I *know* it’s coming soon, and I’m going for food, here’s “irreducible complexity”:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
To James Briggs, re #36, where you said: “I only meant what I would consider Macroevolution which would need to be distinct species to distinct species for Darwinism to be true.”
James, macro is nothing but a whole lot of micro. It takes time. It can be seen, after the fact, in the fossil record. Properly understood, it’s like a time-lapse movie, but with a lot of missing frames.
In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat.
well, I’ve seen a cat-dog; does that count?
http://www.retrojunk.com/img/art-images/cat_dog.jpg
James Briggs said:
James, take some time to read these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Observed Instances of Speciation
In fact, take a good look around the Talk Origins site. :)
James Briggs, I thought of another example of evolution that has been observed. It’s not as dramatic as my “Zorse” , “Hebra” and “donkey” example.
Some fungi and bacteria are one celled and are found in environment “A”. Lets say that environment “A” is slightly acidic and rather moist. the fungi/bacteria in environment “A” reproduce by each cell dividing itself asexually.
The same species of cells are found in enviroment “B” but “B” isin’t as acidic and drier. The cells in environment B only survive if they cluster together and share moisture.
If the conditions are right the cells in the “colony” will specialize. The ones on the outside will be selected to be more resistant to water loss or UV light. The ones on the inside might specialize in making sure that a beneficial acidity is maintained in the colony or some other homeostatic condition.
That can be observed in a laboratory. Over time these colonies will increase in specialization to the point that the cells will take on different forms, maybe even start to diverge genetically but share the same environment.
I would like to draw attention once again to the irony that my complaint about my own experience of being expelled from Uncommon Descent is still posted in that part of the Expelled web site. :)
Rapid species to species changes have been observed. There are many, a long list.
Two familiar ones. YOUR DOG. Dogs are descended from wolves and fairly recently. Some dogs look a lot like wolves. Some don’t. Does a chuhuahua or pekinese look like a wolf?
Corn. Corn was derived from teosinte and almost within historical time frames. We’ve even been able to trace the mutations that change teosinte into corn. An ear of corn and the seed stalk of teosinte don’t resemble each other very closely.
Tasmanian facial tumor. A dramatic evolutionary jump from a tumor to a transmissable disease that happened a few decades ago. Some call this the creation of a new phylum.
I don’t believe you are interested in learning. Your question is a creationist fallacy that was answered a century ago. Just a trolling creo.
well, I’ve seen a cat-dog; does that count?
Nothing, however, compares to the glory of the Jackalope. Wall Drug Forever! (god I hope to never end up in that part of SD again).
James, I think the primary problem is that damned fish to man poster. There is NOT a straight line from a one cell organism in primordial ooze to us via the way the poster shows.
It is a tree with many branches, many dead branches. Some species survived, adapted, evolved and reproduced, most did not.
The ‘dogs evolving to cats’ question you posed is very much like the ‘if humans came from apes, why are there still apes’ comment we hear quite often.
We didn’t come ‘from’ apes, we share a common ancestor with them, they are our cousins not our grandparents. Many of our other cousins didn’t survive because they couldn’t adapt or evolve quickly enough, we sometimes find their fossilized bones and that, along with Dr. Myers evo-devo studies, is how we learn their history and pieces of our own.
Please, if you are TRULY interested in learning about the basic concepts of evolution go to talk origins and follow the links that Falyne has provided. They can explain things much better than I can.
James@22
Others have addressed the concept of species and the saltational requirement of your question, so I’ll travel a different route.
Why do we need to directly observe one species giving birth to another to have knowledge that it happened? Is the evidence from the fossil record, homologous traits, molecular evidence such as shared ERVs, shared ‘broken’ genes, and so many others, not enough for us to conclude common descent?
If that is the case – that we require direct observation in all things – then many sciences, and those nice people on CSI, are in deep shit.
Well…baby is in bed and the wife is away. Looks like I’ve found my entertainment for the evening.
Thanks Fundy Claus…just what I wanted!
James Briggs: Ring species provide examples of gradual transition from one species to another before our very eyes. Read the full article for details, but briefly, population A interbreeds with population B, which interbreeds with population C, which interbreeds with population D, but populations A and D, althought they may overlap geographically, cannot interbreed and are legitimately considered separate species.
Speciation over time is simply this same process write large.
Mr. Briggs,
No. Noöne has ever seen a dog change into a cat or vice versa. Nor would we expect them to. In fact, such a (well-documented) conversion would be solid proof that something is very very wrong with the way we understand the world. You might even call it a miracle.
But we have seen dogs speciate, for instance. I dare you to bread a Chihuahua with a Great Dane.
It might be enlightening to look at Australia too. There we’ve seen marsupials change to fill ever niche that are otherwise filled with mammals on the other continents.
The Tasmanian tiger or wolf (&c &c) are not in any way closely related to felines or canines, but they have evolved to pursue similar lifestyles and as a result they’ve come to look (a bit) like their mammalian namesakes. It’s an example of convergent evolution in that these diverse species have ended up with similar ‘designs’ – this in turn tells us that these shared aspects of their appearance must be near-optimal for their ways of life.
On the other hand – canines and felines are obviously different but fill similar niches (both are obligate carnivores for instance). Thus we can learn a lot about what aspects of their anatomy are important to their shared way of life by finding their shared traits.
Rapid species to species changes have been observed. There are many, a long list.
based on his original post, I don’t think the responses he’s been getting will answer his question.
Think in terms of baraminology.
He’s asking if a cat has been observed to evolve into a dog, and because of the utter BS he has been fed previous to coming here, is thinking that it’s a necessary precondition for the theory of evolution to be applicable.
He’s confused about how life itself works, at a most basic level.
those that respond to him have to address the idea that barminology is false to begin with; there are no “kinds”.
then you have to explain the general idea of common ancestry.
seriously, this boy needs a basic biology course, and the best thing you can do for him is simply to tell him to read a good biology text, and spend some time at TalkOrigins or, perhaps better still for basic understanding, here:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
A ‘species’ is often defined as a group of organisms that can interbreed. As such the formation of a barrier to interbreeding, such as chromosomal alterations, can lead to seperate populations – that will, in turn diverge due to genetic drift. This is quite common amongst isolated mouse populations – such as those on islands. Heres a link if you are really interested in scientific evidence.
http://tinyurl.com/6zjuda
Alternatively, if you’re not ……. http://tinyurl.com/5u6nn9
Hold back, Glorious Atheist Cabal for the Propagation of Immorality! So many wasted electrons for the first trolling nitwit! Save some for the rest of the herd of totally non-evolving scrapie-lesioned sheep.
@ Christian #38
That’s exactly the point. Short of a “soul” the idea of species is totally subjective. When does a horse’s children stop being “horses”? Well it doesn’t matter unless your a taxonomist
William Paley,
Can we not also infer design in the designer? Does it not also display complexity, utility, organisation?
So that leaves us with…
Nature had a designer.
The designer had a meta designer.
The meta designer had a meta meta designer.
The meta meta designer had a meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta designer.
The meta meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta meta designer.
Etcetera etcetera.
James Briggs:
The dog to cat/cat to dog analogy is a common misunderstanding of evolution. These two species along with humans have a common ancestor, a mammal.
@ 49 –
I agree with you partially. Wall Drug was depressing to say the least, but I had to do a lot in the name of the infamous UChicago Scav Hunt (including ride a Jackalope). But I would revisit the Black Hills and Badlands in a heartbeat.
Save some for the rest of the herd of totally non-evolving scrapie-lesioned sheep.
well said.
don’t fill up on appetizers.
“Expelled” gets a negative review from the Waco Tribune. Do you happen to know this “P.Z. Meyers” they mention?
Actually, if things had an intelligent designer, I would expect the world to look much more like IKEA.
Simple, clean lines. No excessive and useless garnishing, no junk DNA; just clean and sparse with no left over, useless (vestigial) parts (like the appendix) …
Re: dog-cats. We have those in Danish actually.
It’s only because ‘female’ and ‘dog’ sound alike, though – /hun/ and /hunʔ/ respectively. But it does mean that in Danish a female cat is a ‘hunkat’.
Raven@48
Just to waylay the typical creationist response that the artificial selection of dogs by humans has not produced a new species of dog in all the years we have been intelligently designing them, the selection process we use, just as in nature, is not designed to produce novel features but to restrict the variance in a specific breed. Only occasionally will a mutation produce something of interest to a breeder (munchkin cats), or will a breeder attempt to produce something new, and even then changes are small and targeted.
The vast majority of dog breeding (and cat breeding) is designed to limit change, not produce it.
What’s “bitch” in danish?
Please PZ do take some care for your self and your families security. If that news article about you was released here in redneck of the woods, Oregon and you lived here – you would be in the crosshairs.
Having said that, I’ll now retire to my corner, lick my chops, sharpen my claws and purrrrrr over the feast to come.
The meta meta meta meta meta designer had a meta meta meta meta meta meta designer.
And from there, it’s turtles all the way down.
In the beginning, God said “Let there be turtles!”
And it was good.
“I like turtles”
James,
Look at the work of Loren Rieseberg on hybridization in sunflower species. He and his collaborators have been able to recreate the hybrids that form new species in the lab.
This is truly speciation in action and is documented genotypically and phenotypically.
Damn! I’d kill for a good Danish right about now. I think a cheese Danish and a nice cup of tea, and then wait for the inevitable onslaught as that clown-car of a movie lets out.
I have enjoyed watching the parade of silliness on the part of the “friends of Ben” episodes that have played out on the net,however, I seriously have no more left brain cells left to dole out either rational thought or even civil tongue to these people anymore.
I will take any further enjoyment of this simply in following the events that may appear in the courts over the theft of copyright and simply ignore the rantings of those that,having viewed the film, feel they are now qualified to make statements out of ignorance.
To those that feel they will ever be able to remove the foundations and structure of the theory of evolution I can only say… Molon Labe.
Paley:
“What are the conditions under which you would find it reasonable to infer that creature was indeed the creation of a God?”
Perhaps if you explain how exactly God creates, and how exactly his methods of creation differ from well-known, well-described mechanisms of biological evolution, we might know what to look for. Until then, we don’t really have enough to go on.
“That is, what are the general features that indicate design? Are they not complexity, utility, and organization?”
Well if they are, then I’m afraid the “god” hasn’t done anything to distinguish himself from plain-old naturalistic, mutation+selection, which most certainly does generate these features.
Here is one you can answer for me:
If I can have complexity, utility, and organization without “God”, what bloody use is he?
James Briggs asked: “Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution. …I would love to know when and where this happened, and where I might be able to see the evidence, so that I might look at that information.
This may help you, James: Please read http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2007/ZZ/47_meet_padian39s_critters_5_3_2007.asp – the transcript of Dr. Padian’s testimony and his slideshow provide answers you may be able to understand. Please let us know what you think after you have looked at this material.
Expelled, refreshingly, does not focus on the question of whether it is neo-Darwinism or ID that accurately describes the origin of the species. It’s about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins.
There was an unfortunate period (and a brief one) in the history of religion where religion and philosophy were at odds with science and philosophies rooted in empiricism, and religion arguably played the part of the bully (owing mostly to the influence of heretical sects). We have entered a new unfortunate period where religion and science are again at odds, and, not surprisingly, the heretical sects are still doing the persecuting.
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science, and its truncated understanding of human nature and human possibility is dangerous. We have seen historically what happens when scientific materialism triumphs over a belief in the soul. It leads to great tenderness and love for humanity. And as Walker Percy has noted, tenderness leads to the gas chambers.
So good luck with that, gents.
To this day I am still amazed that individuals can sit at a computer and type such uninformed drivel as James. Do Christians (TM) have some sort of theistic firewall* that prevents them from actually accessing the myriad of information available on the WWW that would educate them and just possibly bring them into the 21st century?
*Of course I know that people like James are born with an inbuilt theistic firewall kindly provided by their ‘Intelligent Designer’.
#75 must be a hoax, right? But, it does remind me of how even Kepler, who had really wacky views about religion, still had to, perhaps anachronistically, divorce those views from his calculations. Science is best done independently of religious conviction, whatever the motivation for doing the science may be.
#75 needs to try harder to troll. You can’t get serious responses by going that far off the deep end.
@ Loudon is a Fool:
1. There is no such thing as “dogmatic” atheism. Atheists have no dogma. Atheists think the dogma of religion is incorrect, but this is hardly dogma itself.
2. “It’s about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins.” -Intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance are four words I would use to describe religious fanatics, not Dawkins or Myers.
If you consider science’s rejection of ridiculous ideas to be intolerance, you need to remember that science is not operated as a democracy. Good ideas survive, and bad ones (intelligent design) are dismissed. With good reason.
In the beginning, God said “Let there be turtles!”
And it was good.
“I like turtles”
actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles.
actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles.
I was thinking bacteria.
There was an unfortunate period (and a brief one)
yeah, right, tell it to the people trying to get the legislatures in Florida, Kansas, Ohio, and Texas (among others) to actually change the definition of science itself so that “astrology” would be considered science too.
can you morons do anything but project?
#81 “actually, looking around he more likely said he likes beetles”
or nematodes – lots and lots of nematodes…
Thanks for the link to sunclipse.org; hopefully that info will be incorporated into the expelledexposed.com WWW site as well.
What a long and sobering list.
James Briggs wrote:
No, “we” haven’t, because none of us live for hundreds of thousands of years.
That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen, though, does it?
No one alive to day saw the Battle of Gettysburg or the War of Independence. Does that mean they never happened?
Are you claiming that if we ourselves do not observe something directly, it does not exist?
I do not expect an answer, by the way.
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science
no, it isn’t.
you at least have to start off with what the movie purports to represent if you wish to be taken at all seriously.
there is NOTHING in the movie that shows atheism working against good science.
not a goddamn thing.
“I only have one question Dr. Myers. Has anyone every actually observed spieces to species evolution.”
They are so desperate for evidence when it comes to evolution, so unconcerned about evidence when it comes to “God”.
“we’ll eventually get around to dismantling your ludicrous claims.”
PZ, this is pretty big of you, since you seem to give them hope that this hasn’t already happened! Every ludicrous claim has already been dismantled, and has been for decades or more. They just haven’t the education and/or intelligence to know it yet.
As posted by harmfulguy on April 19, 2008 9:56 PM
Nice – but I think it might be “And from there, it’s Meta+…+Meta Designers” all the way down.
My Meta-Designer is bigger than your Meta-Designer! :P
JBS
Ichthyic writes:
Oh, but I anticipated this in my original post. Complexity, utility, and organization are the signs of design for an anthropologist. We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
Steve_C writes:
Is that the way you always use to infer design, Steve? You see whether a thing is impossible to have arisen from a previous design? Seems unreasonable (and disingenuous) from the start.
Falyne writes:
Really? I’m justified, am I? So you’re saying there’s no way to argue against the design inference? So it is meaningless for me to infer from its complexity that my computer was designed, is it? And from the lack of complexity in rocks that they weren’t designed? That is not reasonable to you?
Well, that’s what I’m asking you: What signs in the natural world indicates design? Now do we find these signs in nature? Yes or no?
amk writes:
What’s this? You’ve found the designer?! Then by all means, let us investigate his parts and determine whether they are designed! Where can I investigate this designer you have found? Seriously now.
JRQ writes:
But I don’t know. What I am asking is, How do we generally infer human design in the everyday world? Then, let us apply the same principles to the natural world and see whether it is not reasonable to make an analogous inference. This seems a plainly scientific venture, wouldn’t you say?
To answer, allow me to restate your question: If you can explain all of civilization by appealing to natural processes, what bloody use is it to invoke the existence of humans to explain civilization? The answer in both cases is, Well, perhaps none…, but the question remains, Are we getting at the truth?
Complexity, utility, and organization are the signs of design for an anthropologist. We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
*buzz*
that’s only PART of the answer.
here’s why…
We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
If i see a dam across a river, am I to infer that humans built it?
why or why not?
How does an anthropologist determine whether something has utility?
well?
I know I can get you there eventually.
As a former history teacher at the high school level we would sometimes discuss the topic of why historians got things wrong. For example, why were the Hitites of the Old Testament once considered mythical when now they are accepted as historical?
Secondly, why do people themselves sometimes misread what now to us seems so obvious? During one class, the students were divided into American and Japanese military leaders leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor. “Intelligence” reports were then given to both sides. To the group that played the Americans, none of the information given to them led any of them to finally suspect an attack on their naval base. The point is that people make mistakes and perhaps more intriguing is why. During our Pearl Harbor class the Americans misread all of the intelligence and the “Japanese” side didn’t beleive a surprise attack was workable.
Here are two recent examples to ponder; a Boston University geologist, Robert Schoch, believes the Sphinx is far older than originally assumed. A well known Egyptologist responded that this was impossible; “…there are no surprises left for us to discover…”. Item 2; there has been much controversy over something referred to as the “Topper site”. It’s an archaelogical dig on the SC/Ga border and deals with the earliest inhabitants of the New World. The lead archaeologiost at the Topper site, Dr. Goodyear, thinks his discoveries may push back the dates of the peopling of the Americas back tens of thousands of years, well past the “Clovis Horizon”. When another archaelogist was asked how any such information could have been overlooked, he simply responded; “…because nobody looked…”. The point I’m trying to make by all of this is we often learn more about things when we fail than when we are successful. My respectful question to those who are evolutionists is this; if, for the sake of argument we grant that the creationists are correct, there is no common descent and the earth is young, where, in retrospect, would the advocates of evolution had made their greatest mistakes? Methodology? Bias? Misreading of data? Comments please.
Actually, Aegis I’ve noticed a strange new type of ID argument lately that I haven’t heard before and actually has me stumped. It goes something like “What if nested hierarchies didn’t exist?” Would evolution still be valid?
or “what if the planets were arranged in a perfect cubic grid” would gravity have been united by newton?”
My mind can’t bend like that since I don’t take LSD anymore. I just can’t answer questions like that because if one thing in the natural order of things was different, wouldn’t the ratios of the forces of nature ALL have t be different to keep matter and energy from just flying apart?
I just see everything that’s observed as being a manifestation of the laws of physics.
What I am asking is, How do we generally infer human design in the everyday world? Then, let us apply the same principles to the natural world and see whether it is not reasonable to make an analogous inference. This seems a plainly scientific venture, wouldn’t you say?
No, I wouldn’t say so. You’re extrapolating human design to non-human processes and potential designers, and there’s no reason to engage in such anthropomorphization. Additionally, complexity isn’t a useful hallmark–ever seen chopsticks or a fork or a good knife? Useful, but hardly complex.
nature isn’t an engineer.
#93:
If, for the sake of argument, you beat your wife, where would you hit her? The face? The stomach? Would you break her arm or her leg? Please, tell us.
But I don’t know.
and there lies the rub.
until you DO know, we can’t even begin to formulate a testable hypothesis as to whether or not projected deity might have had a hand in something.
An anthropologist has living examples to work from.
so, the idea of supernatural design is an entirely vacuous non-starter.
Now, the moment Mr. Spock comes down to inform us how aliens have adjusted biologic processes, or Zuess appears to inform us where and when and how he created pegasi, or your judeo-xian projection manifests and explains how it works in the world, come back and ask your question again.
but then it will be science.
@ John B Sandlin
How does an anthropologist go about determining whether a particular artifact is man-made? If you spend a little time figuring out what the answer is that question, your original question will also be answered.
Oh, but I anticipated this in my original post. Complexity, utility, and organization are the signs of design for an anthropologist. We see this in nature. Thus, I infer that we have a designer.
I don’t believe that you did anticipate this at all you glib ninny.
To whit: An anthropologist finds an artefact.
Complexity, utility, and organisation are the signs of design for an anthropologist.
The artefact shows complexity, utility and organisation.
Therefore the anthropologist knows that the artefact is designed.
You claim that nature is designed. Because nature shows complexity, utility and organisation.
How then can an anthropologist tell an artefact from a natural object?
He cannot using your criteria…
what bloody use is it to invoke the existence of humans to explain civilization?
simple:
we exist.
Ooops,
# 98 should start @ William Paley.
Now who’s a ninny?
Wow, Will Paley! I would have thought that after being dead and all (and possibly in the realm of the holy spirit or what have you) that you might have obtained a better argumentitive position by now. In any case, welcome back from the dead.
In any case, this is hilarious:
“So it is meaningless for me to infer from its complexity that my computer was designed, is it? And from the lack of complexity in rocks that they weren’t designed? That is not reasonable to you?”
…since you seem to imply with this that god/designer/whatever designed only “complex” things. In actuality, he would have had to designed a rock as carefully as a rhino, if not more so. In fact, “designing” a set of universal laws that would allow energy to condensate into matter, forming stars needed to form even heavier elements that form eventual ‘rocks’, which in turn contain the elements that are used to make further designs, seems quite a bit harder to me – not to mention needing an explanation for the designer to begin with, which is always hand-waved away by creationists.
Luckily, we don’t have to worry about that, since ID is non-intellectual, shallow rubbish.
Anyone who says rocks aren’t complex hasn’t looked at one closely enough.
“So it is meaningless for me to infer from its complexity that my computer was designed, is it?”
It is, actually. We infer such facts because of our preexisting familiarity with its history, use and manufacturing process, all of which were created in comparatively recent history by humans. You infer nothing from its “complexity”.
It’s also worth mentioning that such devices are distinct from biological organisms in very important ways, such as the fact they do not reproduce (on their own) or inherit traits from their ancestors.
#91 where William Paley on April 19, 2008 10:33 PM said:
Where you see complexity, we see 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 trial and error experiments.
By the way, I made that number up. We don’t actually know the number of trial and error experiments. But given 4,500,000,000 years (x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds x however many reactions per second * the number of simultaneous reactions possible…. and so on) – it’s bound to be a really large number. There isn’t a one and done or anything like it. Of course during the time I wrote this, there have probably been a few billion more trial and error experiments around the world.
Now, the reason we don’t see a designer in all this complexity? Maybe because we’d give that designer a failing grade for work presented if such a designer turned our genome in as homework.
JBS
where, in retrospect, would the advocates of evolution had made their greatest mistakes? Methodology? Bias? Misreading of data? Comments please.
holy crap, but that would be a fucking LONG list that included things like:
mineralogy
geology
radiometrics
genetics
physics
chemistry
….
note I’m not even including things related to biology itself.
In short, you’d have to scrap about half of everything science has learned in general over the last 500 years.
does you question seem silly at this point?
if not, go here before you ask again:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
That is just silly. Evolution is consistent with all other sciences whereas creationism conflicts with all of them, physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology etc.. If we got it all wrong, we would still be living in the Dark Ages and dying at 40.
Science works whether you believe in it or not. Your car starts, the computer boots up, antibiotics work, your tap water won’t kill you in a few days, space ships still launch into orbit, pathogens and pests evolve resistance to whatever we treat them with.
@93
sorry, there’s no reason to grant that creationists are correct because there is so much evidence to the contrary, hence this is not a line of thought worth pursuing.
One might as well discuss “for the sake of argument let’s assume that the moon is made of green cheese, which bacteria caused the cheese to become green and how many mouse-years would it take to convert it into murine waste?”
JBS, I’m actually quite satisfied with my own genetic complexity. I give god a B+
If, for the sake of argument, you beat your wife, where would you hit her? The face? The stomach? Would you break her arm or her leg? Please, tell us.
Is Paley still beating his wife?
tsk, tsk.
#93
They weren’t considered “mythical” in the sense that a unicorn is consider mythical. There were no scientists claiming that the Hittites never existed. Science, through the field of archaeology, demonstrated their existence. When evidence surfaced, science accept their existence.
The Topper site is far from accepted in mainstream archaeology. The so-called evidence is very weak. Nothing has been positively demonstrated.
Ah, I was wondering when you’d get to the money question. This is a stupid hypothetical. The question you should be asking is “which theory has more evidence in support of it?” Nothing else matters.
You’d might as well ask, “But what if the moon was REALLY made of green cheese, wouldn’t that be a problem for our astronauts if they don’t wear cheese-proof boots?”
or
“What if gravity just suddenly turned off? Would that affect property values in my neighborhood?”
Amplexus (#94)
The reason that you are stumped is likely because the arguments are so fatuous. The Obvious answer is that wonderful Dawkins summation of all such arguments:
“If things had been different, then things would be different!”
Sometimes, an argument is so insipid that it just shocks an intelligent person. If the Orbits were cubic (a ridiculous concept anyway), then Newton wouldn’t exist, or anything else resembling humans for that matter. If ‘nested hierarchies’ didn’t exist, and we saw dogs giving birth to fish, then evolution would be proven false. We never, ever see this, so it can be dismissed (like all of ID) out of hand.
Why not ask them this question back: If I had blonde hair, would I still then have brown hair?
Damn, Russell…you beat me with the moon cheese analogy!
The reason that you are stumped is likely because the arguments are so fatuous.
I find myself posting this a lot this week:
“Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”
-Thomas Jefferson
and I was about to ask you, semi, to join me in spreading the green cheese theory of lunology. Actually, let’s call it a law instead of a theory. sounds better.
#100 as posted by: APJ on April 19, 2008 10:48 PM said:
I wondered how I got attached to that – since 1) I didn’t quote Ichthyic, and 2) my response to W. Paley came later that yours…
So, are we getting so dyslexic we’re trying to disprove doG, yet?
JBS
I’m rather fond of this, myself.
What type of crackers are best served with green cheese? Should it be warm or cool?
This hasn’t been said yet in this thread, but it should be noted that weakening one position does not automatically strengthen another position.
More specifically, even if the creators of Expelled and those of like minds succeeded in eroding the theory of natural selection as a means for the development of diversity of life on this planet through their shallow pokings based on limited understanding and personal biases, their counter-proposal of “magic man dun it!” would not become any less ridiculous.
@ John B Sandlin
I’ve got no beef with doG, as long as he keeps his (wet sniffy) nose out of my business.
“if, for the sake of argument we grant that the creationists are correct, there is no common descent and the earth is young, where, in retrospect, would the advocates of evolution had made their greatest mistakes? Methodology? Bias? Misreading of data? Comments please”
If, for the sake of argument we grant that the moon is made of cheese, what kind of cheese would it be?
To answer more seriously: there would have to be multiple errors on a massive scale in varying fields like genetics, paleontology, geology, astronomy, radiology, etc. That’s precisely why evolution is such a well-established theory; there’s not just a lot of evidence for it, there’s a lot of separate sources of evidence.
And “bias” just doesn’t cut it as an explanation. There have been, what, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe more, scientists in these fields who would LOVE to upend the scientific consensus. Some of them would want to do so for religious reasons, some for self-interested reasons (getting published, getting tenure, winning prizes and fame and fortune), some for the sheer thrill of discovering something new.
James, it’s really very common to have questions about evolution! At it’s deepest it’s a very complex science with very specialised information. But as complex as it gets, I like to think it’s still very simple to understand the basic underlying principles.
For example, let’s take this whole macroevolution/microevolution thing creationists love to bring up. Now creationists like to say they accept microevolution, small changes, but not macroeveolution – big changes. They are, actually, one in the same.
Think of it this way. Say you have a blank mr. potatohead, now add a plastic ear – Creationists accept this small change. Add another ear – creationists acccept this small change. Add eyes – a small change that creationists accept, and finally a hat and some feet. Creationists acccept that each minor change can occur, but we’re at a drastically different species than what we started with! Of course, evolution doesn’t work quite so cleanly or simplistically, but you get the point.
A person starts at one side of the yard and in the snow takes 10 steps to another side of the yard. Creationists accept that each individual footprint in the snow occured, but won’t accept that the person who walked is now in a different place from where he began.
and I was about to ask you, semi, to join me in spreading the green cheese theory of lunology. Actually, let’s call it a law instead of a theory. sounds better.
google fu says:
http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/cheese.html
What type of crackers are best served with green cheese? Should it be warm or cool?
I’m fond of some simple cracked pepper water crackers. I think that if you first coat the cheese with herbes de provence, and then wrap it in phyllo and bake it for about 10 or so minutes at 350….well, you’ll have a very nice time.
If you serve it cold, I’d recommend apple and pear slices, and a few fresh berries.
And always a nice red wine…..and avoid creationists for a particularly nice evening.
Hmm… seems that while I was typing my response, the question was answered. Green cheese.
More specifically, even if the creators of Expelled and those of like minds succeeded in eroding the theory of natural selection as a means for the development of diversity of life on this planet through their shallow pokings based on limited understanding and personal biases, their counter-proposal of “magic man dun it!” would not become any less ridiculous.
from the wedge document:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
@118
Exactly. Prime example of the False Dichotomy fallacy.
Even without their destruction by the evidence (which is thorough), most ID arguments fail the tests of plain old logic.
There’s plenty of cheese to go around! Screechy Monkey joined the party too.
@93 (gleaner63)
In an attempt to seriously answer your question, evolutionary theory IS constantly being questioned. Right now, as we speak, while this thread is going on, there is a conference at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at Santa Barbara that has brought in lots of people to discuss the underlying principles behind the evolution of the brain. Having spoken with individuals attending the conference, I can assure you that there are TONS of people questioning different evolutionary ideas. People thinking WAAAAY outside the box of the current thinking of evolutionary biology are there tackling some very difficult problems (how, and why, did a very large brain evolve?). There are spirited debates, disagreements, new ideas, and all sorts of inquiry ongoing. So your question makes no sense.
Evolution did not stop with Darwin. We know so much more now than we did then. The difference between the questioning that is going on at the Kavli Institute, and the so-called questioning that is going on regarding intelligent design, is that the questioning going on in the scientific community is based on data, analysis, evidence, and interpretation… NOT dogma.
Oh, and to show you that this doesn’t happen in some sort of wierd secret society, these talks are all available as podcasts online below:
http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/activities/auto2/?id=836
Speaking of food, I miss your blog, Jeff–I was going to try some of your canning recipes, but didn’t get to it before you took it down. :(
Thanks Ichthyic!
semi, our Law not only has Evidence, but it is gaining in popularity!!! In just a few minutes rmp, Ichthyic, and Screechy Monkey have recognized it!!!!! But the best is that even MAJeff is on board!!!!!!! He’s got a Molly, so we MUST BE ON TO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!
Ok, I’ll stop hijacking the thread now. :)
Sorry thalarctos…I decided that in order to devote more time to finishing the dissertation I just needed to be rid of it, and deleting it altogether was the best way to accomplish that. I did make some chipotle-corn soup a couple weeks ago, and am thinking about a saag paneer-style spinach soup in the next week or so, and I’ll probably need more tomato-fennel (I’m always amazed that I managed to create a recipe that good). There’s no contact info on your blog, so I can send ’em to ya…..
So many predators, so few prey ;(
William Paley, if you’re still around, what do you think of this quartz crystal designed?
By your criteria:
1) Complexity – It’s definitely complex, it’s created out of countless atoms of Si and O. The shape is remarkably complex.
2) Utility – It’s pleasing to look at, and I’ve heard the ID argument that a painting implies a painter, so I’ll take it. It probably could be used as a weapon or a tool in a pinch..
3) Organization – Big wins here, a countless number of Si and O atoms have to first combine to create molecules of SiO2, and then line up just right in order to get that crystalline structure.
So, Mr. Paley, is that crystal designed or did it just form that way “completely at random” as you IDists like to say?
Green cheese, crackers, and red wine?
“It’s about the intolerance, bigotry, arrogance, and ignorance on display by the likes of Messrs. Myers and Dawkins.” …
They compared religion to KNITTING!!! And said God was “highly improbable!”
O the inhumanity!!! It’s another HOLOCAUST taking place right before our eyes!!!!
Hey Screechy Monkey, what was your nom de plume before the framing from hell thread over at ‘the intersection’? You not an existing Molly winner trying to collect yet again are you?
@94
The problem with this is that it dabbles with hypothetical universes. These universes may or may not have been designed, and since they don’t actually exist we can’t demonstrate it either way. And also, since these are constructed hypotheticals that obviously go against the real world, they have no bearing on evolution/abiogenesis/cosmology.
#108 as posted by: Amplexus on April 19, 2008 10:59 PM where they did say:
I may be somewhat biased in my grading.
I have a chronic genetic disease that has no cure – it’s a race to see which kills me first, the disease or the drugs to treat the symptoms and perform the functions my body doesn’t want to do on its own. Hopefully the disease was caught early enough that the irreversible damage to my body is minor and I can look forward to another thirty years or so before I completely fall apart (that would be living a normal life span). If I’m really fortunate, a cure will be found by biologists (well educated in genetics and evolution) in the next few years and I can get off the drugs. Then they can start working on reversing the irreversible damage :-)
JBS
He’s got a Molly
*sniff*
so do i…
@119: “Hell, if I were dyslexic, I’d even hate Dog too.”
JBS, always remember that it’s a loving god.
In your scenario, I think the biggest mistake the advocates of evolution would have made was in being tricked by the space aliens into thinking the virtual-reality hologram world they had been secretly trapped in was the real planet earth.
and am thinking about a saag paneer-style spinach soup in the next week or so, and I’ll probably need more tomato-fennel (I’m always amazed that I managed to create a recipe that good). There’s no contact info on your blog, so I can send ’em to ya…..
I have good spam filters, and I can forward it on to her (as well as enjoying it myself!):
fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom
But the best is that even MAJeff is on board!!!!!!!
For cheese? Fuck, yeah! Just don’t pasteurize my brie!
I predict about 1k comments for this
Helpful hint: criticizing someone’s ideas is not bigotry. It can be incorrect, or it can be correct, or it can be a matter of opinion depending on the particulars. But it’s not bigotry.
“He’s got a Molly”
We wouldn’t have this problem if people would wear their “OM” tags…
So many predators, so few prey ;(
a little surprising…
I’m betting it will draw a bigger crowd tomorrow… after church.
However, I’ve been thinking I need to go on a diet lately anyway.
creationists are so full of sweet irony I’m worried about getting type II diabetes, too.
Ichthyic,
There should be a recipe in your mailbox
SQQUUUUEEEEEE!!!!
researching.massage AT gmail DOT com
/SQQUUUUEEEEEE!!!!
Yes.
Yes, if you’re willing to accept supernatural explanations, you are justified in any and all lunacy.
Correct, once we venture into the supernatural, science is invalidated.
Complexity is really quite irrelevant as to whether a computer was designed; the important matters are the amount of evidence that points to human construction and the lack of an alternate theory.
Complexity is also quite irrelevant to the ‘design’ of rocks; the fact that there’s no scientifically valid way for them to have been designed and the existence of naturalistic processes that would arrive at the same result IS!
And, no, this whole debate isn’t reasonable at all.
APJ writes:
Easy: By distinguishing between God and humans. Are you suggesting that one cannot tell apart different authors of design simply because the criteria of the design is always the same? Surely you realize that the method for determining whether an object is designed is different from the method used to determine a creation’s designer, don’t you?
Ichthyic writes:
Indeed, your answer is simply… Because it clearly begs the question. In the analogy, we are trying to infer whether civilization was created by intelligent designers or caused by natural processes, and you go straight to the conclusion that the inference was supposed to show. To make it more realistic and understandable, suppose that while travelling space together we were to come upon some abandoned civilization on another planet. We never see the creators of its cities, buildings, roadways, etc. But are we not still justified in making the inference that they indeed had designers? Or would you rather that we avoid the conclusion simply because we can create a narrative in which nature herself formed together the buildings and roadways?
Aegis writes:
No no, I am not taking it for granted that God designed anything, let alone rocks or the laws of the universe. What I am asking is, When is it reasonable to infer that God designed some thing? It seems to me that complexity, organization, and utility of function are good signs of design. Is that so unreasonable?
pcarini writes:
Rocks have nothing like the complexity of life. That is my point. But let us even say rocks are complex; they still don’t meet the other two qualifications for a design inference, which are 1) honed utility for some specific function, and 2) organization.
Tyler DiPietro writes:
Well, I should have added “organization” and “utility” to “complexity” as criteria, but your point is taken. But then, what if we are not familiar with an object’s history, use and manufacturing process at all? Take the case above (of discovering an abandoned civilization on another planet): are we not justified in inferring a designer simply because we aren’t familiar with the history of the buildings, or the alien race that ostensibly produced them? What is the difference between this case and the case of our looking out into nature for signs of design?
John B. Sandlin writes:
Are you suggesting that since you personally aren’t satisfied with the quality of the design, that therefore there was no designer? Do you also expect teachers who do indeed give papers a failing grade to infer that those papers were therefore spun together by natural processes?
pcarini writes:
I agree that it has organization, but I think it fails at meeting the criteria of complexity and utility. Yes, it is “useful” and “complex” in the senses that you mention, but those are true of all things. The utility that suggests a designer is one that is honed for a specific purpose, and the complexity that leads to a similar inference is one that includes multiple parts that work together to form some sort of mechanism. For those reasons, I think it is reasonable to avoid inferring design in the crystal.
Eh, crap. I’m in the wrong friggan thread.
Ignore comment number 146…
So that’s why I suddenly had 2000 visits and a pile of comments.
We wouldn’t have this problem if people would wear their “OM” tags…
but then I would be using an inconsistent pseudonym, and would be labeled a troll by Greg Laden!
:p
besides, it’s not like it’s hard to figure out who has one around here (there’s that big linky thing on the top o the page).
You too thalarctos.
Well, Ichtyic,
If the diabetes gets you fast enough, you needn’t worry about being eaten first at least.
I’m sorta looking forward to this. I’ve been here long enough that I feel a bit of responsibility in having to help clear the house of infestations. And I hope I’ve picked up enough knowledge to be able to do so.
Of course, all you so much wittier and cleverer people are hard to compete with.
William Paley
“Are you suggesting that since you personally aren’t satisfied with the quality of the design, that therefore there was no designer? ”
Just that it was a poor designer!
Are we now arguing about god’s competence?
Ok, maybe he’s not a great designer but hey, give the guy a break, this is his first universe.
William Paley wrote:
What is the specific purpose of rocks, then? Or crystals for that matter? Here you are arguing crystals aren’t designed, yet presumably crystals are part of the natural world that you are claiming could have been designed by a a “Designer”, yes?
Crystals are made up of multiple parts, in a lattice of atoms that can be pretty darn complex, actually.
So you are shooting your own theory in the foot, then, essentially, claiming something that occurs naturally wasn’t “designed”. But if there is a Big Designer, shouldn’t he/she/it have played a part in designing crystals too? And rocks? Other things without a “finely honed” purpose?
#125 where by Ichthyic posted on April 19, 2008 11:18 PM and said:
Thank you, Ichthyic, that probably needs to be said a lot – I may have to add that to my blog, too.
To my view, if there were ever a pronouncement that should lead to atheism, this is it. If the faith cannot survive the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, then such a faith is useless. The Discovery Institute is essentially claiming that God does not exist because the Theory of Evolution is so powerful no god or faith in a god can withstand it. I posit that a true faith and a true god would not only survive it would flourish.
My reasoning? Simple – they’re quite fond of saying “The Truth shall set you free.” Since it is quite obvious from the geologic, genomic, and any other pertinent record, that Evolution does occur (whether the current Theory of Evolution is fully adequate to explain it or not), then that is a truth – and will set us free. If the Christian faith (at least that which requires a literal interpretation of Genesis) cannot abide the fact of Evolution… well that speaks for itself, doesn’t it.
JBS
Ichthyic, thalarctos, would it be possible if you could forward my recipes for squid and goldfish to MAJeff, too?
{/off topic}
Note that originally, greene cheese was a reference to an unripe cheese, which would have been white in colour.
There, now the information resistant evolution doubters may have encountered something here that can get past their faith filter.
Because it clearly begs the question.
are you sure you understand what that means?
here, let me help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
you really are a comic strip villain, aren’t you.
In the analogy, we are trying to infer whether civilization was created by intelligent designers or caused by natural processes, and you go straight to the conclusion that the inference was supposed to show.
no, one YOU were.
two, it wasn’t an analogy.
three, it wasn’t even the question you asked.
move goalposts much?
Well, I should have added “organization” and “utility” to “complexity” as criteria,
you did. it still doesn’t help.
But are we not still justified in making the inference that they indeed had designers?
what you miss is that NOW you are inferring the design based on your own personal knowledge of HUMAN architecture.
why is it so hard for this to get through that thick skull of yours?
Last chance:
If you ran across a dam of logs across a river, what would you infer as to how they got that way?
why?
How could you tell if your inference was accurate?
This thread looks pretty clean, but could I suggest an honor system promise not to attempt any parodies of the chockfullo’nuts crowd on this sort of “invitational” thread?
Sorry, Ichthyic, I know you do and you even got it first. I realized it right after I hit post. I need to be more thorough in my research before I publish. Although that might inhibit the spread of the Law, so perhaps I’ll just skip the research. Seems to work so well for others….
Ichthyic, thalarctos, would it be possible if you could forward my recipes for squid and goldfish to MAJeff, too?
not a problem on my end.
“Ok, maybe he’s not a great designer but hey, give the guy a break, this is his first universe.”
Nuh huh, you can’t prove it was his first!
More here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html
Squid?!
As long as I don’t have to clean it…
I need to be more thorough in my research before I publish.
no, not at all. I think pure gut instinct will further the cause of Green Cheese just fine!
carry on.
:p
@ William Paley
Your “argument” is rubbish:
1. I propose that this item is too complex to not be designed.
2. Therefore it had a designer.
3: The “design” is clearly not human
4: Therefore the designer was not a human.
5: Therefore Goddonit.
6: Therefore there is a God.
7: QED
Or does it go more like this?:
1: I believe in God.
2: Therefore I must try to discredit all theories that don’t need God.
Obviously, you don’t know me very well…
Hehehehehe…
got the goldfish and squid recipes :)
This is turning into a bizarre thread; and I’ve developed this weird role here. I start by creating some drinking festivals and am now a recipe center. Well, i suppose there are much worse ways to spend life.
If the diabetes gets you fast enough, you needn’t worry about being eaten first at least.
I don’t.
I worry about NOT being eaten first.
:)
I wonder if the diabetes would make me taste sweeter?
You wouldn’t be operating on complete ignorance. When talking about an “alien civilization” you merely stretching out already familiar, anthropomorphic concepts, not the highly generalized notion of “design”.
Two reasons:
1. Because the “design” you speak of is too highly generalized to make specific predictions about what would be found.
2. Because in most obvious cases you are drawing false inferences. The objects you are talking about do not reproduce, do not inherit traits from their ancestors and are subject to no natural selection pressure, where the opposite is true of biological organisms.
OK, all this talk about cheese and squid recipes is driving me crazy. What are these recipes (skip the goldfish).
If the faith cannot survive the acceptance of the Theory of Evolution, then such a faith is useless.
hence why the Catholics are busily writing new apologetics on a monthly basis trying to reconcile.
…and YES I even mean Ken Miller, but that’s a story for a different thread.
MAJeff, I wish I had your recipes, too. Unfortunately, my email address is pretty obviously name- and school- based, and I’m, heh, still desirous of maintaining pseudonymity. I’ll post it for a few minutes over at my place so I can delete it, I guess. ^_^
Actually, the recipe is for shrimp dumplings that are shaped to looking celestial-eyed goldfish… The Chinese stopped eating (domestic) goldfish centuries ago.
Paley’s analogy simply doesn’t work. How do you tell the difference between an artificial man-made rabbit and a natural rabbit? You look for signs of artifice and intentional design: are there stitches holding the fur on, is it filled with organs or with cotton, and so forth. We know what natural rabbits look like, and what artificially constructed ones look like. If we have an object which could, on first observation, be either, we look at it more closely to see which category it falls under.
You cannot then go on and use the same criteria on the original natural rabbit we knew wasn’t artificially constructed to see if it is really an artificial natural rabbit. Artificial Natural?
We have no examples to work with in the third “artificial natural” category, and no idea what the heck to look for.
“besides, it’s not like it’s hard to figure out who has one around here (there’s that big linky thing on the top o the page).”
That would take way too much energy for me.
:P
Well, i suppose there are much worse ways to spend life.
certainly less productive.
e.g., bothering to respond to someone calling himself “Paley”.
Hey, I hope you guys don’t mind, but I closed comments on my “expelled for being an evolutionist” thread and directed everybody back here. I just don’t have the time or the energy to mediate troll-heavy discussions right now. In fact, what I’d really like is a week’s vacation from science blogging. Ben Stein and his craptacular movie couldn’t have come at a worse time for my personal schedule. . . .
now your telling me the recipe includes shrimp, fsm, I must know this recipe!
OK, a couple people have asked about it, so here’s the tomato-fennel soup recipe I mentioned. If you can, like I do, put it in pint jars and process at 10psi for 15 minutes.
[/obsessive off topic foodie]
[return to creo-bashing]
That would take way too much energy for me.‘
what’s the point of getting a “major award” (hearkens back to the plastic woman’s leg-lamp in “Christmas Story”) if one can’t force the peons to do some extra work?
:P
Well, you know how they used to diagnose it pre-blood tests, and why they call the diseases “diabetes mellitus” and “diabetes insipidus” respectively, right? So the answer would seem to be yes.
(if you haven’t encountered this, briefly, doctors used to taste the patient’s urine–sweet urine meant diabetes mellitus [from the word for “honey”]; relatively tasteless urine was “insipidus”.)
Hooray for MAJeff!
I picked a good day to start reading Pharyngula again…
What the easiest/soonest way of determining the opening weekend success (or lack thereof) of the movie?
rjb, #128:
Holy cow, that talk schedule looks totally awesome. I’m going to have to watch some of those lectures, and I’m going to have to share the link with my labmates.
My only excuse is that I have no brains on the weekend.
I only just twigged who “William Paley” was following Ichthyic’s comment at #181.
The watchmaker guy…
Christ. Our “William Paley” has taken the baton from the original WP and is running with it. But where is he running?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley
#151 William Paley on April 19, 2008 11:47 PM did post:
Actually, I’m suggesting no intelligence was involved.
Also, one need not infer a designer when natural processes are sufficient. You claim it’s too complex for nature. I claim it isn’t. I claim no intelligence was involved in creating the complexity. If a paper is turned in by a student that then receives a failing grade, does that not imply intelligence was not involved in creating the paper (or at least insufficient intelligence).
So, our creators, who are outside the universe, hollow be their name, are supposed to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. So why such poor work on the various credited designs? I only see sufficient complexity to be accounted for by trial and error, no specific design, no intelligent plan, no vast and powerful creation – just nature taking its course.
Now, the Big Bang and the alignment of all the proper specific constants of the universe – that might have a chance in my grading system. Might. I’m an agnostic on that, however.
—
If I survive a car accident – how am I lucky? I’d have been much better off if said accident never happened! If I’m in a plane crash where 20 people died and I’m the lone survivor – how am I lucky? We’d all twenty one of us have been better off if the plane had not crashed! If I beat the odds and am one of the few to have a specific genetic disorder how am I lucky? I’d be better off never having the disease to begin with!
Evolution isn’t about luck. Evolution isn’t about chance. Evolution isn’t about miracles. Yes there are things that happen randomly – but the non-random factors drive the apparent complexity, the against all odds results. Your god is an awesome god. Mine is awesomer.
JBS
“Oh, and to show you that this [serious discussions of evolution] doesn’t happen in some sort of wierd secret society….”
for that matter, some of my favorite parts of Dawkins’s book The Ancestor’s Tale were the ones that discussed some of the “live issues” being debated (e.g. bipedalism). I think one of the reasons I’ve become more interested in science in recent years is that I have a better appreciation for science as an ongoing process rather than just a textbook full of facts and equations.
@rmp: I used to go by “jdb,” which I was never very happy with as there appears to be a “jd” and a “jb” around here as well. So I was pleased to grab my new monkey moniker.
Well, that second list looks decidedly more substantial, but then I freely admit my strong bias against self-deception.
(if you haven’t encountered this, briefly, doctors used to taste the patient’s urine–sweet urine meant diabetes mellitus [from the word for “honey”]; relatively tasteless urine was “insipidus”.)
ah, so then that 15 year old in R. Kelly’s apartment was doing.
She was just testing him for diabetes…
http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaftMlk.html
Moon-Cheese simulpost, FTW!
I never thought I’d see it here. I think I can now die a happy man.
Here’s a pretty good site:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=expelled.htm
rmp writes:
Alright, fair enough. That is a subjective opinion with which I am comfortable for the moment. All I am arguing is whether there was a designer. I’m not arguing anything about that designer’s ostensible qualities yet.
Adrienne writes:
No, I’m not arguing that point yet. I’m just wondering whether the design inference is not justified in the case of living things.
Fair enough. I would call that a high degree of organization, but I understand what you mean. I’m using the term “complexity” as referring to an object’s possession of mechanisms, specifically.
It’s a good point, but you’re getting ahead of the argument. For now, I’m just trying to focus on whether the design inference is justified in the case of living things. Again, I’m not taking it for granted that God designed everything. So we can come to rocks and crystals later.
Ichthyic writes:
Fair enough, I will take it that my original point was not clear. I raised the civilization example as a way of trying to infer the existence of humans by looking at civilizations. I apologize for not being clearer.
Very good! So why can I not make a similar inference of design in nature from my personal knowledge of human machinery?
I would infer design from my knowledge of human dams. I would know it was an accurate inference if it was the best among competing explanations. And I would know it was “best” by whether it explained the most with the most parsimonious set of assumptions.
APJ writes:
Alright. Are there any conditions in nature that you can conceive of that would convince you that some being designed life on Earth? If not, then how do you infer that anything is designed? Or do you always avoid this inference?
Tyler DiPietro writes:
Alright, fine. So why are we not justified in doing the same thing in nature?
I don’t understand this. Why is it invalid to make an inference based on a generalization? Can you explain this?
This seems in my view only to reinforce the design inference, not weaken it.
Besides, computer processes have all the traits you mentioned (they reproduce offspring, inherit traits from their ancestors and are subject to genetic algorithms), and those are clearly designed, right? (If you’re not familiar with how computer processes do this, I can explain.)
What the easiest/soonest way of determining the opening weekend success (or lack thereof) of the movie?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movies/box_office.php
Mr. Paley – if utility is the sign of a designer, what, pray tell, is the utility of life?
A multitude of philosophers await your reply.
Ok, so you’ve moved the goalposts on 1) from “utility” to “honed utility for some specific function”, and you concede organization for crystals later on. I’ll still play, though. Is a painting “honed” with “utility for some specific function”? It’s certainly man-made but I can’t really say its functional beyond being something to look at.
Lets compare a painting with, say, a geode that I found already broken open. They’re both complex and organized (or can be), and equally functional, from an artistic perspective. As an outside observer who knew nothing of paintings or geodes, how would I tell that one was “designed” and the other just formed that way?
It seems to me that the only way I’d realize that the painting was an artifact from a human culture is my previous knowledge of humanity. Without that I’d probably choose the geode as more functional, since it’s less likely to break when I use it to, say, smash a lizard’s head in.
I raised the civilization example as a way of trying to infer the existence of humans by looking at civilizations.
IOW, you raised the issue of inferring the existence of civilization… by referring to civilization.
wait, who was doing the question begging again?
Very good! So why can I not make a similar inference of design in nature from my personal knowledge of human machinery?
because a fish is not a mousetrap, you gibbering, smarmy ass.
OK, I gotta admit I didn’t see it coming that someone might acknowledge that god isn’t a very good designer. I don’t know how to respond. arrrrrrrrgggh.
I would infer design from my knowledge of human dams.
and if it just happened to be the case that it was a natural log jam?
what if it was constructed by beavers?
how would you eliminate these possibilities?
Wow MAJeff your advice on herbs de provence was spot on. As a 3rd generation farmer growing the stuff – kudos! Have you tried baby red potato’s & lavender, or corn bread baked with lavender and lavender honey? (Sorry my apron is showing…)
Hey Ichthyic, you’re mythic tonight. *grin*
I can’t wait for the Saucy Hell-Hated Minnow & Bride of Shrek to wade in.
This seems in my view only to reinforce the design inference
projection’s a bitch, ain’t it?
Screechy Monkey, much more memorable than just using your initials. Now I’ve got to come up with something.
“Alright, fine. So why are we not justified in doing the same thing in nature?”
Because it is by no means immediately obvious that the same conclusions apply in non-familiar, non-anthropomorphic environments.
“I don’t understand this. Why is it invalid to make an inference based on a generalization? Can you explain this?”
I never claimed such, I said that if something is too highly generalized to make testable predictions (read: ad hoc) it is useless for making such inferences.
“Besides, computer processes have all the traits you mentioned (they reproduce offspring, inherit traits from their ancestors and are subject to genetic algorithms), and those are clearly designed, right?”
Two problems:
1. The body of software itself does not reproduce in evolutionary computation, certain components are iteratively subject to variation and selection in hopes that one can converge upon a solution to a predefined and enumerated problem. Substantially different from that which I mentioned.
2. They are only “clearly designed” because we have, once again, written them so that they can be understood as such. By no means does such apply in biology.
But it’s relevant that genomes don’t look designed because no designer would be that stupid and sloppy.
It’s at least a little reasonable to use the argument from incredulity, as creationists do, when you’re looking at a whole organism. It’s big, it’s complex, it looks pretty well put-together. But when you closely examine the genome, you see that it’s a hodge-podge of disorganization: introns, exons, defunct transposons and other parasitic sequences, pseudogenes, duplications — it’s an utter mess on a genomic level, not to mention on a transcriptional level.
I don’t know how to respond.
how about:
what use is a sloppy engineer?
God: “I give unto you the Geode, my greatest design, so that Thou might have something cool for Show and Tell.”
Even if there was zero evidence for evolution, it’s not logically possible to explain organized complexity by saying it was designed by an intelligent being, because if a being is intelligent it’s an instance of organized complexity.
Ichthyic @ #202:
Ah, but a cat is a mouse trap! Thus Goddidit. QED.
“Rocks have nothing like the complexity of life. That is my point. But let us even say rocks are complex;…”
[yawn]
Have you considered renting yourself out as a soporific?
Ah, but a cat is a mouse trap! Thus Goddidit. QED.
oh, very clever, ya run rings around me logically!
Now it’s time for the penguin on top of your television to explode.
William Paley,
So that were all on the same page, would you please define some of your terms: complexity, utility, organization and designer.
Please be as specific as you can.
-A. Rice
Ichthyic, I’m afraid that this might be a whole new line of argument. We’re not saying god is perfect, just saying that something did it. This is almost a back door into my religion of the month, Pantheism. Personally I think if you take equal parts of dark matter and dark energy, you get a soul.
I have been watching this issue over the past week or so, and I can’t help feeling that this exercise in polarization is going to back-fire.
I am bemused by the debate myself, as I have never been exposed to any arguments against the theory of evolution. I was aware that there were people in the USA that questioned it, but this is the first time I have actually explored the issue. I mean no offense, but I find it all truly bizarre and strangely fascinating.
Maybe we can classify this as the Argument from Mediocrity. If something looks like it was poorly designed, then you can automatically assume a bad designer. If this is the case, then the dodo is proof positive of a supernatural, underachieving being.
“Personally I think if you take equal parts of dark matter and dark energy, you get a soul.”
Via the same process, I think you get butt seks.
er, I guess there ARE some who wouldn’t have a clue what an exploding penguin looks like…
Look at the bones!
The message of Expelled is that dogmatic atheism poisons good science
–Loudon is a Fool
no, it isn’t.
you at least have to start off with what the movie purports to represent if you wish to be taken at all seriously.
–Fishything
No doubt, Ichthyic, you were seething throughout the film and had difficulty digesting the point. Were you calm, probably still you would have had difficulty given that your mind appears to have all the nuance of a country cured ham sandwich washed down with a warm can of Olympia.
I’ll speak with fewer syllables that you might understand.
Hatred blinds. Your hatred of God (no doubt stemming from a difficult relationship with your father, regarding which I am very sorry) would, had you a scientific inclination, make your science suspect. It would not only be outcome determinative. But your atheistic outlook would predispose you to be unable to take data as it comes. It’s odd, because typically an orientation towards skepticism (properly understood) might incline one towards thoughtfulness. But ye God-haters are not skeptics. You’re dogmatic. You might reject such a label. But I would encourage you to look at the evidence. Read through this thread.
The bad news is, as Ichthyic noted at 125, the issue of evolution has been elevated from a conversation among nerdy, beard-wearing evolutionary biologists (who, if we are to be frank, are not in the fore of technicians who are providing shiny new products for the betterment of our lives), to a fight between “science” and the many. Given that some 70% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ not only lived but is in fact God, science (properly understood) will be the casualty of your childish spat with the Almighty. It’s a simple matter of boots on the ground. And your side is disadvantaged because you spend Saturday nights blogging, rather than dating. That is unfortunate. But I guess it’s natural selection. And ye boors will have only yourselves to blame when scientists are viewed with the same revulsion as the leech-wielding barbers of yesteryear.
ShemaAndSharon, as you follow this thread/issue, make sure you differentiate the god/atheist argument as different from the evolution/YEC argument. There are more than a few theist evolutionists out there. Maybe not here exactly, but out there nonetheless.
As an outside observer who knew nothing of paintings or geodes, how would I tell that one was “designed” and the other just formed that way?
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 12:30 AM
Easy – through enough observation, you could come up with preliminary hypotheses about how each came into existence, then perform experiments to try to understand the processes which might have caused them to exist. Once those are done you could refine your hypotheses to fit the evidence. And, once the studies of both items had advanced to the necessary level, you’d be able to scientifically affirm that the geode was a natural occurrence, while nature could not produce on its own anything like the painting. Which, of course, should lead you to the conclusion that nature did not make the painting. (But this is where the deception lies with the ID movement. It seems to play off of a false dichotomy that if we can’t currently explain how nature created something, supernatural agents or causes are at work. This claim is misleading at its very core, because at one time – based on the limited nature of human travel of the globe and communication across it – the Earth was believed to be flat. Only until we proved beyond a shadow of a doubt – through natural means, not through guesses at supernatural influence – that it was not flat was this fact accepted as canon. The same will no doubt eventually prove true for our current gaps in knowledge, as long as we stick to the impartiality of the scientific method.) And this is all completely beside the fact that paintings are usually representations of things seen in the world, so – even absent knowledge of humanity – it would probably be somewhat recognizable as a two-dimensional reproduction – or attempt thereof – of something seen in the natural world.
In short, the easy way to tell is to apply the scientific method to the study of both of them. That’s the neat thing about the scientific method – if you use it correctly it can answer these same questions that keep getting asked time and time again concerning the argument from design.
Personally I think if you take equal parts of dark matter and dark energy, you get a soul.
Erm. Herm. Ok, rmp, once again, I can’t disprove this, but, uh, it seems a little… woo for my tastes. I’m going to be nice and leave it at that.
you get a soul.
and if you take a catfish, fillet it, coat in cornmeal, and deep fry, you get soul food.
Oh I knew, but it’s been some time.. I remembered the Mary Queen of Scotts bit more than the exploding penguin, though.
Back on topic, Occam’s Razor treats your mediocre designer the same way it would treat a perfect designer. Since we can explain the complexity of life just fine w/o a shoddy designer, who needs one?
The logic against God (or any other designer), used by everybody from Hume to Dawkins.
Occam’s Razor: discard all unnecessary premises. Or, if presented with two explanations for a phenomenon, choose the one that entails the least assumptions.
If the present world could have come about through natural processes, there is no reason to infer a god. Search the literature (for creationists, this means read more than what the DI and Behe put out) and you will find god is most unecessary. Thus, though one cannot disprove god’s existence (neither can we disprove the FSM) we can be reasonably sure there is no such entity and thus carry on with lives as though he/she/it/them did not exist. (See Russel’s Teapot)
Were you calm
LOL
yeah, tell us about how calm the writers were as they strung together visions of holocaust Europe intermingled with interviews with scientists.
get lost, dillweed.
Louden:
@RMP- So the souls of people are manifest as quantum entanglements with predetermined outcomes? And when we die our dark matter/energy souls leaves our body and flies around the cosmos?
Beautiful idea!
Falyne, please don’t take me to literally. It’s just my little story that I tell myself to reconcile my 48 plus years in the Lutheran church with my brain. I think it’s a reasonable compromise.
Not that I want it to be part of a Science curriculum.
God: “I give unto you the Geode, my greatest design, so that Thou might have something cool for Show and Tell.”
LOL
actually, that does bring back some childhood memories.
I still have those geodes, even.
#223, Loudon is a fool
And, yet, puzzlingly, the graduate student who shares a bay with me in the lab is a devout Catholic. We use the implications of evolution in our lab (which studies repair of the central nervous system) every day.
Evolution isn’t about the rejection of religion. Evolution is about biology. That’s all.
Heh, whatever floats your boat. A little woo, but then again, I have a weakness for cryptozoology myself. ;-)
And now I can’t stop watching my own video! Yay image macros put to German nerdcore, at least at 1 am. Internet, LOL Internet…
“The bad news is, as Ichthyic noted at 125, the issue of evolution has been elevated from a conversation among nerdy, beard-wearing evolutionary biologists…”
Actually, Loudon, the bad news is that for all your posturing and name calling, you have actually just proved the point (not that you’re the first, by any means) that if ID belongs in school, it belongs in a philosophy class. It seems that every time one of your fellow believers gets angry, out comes the “spat with the Almighty” rhetoric, laying bare the inseparability of ID from religion.
And your further points show how unqualified you are to speak on anything involved in science. The fact that you equate a theory’s scientific efficacy and accuracy with the simple numbers of those who believe that theory is perfectly hilarious, and bad science all the way around. Whether or not Jesus lived cannot – and likely will never – be verified with any sense of certainty. It is, and always will remain, a matter of personal faith.
And I don’t have a spat with any Almighty — just people who claim to know that there is one, and that they know his(her) wishes.
“But ye God-haters are not skeptics. You’re dogmatic.”
Guilty! It’s hatred of the stupidity of people like you that drive me. I admit it.
“Given that some 70% of Americans believe that Jesus Christ not only lived but is in fact God, science (properly understood) will be the casualty of your childish spat with the Almighty.”
Fortunately, we have a system of education that still cares about standards, despite the best efforts of ignorant people like you who want to undermine it from within and without.
@ William Paley
Alright. Are there any conditions in nature that you can conceive of that would convince you that some being designed life on Earth? If not, then how do you infer that anything is designed? Or do you always avoid this inference?
You put the cart before the horse. You have first postulated the existence of a designer, and then you wish to find evidence for the existence of such a designer.
I would require a demonstration of why all the masses of evidence that we currently have for evolution was in fact completely wrong before I would be able to give any weight to new evidence that another process (or mythical being) was responsible for the diversity of life that we observe on earth.
Your god is not necessary in our explanation.
And I don’t have a spat with any Almighty — just people who claim to know that there is one, and that they know his(her) wishes.
funny, but that’s exactly why I’ve always wondered why xians don’t claim intelligent design is heresy.
there’s no way to hypothesize about design without knowledge of the designer, and, IIRC, doesn’t the book of Job rather warn against such heresy?
*shrug*
OTOH, far be it from me to accuse the religious of being consistent.
and if you take a catfish, fillet it, coat in cornmeal, and deep fry, you get soul food.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 12:56 AM
bravo, ichthyic — that one was priceless…
[cynic]
CalGeorge: we do?
[/cynic]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
“based on the limited nature of human travel of the globe and communication across it – the Earth was believed to be flat”
Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round…when it was penned 3,000 years ago. Perhaps those “flat-earthers” should have pick themselves up a copy?
#223 where “Loudon is a Fool” on April 20, 2008 12:55 AM spewed:
Why is it assumed that Evolutionists hate God? Do you also assume we hate the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus? Maybe you think we hate Speed Racer… or perhaps it is Satan we hate. Think about that for a minute. That may not be long enough – thinking might be difficult for you. I’ll give you a week to think about it. But honestly, think about it!
I don’t hate Zeus. I don’t hate Saturn. I don’t hate Quezecoatal. Why should I hate your God? Mayhaps we have thought about the evidence, looked skeptically at it – and still came to the conclusion that Evolution happens. Why are you so closed minded?
If you respond sooner than a week, I’ll know you are a troll – since you couldn’t possibly have thought it through that quickly.
JBS
#235, Your lab partner is increasingly in the minority, in large part because of the hostility shown by the likes of Myers, Dawkins their ilk as presented in technicolor on this blog.
Neo-Darwinism, the dogmatism attacked in Expelled, is about the rejection of religion. Read the words of your compatriots. Would the devout Catholic who shares your bay view your friends as men of reason?
And I don’t quite understand how the random Godlessness of the universe informs your understanding of the nervous system in a way that is helpful to scientific inquiry. But maybe you mean something else by evolution.
All I am arguing is whether there was a designer. I’m not arguing anything about that designer’s ostensible qualities yet.
But don’t you see? it is only by specifying some qualities that “designer” becomes an explanation at all….it is precisely the qualities of the designer (and their consequences) that would do the explaining.
The reason one can infer design in human-made artifacts like watches is because we know something about the qualities of human designers, and the mechanisms they employ in watchmaking. We can identify a human signature because we know how with great precision how the signing is done.
OK ichthyic , now I want some recipes from you as well.
Actually, I’ll check for them in about 8 hrs. I’m shot.
Good night everyone!
brokenSoldier @ #225 (observation, scientific method, etc.)
I appreciate your post, but I wanted to clarify mine… I wasn’t suggesting that there would be no way to tell which of those objects was a human artifact and which wasn’t, I was simply trying to point out that W. Paley’s criteria aren’t sufficient.
All I am arguing is whether there was a designer. I’m not arguing anything about that designer’s ostensible qualities yet.
Argumentum ad not yetum?
for the recently arrived, here are some things that will help you quote others more clearly:
every time you see [ or ] substitute an angle bracket instead (the shift of the , and . keys, respectively).
[i] = italics
[b] = bold
[blockquote] = will indent and highlight text
examples:
[i]italic[/i] gives you:
italic
[blockquote] isn’t this tedious? [/blockquote] gives you:
Brokensoldier,
I certainly do not believe that in numbers lie truth. But in a democratic society you can’t fight the numbers. So, although you deserve to lose, you will not lose because you deserve to lose. But you’ll lose nevertheless, which is good enough for me.
In #239 I said “…postulated the existence of a designer”.
I of course meant “…accepted without question the existence of a designer”.
“Whether or not Jesus lived cannot – and likely will never – be verified with any sense of certainty”
Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible. Seriously, ask your local atheist historian. No doubt their face will contort, but they will admit its the Bible. So who is ignorant? There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?
OK ichthyic , now I want some recipes from you as well.
I make a mean chicken florentine, sound good?
Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round
hmm, I do believe at least one translation has it as “circular”, which could be a flat disk.
care to elaborate?
“Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible…There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?”
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:19 AM
Okay, seriously…I’m going to consider that statement a clear example of Poe’s Law. Because otherwise, someone has been getting their facts from a Discovery Institute pamphlet.
A Real Expulsion–from a Texas restaurant
Some good ol’ boys who didn’t appreciate the Berkeley Unix “daemon”: http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/
He lived.
We know next to nothing about him.
Except that a bunch of bullshitters sought to make him into a saint.
Why would a book claiming to be the word of god make any comment on things that might be found out later? “Circle of the Earth”
Lack of foresight?
Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible.
ooops….
http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/Itemid,61/id,16/
better known as:
“How Archaeology Killed Biblical History”
care to continue flaunting your ignorance of how accurate your favorite bed-time story is?
From an engineering standpoint, any design is created first and foremost to perform some function. In engineering, as in mathematics, a function is defined as process which receives one or more inputs, and generates a different output.
Simplified examples: Input gasoline into a car and it will output your ride to work. input light into a camera and it will output a picture.
For a design to be considered functional, all instances of the design must produce the desired output given the correct inputs.
Thus, assuming a class of similar objects, for instance human beings, have been designed, the purpose of said design may be derived by examining the outputs and inputs of the same.
The inputs and outputs of human beings differ greatly from human to human. Some people output art or literature, others output only meaningless blather. Some people input only plants and minerals, others input large amounts of toxic substances.
There is however, one output that every living human regularly produces given a few basic inputs. I submit that if humanity were designed by a creator, we were designed chiefly to perform that basic function that is common to all instances of humanity.
Therefore, if there is a God, and humans are his greatest creation, then he/she is primarily concerned with the performance of this one fundamental function.
Behold! I have read the Mind of God! The Lord demands your Dookies!
Eh, don’t get too heated up, I’m pretty sure Loudon is an atheist trying to have fun at our expense.
It’s mostly true that it’s impossible to distinguish between creationists/fundamentalists and parodies of them, but in this particular case I think we can. Real fundies will at least try to make it look like they have some understanding of science and its method, but Loudon is going out of his way to show that the opposite is true in his case. The demonstration of stupidity is too thorough and too blatant to be real.
Mr. Sandlin,
If you have thought about this issue at any length, I am surprised you would make this argument. Maybe you should take some more time. Or bounce your ideas off a friend. Maybe this is a case of two minds (one not being your own) being better than one.
Dawkins did not write The Grass Delusion. I am sure (net, net) he is ambivalent about grass, having no strong feelings one way or the other. So he didn’t write a book about it. Protests about your really not caring about God are less convincing in light of the continued protests.
@ 254
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I just checked my Yahrzeit Calendar, and the date is 15th of Nisan, 5768.
Which calendar do you use most often?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_calendars
Protests about your really not caring about God are less convincing in light of the continued protests.
ever thought that the protests relate to YOU personally?
some of us are just highly amused at complete idiots that can do nothing but communicate via projection.
OTOH, the amusement tends to wear off quickly.
tomorrow is another day, and hopefully there will be fresh meat.
You use this word (projection) a lot, Ichthyic. I don’t think you know what it means.
Hat tip to Ichthyic #251:
I gave up when [quote][/quote] didn’t work.
[blockquote][/blockquote] duly noted.
Loudon is a Fool @ #@264
OK, that solves it for me.. Loudon is obviously trying to yank our collective chain.
For young earth creationism to be true, the scientific method would have to be entirely useless. Creationism is truly anti-scientific, and believing in creationism entails believing in what can only be called magic, even if most creationists won’t phrase it this way because they know how silly it sounds.
I realize I am an ignorant Christian, but I am struggling to understand something. Can you enlighten me?
As evolutionists, you may only believe in the material world. You believe in natural selection removing the weak in all species. You believe that no moral authority or morality for that matter exist (you can’t in a material world). The concepts of equality, truth, and purpose also cannot exist (don’t press this point, even your beloved Hawkins freely admits).
And I arrive at my question!
Do you believe all men are created (I mean evolved, sorry!) equally? Let me pose it another way, did all races evolve equally?
More specifically, Are blacks and whites equal? After all, Africans have contributed very little to science, technology…really little to the advancement in any arena of science, culture, or civilized government. The African continent has always been awash in brutal infighting and war. Little production of anything relevant has escaped the continent. Also, the white Europeans conquered black Africans and used them as slaves and only gave up slavery by choice (not because Africans gained an advantage and used superior force to free themselves). Is that natural selection?
Following the logical conclusion of Darwinian theory, whites are then naturally superior to blacks, right?
Let me answer for you.
Either you answer as you must and say yes, based on the imperial evidence of history, whites are indeed superior to blacks. This conclusion would make you a Racist. Or option two, you say that indeed all men evolved equally…and thereby admit Darwinism is false.
So what have-you? Racist or Wrong?
Or you could just ignore my post…who wants to be caught in such an uncomfortable predicament!
Loudon is a Fool on Amazon, reviewing Candide:
This is a french book. French books are, of course, often french, but this one is frencher than most. Ah, Pierrot! Reading this fine french book makes me the sad clown of life. Could Voltaire be any frencher, you ask? I doubt it. I am a sad clown, I say. Even when he criticizes the French he does so in a, how do you say, french way. Oui, oui! So come, bring along your Jerry Lewis video tapes and we will read this very french book together. It is frencher than a Quebecer at a Steisand concert. Frencher than Little Richard at an amfAR banquet. Frencher than Richard Simmons at a french pride parade. Read Candide and you too can be a very french sad clown. Sacre Bleu!!!
http://www.amazon.com/review/RX3PX4CQZDIZ4
Ugh!
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3390/By_Steve_Camp
If you take equal parts dark energy and dark matter, you get a block of what looks like empty space. Neither feels the electromagnetic force, so there’s no way they can perturb the delicate chemical interactions which underlie neural processes. Dark matter only interacts via gravity (and, possibly, the weak nuclear force), so all it does is clump together and, well, play like it’s a lump.
Ryan said:
At this moment, most serious scholars do indeed believe that Jesus was a historical character. However, it looks like there is a debate to be had, once again, after Earl Doherty produced, “The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ?”
While not scholarly in its presentation, it is one of the most thorough and historically accurate explorations of its type. The question is most certainly not answered, conclusively, that’s for sure.
Most atheists don’t care whether Jesus existed or not. You have still got all of the work ahead of you, even if he did. Unless, of course, you expect us to believe that all historical accounts of magic men are true?
Loudon is a Fool (Plano, TX) on Amazon, reviewing Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
The men supporting the claims of this book come from a wide range of political views and economic strata. They share, not a distaste for Democrats and their policy goals (in fact, O’Neill has contributed three times as much money to Dems as GOPers over the course of the last 30 years), but a distaste for a man: John Kerry. And that distaste was born through interactions with John Kerry during his short four months in Vietnam in which time he proved to be an arrogant, immature, undisciplined, and incompetent leader. A combination of characteristics which caused him to be a danger to the men he served with, and a holy terror to non-combatant Vietnamese who happened to wander across his path. And when this woefully deficient sailor returned to America, rather than being humbled by his incompetence in serving, he strutted onto the political scene, crowing about his heroism and declaiming his fellow sailors and soldiers to be war criminals. No wonder these men dislike John Kerry. They know him. Do you? Read this book.
You’re right. He is pulling our leg. No one could be this stupid.
Ryan began:
Congratulations, that’s the only thing you got right in your whole dipshit post.
Come back when you have some better straw men to kick around.
For Ryan:
Yes, you are very ignorant, and very, very racist. Here’s a list of black scientists who made HUGE contributions to science.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmscientists1.html
Your ignorance of science and history is staggering. Africans had great civilizations, before they were colonized by European powers, and kidnapped to be slaves. Africa is in the state it is in because of wealthy European nations trying to steal as many natural resources as it can. I can’t believe you wrote that post. The list of incredible black statesmen, diplomats, scientists, and authors are staggering. It was in the northern regions of Africa that algebra was first developed. Read a book beside the bible you racist (insert bad word here)!!
Ryan (#271), you claims are absolute bullshit. Modern science has done more than anything else to definitively debunk racism. The Human Genome Project has shown that there is no genetic marker for race. Race is an abstract construction, made by human beings.
As for equality and truth and all the rest, why is the existence of the supernatural a necessary precursor for their existence? It is a non sequitur to say that naturalism/materialism must lead to nihilism.
The “darwinistic” defense of racism you offer is not Darwinian. It’s a cheap manipulation, fabricated by someone who obviously doesn’t really know the theory.
I’ll freely admit that justice and freedom are ideas we made up (or are products of our brain chemistry). This does absolutely nothing to lessen their worth. Equality and freedom have value because we value them. Having a celestial Big Brother enforce these doctrines does not empower or improve them. In fact, by making their fulfillment chore instead of self-imposed duty, Big Bro cheapens them as only the divine can.
#264 one “Loudon is a Fool” on April 20, 2008 1:28 AM pronounced:
I certainly did not expect such a quick response. But the speed of the response is reflected in its quality.
I’ve never read Dr. Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” and do not require his atheism to inform my opinion of the Theory of Evolution. Your assumptions are premature.
The continued protests result from the continuous assault. One does not stop complaining about the fly in one’s soup until the soup has been replaced. One does not stop promoting the Theory of Evolution until the assault by the devious Discovery Institute ends.
Perhaps we should stop the assault on childhood diseases because everyone is weary of the fight. Perhaps we should stop standing up for what is right because so many are opposed to it. Perhaps we should allow the United States to descend into the Dark Ages because everyone hates science.
Or perhaps not.
I don’t give up because others are too ignorant to understand. I don’t give up because I’m called names or cursed at. I don’t give up because IDiots think I should.
JBS
“I appreciate your post, but I wanted to clarify mine… I wasn’t suggesting that there would be no way to tell which of those objects was a human artifact and which wasn’t, I was simply trying to point out that W. Paley’s criteria aren’t sufficient.”
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 1:16 AM
– My apologies – I let my tired eyes commit the sin of omission while reading through the posts. I see where I was way off base concerning your point.
hmm, I do believe at least one translation has it as “circular”, which could be a flat disk.
care to elaborate?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 20, 2008 1:22 AM
Just to elaborate a bit, I believe first you have to choose WHICH of the two contradictory creation stories within Genesis (1st account – Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, 2nd account – Genesis 2:4-25) to begin with. But it’s not even worth addressing unless Ryan cares to cite the passage in the Bible that he is talking about. (That’s the general practice when offering something up as support for your point — you at least have to tell everyone else what it is that you’re referencing. Even aside from that, I have read the Bible many times over and know for a fact that it does not – anywhere within – assert that the Earth is round. But even if it had, those “flat-earthers” you so condescendingly called out were Christian theocrats in the first place, who definitely had a better understanding of the text than you display, yet still maintained the position that the Earth was flat.
I certainly do not believe that in numbers lie truth. But in a democratic society you can’t fight the numbers. So, although you deserve to lose, you will not lose because you deserve to lose. But you’ll lose nevertheless, which is good enough for me.
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:18 AM
Science is not a democratic society – it is an empirical, methodological search for information that explains the natural phenomena we see in the world, and it is best represented and best performed while its pursuants are protected by the freedoms of a democratic society.
Admittedly the review of Unfit for Command is not my best work. But steer clear of my review of Stranger in a Strange Land, CalGeorge. I don’t want to shatter your science fiction dreams of nerds getting the ladies in the end.
“Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round
hmm, I do believe at least one translation has it as “circular”, which could be a flat disk. care to elaborate?”
My response. Good question, my text says round, which is the NIV translation. I cannot address your answer accurately without reviewing the original greek text. I don’t have a copy so I cannot answer you.
Brokensoldier,
Admittedly the humanities are challenging. Their mastery may be beyond your mechanistic skill set. But I would ask that you at least attempt to read before you respond.
#272 Ryan
So far, at least, the strawman champ of the evening. If he really believes any of those things, I pity him.
I saw the film “Expelled” this evening. When Ben Stein asked Dr. Hawkins where the origins of life came from he said the most logical explanation is SPACE ALIENS! (the seed theory) I kid you not!
Either you answer as you must and say yes, based on the imperial evidence of history, whites are indeed superior to blacks. This conclusion would make you a Racist. Or option two, you say that indeed all men evolved equally…and thereby admit Darwinism is false.
So what have-you? Racist or Wrong?
Or you could just ignore my post…who wants to be caught in such an uncomfortable predicament!
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:39 AM
False Dichotomy = unsound argument. Next?
Ryan #272
Ok, based on this question, I know what conclusion I have come to.
I have concluded that you are a moron.
Your question is simply a false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Where did you learn logic? At Sunday school?
Hey Ryan, you nitwit, Dr. Dawkins was inferring that space aliens were just as likely as a creator as “god”. Considering you are a racist windbag, I imagine that may be over your head.
@ Ryan.
Expelled?
What’s that.
Seriously, dude. We know all about the aliens business. It was said in response to the question “Is there any situation where ID could be possible?” The response you’ve quoted was followed by “Of course, then those aliens would have to be designed, or arise by natural processes.”
Context is fun.
Welcome to the world of creative editing, Ryan. The producers of Expelled punk’d Dawkins, and they’ve punk’d you. Here’s Dawkins on the interview:
#286
Ted, I appreciate your point to “pity” me if I did believe what I laid out in my argument. As a biblical Christian I believe that God created all men in His image equally. My point was, at least I think, a good one. Darwinism, when followed to its logical conclusions, leads to ugly places.
Will you allow me my point?
Ryan, I am having a hard time just keeping up with your stupidity.
It’s Dawkins not Hawkins, you idiot.
And Dawkins was probably referring to the theory of Panspermia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
You know, if you would read more instead of drumming your fingers on your keyboard, you might actually learn something.
“if, for the sake of argument we grant that the creationists are correct…
For the sake of argument let’s say that god really did do it. He created everything and caused everything 6000ya. Proven beyond all doubt. Everyone alive accepts this as fact.
Now what? Do we replace the math and science textbooks with bibles praise jesus? Probably not a good idea because I assume that harmful diseases will still exist, and we will still want our computers and toilets to work, so we will want people to figure out the biology and physics. So do we put goddidit in every sentence? Are all science test questions now in three parts?
Part one: What causes diabetes?
Answer: God.
Part two: Why does God cause diabetes?
Answer: We are sinners.
Part three: How does God cause diabetes?
Answer:
In our little scenario, the answers to parts one and two will always be the same so couldn’t we, as a species, just get on with part three? The science-y part? Why do you want to waste so much breath, time, and ink on something you are already very sure about? Also, what difference will it make if the cure for a disease YOU have comes from an atheist, a muslim, or a voodoo lady in Haiti? Do you currently research all your medicine to make sure only godly christians were involved in its inception, funding, creation, and distribution? I hardly doubt you checked on the church habits of the thousands of people who brought you your advil, so you must agree that science is science. Advil works even if nary a christian worked on it.
Next time you are sick, go to church and thank god if you want, but also thank a scientist for the cure. And if there is no cure, instead of helping the group that only wants to focus on parts one and two, try helping the group who wants to work on part three.
William Paley said, “What I am asking is, When is it reasonable to infer that God designed some thing?”
When “God” is defined and its design mechanisms are described; when a workable hypothesis is produced and tested which ends up showing that this “God” and its mechanisms are the best explanation of what we see in nature, then it might be reasonable to infer that “God” designed some thing.
Just defining “God” would be quite helpful, since it would allow us to avoid the false choices in Pascal’s Wager by letting us all know which “God” is the one we should be giving design credit to and worshipping! As it is now, there are so many “Gods” to define, each of which, presumably, has so many different design mechanisms, that you creationists should probably start by narrowing down the “God” possibilities. I suggest you get together with representatives of all the available “Gods” and hash that definition part out first. That might take a while. Then get back to us and we can guide you on the next step.
#291
Wrong. His answer regarding seed theory was a direct question about the origin of life, not about ID. That question came afterwards. Have you seen the film?
No, Ryan. That’s exactly the point. You’re not following Darwinism to its logical conclusions. You’re going way beyond.
The logical conclusions of Darwinism are “life arose by natural processes.” That’s it. From that statement neither racism nor equality follows. It is up to us, men and women, to figure out how to conduct ourselves. And we damn sure don’t need a celestial overlord who slaughters women and children (except the virgins, of course) and convicts us of thought crime.
By the way: those are Numbers 31:17f., Matthew 7:21f.
I logged on a few minutes ago, looked at the thread title and the # of comments. 260!!!
I thought, “AWRIIIIIGHT, the shit is ON.”
Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn….
No crazy-ass trolls, just a couple of young’uns without much dogma free schoolin’ and an obstinate guy who just doesn’t want to let go no matter how articulate and measured the responses.
All this heavyweight intellectual fire power wasted on a mere apologist. Maybe it’s a ruse, perhaps the IDers are creating a diversion and are attacking elsewhere. Oh well.
Good recipes though…
Hi Ryan, I’ll give you a little tip. Every organism alive on this planet right now, is just as evolved as you are.
If that doesn’t make sense to you, you should reconsider if you know anything at all about evolution.
Stand corrected. Dawkins and not Hawkins. It’s late.
We’ve done you one better, Ryan. We’ve got the eye-witness account of the man in the interview. Here.
Sabrina,
If that is Dawkins opinion, it differs from the clear presentation of the design theory he found “interesting” in the film. His argument was that if it is found that design is present in the human organism, it would be plausible that the presence of design is evidence of panspermia. Mr. Stein did not press to discover whether Dick is an advocate of directed panspermia.
Better yet was the theory that life was created by Shirley McClain and a pocket full of crystals. Perhaps after she was visited by space aliens. It was all very scientific.
How exactly does a scientific theory lead to ugly conclusions? Do you have so little faith in humanity, that if everyone believed in common descent, we’d start killing people? I think the bible and other religious texts can prove a lot more harmful that scientific theories.
I don’t really expect a competent answer from someone who thinks black people haven’t contributed anything to the world. I guess you never had a blood transfusion, or received cortisone. Again, read a book, get back to us.
Ryan:
Only to inform you it’s full of BS.
Natural selection only refers to the process by which organisms that are better adapted to their environment are more likely to have successful offspring and survive.
There’s no real “logical conclusion” to this that you could paint as “ugly,” unless you were prepared to warp it beyond all recognition…which is what you anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-intellectual types are all too eager to do, of course.
There’s a big difference between the process of natural selection, which is a simple fact of biology, and some crazy ideologues using misguided ideas they think represents “Darwinism” as some kind of moral imperative, to justify doing something bad that they were prepared to do anyway.
In short, whether “Darwinism” inspired racism or not — and it didn’t; the ugly scourge of racism has been with us throughout the whole history of civilization, and the Church has been carrying out all manner of vile pogroms against the Jews going back centuries before Hitler — that would not have any bearing on whether or not it was true.
And the Bible has been used to justify atrocities down through history, too. Now, would you say that’s the Bible’s fault…or the fault of the people using it to their own ends?
@ Ryan.
The argument you offer (“the ugly conclusions of this theory”) places no faith in humanity whatsoever. As you are an admitted Christian, and therefore I assume believe in original sin and some version of total depravity, I guess I’m not surprised that you think we’d all be killing and raping each other if it weren’t for that darned God-given moral code.
More specifically: anyone who says “without God I wouldn’t know right from wrong” is fucking nuts. Everyone, not suffering from brain damage, knows right and wrong. Murder, theft, perjury, infanticide, genocide, rape, etc.–all these are self-evidently wrong to functional homo sapiens.
Interesting to note they’re also all on Jehova’s resume.
284: “Really? The book of Genesis declares earth is round…”
“I cannot address your answer accurately without reviewing the original greek text.”
Original Greek text. Of Genesis.
I suppose one could be charitable and speculate that he meant the earliest of the various translations of Genesis into Greek, but that would raise (not “beg”!) the question: why would such a translation be any more accurate than a modern translation into English?
Enough. I’m going to go and watch a movie that is advertised as being fiction.
I am a dogmatic non-stamp-collector. Today I will not collect stamps really, really, hard.
I hope this pisses off the foolish stamp-collectors.
(satire… I am adding this addendum just in case a Young-Earth-Stamp-Collector feels the need to go ballistic on my anti-stamp stance)
Ryan said:
Read this: Appeal to consequences
And this: Expelled Exposed
You can be a “biblical Christian” if that is what you want to be. But be warned, you reflect badly on all Christians, and the religion in general, when you make appallingly ignorant arguments.
Also remember that the decision to refer to yourself as a “biblical Christian” has nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of a proposition, including whether life evolved. Evidence decides that, and if you choose to ignore the evidence for evolution, I fail to see in which sense you can claim to be living a life of truth.
Loudon, have you ever heard of editing? Also, Dr. D. was lied to about what the film was about, and was taken aback at the questions. Plus, evolution has nothing to do with how life began!!!
I am taking some good shots hear. Some deserved, some not. Stimulating to say the least. Let me address the historical accurateness of the Bible. I’m not talking about inspiration but the historical reliability.
The bibliographical test for text accurateness of antiquity documents is the measure of the number of copied manuscripts in existence (MSS)and the time interval between the originals and the extant copies. There are 24,970 original copies of the Christian New Testament within 350 years of Christ’s death. The second most accurate antiquity document is the Lliad by Homer with 643.
Very…interesting, Ryan.
But what does that to do, in any way, with the ongoing discussion?
Regardless, all this proves is that people made and preserved lots of copies of a book. There’s many more than 25K copies of the Da Vinci Code. By your argument, we must now concede it is divine truth.
“I don’t have a copy so I cannot answer you.”
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 1:52 AM
You’re one step away from the correct statement – that you do not know the answer.
“Admittedly the humanities are challenging. Their mastery may be beyond your mechanistic skill set. But I would ask that you at least attempt to read before you respond.”
Posted by: Loudon is a Fool | April 20, 2008 1:53 AM
Since you referenced nothing that I posted in that last one of yours, and instead simply resorted to the tired tactic of ‘insult, then claim victory,” then I shall spell it out that when you argued for the inability to fight against numbers, you were very clearly stating that – though you somehow don’t believe truth lies in numbers – truth is irrelevant because numbers always win. I won’t even go into the logical fallacy farm that was the remainder of that post, but I will agree that the humanities can be difficult – but before even scratching their surface, you have to possess a working understanding of the tenets of logic, which your post severely lacked.
It’s the Illiad, btw.
I recommend you watch the film, Sabrina. Dick’s representation of the interview is inconsistent with his demeanor on the big screen. I don’t want to suggest he is now lying in his reconstruction, but he is an atheist. So . . . .
#284
Ted, I am being fair. My the version I am looking at is the NIV which is a “thought for a thought” translation. There are other more accurate translations such as the NASB which is a “word for a word” translation directly from the greek. Because translations from one language to another can be awkward the technical accurateness can be lost in the NIV. Therefore, I am saying that although my English version says “round” I agree that it is possible the Greek word (whatever it is) might more accurately be translated as circular. I can’t know based on my English translation.
And you know us Atheists, no morals. We just love to pillage and rape and lie because we can, and there’s no god to stop us.
I see your bullshit and raise you Sweden. 80% nonreligious, some of the lowest crime rates and some of the highest charitable giving in the industrial world.
So what was that about atheism leading to immorality????
I can’t believe the Christians can’t get this right…
GENESIS WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW.
NOT GREEK.
Ryan 272:
Actually, evolutionary theory would more likely conclude that a greater diversity is a better condition of survival of a species. Genetic similarity equals death. Hence, many races is a good thing. That said evolution doesn’t go towards one supreme goal. It just occurs, and there is no such thing as a ‘master’ race – just organisms better suited for a particular environment than others. That can change at any moment if the pressures on natural selection change.
Please do not call me a racist because I am a scientist. That’s very un-humane and unabashedly divisive for no rason but to score political points. I am most assuredly not white and I get a little upset when people purport to tell me who the racists are.
Uhhh, Joshua. I’ll see your Sweden, and raise you . . . Sweden.
#312
I am not asking that you accept the bible as divine truth, just that it is accurate to its original as it was first penned. Plus the dead sea scrolls preserved a good chunk of several Old Testament books. Our modern day texts are true to those manuscripts, which predate Christ.
OK. It’s accurate to the original. So what? All your work is still ahead of you. So far you’ve got a well preserved bronze age book.
What does any of this have to do with Darwin or Expelled?
@312
You can copy a made-up story as many times as you like.
Doesn’t change the fact that it is made up.
dammit
#323 should read:
#321
You can copy a made-up story as many times as you like.
Doesn’t change the fact that it is made up.
Ryan said:
“There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament […] The number of variants is as high as 400,000.”
– Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
Admittedly, many are not important, but it hardly instills confidence in the accuracy of the current copies of the New Testament, does it?
“Plus the dead sea scrolls preserved a good chunk of several Old Testament books. Our modern day texts are true to those manuscripts, which predate Christ.”
So Ryan is now saying that Judaism is a truer religion than Christianity, right?
#319
Reginald, please accept my apology. I recant..I am not calling you or anyone a racist. But nor was I talking about diversity. Maybe I have a pea brain as many posters have eluded. However, I once heard an evolutionist make that argument. That africans, as explained by Darwinism, were inferior to europeans. And honestly, besides attacking my apparent logical fallacy, I have not heard anyone answer the question.
Have all men evolved equally?
@ 326
Well, it came earlier, and since they love their (misunderstood) Second Law of Thermodynamics, since Christianity came after Judaism, Judaism must be better. Otherwise that would evolution–and that violates the aforementioned rule?
Course, then Hinduism wins, being far older.
Actually, evolution is proven by an old creationist video, the one about the banana. In the beginning, it was nothing like it is today, but, through hundreds (if not thousands) of years of ‘selective’ breeding, became the fruit w see today. No it’s not one species turning into another but, by definition, it s still evolution.
@ Ryan (#327)
Evolving equally is a loaded term. Equality doesn’t arise from evolution. Equality is something we have chosen to value and thus we work to make it a reality. The only role evolution has in that is shaping our makeup (particularly our brains) which allow us to even conceive of “equality”, let alone fight for it.
No. Of course all men (and women, which Christians always manage to forget) did not evolve equally. We’re obviously not uniform species. My room mate is some kind of Baseball prodigy. I can barely run.
But again, none of that has anything to do with equality. Equality, as an idea, comes from people. Equality, as reality, will only come from people.
Evolution is how we got here. It does not absolutely determine where we are going.
I am not asking that you accept the bible as divine truth, just that it is accurate to its original as it was first penned.
Its pieces were penned over a very long time by very many people. Also, the “Bible” as we know it was assembled by people with an agenda.
What are you trying to say?
#326
I guess I’m not the only dumb one here. Jesus was a Jew. According to Christianity, He came to fulfill the Jewish Law, or the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. And the Old Testament is in the back of the Christian bible. Continuation.
Ryan wrote:
There are two possibilities here, either you are ignorant – whic is the more charitable assumption – or you are lying.
Yes, it seems that the preponderance of academic opinion is that there was a preacher called Jesus who lived at that time and in that place.
But there are no contemporary references to him. According to the Bible, he was a very prominent figure, yet we have no mention of him from anyone who was alive at the same time – not one.
As for few other events or people for which we have, as yet, no evidence:
– The creation of the Universe somewhere between 6000 and 10000 years ago
– Adam and Eve
– The Garden of Eden
– The Great Flood
– The enslavement in Egypt
– The Exodus
– Saul
– Solomon
– The Great Temple of Solomon
– David
Any atheist historian or (honest) Christian historian will tell you that while some Biblical accounts have been corroborated by archaeological evidence, it is absurd to call it “the most accurate historical text ever written”. I am assuming you are aware it is not a single text by a single author but a compilation of many different texts written at different times and in different places?
Your problem, however, is that you are relying on the very same scientific method to find evidence supporting the Bible as has already provided overwhelming evidence for the theory of evolution. You cannot admit one and deny the other, not if you are being honest.
Ryan @ 327
Please, please, read this: How Biology Refutes Our Racial Myth
#272 the singular Ryan posted this on April 20, 2008 1:39 AM:
I’ll give it a shot. But you will only get out of my response what you take from it. I can not provide enlightenment where the mind’s eyes are blind.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
You mangled the precepts of the theory.
1) I am allowed to believe in an immaterial world. I may not bring that belief into the world of science as it works to explain what we see around us. There is a difference between this and what you claim..
2) There are other mechanisms at play, and it isn’t always the weakest that are “removed.” The theory says the genes of the individuals that pass those genes to the most decendents will exist in the largest portion of the population. If I have 20 kids and die of a genetic disorder, and everyone else only has 1 child – my genetic disorder will have a disproportionate representation in the population (especially if that disorder also involves my decendents having more children). This is not survival of the fittest. It is survival of the most fecund. This is only part of natural selection, however.
3) Your assumption for no moral authority is also baseless. It is the same moral authority that informs all human documents, that produced the “Golden Rule” (and no, not the one that says “He who has the gold makes the rules”). People have been refining civilization for thousands of years. There are key concepts that allow society to work, to improve, and some that do the opposite. These evolved into the “Don’t Kill, don’t steal, don’t cheat, don’t lie” that underlie most religions – and lead to, “Do for the people you meet as you would have them do for you.” That is the moral authority we all operate by.
4) And who is Hawkins? Do you mean Dawkins? He is not my beloved. I haven’t read his books and know very little about him.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Good a question – I have answers – though I warn you, I might just make them up from whole cloth… you should do some research and read some books on ethics and evolution and atheism, and a whole host of other topics. I’ll start you off by pointing you at Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World.”
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Yes. All humans have the same rights as all others. Based on the assumption that any other human is a moral operator, then I must treat all humans as equals. To do otherwise is unethical.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Africans haven’t what? Look up African scientists. Heck, look up African-American scientists. They are quite well represented in the patent office, in literature, in any area that matters, the people you consider the “blacks” have made important contributions. Were I to use the ethics I mentioned before I would have to conclude White’s have behaved quite badly – and I have to wonder what mindset, what frame of reference, what theology, allowed them to do so. You are attempting to use a paradigm that does not exist in the Theory of Evolution to discredit the Theory of Evolution.
By the way, slavery predates Darwin. Darwin also spoke against slavery.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
Wrong. The Theory of Evolution concludes that because humans came from Africa that humans came from Africa. It makes no moral assumptions about those that continued to exist there. For all you know, those are the most evolved humans (as if there could be a more or less evolved, but that is a different argument…). You very obviously do not know anything about the Theory of Evolution – or at best you hold the same misconceptions the Eugenics advocates did.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
I’m glad that you don’t answer for me. That would lead to grave tragedies and injustices in our world.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
You create a false dichotomy. You can’t possibly understand the concepts of Evolution if you can believe the scenario you’ve built. An understanding of the Theory of Evolution leads one to conclude there are no difference between the “races” and that all humans are, in fact, human. Except Creationists – they don’t believe in evolution and strive mightily to not be included in it’s conclusions. They might be considered a sub-species – but I digress.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
You are the one wrong. I have to wonder what frame or mindset you come from, what philosophy allows you to believe such incredibly wrong ideas. It is a mindset we obviously do not share. All humans have equal rights – and that is the heart of basic human philosophy – which the Theory of Evolution is a part of. We share this planet, our fates are tied – we must follow the Golden Rule.
#272 the singular Ryan continued:
I can only ignore your post if it would do no further damage, if it would lie peacefully and quietly in the dark. It does not. Many will read your post and if it goes unanswered would believe you are correct. You are not, and so I cannot ignore your post. I would think you, posting in the lion’s den, would be in the uncomfortable predicament. Regardless, you have much to learn about the Theory of Evolution.
JBS
Ryan, your question was answered in #279 and #280. The Human Genome Project concludes that there is NO GENETIC MARKER FOR RACE. Race is just a construction: humans don’t evolve according to race. Give it up. Jesus. We’re not social Darwinists. We just think that life evolved. We still care about being moral people, we have concern for the poor and differently abled, etc.
#330
Thank you for the response. However, our desires for equality and the conclusions of natural selection are different. And to me frightening. At least according the Ben Stein, many Nazis were Darwinist and used that belief system to ride the world of the weak, and exterminate 6 million in the process. Just a thought.
John Derbyshire making sense over at the National Review.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzkzMzk3OGJkNjJkM2YyZjJjYjlkMzM5NjBjY2FmZDQ=
“As so often with creationist material, I’m not sure what the point is. Darwin’s great contribution to human knowledge, his theory of the origin of species, is either true, or it’s not. … It is a true fact that E = mc2, and the Iranians are right at this moment using that true fact to construct nuclear weapons. If they succeed, and use their weapons for horrible purposes, will that invalidate the Special Theory of Relativity? …
And, as always when the Darwin-Hitler business comes up, I note that guilt by association cuts two ways. Islamic fundamentalists are Darwin-hating creationists to a man.”
Ryan – text accurateness has nothing to do with factual accurateness. Factual accurateness is where the bible fails and fails miserably as archeologists are continuing to discover. I will leave it those here who are more vesrsed in middle eastern archeology than I to point these out. However as an engineer I can assure that the idea of building a wooden ship that could accomdate 2 (and sometimes 7) of every animal species is absolutely ridiculous.
Louden is a Fool –
As an engineer I can easily determine the characteristics of intelligent design (unnecessary complexity isn’t one of them) and living organisms do not exhibit them. Simplicity, not complexity is the hallmark of design. Compare a high performance glider to a bird – the glider is much less complex. Living organisms are massive kluges.
Oh, poor Ryan, he must live in a world without google, or history textbooks. Ryan, seriously, the Nazis were not Darwinists; most were seriously religious, which is why they didn’t like the Jews. Read some books on Hitler, and how much he referenced God in his speeches and writings, read how he thought secular schooling was the worst thing you could do to a society, how he thought religion was the base for morality. You know why they killed the Jews, apparently they thought they killed this guy called Christ. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.
(Bold, mine)
And there’s problem. Why is Ben Stein the expert on Nazism? Why is an ACTOR the voice of authority? Read historians, read holocaust surviors, watch this video to figure out what really drove Hitler–it wasn’t Darwin.
Hitler used the word Darwinism, just like you have, without really understanding it. He took it out of context and used it to empower the antisemitism already available.
Ryan @ #272:
Many, many people of all faiths, including many scientists, have no trouble believing in both modern science and their faith. Don’t continue to conflate atheism and evolution, it makes you look like a hopeless moron. Many of the posters on this board are atheist or agnostic, but not all.
Ryan @ #272:
Not quite.. the current understanding is that mutations create changes in individuals of a species. Weakness or strength doesn’t factor into an individual’s survival, only suitability to the current environment. Some luck also, but luck isn’t a heritable trait.
You’re still conflating evolution and atheism. One’s views on the evolution don’t necessarily have any bearing on their religious/moral/philosophical views. From a strictly materialistic viewpoint: as social animals we wouldn’t still be around if every individual acted with complete disregard for the group.
There are no atheist prophets. I’m free to disbelieve your, and everyone else’s, gods regardless of whether I agree or disagree with Hawkins, Dawkins, Harris, or Hitchens. I don’t have to give a flying fuck what Hawkins has to say about equality, truth, and purpose.
Ryan @ #272:
Equal in what respect? I’m not dissembling or being snarky here. If you mean equal in “worth”, that’s a moral concept that can’t be determined genetically. My personal take is that a person should be judged by his/her actions, not by any biological criteria.
If you’re talking about genetic equality, there is none. Each member of a species has its own distinct genotype. Most people are fit enough to survive in their current environment, and modern technology has given us the ability to ensure that many who wouldn’t be still survive.
Genetically different, by definition, but otherwise equal.
The fuck man? And you’re about to accuse evolutionists as being racist? I’d really like to see which data you think support this, along with a better explanation of how you feel it proves that Africans haven’t contributed to the arts, sciences, and humanities.
Again, back up your assertion about the production of “anything relevant” from the African continent. Any advantage the European slavers (and later colonizers) had was due to better technology, not fitness for survival in any evolutionary sense. I hope I’m not being too subtle when I add that this technological advantage was directly due to an increased emphasis on education and science among the Europeans, at the expense of ignorant obedience to the priests and their stone-age god.
Nope, and fuck you.
No thanks and fuck you.
I believe I’ve adequately explained why your dilemma is stupid, boneheaded, and about as tangible your big daddy up in the clouds. Also, did you really just type “imperial evidence”? That’s the best laugh I’ve had all night!
Ryan, what would happen to you, your social standing, your relationship with family and friends etc, if you should have some similar experience to the one cited below?
“In 1974 I matriculated at Pepperdine University as a born-again Christian who rejected Darwinism and evolutionary theory, not because I knew anything about it (I didn’t) but because I thought that in order to believe in God and accept the Bible as true that you had to be a creationist. What I knew about evolution came primarily from creationist literature, so when I finally took a course in evolutionary theory in graduate school I realized that I had been hoodwinked. What I discovered is a massive amount of evidence from multiple sciences — geology, paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, comparative anatomy, molecular biology, genetics and embryology — demonstrating that evolution happened.” Michael Shermer.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html
Are you actually free to change your view? How much have you got to loose? I know this is one thing that keeps some people from checking out the facts. Being caught actually studying the enemy standpoint could be socially unacceptable… Loosing friends etc is no fun.
“Darwinism is against slavery”
How? You presume morality. A higher moral authority. Where does that come from? Where do right and wrong come from?
If we all came from primordial gue would not our only aim in life be like every other species…survival and reproduction?
In what part of the evolutionary process did love develop? Sadness? Joy? The sense of right and wrong? Why is it acceptable for certain species to eat their own, but is considered “wrong” by humans?
“I can’t know based on my English translation.”
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:20 AM
– Almost there… The answer is that you do not know. Whether that can be remedied by a reading of a different translation or not (something I also doubt) is immaterial – you made a statement that you can’t show support for, therefore you do not know the answer to the question of whether or not that is actually posited in the bible’s text.
“I am not asking that you accept the bible as divine truth, just that it is accurate to its original as it was first penned. Plus the dead sea scrolls preserved a good chunk of several Old Testament books. Our modern day texts are true to those manuscripts, which predate Christ.”
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 2:27 AM
1. Even if you could somehow verify its composition when “it” (a collection of books written across the span of a millenia) was first written, that would still offer no evidentiary value towards its historical accuracy, which has already been discredited – see for yourself the contradictions and inconsitencies laid out verse by verse:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
2. The Dead Sea scrolls did not preserve Old Testament books – it added to the books that were already canon, and in doing so caused a major controversy over their true origins and the manner in which they were hidden. While SOME of the works predate the time of Christ, it is wildly misleading to characterize the entire set of documents that way because the majority of them were written after the time Christ was said to have lived. And our modern day texts are not faithful to the Dead Sea scrolls, because the entirety of this set of documents – by necessity of their being hidden away from the world – was excluded from canon in all three major Abrahamic faiths, aside from the few sections of texts that were copies of then-existing passages. And even just considering our canonical books, both the Catholic Church’s Council of Nicaea of 325 AD (which began the practice in Christianity of bishops determining canon, then selecting which texts fit that canon – this was the method which the Catholic Church used to decide what got into their bible and what did not) and the Anglican Church’s separation from Rome and subsequent publication of the King James Version of the bible, still further pared down to fit someone else’s perception of what should be included or excluded. This is hardly the solid foundation that a historically accurate document – much less “the most historically accurate text ever written…” The claim is simply false.
“At least according the Ben Stein, many Nazis were Darwinist and used that belief system to ride the world of the weak, and exterminate 6 million in the process.”
They should have consulted with Hitler:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
One wonders if some people never ever look over their own fences. They would know to avoid the whole religion is good for morality BS if they knew the actual statistics.
It is a non sequitur to assume a moral authority must be higher.
Morality comes from natural processes. It’s evolutionary benefit is demonstrable.
If you’d like a scientific explanation of just that, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
Ryan, many NAZI’s were Christians, and wore “Gott Mit Uns” on their belts. Google it.
Additionally, they used their interpretation of Christianity to do the horrendous things you accuse “Darwinists” of.
Now no-one is equating Christianity with Nazi philosophies.
It’s prety obvious creationists want to equate Evolution with Nazis. Now why, do you think, would that be?
Just a thought.
But I doubt you will understand it.
Ian – you wrote:
” Yes, it seems that the preponderance of academic opinion is that there was a preacher called Jesus who lived at that time and in that place.
But there are no contemporary references to him. According to the Bible, he was a very prominent figure, yet we have no mention of him from anyone who was alive at the same time – not one.”
If there is an academic consensus on the question, then what it your point? Anyway, there are letters from Pontius Pilot mentioning the man and the trouble he was causing.
Ryan @ 337
From, Hitler & Eugenics
The movie was one Big Lie. Even the newspapers and some Xian organizations got that one right. Ben Stein is a right wing kook liar who wrote speeches for Richard Nixon.
Who killed the Jews? German Xians. Most real historians, Jewish and Xian identify German variety Xianity as one of the main reasons. Martin Luther was a notorious antisemite who advocated the destruction of the Jews 200 years before Darwin was even born. Telling lies repeats nothing. It does prove you are a creationist though. When your world view is a lie, lying just seems normal.
Hey Ryan, actually your bible advocates for slavery; it even lists the prices you should pay for slaves. Heck, you can even sell your daughter as a slave. So, where do you get your morals again?
Brokensolder – you wrote:
“And even just considering our canonical books, both the Catholic Church’s Council of Nicaea of 325 AD (which began the practice in Christianity of bishops determining canon, then selecting which texts fit that canon – this was the method which the Catholic Church used to decide what got into their bible and what did not) and the Anglican Church’s separation from Rome and subsequent publication of the King James Version of the bible, still further pared down to fit someone else’s perception of what should be included or excluded. This is hardly the solid foundation that a historically accurate document – much less “the most historically accurate text ever written…” The claim is simply false.”
Sounds like peer review to me.
@344
You just made that quote up!
Darwin was against slavery.
There is no such thing as Darwinism.
It’s not a religion you know.
The theory of evolution is an idea which was developed by a man named Darwin to explain the natural world.
It’s a good idea because it has proven to have much explanatory power, and has not yet been replaced by a better idea.
APJ – you wrote:
“There is no such thing as Darwinism.”
Richard Dawkins uses the term. What’s up with that?
Ryan @337, Stein’s understanding of history is as poor as his grasp of science.
The big majority of Nazis were Christians. Is it therefore true to say that they used that belief system to rid the world of Christ killers?
Wait. I take that back. That’s exactly what they did do, following the lead of that notorious antisemite Martin Luther.
See where this line of reasoning takes you? Do you really want to go there?
Or would it make more sense to say that the Nazis perverted Christianity as much as they did science?
Raven @352, post 357 was written and posted before I read your comment.
Note to self: REFRESH before commenting.
#344
This should be obvious, but then some people are pretty thick.
In what part of the evolutionary process did love develop? Sadness? Joy? The sense of right and wrong?
Quite a while ago, given that even my dog has those emotions covered.
Why is it acceptable for certain species to eat their own, but is considered “wrong” by humans?
If you hadn’t exiled yourself to the barren moral wasteland known as theism you would know what it means to be human and not asked such a pretentious and silly question.
@ 356
My lack of knowledge of philosophy has let me down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
I don’t like the term. It makes respect for the theory of evolution sound like a personality cult.
from Wikipedia:
Damian – you wrote, quoting Darwin:
“Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”
How can our nature be characterized as noble if there is no free will, as the materialists here would say? Or did he really mean expedient?
Obviously I am out numbered. Further, this discussion has degenerated into name calling. I’m sure you would all like to fire bomb my house.
The truth is I was once an intellectually satisfied atheist. Through most of college, actually. I began reading about science and the bible…astronomy, etc. I concluded there is far more evidence to support creationism and Christianity than Darwinism. I never found a remotely plausible explanation for the origin of life. Micro-evolution of species, of course, but not the origin of life. Although I have not laid out a good argument in support, because I am too tired to page through books, their is massive support for biblical accuracy, inspiration, and revelation. There is significant biblical archaeological evidence especially for the old testament. The book of Acts alone…the five porticoes of the pool of Bethesda by the Sheep Gate (John 5:2), the pool of Siloam (9:1-7), Jacob’s well at Sychar (4:5), Solomon’s porch in the temple precincts (10:22-23) have all been found.
But alas, we all make a choice. Probably the most significant evidence I have found is having witnessed Jesus Christ change lives. Testimony is powerful.
We all make a choice.
Hi Leigh,
You said; “The big majority of Nazis were Christians.”. Could you please provide us with some support of that statement? It is very difficult to reconcile what the Nazis did with the version of Christianity that I am familiar with. When you say that the Nazis perverted Christianity that seems a lot closer to the truth. The Nazis used parts of Christian belief to help them accomplish their immediate goals. This seems to be a normal thing for politicians of all stripes.
And some of us choose to make a choice based on the evidence.
“And ye boors will have only yourselves to blame when scientists are viewed with the same revulsion as the leech-wielding barbers of yesteryear.”
Happily, at such a point, society will have again embraced leech-wielding barbers to mitigate their short, brutish lives. And scientists will only be remembered by the barely literate monks who burned the last books that mentioned them.
Steve “And Homeopathic Chiropractors” James
John said:
Dawkins has admitted recently that he should stop using it. In Britain it is perfectly normal (referring to a particular stance on biological evolution), but since it has been co-opted by creationists and subverted in their attempt to make it sound like a religion, it has been frowned upon in the United States for some time.
Re: #271
Ah yes, ye olde “evolution is racist!!!11eleventy-one” shite.
No, it’s not.
@ Ryan #362
The Da Vinci Code features many real buildings and locations in it’s plot.
It is fiction though.
The Bible features real buildings and locations, but this is not evidence for it’s truth.
You have turned your back on reason for fairy tales, yet you try to reason with those who have not.
You’ve brought a knife to a gunfight.
APJ – you wrote:
“I don’t like the term. It makes respect for the theory of evolution sound like a personality cult.”
I appreciate your retraction, but your initial assertion used to ridicule someone else is typical of both the facts and tone that is too often found here. I really don’t understand why all you smart science-types spend so much time here – is this fun? I find it to be a place not of learning, but of ill will and oneupsmanship.
It does seem to me that many of you enjoy making personal attacks. Greatly appreciated.
I will leave you with this quote from your fallen Poster-Child Anthony Flew. I doubt any of you forget the shock he caused by declaring himself a deist. Not a Christian, but at least admitting the existence of a creator God.
Flew:
“I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
Ryan ejaculated “I’m sure you would all like to fire bomb my house.”
Projection. Along with an over-inflated sense of his own importance.
I am trying so fucking hard to not collect stamps right now…
APJ – you wrote:
“There is no such thing as Darwinism.”
Richard Dawkins uses the term. What’s up with that?
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:12 AM
It’s simple. Darwinism is Charles Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species. Inasmuch as their is no religion set up on Darwin himself, and added to the fact that we have progressed (with the help of his prescient theory) way past Darwin’s time, there is no such thing as institutional Darwinism. As Dawkins used it, it was a term referring exactly and only to the theory of evolution, and definitely not some secular religion. If you don’t believe me, check it out for yourself:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/darwinism
Again, its definition is the same as the definition for the Theory of Evolution, nothing more, and nothing less. If you cannot see that APJ was trying to make the point that there is no such thing as what Darwinism is ACCUSED of being – a “secular religion” bent on dominating science – then you’re just not paying attention. And if you did recognize his aim, then you’re deliberately diverting the argument with meaningless semantics.
Do go easy on poor Ryan.
I pity the guy.
He’s just repeating what he has been told to think. He probably thinks you are doing the same thing. I mean, education is just memorizing the stuff in the textbooks, right? The book is the final arbiter of truth, right? If you want to know the truth, you will have to check in the book, right? So it is essential to have a book you can trust, one with a established reputation, perhaps.
Going out and checking things for yourself and such is risky stuff. Who knows where that may end up?
#363: http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
By the way, to all you Christians/creationists, stop demanding proof from us. I would have way more respect for Christianity, if I actually heard of Christians reading books (besides the bible). Read any book on Egyptian history, and there will be no mention of Jewish slaves or an exodus. In fact the New Kingdom (supposedly the time of the exodus) is one of the times where Egypt was at its most powerful. If you want to disprove evolution, read a book about it. You guys always have the same questions, which have been answered over and over again.
Plus, the gist of your argument is, life is complex, there must be a designer. Well, why the leap to the Christian God? Why not Allah, Vishnu, why not Jainism, why not Zues, why not Odin, why not Buddha, why not Xenu; I could go on and on. When it comes down to it, you all argue for a god of deism; well, fine, leave it at that. Your argument could be used to prove purple space monkeys, God, or Isis. And testimonies are not evidence; I have met very spiritual people, and they have not all been Christian. And everyone of them will say they know because they’ve “felt” fill-in-the-deity, they’ve seen same deity change lives, etc, etc,etc.
#344 posted by Ryan on April 20, 2008 2:55 AM
Who are you quoting here? Was it me? I said:
By the way, slavery predates Darwin. Darwin also spoke against slavery.
#344 posted by Ryan:
The moral authority comes from humans, and human experience, and human civilization. No higher source required. What is it you do not understand. A civilization proceeds based on it’s laws. A civilization will collapse if those laws are poor. It will flourish if they are good. We are raised from birth to follow the laws of our civilization. That is the source of our moral authority.
The US surived quite well until the 1950’s with no “In God We Trust” on the money, and no “Under God” in the pledge of allegience.
#344 posted by Ryan:
It would be had we not developed oversized brains and a sense of consciousness. With a conscience comes a sense of right and wrong.
#344 posted by Ryan:
It is considered wrong by humans because it does not promote an advanced civilization. There is a feed back mechanism in civilization. When we live close to one another, we develop rules to do so. The rules that work tend to improve the civilization. This has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution per se. You need to read the philosophy of ethics and also about how civilizations develop. Get some real education. Of course you probably avoid such courses since they’re called the “Liberal Arts.”
JBS
#368
I will comment shortly. Let me sharpen my knife.
Hitler was a serious christian. He talked about Xianity and Jesus as much as any fundie Death Cultist. Check wikipedia. Read Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler uses the word christian 32 times. Darwin was…. zero.
Read wikipedia. Martin Luther wrote a book advocating a Final Solution to the Jewish problem. Luther hated Jews with a murderous passion. At Nuremberg, many Nazis said they were just carrying out Luther’s plan.
Damian – you wrote”
“Dawkins has admitted recently that he should stop using it. In Britain it is perfectly normal (referring to a particular stance on biological evolution), but since it has been co-opted by creationists and subverted in their attempt to make it sound like a religion, it has been frowned upon in the United States for some time.”
I think the British have it right, but so it goes.
Let me sharpen my knife.
I hear sandpaper works well to sharpen popsicle sticks.
@ John #369
I’ve spent my whole life learning. I learn something new every day. I come here because I like the attitude of the posters here. Sometimes I learn something (as did re: Darwinism), sometimes I don’t. But I do like the tone here.
You don’t like the tone?
I have a suggestion for you then.
Care to guess what it might be?
In my opinion, although Mismeasure of Man* is a pretty good source, Not In Our Genes is problematic for a number of reasons. (I won’t go into detail here. But check out Dawkins’ review, which is on the internet somewhere.) I have my own disagreements with Dawkins, but I think it’s a little funny that an anti-Expelled website would recommend a polemical attack on Dawkins and allies as a corrective for a polemical attack on Dawkins and allies.
*One of the ideas from that era that Gould preserves is the now-discredited neoteny theory of human evolution.
Furthermore, it is close to the naturalistic fallacy to suggest that opposition to eugenics requires opposition to sociobiology (evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, whatever) or extreme skepticism of behavioral genetics. I see the logical connection between genetic determinism and eugenics, but it’s not a binding one. One could believe that behavioral and psychological propensities are highly genetically influenced and still be an anti-eugenicist. And one could believe that the genetic inheritance of personality and mental differences is fairly weak and favor eugenic public policies.
I recommend the chapter by Diane B Paul (mentioned above) in The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, ‘Darwinism, social darwinism, and eugenics,’ which presents a complex picture of the ideas of the era.
Dawkins’ fondness for the term “Darwinism”: OK, Dawkins, we get it – selection is a powerful algorithm, etc. But enough already.
Holy hell, this thread is like a flash-bang grenade of stupidity.
Guys, it’s like arguing with a woodchuck. You can explain whatever you want to it, but there’s no way it’ll understand anything you’re saying.
Sounds like peer review to me.
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:09 AM
It is, and it is exactly how the church decided what would go into the bible and what would ultimately be left out.
Raven, are you really quoting wikipedia as a reliable source? Really?
Sabrina – you wrote:
“Plus, the gist of your argument is, life is complex, there must be a designer. Well, why the leap to the Christian God? Why not Allah, Vishnu, why not Jainism, why not Zues, why not Odin, why not Buddha, why not Xenu; I could go on and on.”
It doesn’t have to be the Christian God. Call it the First Cause or the Universal Mind, if you want. One step at a time.
@ Ryan:
Remember you came here. Also your arguments have been debated here time after time, and ripped to shreds every time. Many of the commentors here are professional scientists / professors who’s lively hoods require them to really know the material inside and out.
To this I can promise you not one single person here would want to cause you one instant of harm to your person or property. Unfortunately there are a large number of very religious people who do not feel the same way. Ask any atheist or science blogger just how many pieces of hate mail / death threats / shouts of glee for burning in hell, these commentors receive. Now tell us who as the better moral code?
JBS #344
Heard those all before. Overly simplistic is being too kind.
Brokensolder said:
“It is, and it is exactly how the church decided what would go into the bible and what would ultimately be left out.”
Yes, I got that point, but you missed mine.
I find it to be a place not of learning, but of ill will and oneupsmanship.
Why do you stop by, then? Don’t you have free will?
I always love this particular line from trolls. They come to a web site and whine, “This place is boring. You people are mean. Don’t you have lives? Why are you here on Saturday night?” And yet, troll in question is here, spouting nonsense, on a Saturday night himself. Again, it is shown that by their projection you shall know them.
@ Ryan:
I don’t want to fire bomb your house. There seems to be a serious misconception that scientists and people who choose not to believe in the myth of God are somehow angry at God. Nothing could be further from the truth.
However, we do take issue when people from whatever cult or religion want to turn back the progress that humanity has made over the years in favor of a 13th century education.
Raven, are you really quoting wikipedia as a reliable source? Really?
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 3:37 AM
Nope, I’d say Wiki’s just the quick source at hand, but I bet if you’d read Mein Kampf, you’d realize that the info on the Wikipedia ppage about Hitler and his religion is extremely reliable…because it came – in great part – from Hitler’s own hand IN Mein Kampf.
You made a choice to be stupid and evil because of Jesus? What was the point of that? It’s OK, we see that every day. BTW, most Xian sects are OK with evolution and science, Catholic, Protestant, many Evangelicals, Mormom. You don’t have to spout lies about science and reality to be a Xian. You don’t even have to be stupid and murderous. Even the Pope says this.
Roughly 40% of all scientists in the USA including some prominent evolutionary biologists identify themselves as….Xian. Evolution is taught at most large Xian universities, BYU, Notre Dame, Texas Xian, Baylor, Calvin, Pacific Lutheran, and so on. Your fundie Death Cult version is just a twisted perversion of the religion that found Jesus,…..and kicked him out, as far as they could.
John said:
Ever heard of anthropomorphizing?
Anyway, I doubt that anyone here would suggest that there is no free will. Just a little less than was once thought, that’s all.
gleaner63 said:
From The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945:
“A number of studies have examined the relationship between Nazism and the German Christian churches (most notably Klaus Scholder’s well-known The Churches and the Third Reich). There are, of course, also studies of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth and others that explore the relationship between the Reich and the church in terms of the Christian protest against Nazism. Steigmann-Gall, a history professor at Kent State, adds a new chapter to the story by investigating the way that Christianity functioned within the Nazi party itself. Using party pamphlets and writings of key members, he demonstrates that as early as 1920 the group declared that it represented the standpoint of a positive Christianity, which provided the tenets of its anti-Semitic and antimaterialist stance. Many of the Nazi elite believed that their own party doctrine and Christianity shared common themes such as the opposition of good against evil, God against the devil and the struggle for national salvation from the Jews and Marxism. This positive Christianity enfolded both Catholicism and Protestantism, for the Nazis believed that confessional disunity presented the greatest challenge to national unity. Steigmann-Gall examines the leaders of the party and shows how many of them contributed to the view of an intimate relationship between Nazism and Christianity. He also explores how the Nazis identified the Jews with the Devil and believed that God would liberate them from this evil.”
Also, The Christianity of Hitler revealed in his speeches and proclamations
Ryan @ somewhere:
Here we go with the persecution complex yet again. Yawn. And what’s with thinking we’d want to firebomb your house? We’re adults here, we can disagree without violence.. Of course you christers have a a long history of doing violence to those who don’t believe, so I can kind of see where you’re coming from.
Also, who called you names? I said “fuck you” in direct response to you trying to call all evolutionists racist. I feel rather justified in that, though.
How many times do we have to hear this? Out of perhaps 50 times I’ve read this in the past month, I’ve not once been convinced. While you may be sincere, I very much doubt that everyone who has used that line recently is. Many are probably lying for Jesus, hoping they can convert us with their testimonies.
Raven,
You state; “Hitler was a serious Christian”. “He used the word Christian 32 times…[in Mein Kampf}”. Raven, anyone can claim anything and that doesn’t make it so. For example, what if I told you I was chairman of the history department at Harvard, would you believe me? I’d think you’d want to check out the facts first. Likewise, merely using the term Christian in a book doesn’t make one a Christian. The validity of anyone’s claims to being a Christian rest almost exclusively on how they live their lives in accordance with what Jesus taught. Condemning entire populations of people to death *isn’t* Christian. I am almost 100% positive that everyone involved in this discussion would agree that there is a wide gulf between what people claim and what they actually *are*. Again, look at the average American politician. They are all things to all people. Hillary says shes is an evangelical Christian…next week she’s at a gay pride parade, favors abortion on demand…
#387
I am saddened by religious people claiming to be followers of Christ yet acting in hateful ways. Proclaiming Christ but not following His ways brings my faith a bad Name.
Back to science…when I look at DNA and the many machines functioning inside a cell ie flagler modem I see Design. Just like I do when I look at a skyscraper. This is a very broad statement, especially for this blog. How do you not see design?
Ask any atheist or science blogger just how many pieces of hate mail / death threats / shouts of glee for burning in hell, these commentors receive. Now tell us who as the better moral code?
Yes, and the providers of women’s health care who have been shot, or had their clinic bombed, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Fundies are dangerous, scary people.
Ryan thinks we’d like to firebomb his house. Again with the projection.
@Ryan #397
News Flash: We’re not buildings.
#388 Ryan | April 20, 2008 3:41 AM
Well, wasn’t that a scathing and erudite rebuttal! Perhaps you think that hurts me somehow.
I was simplistic so that you, or someone like you, might understand. If you’ve heard them before, then perhaps you are thicker than I thought and need real help. I might have mentioned you’ll get out of this exactly as much as you take. You obviously aren’t taking.
What exactly is it about the Theory of Evolution you don’t find compelling?
That it provides an excellent model from which to build our understanding?
That it ties so well with all the other branches of science?
That you’ve been lied to time and time again by theologians?
JBS
“Condemning entire populations of people to death *isn’t* Christian.”
Pope Whatshisface (paraphrase): “Kill them all; God will know his own.”
(Don’t tell me that you’re one of those “Catholics aren’t really Christians” Christians.)
You’re confusing a descriptive (historical, sociological, etc) definition of Christianity from your particular prescriptive definition of Christianity. (Razib would probably explain it more elegantly.) As for theology, we all know that can be interpreted any which way. Kind of like Darwinism.
“Raven, are you really quoting wikipedia as a reliable source? Really?”
Wikipedia by itself is not reliable, but if you had spent any significant amount of time there, you would have noticed that many articles have this section called “references” which point you to other reading material that provides more in-depth information about the topic in discussion, so you don’t have to take Wikipedia’s words at face value.
But then again, I probably shouldn’t assume that you’re capable of independent confirmation of facts.
Brokensolder said:
“If you cannot see that APJ was trying to make the point that there is no such thing as what Darwinism is ACCUSED of being – a “secular religion” bent on dominating science – then you’re just not paying attention. And if you did recognize his aim, then you’re deliberately diverting the argument with meaningless semantics.”
APJ has already acknowledged the misstatement, but thanks for your help.
Yes, I got that point, but you missed mine.
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:41 AM
No, no I gotcha on the peer review joke– It’s so late that I’m just kind of…glazed. (My apologies!) It was a nice zinger, and being a former Catholic, I do enjoy the humor they draw.
“Why is it acceptable for certain species to eat their own, but is considered “wrong” by humans? ”
It isn’t considered wrong by all humans, although most of the societies with that opinion have not done well of late…which is a telling point.
There is, for instance, the fact that consumption of human meat carries a high risk of infection unless very well cooked. You get what the meat died of. This is unlikely to have escaped the early ancestors who promulgated the prohibition. Ergo, ‘wrong.’ Some societies have similar issues with pork, for similar reasons.
Steve “It’s hard to get a pig well done over a camel dung fire. Let alone long pig.” James
@Ryan #397
I assume you’re referring to the “flagellar motor.” I assume you must be familiar with the ins and outs of the Dover case.
This is yet another anemic ID argument that’s been completely refuted.
Do your research.
Autumn care if I join you in not collecting stamps?
/lurking device reactivated
WooHoo, the they’re not REAL christians argument. My favorite!!
Oh dear. If only time zones permitted a poor Englishman to take part in this discussion in real time.
Christians who deny evolution are weak in their faith. I pity them. Not only are they in the clutches of the church but fail to measure up to its standards. No wonder they lash out at those things that might make them question their faith.
I call Loudon is a Fool a parodist. Surely no real god-botherer would project so much.
However, I’m skeptic enough to at least consider the possibility that Loudon is for real. I am constantly surprised by the monstrousness of a faith that can preach peace in one breath and, as Blake Stacey chronicles, threaten people’s lives in the next.
So for the benefit of godly who might be nodding in time to Loudon’s beats, let’s begin with this: I don’t hate any god. They do not exist, so there is nothing to hate. However, I distrust and sometimes fear the godly, for they live in error, their morals distorted by their faith. History has shown them to be prepared to kill over small matters of doctrine, over such trivialities as altar rails and priestly garments. So I have every fear that if unleashed they will prove to be less kind to us godless.
We reject the label because it is manifest nonsense. We have weighed the evidence and determined that the universe can exist without need of a creator and until evidence appears otherwise we will assume the truth of this. This is the proper product of inquiry. There can be no dogma because this is a conclusion, not an assertion of doctrine that we force upon pain of Perdition everyone to accept.
Most (not all, but most) atheists reach their position through a journey of inquiry. There is no atheist creed that we follow, no dogma handed to us by priests. Indeed, quite a few of us have escaped the dead hand of the church to be where we are, so we are well placed to distinguish between skepticism and dogma.
Argument from popularity is a laughable fallacy. By that reasoning you will have an issue with those who believe in UFOs, because the last Fox survey I saw on the matter put the number of Americans who believe in UFOs in the 30-something percentile. Which suggests that many of your Christers also believe in extraterrestrials.
Excuse me while I move to the back of the bus to avoid both.
Surely this is evidence for Loudon-the-parodist? Or does he really hate scientists with the peurile glee of the sports jock who loves to beat up on the nerds? I vote for the former. But I’ll lay odds that at least one of the godly read this and nodded his agreement.
#398
Candy, again, refer to my above statement. And I can assure you I am not a “dangerous, scary person.” And since you just had to venture into the “A” word debate (I assumed that would be off limits here) I must ask you just how many “fundie” attacks there have been on such facilities? Less than a handful in 30 years? Doesn’t really compare to the killing off of an entire generation does it? We have our own Dachau’s in this country. The Nazi’s would be proud. 42 million abortions and counting.
Ryan the troll, I quoted wikipedia, Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and Martin Luthers book “On the Jews and their Lies”, where he advocates destroying them.
You are boring, just repeating your cult lies. Try something new. What was it about Jesus Christ that made you decide to become stupid, evil, and ignorant and lie a lot. Or were you always this way and just gravitated to a malevolent religious cult with evil people?
Of course. It’s not like there was ever any god-sanctioned genocide in the bible…
#396
“Condemning entire populations of people to death *isn’t* Christian.”
Maybe you should look up this book called “The Bible” that Christians are so fond of talking about.
“This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ ”
1 Samuel 15:2-3
Damian said:
“Anyway, I doubt that anyone here would suggest that there is no free will. Just a little less than was once thought, that’s all.”
Well that’s good to know and not wanting to drift off topic too much, but its really a qualitative, not a quantitative, question.
@Ryan #398:
The assertion that Darwin’s theory is even remotely connected to the Holocaust is absurd. If anything, Christianity is the supreme offender for how it has been used by many to slaughter whole populations throughout the centuries.
APJ has already acknowledged the misstatement, but thanks for your help.
Posted by: John | April 20, 2008 3:52 AM
I saw no such admission – only a statement that he doesn’t like the term. All APJ did was give the same definition I offered.
If you’re going to cut and paste quotes, I’d at least request that you make sure that posters’ names are spelled correctly.
@Raven #396:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_crusades
John in #394,
Thanks for the reference. As a lay-historian, of course I am aware that Hilter and his followers had many “ties” to Christianity. The question then becomes at what point do you believe what someone claims and what they actually do? To use a modern example, I have known men who abuse their wives but claim also to love them. How is that possible? I would say it is not. At some point you would have to say to the abuser; “I don’t believe you. You *say* one thing and yet you *do* something else…”. There is a disconnect somewhere here. Or what I heard someone call mental gymnastics. To a rational person with no axe to grind, Hitler and his followers were at best delusional, at worst monsters. Perhaps that’s what the Bible meant about “wolves in sheeps clothing”. In a nutshell, not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian…
#399
You’re right Alex, we are not buildings. We are far more complex. Care to explain how unintelligent sources lead to information and DNA?
And now we have veered from a thoughtful, intellectual debate about evolution (I’m sort of missing William Paley) to fundie-crazy land. We now have the “they’re not real Christians argument”, the “abortion is a holocaust argument”, “atheists have no morals argument”, etc. By the way, Ryan the Racist, abortion is a woman’s right issue, and I can see how that contrasts with the biblical view of womanhood, you know, how we have to right to breed, birth, and breastfeed. By the way, did you know that making abortions illegal does not lower the abortion rate, did you know in countries where abortion is illegal women are three times more likely to die in childbirth, or from pregnancy related disorders. Or do you not really fucking care?
/delurks
Ryan at #410
And yet…. most of the women who received abortions are christians. (waits for the “But they weren’t REAL Christians)
Don’t you just HATE it when reality reaches up and bitch slaps you?
/lurking device activated.
“The Nazi’s would be proud. 42 million abortions and counting.”
Wow! That’s seven times the toll of murdered Jews by the Nazis! Of course, each aborted fetus is morally equivalent to a murdered Jewish man, woman, or child.
But God did both the Nazis and the American abortuaries one better, Ryan. The Darwinonazis merely killed the Jews. But God, in His wisdom, made them burn in Hell, in agony, forever.
Or did He?
If He did, then such a monstrously evil entity is not worthy of worship – no matter how powerful He is.
If He did not, then salvation by confessing that Jesus is Lord is false, and hence Christianity (as defined by certain fundamentalist sects) is false.
So which is it, Ryan – did God make the murdered Holocaust Jews burn eternally, or not?
Raven, are you really quoting wikipedia as a reliable source? Really?
Wikipedia IS a pretty reliable source, actually, it measures up quite nicely to “real” encyclopedias, but in the sense Raven used it, that is more or less irrelevant. These are widely known facts, uncontroversial bits of information that could be found anywhere.
Case in point, read Luthers “On the Jews and their Lies”:
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
There is a huge volume of this on the web. Use Google. Someone put Mein Kampf through a search program and Xian came up 32 times. Darwin was zero. In other words, they counted the words. You are simply lying to escape a fact.
There are pages and pages of Hitler quotes about his xian faith. BTW, you are also using the No True Scotman fallacy. No true Xian would lie either, would they. Therefore you are not a Xian either. Read the quote below, Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf. There are many more, all saying the same thing. Hitler was a serious, devout Xian who used the religion to kill 6 million Jews.
#411 Raven.
Wow, that is some serious hatred. How does following Jesus make me evil?
@Ryan #399:
Honestly, Ryan, there’s no point. You’ve made up your mind to reject the scientific method. You know that. We know that. This conversation is utterly pointless, but fun in its own way. But sure, I’ll humor you. Even though the answer is resoundingly obvious: Evolution.
Of course, we’re sort of going into a nebulous zone here – if you’re asking me how the universe began, no one knows. If you’re asking how humans developed, I’d start with Darwin.
We have our own Dachau’s in this country. The Nazi’s would be proud. 42 million abortions and counting.
Not at all proud. Anyone caught aborting Aryan babies would have been killed. More soldiers to wear Gott Mit Uns on their belt buckles.
#410
Your claim is ridiculous, unless you polled 40,000,000 women. Please state your source.
Gleaner63, there is NO consensus among Christians on what a Christian is, as far as I can see. All of your sects have different ideas on that score. Some say it’s a sin if you love someone of the same sex, others are marrying gay couples in their churches,with full rites. Some say you shouldn’t celebrate any holidays, some are all about holidays. Some say animals aren’t ensouled, others say variations of “all dogs go to heaven.” Some say a woman should submit to her husband – including getting smacked around, apparently – others say it’s a sin. The bibble says you should stone errant rug rats, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t go for that. So until and unless there is some definitive idea of what a True Christian believes, that all the Christians agree upon, I imagine that you just have to take someone’s word for it when they say they’re a Christian.
Louden and Ryan are pulling your collective chain – no one that stupid would write that much here… (and gleaner, too – see sabrina’s exasperation with the “they’re not real Christians argument.” – gleaner’s right and Hitler was wrong – tell that to a few million Germans in 1939).
Before launching into a defense of evolution against creationists, isn’t it fair to let them show (prove is probably too strong a word) why their god should be the creator? For example, Muslims say “There is no God except Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
If the creationists don’t think Allah is the creator can they show which god is the creator before they ask scientists to disprove a creator? Which creator are they expecting to be disproved? If they say, sure, it’s Allah, (not likely) then what about Brahma? Going to Odin or Zeus might be a little too offensive (ok, nothings really too offensive), but there sure are a lot of Hindus. (And where, exactly, does the book of Mormon fit in? Christian? And must we talk about Thetans?)
Shouldn’t creationists at least be required to slam the other myths before expecting a response from science?
So if you guys aren’t simply pulling chains here, why Allah (the Abrahamic god) and not Brahma?
Sorry, but I must add…. He’s an intellectually satisfied atheist? How many of the posters here are intellectually satisfied, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh? So it was good for you?
Wow, that is some serious hatred. How does following Jesus make me evil?
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 4:09 AM
Following Jesus doesn’t make you evil. The racist, anti-semitic, and hateful tones in your posts are what causes people to draw that conclusion about you.
#421 Posted by: Mercurious|April 20, 2008 4:05 AM
You know, if they’re going to keep using the “They weren’t REAL Christians” maybe we should start using “They weren’t REAL Darwinists.” It’d make just as much sense. And just as little.
The fact is, whether Hitler was Christian or no, most of his troops and staff were and thought he was. What they used from Darwin was as poorly mangled as their understanding of Christianity (Unless the Christians start claiming he was a good Christian). Luther might have been right about “Indulgences” – but he was wrong about the Jewish people and especially the solution he proposed.
JBS
#410
We have a trick for that where I live. We tell kids before their teens how procreation works, turns out that helps bring down unwanted teen pregnancies and abortions. I suppose this is a hard deal for the moral theists, either tell your kids how their bodies work, or endure the abortions and teen pregnancies if you don’t. Wow, such a moral dilemma…
The biggest source of abortions can’t really be stopped I’m afraid. It seems your god is intent on killing a hefty percentage of all babies developing in their mothers womb.
Got me. If I knew the answer to the question, I wouldn’t have asked it. You aren’t going to answer it either, probably because you don’t know or care.
My best guess is that you aren’t a Xian, know nothing about the religion and could care less. Just a bored teen ager trolling the internet to waste a few hours.
…you mean, how do I not classify a cell as a “designed thing”?
Uh, I can’t exactly get into specifics of neurochemistry at this point, or specifics of psychology, but I’d recommend Eleanor Rosch’s paper “Basic Objects in Natural Categories” and its associated references, particularly earlier works by Rosch, for the phenomenon of object classification by humans.
When you see a skyscraper, you classify it as a building, because you have learned that a skyscraper is a building. And you know that all buildings were designed, because you have also learned this. Therefore, you classify a skyscraper as a thing that is designed.
One of the prime determiners of classification, particularly classification of largely unfamiliar objects, are the physical features of the classified objects. Because the elements inside the cell appear similar, or can be drawn similarly, to other objects which you know have been designed, the simple assumption you make is that these unfamiliar objects are in the same category and share the same fundamental characteristics.
But bats and birds both have wings and fly, and yet I think you will agree with me that bats are not birds – they bear live young instead of laying eggs, for instance, and this is a more relevant indicator of whether something is a bird than whether or not it can fly.
You “see design” in the cell because you’re looking at it through naive, general-purpose perceptual filters. People who study the cell and know that its workings are much less deterministic and fine-tuned than the diagrams and 3D models make them out to be don’t draw these shallow parallels between the structures in the cell and human machines. Put another way, you are doing the best you can with the information that you have available right now.
My advice? Find more information. You can start by looking up some talks by Ken Miller, on YouTube or elsewhere.
brokensoldier said:
“I saw no such admission – only a statement that he doesn’t like the term. All APJ did was give the same definition I offered.”
Well he didn’t use the word “admission.” Good catch.
Raven,
Why the need to call me names? Have I called you a name? I think I’ve been very respectful of you. However, the key point of my post was not answered. To put it another way; is the only evidence you need for one’s christianity is a claim in writing to make it so? What other claims on any subject would you accept on this sole basis? I cannot accept Hiler’s *mere words* as proof that he was a Christian. I am sorry but I require more proof than that.
Let’s agree to disagree but let’s be civil about it. I bet that if we do that we’ll find some common ground somewhere. What say you?
John @ #418
Our best historical guide to a person’s motivations will always be what they said, both in public and in private.
Christianity was one element only of Hitler’s fucked-up witches’ brew of a belief system, but it definitely played a part. One thing he definitely was against was the theory of evolution. The Nazis banned Darwin’s books. He also couldn’t have risen to power without an overt belief in Christianity. Most of the Nazis doing the killing were Christians also.
Of course you’re going to say that none of them were “True Christians” either.. they certainly believed themselves to be. Who gets to be the arbiter for these disputes about who the True Christians are?
Colugo:
to be fair that was not a pope but a papal legate who gave the kill them all speech and it is contested.
His claim (in the report back) was they were trying to sort out the good (eg catholics) from the bad (the cathars) when the crusaders got bored and killed everyone.
i find the albigensian crusade one of the more charming ones, it really puts an edge on that “no true christian” approach.
As much as I’d like to continue this circus, it’s obscenely late here.
Ryan, I don’t know what time zone you’re in, but if you’re in the US, shouldn’t you be in bed by now? Don’t you have to gather in some building to practice your tribal rituals in a few hours?
Back to science…when I look at DNA and the many machines functioning inside a cell ie flagler modem I see Design. Just like I do when I look at a skyscraper. This is a very broad statement, especially for this blog. How do you not see design?
Posted by: Ryan | April 20, 2008 3:48 AM
It doesn’t even seem as if he was TRYING to make sense here. Using completely incorrect words, a faulty comprehension of science, sentence fragments, and run-on sentences all inside a three-line post is definitely a feat.
RyanThe Nazi’s would be proud. 42 million abortions and counting.
We can’t even hold a candle to God or Nature or whatever as abortionists. Depending on the source, somewhere between 30 and 70% of all zygotes end up spontaneously aborted.
Many of these spontaneous abortions occur because of the failure of that “well-designed” genetic machinery. Not exactly good evidence for omnipotent powers of design.
#437: So, if someone says they’re a Christian, promotes Christianity, kills Jews because of Christianity (the whole Christ killer thing), bans Darwinism because of Christianity, wants Christianity to be the moral base of his country, he is not a Christian. Oh. Hmmm. Wow, can’t argue that.
gleaner63 @ 418
That was me.
I certainly don’t mean to disagree with you, as Hitler used all manner of things in his attempt to rationalize what he did, but that is known as the No true Scotsman fallacy.
How do you differentiate between a real Christian and not? At which point is the cut-off? And who are you dumping these evil people on if they can no longer be thought of as Christians? :)
I agree with you, however. I certainly don’t see Hitler as a reflection of Christianity.
I find this to be a common trait amongst Christians. There is a long list of the dead at the hands of Christians who say one thing and yet do another. In my country men were killed because they believed there should be altar rails in churches and priests should wear vestments. Archbishop Laud was executed for this belief.
Gleaner, the problem you have in advocating that these were ‘not true Christians’ is that this does seem to be a pathology of Christianity. It is the mode of behaviour and not a rare exception. Furthermore, it makes you the arbiter of who are godly and who are not, an error of the exact same kind that led to the death of Laud and many others like him.
That you might not take up arms is not the point. There are many who will on your behalf.
So what sect is the TRUE Christian sect?
#434
Raven, I shouldn’t let you get to me because obviously something has happened to you or someone has hurt you to harbor such venom toward someone you do not know. But you have.
I am not a teenager. I am a 32 year old attorney in Chicago. I am not a scientist and am obviously out of my league. But I am well read, far more than most.
Raven, you confirm my view of the angry liberal atheist feminist that protests any and every chance you can get.
Take a deep breath.
#438 Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 4:19 AM:
Therein lies the crux of the matter. The members of the KKK probably consider themselves true Christians. The polygamists in the recent Texas raid probably consider themselves true Christians. It is entirely possible that Hitler thought he was a true Christian (although it is also quite possible it was a shrewd political ploy – we may never be certain).
We only have your word against theirs. Who are we to believe? And what arbiter do we engage to make that determination. Understand that some Christians that do not believe in celebrating holidays (Holy or otherwise) consider any Christians that do to be deluded and in serious spiritual trouble – and might not consider you a true Christian if you do. You certainly won’t be part of the Rapture.
JBS
oops, I guess that should be the true CHURCH… there’s only ONE of them!!!
Sorry pcarini – I didn’t mean to point that at you when I said “you” in my second paragraph … LOL
JBS
Hi pcarini in #418,
You make at least two excellent points; “They certainly believed themselves to be so (Christians).” I have no doubt of that. As I am sure you will agree and have had the experience, people believe and claim *all* types of things, from alien abductions to ESP. Your second statement “Who gets to be the arbiter for these disputes about who the True Christians are?” is an excellent question. As far as I understand it, the only reliable information about what Jesus taught is contained in the New Testament. I would say that would be a good place to start. ALthough I don’t remember the verse, there is something about knowing Christians by their “fruits”, and a definition of what that fruit was; which was certainly not what Hitler did.
In a way, we deal with this sort of problem everyday, what people say, what they do, and their justification for it…
It’s natural to see design, but it’s possible to do so without inferring a designer. Not only is it possible, parsimony demands it.
Several months ago, on a thread here, I posted the following:
I proceeded to propose an admittedly flawed alternate analogy for evolution (involving the course of a river and how its path was determined by factors in the environment of which the river was a part) from which any suggestion of design was conspicuously absent. The venerable truth machine [no caps!] responded thus:
This comment (quoted without permission of the author, *cringe*) concisely addresses the apparent-design question. Thanks, t.m., wherever you are.
“Embrace the designedness!”
(That was for Ryan’s question @ #397)
“JBS, I’m actually quite satisfied with my own genetic complexity. I give god a B+
Posted by: Amplexus | April 19, 2008 10:59 PM ”
I’ve skipped all the subsequent posts, so if others have said this, I haven’t read it yet: I have to say that this post was the single funniest thing I’ve ever read. Amplexus, I am in your debt.
Thanks for the historical correction, kevinj.
Good point on spontaneous abortions, natural cynic.
pcarini” “One thing he definitely was against was the theory of evolution.”
Let me gently dissuade you from that approach. To be sure, the Nazis were generally opposed to Darwinism’s lack of teleology and materialism. (That’s right; they were pro-teleology and opposed to materialism – is that more like creationists, or more like atheist evolutionists?) But the larger context of the relationship between evolution (not synonymous with Darwinism – there were non- and anti-Darwinian evolutionists) and Nazi ideology is more complex. Some commenters have made statements that are oversimplifying inverses of the creationist’s false claims.
Errrr, gleaner. Does this ring any bells?:
*hint* *hint*
Colugo, you don’t think most of the Nazis thought god was with them? Not only in eliminating the Jews but the entire “race war” that was WWII from the Nazi perspective?
Ryan @ #428
The orignal study was done by Center for Reason. It appears the site is gone now, but I did find a few links to the report with some quotes here.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/christianity_abortion.html
Now that my anti stamp-collector ideology has been firmly established, i will retreat and give it my best shot at not collecting stamps thus far.
You are right, they don’t compare. Not at all. Because they are not remotely comparable. In the Holocaust, a storm of bigotry and hatred, fed by Christian prejudice amongst other things, led to the extermination of a population of adults and children for reasons of religion, homosexuality and race.
This does not compare with early-term abortion, in which there is no bigotry or hatred. Indeed you are more likely to find love in there somewhere. So the best you can do is contrast them. You can contrast a monstrous hate-driven crime with a minor tragedy in which people, often in straightened circumstances (such as myself and my wife, who had to make just such a decision) decide to reject an embryo while it is still an unformed mass of cells. Aborting an unviable embryo has no parallel with killing a living, breathing human being. And as the Guttmacher Institute figures show, such decisions are, for the most part, made responsibly and with no hatred.
To say otherwise is sick and to my mind immoral. It would suggest I and my wife are butchering murderers and I reject that allegation. I regard people who state such things to be hateful scum.
angry liberal atheist feminist
Yes, Raven, why so angry? He’s only insinuated that you have no morals, women who get abortions are like Nazi’s, Darwinism led to the holocaust, blacks have contributed nothing to the world, and that you want to firebomb his house. You crazy, angry feminist…why don’t you go find a nice man that will have you, stop all your book learning, and start making babies. Does that about cover it, Ryan? Did I leave anything out?
By the way, you are top notch in my book, Raven:)
Damian. Pcarni, John and others in this thread (getting late hard to keep up with all the posts!.)
It seems we’ve perhaps drawn these questions doqn to a basic few. In this case, who decides who is a Christian and who is not? Ryan, in this thread would probably be able to shed light on this better than I, but I used to work in the deed and plat room in the county court house. Although I have no legal training whatsoever, I became somewhat familiar with certain court procedures. One was that South Carolina had a “rules of evidence” book of what could be introduced in a SC court of law and what could not. I am not sure, but I don’t every state uses the same book. In a similar fashion, the same applies to Christianity as to what source we should use to decide thses things. A good modern example might be a 2nd ammendment case which has just been argued in the US Supreme Court. I am sure, since we know who wrote the second Ammendment and the underpinnings (English common law?), both sides will go to great lengths to use this as evidence. Anyway, I think that has been a worthwhile thread…
-Clarence
Unfortunately for you, almost all sectaries claim biblical authority. The puritans and independent sectaries who conspired to have Archbishop Laud slain in 1645 had the exact same justification for their actions–that they were reforming the church from error and returning it to its purest essence, to the state described in the bible. And they had plenty of scripture to justify their use of the sword in doing so.
Religious belief being a personal thing, it seems like an impossibility task to determine someone’s “actual” belief. Anybody could put up a false appearance, and as long as they seemed sincere who’s to know?
Since somebody could lie to me about loving Christ as easily as they could lie about loving Barry Manilow I have to forgo trying to find objective truth and take them at their word.
gleaner63 @ #451
Matthew 7:20: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
I don’t think that one line gives Christians the freedom to disown anybody that does anything horrible in Jesus’ name. Hell many sects believe that accepting Christ is all that is needed for their eternal reward, regardless of what atrocities they commit. At no point in the bible does it say “If they bear bad fruits than they totally aren’t True Christians.”
More like the thread has been hijacked. But as a willing conspirator in this maybe I should not protest too much.
Your law analogy is opaque and nonsensical to me. I would still like a clear explanation of who is a true Christian or not, when almost all godly zealots claim and quote biblical authority and scripture for their heinous actions.
“Colugo, you don’t think most of the Nazis thought god was with them? Not only in eliminating the Jews but the entire “race war” that was WWII from the Nazi perspective?”
Absolutely, the majority thought God (however they viewed God) was with them, whether they were followers of Positive Christianity – a very weird variant of Christianity – for much of the Nazi elite and traditional Christian antisemitism for most of the lower level Nazis. I’m just saying that this is complicated; Nazism was a very syncretic ideology and its genocidal impulses had multiple motivations and rationales which were not at all mutually exclusive.
Roger Griffin on Nazism: “an alliance of unique blends of nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Marxist socialism, technocratic and anti-urban thought harnessed to a vision of national palingenesis within a new order.” Modernism and Fascism, 2007, p 275.
Evolution is meaningless. The really cool stuff is in
Quantum Physics.
The Double Slit experiment is awesome. Who would have thought that the entire experiment would change in realtime only due to observation. They have tried every way to observe and it does change the outcome when nothing else has changed. Sounds like some intelligence there on some level at least. That will be of course denied by our Atheists friends and all kinds of damage control coming up.
Evolution is crap, you can’t observe it. With QM you can observe it and it is in the here and now. Not yesterday’s news but today’s and you can actually move forward with this. How can we move forward when we are stick stuck in reverse with Evolution.
Well, I suppose at least Atheists can get a job with evolution looking at million year old fossils while what I put above can change the entire planet.
I agree with Colugo. Extreme nationalism, as well as religion, played a part, along with centuries old anti-semitism, racism, plus a crumbling economy and loss of world status. At the time, Germany was the loser in the first world war, and had to pay huge repartions to the French as well as others. It was easy to play on people’s baser instincts, as well as the “glory of Germany”, to have them becoming willing participants in atrocities.
I don’t think anyone here is really disagreeing with your assessment, Colugo. I think what they’re objecting to is that Charles Darwin had anything to do with it. It over simplifies the complex emotions and politics that were going on at the time, and uses the lives of millions of Jews as a pawn in their ideological game. Thats what we here have a problem with.
Thank God Planet Killer has finally arrived to bring some rationality to the discussion.
What’s most irritating about trying to tie Darwin to Hitler is that the people doing it want to hide the fact that god was with the Nazis and Luther was clearly more of a direct influence on the Nazis than Darwin could have been.
Christianity, no matter how you write it, had more influence on the Nazis – especially their shock troops – than any of the other items pointed to above. It was only their destiny because god was with them… they were good Christians until they lost the war and the Allies got to write the history…
#466 Planet Killer | April 20, 2008 5:04 AM
PK, do you even understand yourself? You misunderstand QM. Most people do. The Double Slit proves that the method of the experiment matters, not the mind of the observer. One would think you buy into that Ramtha garbage.
And the double slit experiment most certainly is yesterday’s news, too. At least I’ve known about it for a while. And yes, it is muy frio.
JBS
Lee Brimmicombe-Wood at #464;
You stated “your law anology …is nonsensical”. When I was majoring in history a student once stated; “…to me history means HIS STORY…”. She meant that, in reality, no one *really* knew what they were talking about when it came to history; it’s just he said and she said. The professor responded that was an odd way to view things. That’s why historians use terms like primary sources and secondary sources. As I am sure Ryan could elaborate on, some types of evidence can be admitted in a court of law and some can’t, or else you have a three ring circus. The analogy was just a way of saying “Let’s go to the source, it’s our best hope. If you want to know what the second ammedment means let’s go the person who wrote it. If you want to know about the life of Robert E. Lee, he dictated (if I rmember right) his biography to a second party after the war (Colonel Long?). We don’ haver to use secondary sources like Catton or Ken Burns. If we have no sure way of asceratining what is write or wrong about any subject, we are all in serious trouble.
Gotta run,
-Clarence
(will be back tonight if the is thread contiues…think I ;earned a lot)>
Actually, it doesn’t. But don’t let us stop you anthropomorphizing.
sabrina: “I think what they’re objecting to is that Charles Darwin had anything to do with it.”
Have you forgotten about Darwin’s Time-Travel Engine (built by his friend Charles Babbage) – which enabled him to travel decades into the future, find a young corporal dead in a trench, assume his identity (aided by an aether-powered Countenance Transfigurer), and become the Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler?
Seriously, though, I agree with you.
It’s impressive to watch these hardcore Christians backpedal and dissemble at the slightest suggestion (well supported by historical evidence) that the Nazis had Christianity as at least part of their beliefs. It’s also funny that Stein and co. are trying to lay it on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, when the evidence for that connection is nebulous at best.
I guess once you’ve identified a scapegoat there’s no reason you shouldn’t go all out, right?
In this case, who decides who is a Christian and who is not?
Posted by: gleaner63 | April 20, 2008 4:48 AM
The simple, cold truth is that no one gets to determine after the fact whether or not someone belonged to a certain faith or not – the only valid source for that information is the person in question (in this case, Hitler) or people who knew him personally. You can debate all you want about how well you think Hitler EMBODIED what you see as the true principles of the Christian faith, but the mere fact of Hitler’s belief and commitment to Christianity (however his mind constructed it) is irrefutable. It is sad that such a horrible human was aligned with the Christian Church, but it isn’t something that can be erased from history by discounting his very profession of faith. The fact is, we do NOT get to choose who professes belief in what faith. That would be similar to me saying that since I do not believe that Dick Cheney embodies the will for civil liberty and individual freedoms that this country is founded on, then that disqualifies him from being considered a real American. I have no more right to say that than someone has to say Hitler was not Christian. Cheney is American, and we ALL have to live with that.
All any belief system can do is hope that it is not vulnerable to being perverted to the will of the believers within. In Hitler’s case, he stated clearly that he believed he was following God’s plan for him. (Whether that was a political ploy or not, plenty of Germans and other citizens of the world at the time believed him, so we – almost 70 years later – have no grounds to debate whether or not he was Christian.)
And again we return to your problem, which is that all sectaries claim biblical authority and quote scripture like it is no tomorrow. Both Reformation and Counter-Reformation quoted the exact same source at the same time as they were butchering each other. So your call to return to the source means very little when all godly men can interpret it as they will, with quotes and citations, to justify both peace and murderous conflict.
How am I even to know that YOU are a true Christian? For you appear, at first blush, to be an exception to the rule.
To Colugo: Darn, you’re right, I did forget to mention Charles Darwin’s time traveling exploits in my rundown on conditions in pre-WWII Germany. It should also be noted that Darwin used his machine in Russia and assumed the persona of Stalin, then he jaunted down to Chile and was a guy named Pinochet for a while, and then went really far back and took on the persona of Pope Urban II. That crazy Darwin:)
So what appears to be the final tally?
Lions 4
Christians 0
Anyone got a toothpick? I seem to have some grizzle stuck in my teeth.
Rocks only seem non-complex to a person who doesn’t know or care about rocks.
And anyway, what kind of zealot believes *life* is designed, but rocks just happened?
gleaner63:
good question of trying to figure out who is a Christian or not and which sect is true.
in the past it was easier since it came down to who had the most men and hence could enforce the punishment for heresy*.
tad more difficult now with all the boring laws preventing burning at the stake and full on crusades.
*this relies on not being to bothered about a few innocents being butchered, since accusations of heresy were pretty effective at getting rid of the opposition.
Ryan, you wrote:
[blockquote]…Let me address the historical accurateness of the Bible. I’m not talking about inspiration but the historical reliability.
The bibliographical test for text accurateness of antiquity documents is the measure of the number of copied manuscripts in existence (MSS)and the time interval between the originals and the extant copies. There are 24,970 original copies of the Christian New Testament within 350 years of Christ’s death. The second most accurate antiquity document is the Lliad by Homer with 643.[/blockquote]
1. Each MS was handcopied from an earlier MS. In the course of handcopying, errors are introduced, and, like genetic mutations, these errors accumulate. If ten copies are made in ten years, each a copy of the preceding one, the end result is a MS that likely will contain as many errors as a MS that is the final one in a series of copies made over the course of twenty years. The mere passage of time is not in itself predictive of accuracy or lack of accuracy. But consider this scenario: ten MSS are copied in a ten year period versus twenty MSS copied in the same period. In both cases, each MS is copied from the preceding one in the series. The tenth MS copied in the first instance would likely have fewer errors than the twentieth MS in the second instance. To turn now to the MSS of the various books that were at length collected into the anthology known as the New Testaments: given the multiplicity of manuscripts produced over the 350 year period you reference, one would expect numerous textual variants–and textual variants are exactly what one finds. The phrase “text accurateness” is thus a misnomer. [Interesting side note: In textual studies, scholars demonstrate how a given text ‘evolves’ by creating the equivalent of ‘family trees’. I used to have a lot of fun creating these.]
2. You conflate textual accuracy with historical accuracy, but textual accuracy tells us nothing about historical accuracy. We have extremely accurate texts of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, but the accuracy of the text has no bearing on the question of whether or not Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Trolls, and Hobbits have any existence outside the pages of Tolkien’s tale.
3. Now as to actual historical accuracy, no doubt the Bible does contain much that is historically accurate. So does the Iliad, of course. Its text allowed an archaeologist to uncover the remains of Troy. Similarly, Beowulf contains descriptions of both material objects and cultural practices whose accuracy is either corroborated by other texts or confirmed by archaeological evidence. However, the same could be said of virtually any narrative unless its author is deliberately setting it in an alternative universe. I would therefore ask, why [b]wouldn’t[/b] the Bible be historically accurate? Historical accuracy would be the default setting, so to speak. I would next ask, so what? Are you planning to worship Zeus because the Iliad is in some respects historically accurate? Are you planning to adopt the ancient Danish gods as your own because in some respects Beowulf is historically accurate? No, I didn’t think so. No doubt you are able to recognize the fallacy of this argument: The Iliad is historically accurate, therefor Zeus. Yet you seriously suggest that folks should believe in a bronze age tribal deity because in some respects 5,000 year old stories capture the reality of life at that time? The Bible is historically arcurate, therefor Yahweh? Seriously?
Aaargh! To be accurate, ‘arcurate’ should be ‘accurate’ in the last line.
Kevinj: The Albigensian crusades – it was a complete, religiously inspired extermination of a culture in the days where there was only one church, one authority. There were no Cathars left to relate the the words of the Bishop, and the winners tend to write the history. It’s he kind of thing your average blood-lusty might have thought up.
‘Kill them all God will know his own. I just tossed off an epigram! Write that down for posterity!’
Ryan @255. If the Bible’s so damn historically accurate, why can’t it tell us when your Jesus had his bad Good Friday and was – the core of all your bullshit – raised from the dead? Dates and verifiable documents (last time I studied history) were the nub of it all. The mobile date of easter when you lot get all mopy that God sent his only Son to die for our sins was set by a bunch of people – people – in my local town in 644. None of your precious ‘historically accurate’ four new testaments can give give us a date, a firm nailed-down (oh, sorry! My bad.) date for the crucifixion? I think that’s four cornerstones gone.
You know where the word ‘testament’ comes from, don’t you? Men holding onto their bollocks when asserting something to be true. And that’s what your claim about the historical accuracy of the bible is. A complete handful of bollocks.
I think we should try to get the term “yorked” into common usage, referring to attacks by crazy creationists.
Ryan, So far you have stated that “many of you would like to firebomb my house”.
NO one has presented themselves as wanting that. People who burned other people at the stake, did so because their religion told them that was a good thing to do.
Now obviously, Stalin, and various other political atheists did terrib;ler things. But it was their extreme philosophy that did so.
So, Not *all* Christians are idiots who want to burn people at the stake, or want to deny basic fundamental science.
You further claim to have studied Astronomy. Well, I doubt any of it made sense to you. Why? Start witht he value of PI. USe it to calculate the distance to the Sun. From there, use parralax to determine the distance to the nearest star. Then caluclate the distance/brightness relationships. Then calculate the distance/periodicity relationship of Cepheid Variables. Then calculate the distance ot either thr Magellenic Clouds, or the Andromeda Galaxy. The INDEPENDENT ability to do this, is available to ANY amateur astronomer these days, including the equipment. The maths works, and NO tired light nonsense works in basic mathematics and algebra, because that’s all you need.
Finally, The H-R diagram describing Stellar evolution *works* it’s maths is incontrovertible, and it’s independantly verifiable. Now we never have seen a star coalesce from a dust and gas cloud, switch on, (and for instance)go through main sequence, to Red Giant stage, to Nova, to White Dwarf…. because the time frames are too long. But we can see the various stages. Abnd from that, and basic maths, we can infer how it happens, and fill in the gaps as we get more evidence.
Just a thought. It will probably go right thrpugh you head. So I’ll finish with this: “Telling lies for God is still a sin”.
dammit. Red wine, a good meal, and annoyance at ignorance leads to keyboard disasters.
Apologies for the spelling errors. MOst know what I’m getting at.
peter mc
that quote also comes from the winners but it is a tad controversial.
The context is all though, it was uttered outside Beziers when trying to decide how to determine which inhabitants to massacre or not (considering the catholics in the town had sided with the cathars i suspect it didnt even come up for discussion)
incidentally the albigensian crusade didnt wipe out the Cathars, they finally fell a hundred or so years later after a long campaign by what became the inquisition.
Loudon is a Fool:
Well, I have to admit that we male nerds have a harder row to hoe than you fundies. After all, we don’t select our potential mates from pools of terrified pre-adolescents locked in walled compounds.
You are truly disgusting. Most abortions take place before the fetus has a functioning nervous system, and the decision to abort is made by the mother (forced abortion is of course an abominable crime), who will otherwise have to go through the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, and the terrible experience of bearing a child she does not want to bear. The Nazis mass-murders were carried out, on fully conscious human beings, from motives of hatred, political advantage and greed. You are trivialising the suffering of their victims – but this comes as no surprise, considering your readiness to defend lying filth like Expelled.
I *heart* male nerds:)
Who wants to go forward?
Who wants to go back?
Gleaner,
I just compared your statement:
With:
It has only just occurred to me that what you may have clumsily been suggesting is that we go back to Jesus’s words as the inerrant source of Christian teaching. Does this then mean that you, and we, and all Christians, should ignore the Old Testament and the Pauline ministry? For Paul is certainly where much of that deep line of hatred and hatefulness within Christianity seems to derive. While at the same time he is the primary source of the claims for Jesus’s divinity.
If so, are you not playing that game that all sectaries indulge in, of picking and choosing what parts of the text you will live your life by?
Fergawdsake, people.
You have to surround your quoted text with
<blockquote>text</blockquote>. You DO NOT use[blockquote]text[/blockquote]. That was shorthand used by Ichthyic because he didn’t know how to do angled brackets in HTML. The same goes for <b>emboldening text</b> and <i>italicizing it</i>.Srsly!
This really has been a remarkable demonstration of compartmentalized thinking. “Darwin is to blame for the Holocaust because Hitler said something about natural selection” followed immediately by “he wasn’t a real Christian, so Christianity isn’t to blame”.
So what, do I get to respond by saying that Hitler wasn’t a real evolutionary biologist, so evolution isn’t to blame?
That’s a good point. One could ask the same thing of God (if he existed and all)
Will you allow me my point?
Not until you make a good one.
Jesus Christ people! It’s obvious who gets to decide which self-professed Christians are True Christians(tm) and which are poseurs: GOD! All we have to do is go ask Him.
Oh.
“an entire generation”?
So, there’s like a twenty-year gap in ages in the world? Or just this country? No kids at all?
Wow. I must get out more. Or wait. Not me – Ryan. Because I see the kids everywhere.
@rmp
ShemaAndSharon, as you follow this thread/issue, make sure you differentiate the god/atheist argument as different from the evolution/YEC argument. There are more than a few theist evolutionists out there. Maybe not here exactly, but out there nonetheless.”
My alias refers to the sons of Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker (Finn McCool) … but whatever.
Don’t worry, I can distinguish the two. I personally profess no faith. I find the concept of science as religion as absurd and, as such, phrases like “faith in evolution” make no sense to me. I have been taught the theory of evolution for as long as I can remember and I have never been exposed to anyone who doubted the validity of the theory. I was not born yesterday. I am over 40 years old, AND I was brought up in a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools. My uncle is a Jesuit priest. Neither at home, at school nor in Church was there ever any doubt expressed about the theory of evolution.
Did that make me Godless? I don’t know. It doesn’t seem to have affected my brother, who is quite attached to his faith.
The church had lots to say about divorce and abortion. These were the hot topics when I was growing up.
My guess is that the Catholic Church knew better than to get into debates on purely scientific matters. What I am saying is that I grew up in a world where there was no possibility of confusing atheist/theist/YEC/evolution. Here on the other hand it seems to have conflated into a single argument. The people who want to believe in a god have backed themselves into a corner on a scientific issue.
I haven’t seen this movie and unless I catch it on TV, I doubt I ever will. There is enough money on the ID side to turn any “scientist” capable of coming up with a legitimate argument for ID into a very wealthy man. Does anyone who believes in evolutionary science work for the Discovery Institute? If someone who worked there expressed doubts about ID, would they be “Expelled”?