BS: Got Science?
saulgoldie 05 Mar 11 - 04:51 PM
TIA 05 Mar 11 - 05:03 PM
bobad 05 Mar 11 - 05:23 PM
Q (Frank Staplin) 05 Mar 11 - 05:34 PM
Wesley S 05 Mar 11 - 06:06 PM
The Fooles Troupe 05 Mar 11 - 06:40 PM
Rapparee 05 Mar 11 - 09:58 PM
gnu 06 Mar 11 - 10:25 AM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 06 Mar 11 - 10:35 AM
Mrrzy 06 Mar 11 - 01:01 PM
Little Hawk 06 Mar 11 - 01:24 PM
gnu 06 Mar 11 - 06:08 PM
GUEST,Jon 06 Mar 11 - 06:27 PM
Steve Shaw 06 Mar 11 - 06:41 PM
wysiwyg 06 Mar 11 - 07:16 PM
GUEST,999 06 Mar 11 - 08:33 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 07 Mar 11 - 01:45 PM
GUEST,TIA 07 Mar 11 - 04:09 PM
Ed T 07 Mar 11 - 05:59 PM
GUEST,Jon 08 Mar 11 - 05:05 AM
The Fooles Troupe 08 Mar 11 - 06:19 AM
Little Hawk 08 Mar 11 - 10:06 AM
Steve Shaw 08 Mar 11 - 11:28 AM
olddude 08 Mar 11 - 05:49 PM
Penny S. 08 Mar 11 - 06:09 PM
Lighter 08 Mar 11 - 07:06 PM
olddude 09 Mar 11 - 08:44 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 09 Mar 11 - 06:23 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 10 Mar 11 - 04:45 AM
GUEST,999 10 Mar 11 - 11:26 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 11 Mar 11 - 06:21 PM
Donuel 11 Mar 11 - 09:39 PM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 12 Mar 11 - 03:01 AM
TheSnail 13 Mar 11 - 10:12 AM
TheSnail 13 Mar 11 - 12:56 PM
GUEST,Steamin' Willie 14 Mar 11 - 07:20 AM
Lighter 14 Mar 11 - 11:12 AM
Dave MacKenzie 14 Mar 11 - 05:56 PM
Bettynh 15 Mar 11 - 03:50 PM
Ringer 18 Mar 11 - 01:33 PM
Amos 18 Mar 11 - 03:18 PM
Dave MacKenzie 19 Mar 11 - 05:26 AM
GUEST,TIA 19 Mar 11 - 10:45 AM
GUEST,Mark Twain 21 Mar 11 - 10:13 AM
Ringer 21 Mar 11 - 11:54 AM
frogprince 21 Mar 11 - 02:09 PM
harmonic miner 22 Mar 11 - 06:35 AM
Lizzie Cornish 1 28 Mar 11 - 08:17 AM
Lizzie Cornish 1 29 Mar 11 - 02:25 PM
mayomick 30 Mar 11 - 11:27 PM
mayomick 31 Mar 11 - 12:38 AM
Joe Offer 31 Mar 11 - 05:09 AM
bobad 31 Mar 11 - 08:25 AM
Folkiedave 31 Mar 11 - 03:49 PM
GUEST,TIA 01 Apr 11 - 09:33 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 01 Apr 11 - 10:16 AM
GUEST,Shimrod 01 Apr 11 - 10:26 AM
GUEST,Guest from Sanity 02 Apr 11 - 12:20 PM
GUEST,Shimrod 02 Apr 11 - 01:43 PM
Stringsinger 02 Apr 11 - 05:53 PM
Dave MacKenzie 02 Apr 11 - 07:24 PM
Steve Shaw 02 Apr 11 - 07:35 PM
Lizzie Cornish 1 03 Apr 11 - 04:03 AM
Penny S. 03 Apr 11 - 04:43 AM
GUEST,TIA 03 Apr 11 - 10:27 PM
The Fooles Troupe 03 Apr 11 - 11:39 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 04 Apr 11 - 02:53 PM
GUEST,Patsy 05 Apr 11 - 08:03 AM
Uncle_DaveO 05 Apr 11 - 08:14 PM
TheSnail 05 Apr 11 - 08:34 PM
Donuel 06 Apr 11 - 03:34 AM
TheSnail 06 Apr 11 - 05:42 AM
The Fooles Troupe 06 Apr 11 - 08:58 AM
Lizzie Cornish 1 06 Apr 11 - 04:35 PM
GUEST,pete from seven stars link 08 Apr 11 - 06:01 AM
Subject: BS: Got Science?
More fact:
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-march-3-2011-mark-w--moffett
Go to 14:50 and watch from there, not that Colbert is that hard to watch, anyway. (The bit about Ben & Jerry & Jimmy and Stephen is really cute. Perhaps a little too sweet for diabetics, but...)
The bee die-off is s-c-i-e-n-c-e. One does not "believe" in science as one "believes" in the tooth fairy, unicorns, or the flying spagetti monster. One "accepts" science, because it is about a rigorous process of hypothesis, hypothesis testing, and conclusion based on the process that lead to reproducable events based on that conclusion. "Science" (in quotes) is when one *starts out* with the *conclusion* and "finds 'facts'" to support that preconceived conclusion. Surprise, surprise! I was "right" all along! NOT science.
Science does not explain everything in the universe. That is an ongoing process. But it explains a lot of things things pretty well in terms of the available evidence.
Don't like science? Then don't partake in any of the things that science has given us. Start right here, and ditch your computer. Stop listening to music on your CD or MP3 player. Stop accepting any benefits of modern medicine. Basically, refuse to partake in anything that humans have developed in the last 20,000 years; go back to the stone age.
Global climate change due to human activity is also science. I double-dog dare anyone to find a *genuine* study that was not funded by a special interest that followed true scientific principles that contradicts this.
Subject: RE: BS: Got Science?
From: TIA
"Science does not explain everything in the universe."...yet.
It is the only way that the explanation for everything in the {Natural} Universe *can* be found.
From: bobad
This is all pretty much self-evident, except for those who do not understand science.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Two causes for global warming-
1- Periodic cycles of warming and cooling are well-known in geologic history.
2- Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has contributed pollutants and gases increasingly to the record, preserved in ice cores taken in both the Arctic and Antarctic locations.
Some argue (with less and less basis as time goes on) that the latter is not yet a contributor to global warming- but the presence of the pollutants is enough to cause serious misgivings about our lack of control over what we put into the environment.
Science has contributed immeasurably to our advances - but some of the byproducts of those advances are deleterious to the environment and must be considered and controlled.
From: Wesley S
If the neo-cons have their way science will be on the endangered species list. It's so elitist.
Oh, dear! Another meaningless comment.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Scientists Prove Jesus Walked with Dinosaurs
Sigh ...
One MUST accept the FSM, and I hope that He touches you with His noodley goodness. He has even been photographed by genuine astronomers.
From: gnu
Foolestroupe... that is hilarious!
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
an obvious mickey take,foolestroupe....but since you mentioned dinosaurs,perhaps you could tell us what the latest evo take is on the blood residue taken from the 65 million yr old dinos?
maybe we should restart the YEC thread!
That's why I won't say people don't believe in evolution, I say they deny it.
I laughed so hard a noodle came out my nose the other day watching Family Guy do their take-off on North By Northwest, and when Mel Gibson steps off Mount Rushmore and falls to his death, and Lois asked why he just stepped off, and Peter answers...
Silly, Christians don't believe in gravity!
From: Little Hawk
Most people believe in whatever they want to believe in and they disbelieve in whatever they want to disbelieve in, usually with no actual work or investigation of any kind at all, but merely by a brief jerk of the knee. ;-) The beliefs they have were normally acquired from their parents, their society, their teachers, their peer group, the books they're read, and whatever else they've been exposed to in their very brief sojourn upon this Earth.
Like parrots, they are terrific at repeating what others have told them.
And they will yammer at you all day long about it, because they'd like you to believe the same things they do.
Little Hawk
There was a theory advanced years ago in Byte Magazine about which text editor was the best. It was called "The little baby yellow duck syndrome" - the first one you see is what you judge all other by and must be the best.
Yes... ;-) Nothing like first impressions, is there? People will defend the familiar against the unfamiliar with all the fury of a mother bear defending its cubs.
Indeed LH. All the little ducks in a row.
Thank goodness for odd ducks.
From: GUEST,Jon
Certainly didn't work with text editors for me. Went through several including once getting confused trying to use Ed, then on PC notepad with its wonderful (then) 64K limit, etc. before finding Kate. nor religion as I went through athiesm (seemingly supported by science which itself can becomes a religion) as a religion before Christianity.
As for science, I don't dislike it but I believe it is rather limited in confining and attempting to explain everything purely from a physical world.
I find one of the more amusing aspects with the science and people I know in the real world is I'm pretty sure a number of them would not even get through O levels in science yet they all can trot out the "facts" about evolution and the "facts" about about the big bang with "perfect understanding".
Far more interesting is my mate who is a phd microbiologist. He is a true scientist, a type that rather than regurgitate "facts" can break down complicated subjects into things easy to understand and also a type that questions. While not a Christian or other faith, he is also at least open (actually on balance, he thinks there is) to there being a something else. I wish I knew more like him.
So give us some of your "facts" about your "something else," Jon. In other words, why do you think it's so clever to use quotes like that when you're actually quoting your own straw men? Come on, name me a scientist who ever said that he could give you the facts about the Big Bang with perfect understanding. Failing that, stop making things up as you go along.
I laughed so hard a noodle came out my nose the other day The FSM must have been born this way (of virgin nose), then? ;~)
Just kidding Mrr.
~S~
How do you provide "facts" about the many non-physical aspects of life which can be certainly be experienced and are experienced by everybody at one time or another, but which cannot be measured, quantified, photographed, recorded, weighed, divided, reproduced in a lab or in any other way subjected to outward observation?
No one can give us facts about that stuff, they can only tell us what they've experienced, and we can tell them about what we've experienced. If we have a modicum of respect for one another, we can learn something from those things too, and they are the "something else" that Jon was referring to.
Science deals with the objective. It does not deal with the subjective. Life is made up of both the objective and the subjective, and they are both absolutely vital aspects of life. The objective world has given us all the outward phenomena of life. The subjective has given us consciousness on all its various levels, and without consciousness we would have no appreciation of any of the objective stuff around us nor would we ever have come up with science, religion, philosophy, art, politics, economics, and all the other interesting stuff we do...nor would we be aware of a single fact.
Without the subjective, you wouldn't even be "you", because you would have no conscious sense of self whatsoever. You'd be an inert lump that had no facts at its disposal.
No one can measure or quantify your sense of self or duplicate it, but it's real, and it makes you who you are. That is the subjective working powerfully in your consciousness. It is beyond the reach of science to explain it, because it's not objective at all...it's subjective.
Thanks LH.
Jon was tendentiously belittling science, as is usual when a person of religion gets a bee in his bonnet about scientists supposedly getting a bit above themselves. I asked him to name any scientist who claimed he could explain the Big Bang with perfect understanding, as Jon accuses. I'm still waiting.
Come on, name me a scientist who ever said that he could give you the facts about the Big Bang with perfect understanding. Failing that, stop making things up as you go along.
Steve, I'm weary of your distortions.
Distortion? This is what you said:
I'm pretty sure a number of them would not even get through O levels in science yet they all can trot out the "facts" about evolution and the "facts" about about the big bang with "perfect understanding".
So come on, Jon. It's not me distorting, it's you wriggling. Either retract your silly statement or name names.
Here goes Steve. I said.
I think it pretty clear from that that the people I am referring to are not scientists (but are believers in science).
Yet you repeat "I asked him to name any scientist who claimed he could explain the Big Bang with perfect understanding, as Jon accuses."
Once more and for the last time here,I repeat , Steve I grow weary of your distortions.
I find one of the more amusing aspects with the science and people I know in the real world is I'm pretty sure a number of them would not even get through O levels in science yet they all can trot out...
So everyone you know can trot out, etc., eh, Jon? Let's face it. You made a silly, throwaway remark in a thread in which you thought no-one was listening. You're prejudiced against science, as your ill-judged initial remarks betray. That's fine by me. You've made it clear where you stand, even through the fog of your remarks in the thread so far.
Steve, now you need a change of tack too try to pick on something else I see... But I remain weary of your distortions.
I'll ignore you from now on;.
From: GUEST,999
Do you two want to be alone?
That's fine. I'll remember you in my prayers. Maybe He'll make you more careful apropos of how you express things.
Not you, one butty short of a grand.
I'll pray too. Maybe He will open your eyes and heart.
That's all I bloody need. Open-heart surgery from a non-existent bloke with a magic scalpel. I'll check my life insurance first if you don't mind.
So, uh, how's Manchester United doing?
Lost 3-1 to Liverpool, 999
Liverpool 3 Man United 1. Frankly, I am over the moon. I think there may actually be a God. No, hang on. Don't just say God, say Dalglish...
I don't have a problem with God - but many of his Fan Clubs can be real annoying ...
Thank you Jon and Steve--and Foolestroupe for the chuckle.
Why do I keep hearing the theme music from "Rawhide" thundering in my head? ;-)
mrrzy-i dont follow"family guy".is there a peter on there,or was the ref to me.
all the same i am still interested to learn what the latest evo take is on the dino blood residues-it is a scientific enquiry is it not?.
i am impressed once more by jons restraint and LH fair play and level head,though not sharing my beliefs-thoughtful contributions.
From: GUEST,TIA
The latest (well reasonably latest) scientific "take" is here:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=1
You will notice that the scientist herself is a Christian who gets really pissed when people misuse her findings.
The bones in which the proteins were found come from the Hell Creek Formation (and are therefore at least as old as that formation...can't deposit them in a Formation that doesn't exist yet), which is overlain by the iridium-enriched "impact bed"; note that the impact bed is therefore necessarily younger. Can't deposit the top one first.
The source of the impact bed (overlying Hell Creek, and worldwide) is the Chixculub crater which has been K-Ar dated as 65.07 +/- 0.1 million years old (Swisher et al., 1992). This date is quite close to independant ages for the K-T boundary in North America (65.00+/- 0.04 Ma by Gradstein et al. (1995:102) and 65.4 +/- 0.1 Ma by Obradovich (1993)).
So if you are to claim that the osteocalcin and heme residues indicate a young earth, your argument is really with the numerous Chixculub and/or K-T dates.
From: Ed T
defies science
How impressed were you by his ignorant, tendentious anti-science bullshit, Pete? Quite a lot, I unscientifically predict!
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Science and Compassion of others is of Satan
I'll get round to the persecution later. Give me time, that's all. But be very afraid, for nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."
I'll get round to the persecution later
"nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition"
... or The Comfy Chair!!!!
Subject: Lyr Add: Deteriorata! (fluke of the universe)
The following poem was not found in an old Baltimore church:
You are a fluke
Of the universe.
You have no right to be here.....
Deteriorata! Deteriorata!
Go placidly
Amid the noise and waste.
And remember what comfort there may be
In owning a piece thereof.
Avoid quiet and passive persons
Unless you are in need of sleep.
Ro-tate your tires.
Speak glowingly of those greater than yourself
And heed well their advice,
Even though they be turkeys.
Know what to kiss.....and when!
Consider that two wrongs never make a right
But that THREE.........do.
Wherever possible, put people on hold.
Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment
And despite the changing fortunes of time,
There is always a big future in computer main-te-nance.
You have no right to be here.
And whether you can hear it or not
The universe is laughing behind your back.
Remember the Pueblo.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mu-ti-late.
Know yourself.
If you need help, call the FBI.
Exercise caution in your daily affairs,
Especially with those persons closest to you.
That lemon on your left, for instance.
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
Would scarcely get your feet wet.
Fall not in love therefore;
It will stick to your face.
Gracefully surrender the things of youth:
The birds, clean air, tuna, Taiwan
And let not the sands of time
Get in your lunch.
Hire people with hooks.
For a good time call 606-4311;
Ask for "Ken."
Take heart amid the deepening gloom
That your dog is finally getting enough cheese.
And reflect that whatever misfortune may be your lot
It could only be worse in Milwaukee.
Therefore, make peace with your god
Whatever you conceive him to be---
Hairy thunderer, or cosmic muffin.
With all its hopes, dreams, promises and urban renewal
The world continues to deteriorate.
GIVE UP!
Performed by National Lampoon on "National Lampoon Radio Dinner," a 1972 recording by Blue Thumb Records. Lyrics by Tony Hendra.
Foolestroupe: The following was found on the Internet.
http://www.flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm
Hiya Big Dog!
Foolestroupe, I should like to nominate that as post of the month, if that's OK with you. Dissemination to follow. I just need to ring and ask for Ken first...
Steve: talk with Big Dog all you want!
I don't know what floats his boat, but either it's leaking or he wet his pants all by himself....
Oh well I'm out of here (Mudcat) again.
Who was that Masked Man?
thanks tia for the info.
i think i get the gist of it,though blinded by the tech details.
if i got this sort of right;blood residues which should not be observable 65 mill yrs later,non-the-less are,but because the usually accepted dating methods inform evolutionary scientists that the encasing and covering rocks are at least 65 mill yrs old therefore the dinos are!
am i missing something?.
if this has been resolved,if only theoretically,iam interested to know.
Anyone who is so negative on himself and the possibilities of life that he wants to imagine that he and others are nothing more than "a fluke of the Universe" is welcome to, as far as I'm concerned. ;-)
Where do you wish to get to?
That was me. It doesn't matter whether I regard myself as a fluke of the universe, a pimple on God's arse or the holy mother of Jaysus's handmaiden. They'll all get me to exactly the same place.
"They'll all get me to exactly the same place."
Will they now....?
Mentally? Physically? Emotionally? Philosophically? Spiritually? Financially? Morally? In terms of character?
Which place would you be speaking of? Which place among EACH of those will your beliefs about yourself take you?
Do you recall that old phrase: "the unexamined life is not worth living" ? A man isn't what appears on the outside, Steve. He isn't his clothing, his looks, his title or his money. He's what's going on on the inside. To get to know what that is, you have to be around him for awhile.
There has been some negative support by NASA of the Hoover work.
Well my view of science in this life maybe different from others. I thank God everyday for science and mathematics. For me it is a gift that he gave to help us understand - within our feeble grasp- the work of creation. Never once in my life did I ever feel it threaten my belief .. only enhances it .. The complexity of creation is mind boggling .. the order that results from seemingly chaotic events strengthens not weakens my faith ... nor do I believe it does to any other of faith, including many top Scientists that I worked with in my career.
From: Penny S.
Well, that was interesting. I hadn't read about those soft tissue results, just heard briefly. And my googling also threw up a creation site as well as Nature and its fellows. I note that above the Yucatan crater lie deep beds of limestone, which is not going to be deposited in a flood, it needs to have oxygenated water full of life, and will take some time to be deposited, and then turn from slurry to rock. So the dating of the rock at Hell Creek does not merely rest on the KT radiometric dates, but also on stratigraphy. It has formations above the boundary layer, as well.
The creation site argues that the survival of the tissue argues a sudden burial in a worldwide flood. Sudden burial can happen without it being worldwide. It has happened at lots of locations and lots of dates. Australia, this year, for instance. Mount St Helen's, for another.
The creation sites seem particularly eager to argue against the conclusion that the dinosaur proteins show a closer relationship between saurians and birds than between them and crocodilians. It does seem that that link is confirmed by more recent work, though.
Yes, they'll all get me to the same place. Nowhere. They all represent the intellectual stunting that religion never fails to produce. There's a cardinal example in olddude's post just up there. Give up thinking and take comfort in myth. He thanks God for science and maths. I thank the towering human intellect for both. It's like thanking God for the wheelbarrow-sized marrows at the harvest festival, when it was the bloody farmer who put in the work, not God. The complexity of creation isn't at all mind-boggling - it's actually ever so ordinary, so normal, because it all follows very simple laws, and there is simply no need to superimpose an inexplicable being on it all. All that does is add to the inexplicability, which, paradoxically, he's thanked God for clearing up with science and maths. You started this by fatally confusing negativity, absent from Foolestroupe's post, with humility, which it was full of. I love the idea that I'm a pinprick of energy in this vast universe of ours, and I don't feel insubstantial because I know that everything and everyone else is a pinprick as well. If the universe had a mind it would recognise that it needs all of us pinpricks for its own survival. That'll do me.
So glad you have all the answers Steve we can all throw away our encyclopedia's you solved all the mysteries of everything .. good for you. glad you figured it all out. pardon me if I think you are full of crap but that is ok also
From: Lighter
"The examined life is not worth living."
From: Sayings of the World's Favorite Philosophers
Can science top this for fun?:
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/planned-noahs-ark-encounter-park-kentucky-sparks-church/story?id=12326873
Exactly the opposite. I have no answers at all and I delight in that. Let the quest continue! The people who have answers are the God squad, so filled with certainties that they simply stop looking. Hence the intellectual stunting. If we are here for any purpose at all, which I doubt, it's to keep on looking.
I will agree with you Steve in this regard. Those that fear that science is going to take away their faith have no faith to begin with. I love science like I said for me personally it only makes mine stronger. However, I will agree with you that there are many others that for some reason think it threatens beliefs ... in that regard, they need to understand their faith better or they never really had faith to begin with.
"there are many others that for some reason think it threatens beliefs ... in that regard, they need to understand their faith better or they never really had faith to begin with. "
Yep, I agree totally olddude. That's what one of my pastors used to say a lot in my younger days.
I sometimes attend a multifaith organization UFO (United Faith Organization) with a friend. While talking with a Lutheran Pastor (I was brought up Lutheran), he asked me for my explanation of what/who caused the Big Bang. I said "Ah - you have an answer for that, I don't and I don't need to, and I am comfortable with that." He laughed, and his eyes lit up with some degree of understanding.
And when you have an answer, convinced that it's the right one, and it isn't, maybe, and you stop looking, then that is very sad. Ask the Birmingham Six, or the Guildford Four, or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Well, science's job is to further human knowledge and understanding of things. It's as simple as that. It isn't science's job to undermine religious belief, though that, unfortunately for believers, tends to come as collateral damage. That's why Galileo and Darwin were persecuted by religion, and it's why Galileo has only just been reluctantly apologised to.
Galileo and Darwin
Exactly, that is because they blindly followed the teaching of some religious leader who said this is the way it is ... Instead of following their faith ... There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus Christ that ever said anything other than how to treat other people and God.
again big difference in religion and faith ...
Science works to unlock the mysteries of the physical world .. you are right and every step it takes makes my faith stronger. And many other scientists also. Scientists like all people also have a wide range of beliefs, from non belief to strong belief .. that free will thing is kinda important. Science however, to some has become a religion just as destructive as any others can be. It all depends on the person
That's a depressingly-common mantra spouted by people who are suspicious of science. Let me remind you why science isn't a religion. Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps. Religious faith requires...well, faith. It requires a suspension of awkward questioning, exactly the opposite of what the process of science demands. It requires a cosily-ringfenced theology (my, how that "-ology" legitimises myth!) based on a single wrong premise that must not be questioned lest the whole house of cards collapses. An ultimate dishonesty. Instead of evidence, religious belief permits hearsay, uncorroborated witness, tradition, ceremony and ancient texts (many of which themselves are full of hearsay and uncorroborated witness). Insecure believers who berate science as "another religion" are guilty of attempting to set science against religion. Science need not concern itself with religion at all because religion carefully sets up its main premise to be forever beyond science. Science tangentially threatens religion merely by dint of the fact that it improves human knowledge, and knowledge is the arch-enemy of myth and superstition.
But Steve you do have to admit there are people who hold it to a religion standard .. I didn't say you ... I know all about the scientific method. I worked in Mathematics and Computer Science my entire life. I have met people who don't take it just for what it is, they elevate it to a new form of religion. How about Scientology? you are missing my point. Like anything humans can and will corrupt.
Mathematics is the language that describes the physical world. All science is based in it. When order emerges and patterns surface out of seemingly random acts .. then I see the creator. It is completely alright with me that you do not. None of us have any answers to life, we all follow out own path. I do not and will not tell you how to follow your life as long as you do the same for me. We all will never get through this life alive (as Art Thieme always says)
Yep, fine. Just one thing. Scientology is not science.
penny-i imagine a localized flood could be as feasible as a global event,but i think the point is that evo,s say dinos lived too long ago for any blood residue to be discernable now.if i have that right;does it mean a radical rethink for evothink?
perhaps steve has an opinion on how this pans out!.
I have no worthwhile opinions to express about your ignorant take on science. Except that one.
i was tempted to suggest that the first 5 words of your last post would suffice-but then i would be approaching the contempt to which you reply to others.
your reply of course is no answer.
lighter-if i lived in kentucky i would visit it.thanks for linking it.
You don't deserve an answer, for the simple reason that you come on here to foghorn about the deficiencies science without knowing the slightest thing about it, and without showing the slightest inclination to put that right. Stick to your Godliness.
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Further up the thread LH said the following:
"Science deals with the objective. It does not deal with the subjective. Life is made up of both the objective and the subjective, ..."
But isn't the subjective rooted in the physical world?
The other day I was a passenger in a car driven by a friend. We came over the crest of a hill and in front of us was a beautiful view. my immediate reaction was to say, "wow - look at that!" and to feel a mixture of joy and awe.
Normally I wouldn't dream of analysing such a 'subjective' experience - but I could do so as follows:
The view was beautiful because it consisted of a long, limestone ridge lit by sunlight shining through gaps in the clouds giving the whole scene an ethereal glow. My cultural background (and possibly some characteristics that I have inherited from my ancestors) has led me to see such a view as 'beautiful'. The joy and awe that I felt was probably the result of subtle chemical changes in my brain induced by the view. And so on, and so on ... none of it derived from anything other than 'objective', physical reality. I think that the 'objective' and 'subjective' are just aspects of the same reality - the latter type of experience is just 'fuzzier' than the former because we know less about it.
"But isn't the subjective rooted in the physical world?"
An interesting question, Shimrod. The human mind likes to think the subjective is rooted in the physical world, but it might be exactly the other way around. Or it could be that each is rooted in the other, which is sort of how I'd look at it.
At any rate, the subjective is the function of consciousness, and consciousness is what gives you all your knowledge and awareness of the physical world. Without it, you wouldn't even be talking here, and you wouln't know there was a physical world. Whether consciousness is rooted in the physical world is the question you have asked. Maybe not. Maybe the physical world arises out of consciousness.
I realize I'm proposing something that probably sounds pretty radical to you, but I didn't just pick it out of a hat. There are studies occuring in quantum physics right now that appear to suggest something similar to what I'm saying, and there's a book or two I can recommend to you that will explain things from the exact opposite angle to which you are looking at them. But I'll PM you about that if you're genuinely interested, okay? If you're not, never mind. I don't wish to waste my time or yours on efforts that are disregarded.
I think that you misjudge me, LH. I'm as open to radical ideas as you are - but I'm a sceptic (remember?) and, although that may seem paradoxical to some people, I think that that makes me more 'open-minded' than many others.
Here's a couple of other thoughts:
1. I suspect that dwelling too much on 'subjectivity' and religious/quasi-religious notions leads some people to ignore the reality around them. I'm an amateur botanist, for example, and I live in a major city in the UK. I seem to make new discoveries almost every day - plants which have never been recorded in this area before or plants that were believed to be extinct; no-one notices them because they're so pre-occupied with their every day existence and (possibly) 'inner lives' that they don't look at the world around them.
2. I suffer from epilepsy (now controlled by drugs). When I have had attacks in the past I have had some very strange experiences (petit mal) and twice I have had full-blown fits which have rendered me unconscious. During the petit mal episodes I have experienced, what seems like, a completely different reality. When I recover I'm aware that it's happened but I cannot recall any detail. Like the UFO experiences that you have described elsewhere I have absolutely no idea what these episodes mean and can only speculate ... rather fruitlessly.
I would love to PM you but you will notice that I'm a guest - that's because I kept losing my 'cookie' (whatever that is!) and gave up in the end - sorry!
Excellent hobby, Shimrod. I still have my botanical diaries from when I lived near Manchester in the 70s. I once found a single spike of southern marsh orchid in a stand of thousands of common spotted orchids in Radcliffe and I was over the moon! I was the first (I think) to find a clump of royal fern in the canal wall at the Radcliffe end of the canal. The Parks Department weeds were wonderful but I never let the supervisor see my copy of the Excursion Flora when I was on the job. It's seaside plants around Bude these days. I'm always tickled to find a plant where there's no "dot" in the Atlas, though of course said book is hardly for the back pocket...
Yes, I think we've chatted about this before?
As I said above the discoveries just seem to keep on coming. For example, I've found 24 species of fern just in my local area. The fern experts tell me that this is remarkable! Last year I found a single specimen of Meadow Saxifrage (Saxifraga granulata) which is the first record for 60 years. I also found Common Storksbill (Erodium cicutarium) which was rare here even in the 19th century. Another find was Common (how deceptive that 'common' is!) Broomrape (Orobanche minor) which, as far as I can tell, is the first record for this area. I'm a bit obsessed at the moment with arable field weeds and, although there haven't been any arable fields around here for about a century, the weeds spring up every time the ground is disturbed. The local museum herbarium collection of Fumitories (Fumaria sp.) contains 3 species from the 19th century - but I've found 4 living ones!
And those are just the 'tip of the iceberg' (so far I've found just short of 700 species in my chosen study area).
Begod so we have! My memory's failing me more and more. Orobanche minor sprang up in the new car park of Safeways, Bude, when the store first opened in the mid-90s, apparently parasitic on one of the municipal hedging plants used there. Very unexpected. It grows quite a lot on ivy round here. I admire you for tackling those damned fumitories! I'm brilliant on them as long as they're yellow... ;-) I remember seeing a huge swathe of meadow saxifrage near Malham Tarn in 1970, on a university field course (I was doing a project of the botany of clints and grykes at the time). That and the masses of bird's-eye primrose round there make for wondrous sights!
project on, I suppose
Geeze, did I screw that or what?
Listening (reading) you two guys reminded me of a poem I saw in southern Alberta about 40 years back in someone's kitchen:
The kiss of the sun for pardon
The song of the birds for mirth
One is nearer god's heart in a garden
Than anywhere else on earth
Yes, you can buy a piece of tat with that engraved on it for about £5.99 in any UK garden centre! Fortunately, you don't see it out in the wild too often.
Still at it, eh?
Round and round and round and....!
A lady from Cornwall, called Rose Murphy, has written an excellent guide to Fumitories for the BSBI (BSBI Handbook No. 12). Once I got my hands on that everything became clear (well, clearer) and there was no stopping me!
You've just opened my eyes on the fumitory question - I only know one, and I didn't have an idea there were others. I want some in my garden!
And Pete, I haven't seen anything on explaining the protein survival, but the dating depends on so many strands of other evidence that all back each other up that it isn't going to shift. And go easy on the "evo" bit, will you? Irritating people doesn't help arguments, does it?
Hi Penny,
Rose Murphy says that there are about 60 species of fumitory worldwide and 10 in Britain. Of those only 2 are endemic and the remaining 8 are archeophytes (introduced before 1500 AD).
The ones that I've found in urban Manchester are Common Ramping Fumitory (Fumaria muralis) - this is by far the commonest and often occurs as a street weed, Common Fumitory (F. officinalis), White Ramping Fumitory (F. capreolata) and Tall Ramping Fumitory (F. bastardii). Other parts of the UK may well have a different mix of species.
Apparently Cornwall is the leading fumitory 'hot spot' - go to it Steve!
Yes, I know a place where they grow but you put me to shame as I've never got round to "sorting them out." I think Rose is our recorder, though I could be wrong. I really must get more active. I've been a BSBI member since 1984, and for several years on and off before that. I did find western clover on a clifftop site near Sandymouth two years ago in a site that even the local botanical expert didn't know about. I have a cracking photo of it if you're interested! It isn't that rare further down in Cornwall but it's very rare round this end.
If you ever meet Rose Murphy please tell her that she's got a grateful user of her book up here in Manchester!
point taken penny.i appreciate that my shorthand term might annoy.i will aim to rectify this in future.
presumably creationist geologists would interpret the strata different from yourself,having started from the opposite presupposition than evolutionists.i am not qualified,but percieve a conundrum for evolutionism .i appreciate yourself having acknowledged it
i understand from my reading that most creationist geologists were once unifortarian/theistic evolutionists before arriving at their current position.probably there have been some leaving creationism,but as a christian i will take the bible account as trustworthy content that science is no enemy of christianity.
best wishes-pete.
"if this has been resolved,if only theoretically,iam interested to know"
Yes. It has been resolved. Both theoretically and empirically.
Who says the protein residues "shouldn't be preserved?" They just have never been tested for before! There was an *assumption* that they would not be (an untested, untheoretical assumption... as in the old ass u me thing). Then the test was done, and the *assumption* is clearly wrong. There is no real paradox or paradigm-shifting data here. It is the demolition of an untested assertion.
Now. If you intend to continue doubting the age of the residues, your argument is with the multiple independant dating techniques. Have at it!
"but as a christian i will take the bible account as trustworthy content"
Respect for that.
But it precludes you from all further discussions of science.
Seriously. Not trying to be an asshole, but in science, *nothing* and I mean **nothing** is "taken as trustworthy". Every testable assertion is open to question and actual testing. Everything is constantly in doubt. If you don't "get" what I am talking about, you misunderstand science, and are arguing against a straw man.
Note that there really are untestable assertions and these are not within the purview of, nor relevant to, science. Science cannot, and would not try to, refute these. Anyone "scientist" claiming to refute an untestable assertion is also precluded from all further scientific discussion. See? I am an equal opportunity offender on this point.
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Science??...well...100
i understand from my reading that most creationist geologists were once unifortarian/theistic evolutionists before arriving at their current position
This takes the biscuit for being the most ridiculous thing I've read all week, all the worse because my reading has included a copy of The Sun I accidentally picked up at the barber's on Wednesday.
science like all things is information.
By information theory the more you discover the more disorder and eventual entropy you will cause.
(new information=surprise=disorder=entropy)
Biting the biblical apple may be better understood in this light.
I watched this on the 'History Channel' late (or early) one morning, after a studio session, and I found it mind blowing. It is one youtube, but in several parts. It is a MUST SEE! It was NOT done by a religious group, but by scientists from Sandia labs, in New Mexico, and by computer graphic engineers, in trying to re-create whatever image, that was found on the shroud of Turin. However, they did not start off believing that the image was or was not the actual brurial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Watch it, and all the videos, and come to your own conclusions.
Go through the rest of the parts, on youtube, to watch the documentary. This documentary made news and was carried by several news networks, but the entire documentary was shown on the History Channel, where they go through the whole process.
I mean, f you really are into science, approach this, or any subject, OBJECTIVELY, with NO preconceptions or conclusions to 'prove'.
thanks tim-nice to have intelligent responses from some people!.
i suspected that your position would have to be adopted but i did not know if there were any other factors preventing this.
i am not qualified to discuss dating methods with you,except to observe that it was previously held that soft tissue would not be discernable 65 mill yr past but apparently is now!.
there is some discussion in johnathon sarfati,s"the greatest hoax on earth"on dating methods which though mostly too tech for me,seems to provide good reasons not to find long ages assumption dating as indisputable,IMO.
Though you claim scientific impartiality some evolutionists have admitted to commitment to evolutionism whatever evidence points otherwise.
GFS i hope catch up on shroud vids later.
interesting subject,but false or not it not needed for the faith,though it would be nice if it adds more evidence for the ressurrection
Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true. There really is no going back. Your ill-informed, backward views are as fossilised as those dinosaurs you're going on about. Only there's a bit more meat on the dinosaurs.
Interestingly, the first reports of protein from dinosaurs was back in 1968 (Miller et al), and there does not seem to have been any concern about its survival.
As for dating determined by geological means, an interesting example can be found outside the ground floor entrance of M&S in Bluewater. The pillars are faced with a green stone with vertical banding. The bands were originally more horizontal, and were laid down in an ocean on the edge of a continental shelf. Each band consists of some coarse material and some fine. The coarse material is the base of the bed, and represents material which slumped suddenly off the slope as a submarine landslide. (These landslides were first identified when one off the coast of N America broke phone cables successively.) Each slip grades from coarser material at the base to finer material at the top, as the coarser material falls first - as if you stirred up garden soil in a jamjar of water. Most of each fall happened very fast. The interesting bit is the very thin, very fine top layer. In some cases this has been scoured away by the next fall. These fine layers are not part of the fall. They are the normal deposits which can be found over the ocean floor, and they take thousands of years to form, before the next lot of material slumps down. This sequence can be determined by deep sea drilling, and rates of deposition by experimental work. (The green rock at M&S is probably derived from volcanic ash, and may be radiometrically datable as well.) Each slab contains several flows, so, several thousand years. It was these thin layers that really brought geological time home to me.
Another one was an image of cliffs in Northern Ireland.
Volcanic chalk
Here was the familiar chalk, which I had always seen as pretty recent (not in historical terms, of course) - after all, it was on top - with remarkably fresh looking lava on top of it. (And in this case, forming a dyke through it.) The lava is the same age as the Giants' Causeway, and Fingal's Cave on Staffa, and dates back to the opening of the Atlantic. The chalk had to form in clear undisturbed seas, which covered a large part of Europe. Then it had to be cemented and form a solid rock from the slurry, uplifted, eroded, and then erupted on. These things take time. In the case of the lava, if it were only thousands of years old, the chamber beneath would still be hot. This was another image which stretched time for me.
Scientists really fought against the stretching of time as it became clear how much was needed for the observations of rocks to make sense, let alone fossils and evolution. But the evidence was overwhelming and ultimately convincing. Especially when they realised that the energy for the observed processes came from radioactive decay, not the initial formation of the Earth.
penny-i am impressed by your geologic knowledge,but mostly above my head.to be honest,so is most of the geological material in creation mag and webb site.clearly there are other experts in geology who dont find your evidence convincing and overwhelming but i appreciate your presenting something objective as opposed to empty assertions.
i will try to look out for the geological peculiarity next time the wife wants me to go to bluewater with her!.
Pete, just about every post you post contains your "this is above my head"-style bleating. Why don't you just refrain from posting about things that are clearly above your head (that we can agree on, certainly), and go off and do some study.
Penny, I live near Bude, and the Bude Formation, laid down in the upper Carboniferous, shows the same kind of banding as you describe: massive sandstones with particle size gradation (turbidites), laid down in catastrophic landslides, interspersed with much narrower shale bands, representing thousands of years of much calmer interludes. The whole was folded and contorted whilst at great depth during the Variscan mountain-building phase. The shale layers, being much softer than the sandstones, weather differentially, adding to the intrigue (and scenery). I love it. Good stuff!
Pete, few of us have the technical background to evaluate credentialed experts.
So, to make things more complicated: for any emotion-laden subject, evolution or whatever, there will almost *always* be a few "experts" who seem to most of us to be just as qualified as anyone else, who will passionately support a position considered quite insupportable by 99% of their colleagues.
Only rarely is it because they've figured out something the other 99% haven't. Mostly it's because the handful can't see what is obvious to the others, or, sometimes, just don't want to see it.
I'm pushing nothing here but a rule of thumb. The argument of the overwhelming majority of experts is the one the non-expert should trust. To do otherwise is to assume that the overwhelming majority are just fools and frauds. (Not a good bet in science, at least, because results are constantly being tested and re-tested.)
Usually the majority scientific position is right. And over the past 100 years, it's become even more likely to be right, because investigations and experiments have become better and better. Scientists also know more and more about their specialized fields.
Once in a great while the vast majority of investigators are wrong, and the handful are proved right. That usually happens only when the vast majority are slow to recognize brand-new discoveries. But it's almost never because old claims that they've long dismissed are suddenly recognized as valid after all.
Mathematicians are the least likely to have the tables turned on them. Social scientists, economists, politicians, and mystics are the most likely to be fooled, because their subjects don't lend themselves so easily to accurate and verifiable predictions.
A quote from above:
"it was previously held that"
Exactly Pete. "Held that" sounds just like "assumed that". I am curious as to why you are proposing an unproven (and never tested) assertion/assumption/"held that" as an overturned hypothesis, let alone a theory (and I use theory in the scientific not collquial sense).
I would completely agree with your sentence if you started out ..."it was previously assumed with no testing or even theoretical basis that..."
But if you start it that way, you can't really finish your sentence can you?
Sorry, more nitpicking...actually no - this is quite a big issue. Quote from above:
"science like all things is information"
Noooooooooo!!!!!
Science is a method...a process. The product of science is information. But the information is *not* science. The information is always provisional. The information is open to question and testing. The information is not sacrosanct. In fact, the information is a challenge to other scientists. It begs them to "prove me wrong". And many times it is proven wrong. The process of science is specifically and consciously self-correcting. "Scientfic Dogma" is the most ridiculous oxymoron of all!
"it was previously held that..." is a classic example of weasel words. Instant suspicion and scepticism is the only appropriate response.
Last time I heard, "Read my lips..", ...(Pete old chap), was Herbert Walker Bush saying he wasn't going to raise our taxes, then did, and brought with him, the corporate 'New World Order'!!!!
"Make no mistake about that!!"--R.M.N.(Nixon)
From: TheSnail
Read my lips, Pete old chap. Evolution is true. There really is no going back.
Oh Steve, I wish youy could see the damage you are doing to the scienctific argument with remarks like that. Read TIA's posts. He is getting it right.
Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust. By which I mean that there is such a large body of evidence behind it now that it has reached the point where, in its general thrust, it is incontrovertible. Of course, there are plenty of details still to be argued over. But the fact that the Bolognese sauce I've just made has slightly too much garlic in it and slightly too little basil doesn't mean it isn't Bolognese sauce. If you think that evolution, in any of its main tenets, is not true, let's have your evidence. And, before you start, let's not even begin to think that any of the God/creation stuff in in the remotest sense "evidence." I await.
is in
"And, before you start, let's not even begin to think that any of the God/creation stuff in in the remotest sense "evidence.""
Too true! It's always puzzled me as to why the evidence accumulated by thousands of painstaking scientists, working over many decades, should be dismissed out of hand and we should be forced to accept the statements in an ancient book, of uncertain authorship, as the final word on the subject instead!
The religious fundamentalists tell us that the Bible is "the word of God" - but where is their evidence for that statement?
Entirely missing the point, Steve. The position of the creationist lobby is that there is some sort of equivalence between science and religion; that the theory of evolution is something that you have to "believe" in. You seem to share that misunderstanding. "Evolution is true." is not a scientific statement but it sounds very much like a declaration of faith.
For a theory to be scientifically valid it has, in principle, to be falsifiable. See TIA's post of 12 Mar 11 - 05:54 PM. Never mind your Spag Bol, how about Newton's Laws, are they "True"?
And, before you start, let's not even begin to think that any of the God/creation stuff in in the remotest sense "evidence." I await.
No, of course not. Creationism offers no threat to the theory of evolution but that doesn't mean it's immune to advances in scientific thought.
My problem isn't with evolution, it's with the appropriateness of the word "true" when referring to a scientific theory.
... and for got to say
"slightly too much garlic in it". Eh? Sorry, does not compute.
Numerous people have told me that the Bible is self-evidently true and the absolute word of God for the following reasons especially:
1. The Bible says it is the word of God, and God does not lie; if He did He wouldn't be God.
2. Billions of people around the world, who are familiar with the Bible, are convinced that it is the true word of God because, through it, God has spoken to them in their hearts. Any disagreements they may have about what God wants are trivial in the perspective of eternity.
3. Many undisputed geniuses, like Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and, more recently, C.S. Lewis, have also been convinced of the Bible's truth and authority.
4. Many skeptical people witnessed the miracles of Jesus - and some later miracles as well.
5. The early Christian martyrs would not have allowed themselves to be brutally tortured if they hadn't been absolutely convinced of the truth of the Christian message. That includes the apostles, who saw the empty tomb and spoke with Jesus after his Resurrection.
6. Everywhere science looks it sees (but refuses to honor) obvious miracles, like life and the sunrise. No humans could create the universe or make the sun rise, for example.
7. Still skeptical? As Sarah Palin puts it in Going Rogue (p. 431), just "Test Him....You'll see there's no such thing as a coincidence."
Actually, Lighter none of that constitutes proof in any scientific sense.
1. Any book could claim to be the 'Word of God'and I don't see any reason whatsoever why He shouldn't be a liar (I've only got your word for it that God doesn't lie).
2. Billions of people round the world could be wrong (billions of people are often wrong about a lot of things). It's a bit weird speaking to someone 'through their heart', isn't it? Wouldn't it be more effective to speak to them through their ears? As you can probably tell I'm not impressed by pious gobbledegook!
3. Many undisputed geniuses may not believe in God and belief in God is not synonymous with genius.
4. Many people believe all sorts of silly things (see 2. above).
5. Modern day Islamic 'martyrs' blow themselves, and others, up in the name of religion. History shows us that people do all sorts of stupid and/or wicked things in the name of religion.
6. I 'honor' these these things - I just don't think that they necessarily involve a God though. And of course a human couldn't create the Universe or a sunrise - don't be silly, who said that a human could do those things?
7. The day that I start taking anything that Sarah Palin says seriously will be the day I fling myself off a cliff!
hi lighter-you make a good argument for majority opinion,but i believe the majority can be wrong as indeed has been the case many times in history.i caught some of the history of science on BBC4 tonight and examples were given in that.
in addition this subject has spiritual and plilosophical implications-and not just for christians.not that i put you in their camp ,but some atheists are evidently also hostile mockers.certainly some of steves posts qualify though he continually claims to ask for evidence.
some evolutionists are quite openly committed to their creed whatever evidence may counter it.
tia-just so i understand;are you saying that when surprise was expressed at 65mill blood residue that they had no basis or reasoning for such amazement?.
thanks to those who have responded graciously-pete
For a theory to be scientifically valid it has, in principle, to be falsifiable.
I didn't say the theory of evolution is true. I said evolution is true. Try listening. It might just stop you talking crap, as ever.
certainly some of steves posts qualify though he continually claims to ask for evidence.
I don't claim to ask for evidence. I ask for evidence. You wouldn't know evidence if it leapt up and bit you on the arse, would you?
"some evolutionists are quite openly committed to their creed whatever evidence may counter it."
Evolution is NOT a 'creed'!! It is a theory supported by lots and lots of evidence!
Many undisputed geniuses may not believe in God and belief in God is not synonymous with genius.
Well yes. A frequent argument made by deluded religious science sceptics is, to take but one example, that people such as Einstein, who allegedly did not dispute God's existence, make part of a very good case for the existence of God. Well Einstein was a mathematician and physicist of dazzling genius, there's no denying it. But the minute he starts spouting about God, he's on no higher level than I am. He got no nearer to doing a degree in theology than I did, and I assure you that that's a bloody long way. It's like John Lennon, that third-rate pop-singing druggie, who somehow wooed the world into thinking he was some kind of political guru, spouting naively about world peace and all the rest of that hippie tripe. I admire people for doing the things they're good at. As soon as they use that as an illegitimate platform for sounding off about this, that or the other that they're no more qualified to effuse about than Mickey Mouse, I fart in their general direction. And I eat beans. To be fair to Albert, I reckon that if he were alive today and witnessing how his words are dragged out of context, he'd be turning in his grave.
He says this all the time. He hasn't the first idea about what evolution's about. He's a long-time trolling charlatan. Just wait. He'll be back here any minute now, slagging off "evolutionists" and saying that it's all above his head, he's not qualified, he hasn't studied it, etc. et bleedin' cetera.
All of you 'God Botherers' out there must realise that a good scientist has more humility in her/his little finger than you do, collectively, in all your thick, dogma-stuffed heads. And that's because a scientist DOESN'T know everything and doesn't have an answer to every question. Even well supported theories, like the theory of Evolution and Special Relativity, are not the last word on those subjects; more evidence could modify them, or even overturn them, and anyone who knows the slightest thing about science knows that.
And, pete, I know you're a self-confessed ignoramus - but please go away and come back when you've learned something about science (and that means REAL science - not some tripe that you read, but didn't quite understand, in the University of Hicksville's 'Bumper Book of Creationism').
There's nothing like a reasoned scientific argument and that was nothing like a ...
I find "Evolution is true" even more meaningless. What do you mean? I have trouble with people who confuse "gravity" with the "Theory of Gravity". If you don't "believe" in gravity, try jumping off a tall building. If you don't believe in the "Theory of Gravity", try working out how long it will take you to hit the ground and try the experiment. Does "Gravity is true" mean anything?
Earlier you said "Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust." Does evolution have "facets"? Does it have "general thrusts"? What are you talking about?
A few days ago you said "Science requires observation, hypothesis set up deliberately to be vulnerable to shooting-down, experiment with controls, processing of data, construction of theories (not truths), communication of information and peer review, all of which serve to inform the next steps.". Absolutely right. In the light of that, how do you justify "Evolution is true"?
You are clearly fully committed to scientific theory but you seem to have suspended critical thinking. Wooly logic plays into the hands of "the enemy". You would do yourself a lot of credit by answering the questions instead of accusing anyone who challenges you with "talking crap".
(And I still can't get my head round the concept of "slightly too much garlic")
More evidence will definitely modify the theory of evolution, but will never overturn it. There does come a point at which the evidence is so overwhelming, and we have passed that point. We are almost, but not quite, there with being able to state that human-induced global warming is true. But I don't say that the theory of evolution is true, contrary to what that deliberate misinterpreter Snail contended. That would be a contradictory statement. But I do say that evolution is true. If evolution doesn't qualify for the characterisation "true," tell me what does. Otherwise we could have a redundant word here.
That was in response to Shimrod, not Mr Disingenuous above. Fossil evidence, morphological evidence, evidence from developmental biology, genetic evidence and biochemical evidence on many levels, right down to the subcellular, have all overwhelmingly supported Darwin's theory, and no evidence (in spite of manful attempts by religious quackery) has been produced to oppose it. Of course, there has been controversy over the pace of evolutionary change, etc., even over the exact mechanism of selection, but nothing whatever to undermine the general thrust of the theory. There. Facets and thrusts to the heart's content of your average gastropod. Of course, Snail knows all this, but he's a bit slow on the uptake, as ever.
I forgot anatomical. Yet another thrusting facet for yer man to graze.
I stand corrected on the bit about 'overturning' the theory of evolution - bad choice of words late at night! But my more general point was that, in science, nothing is 'set in stone' and new perspectives on accepted theories can emerge with new evidence.
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
That isn't a religious affirmation but an interesting fact in the Principia.
Ergo, science isn't a religion, it isn't a view point, it isn't a moral code.
it is trying, with increasing accuracy, to explain and harness that which we experience.
Now....
I managed that without referring to superstition, imaginary friends, mental health issues, bigotry, loony rabid preaching, child abuse, brainwashing or any other facet of religion.
Must be a good day.
But I don't say that the theory of evolution is true, contrary to what that deliberate misinterpreter Snail contended.
Well that's progress but I could do without the ad hominem attacks.
But I do say that evolution is true. If evolution doesn't qualify for the characterisation "true," tell me what does.
I'm sorry but I just don't know what "evolution is true" means. It certainly isn't a scientific statement. It sounds much more like a religious one.
The important difference between science and religion is not that science is right and religion is wrong but how they work. Religion says "this is the truth and you'd better believe it". Science says "I wonder. Let's see what holes I can pull in this." That is what makes it work; that is what makes it strong.
I asked you to look at one of TIA's posts but you either failed to do so or failed to take it on board so I'll quote it again here -
"Evolution is true!" is dogma.
I am not Pete wearing my igonrance as a badge of honour. I have quite a few letters after my name and I have studied philosphy of science so could you cut out the insults and address the issues.
So you have letters. So do I. Big deal. You can do better than that. Just for you, I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true, but you don't appear to have read it yet. I have no idea why you think religion has anything to do with this. That is a not an equation that I would ever make. The theory of evolution is founded on a huge body of evidence. Religion is founded on not a single scrap of evidence. I can either believe something by dint of blind faith or I can believe something because I know of the evidence that supports it. Therefore if I say evolution is true I am not in the remotest sense making a religious statement. The sun is shining in Cornwall this afternoon. That is true. But that is not a religious statement. So stop being silly, eh?
Religion says "this is the truth and you'd better believe it". Science says "I wonder. Let's see what holes I can pull in this."
And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe it or not. All the evidence, all the knowledge we have amassed about living things points to the truth of evolution. I'm saying that we are well past the point of no return. You say that science is for pulling holes. Well let's hear you pulling enough holes in the theory of evolution to make it false. Cut out the philosophising for a minute and get down to the real nitty-gritty of the evidence. Show me evidence that undermines, in any real sense, evolution. You can't, because there isn't any. If I can never say that evolution is true, Mr Philosopher, about what can I ever use the word "true?" Or should we strike "true" from the dictionary? Which is not to say that the theory of evolution can never be modified as we discover more. You are obstinately refusing to see that these two positions are entirely compatible. And you brag about studying the philosophy of science.
Shimrod, I entirely agree, and,as I say, I don't see any discrepancy between saying that evolution is a true description of the history of life (i.e. it is true) and that the theory of evolution is constantly subject to modification as new evidence comes to light. Our friend here has a history of enjoying being a total irritant.
As Descartes showed, you can never be 100% certain that anything is true except that thinking is taking place, presumably yours.
Maybe you're just a brain in a vat and something's keeping you alive and deluded. Maybe you're a string of computer code ina computer in the 22d century being manipulated by an AI technician. Maybe everything you know is wrong.
Undereducated people like to use that itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, proton-size doubt about everything to claim that anything that's "true" by scientific standards is just as likely to be plain wrong.
If they really believed that, they'd have a hard time crossing the street safely. Or else they'd "know" that traffic is all illusion anyway, close their eyes, and start walking.
Well, I prefer to cut "true" a bit o' slack so that I can at least use what's a very nice word sometimes without someone telling me that I can never be sure that anything is ever true! Ain't that just the truth?
It may be true for you. But is it true for me?
(Joke.)
So you have letters.
Not bragging just a futile attempt to stop you talking down to me in the same patronising way you do to Pete.
I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true
No you haven't. In your post of 13 Mar 11 - 08:09 PM you simply reiterated the statement and in the following post you summarised the evidence in support of "Darwin's theory". You make a distinction between Evolution and The Theory of Evolution but you seem to have trouble distinguishing them yourself. I am no nearer understanding what you mean by "Evolution is true.".
And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe it or not.
Good Grief! Now you want me to "believe" things as well. Science isn't about belief, that's religion.
Show me evidence that undermines, in any real sense, evolution.
Do you mean evolution or the theory? It's hard to tell because you seem to use the terms interchangeably in that paragraph.
Let me make it clear (in the vain hope that you will stop attacking me for something I am not saying). The Theory of Evolution is one of the pinnacles of human achievement. It vastly increases our understanding of the natural world and our place in it. It is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it is unlikely to be significantly changed in it's major points. But, as you concede, as a theory it cannot be described as "true".
What can be described as true? Facts, observations, measurements. The sun is shining in Cornwall fits that well enough.
steve and shimrod certainly get steamed up.i,m the one with no letters after my name,yet can state my position without resorting to playground name calling.
they keep inviting me to go away but who would they have to insult then-ah i,m sure they will find someone else!
i would have thought anyone secure in their beliefs would not need to defend those beliefs by insulting lanquage.
talking of humble -even darwin confessed that the evidence he presented could be interpreted in the opposite way.
thankfully others of you can oppose creationism civilly
"As Descartes showed, you can never be 100% certain that anything is true except that thinking is taking place, presumably yours."
Lighter, I don't happen to have a copy of 'The Collected Works of Rene Descartes' handy to check that reference in - but if he did say that he may have had a point ... not sure of the relevance of the point, though ...? I thought our last exchange was about the Bible and the fact that you believed that it was 'The Word of God'. Now you seem to be advancing a somewhat different point of view ... frankly, I'm confused ... help!
Snail, you seem to take a perverse delight in stirring it for the sake of stirring it - but remember that I'm still on your case ... well, I would be if I could be bothered. Ignore him, Steve.
And, pete, I think I'll go on calling you names and being mean to you for a bit longer mainly because I really, really despise 'creationism' and 'creationists'!
i hope you dont get ill,getting all stewed up with your illogical antagonism.
i am opposed to evolutionism but i wish it,s adherents well.
Pete, I start out liking everyone. You're ok with me, although creationism makes as much sense to me as virgin birth 2000 years ago.
There's no such thing as "evolutionism" - that's a word you made up.
And being opposed to illogic isn't illogical!
Shimrod, I tried to set out the rock-bottom case for the Bible, and even for Biblical literalism, as fairly as I could. Did I leave anything out?
Readers should draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to help them.
Be fair, Pete didn't invent that term. It is common usage within a certain group, in which Pete belongs. It shows up in many places if you google it - even wikipedia falls into the trap.
Also, Descartes was famous for writing, "Cogito ergo sum," which means "I'm thinking, so I (at least) must exist."
Tertullian, a second-century Christian author, was famous for writing, "Credo quia absurdum," which means "I believe it *because* it sounds so absurd." In other words, it sounds so crazy that if it weren't true, nobody could make it up and get other people to believe it.
Naturally, since I'm thinking right now, I'm as positive as I can be that I exist. Descartes and Tertullian...well, I can't be so sure about them, can I?
From: Dave MacKenzie
The most honest rationale for creationism I've come across was from a Highland elder I knew over twenty years ago. He accepted that belief in a seven day creation was incompatible with science but regarded it as one of the "three impossible things to believe before breakfast" which he felt were necessary for faith. (He might even have used that phrase).
"Shimrod, I tried to set out the rock-bottom case for the Bible, and even for Biblical literalism, as fairly as I could. Did I leave anything out?
Readers should draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to help them."
Lighter, I have no idea if you left anything out or not. Am I one of the readers that should be drawing their own conclusions? If so I don't expect you to "help me" - but, on the other hand, it might be helpful to indicate which side of the fence you sit on!
The White Queen in Through the Looking Glass told Alice that sometimes she'd "believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
So your guy might have been more than twice as skeptical.
>So you have letters.
Yes, you are bragging. You want me to brag too? Well, I wouldn't do that, but you are very unwise to pull the "I've got letters..." stunt with people you don't know. Futile, vainglorious and positively counter-productive. And I might remind you that the whole tone of your responses to me, as in the past, is incredibly patronising. So cast out the plank, eh?
>I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true
Then simply commence thinking instead of trying to come up with the next clever, patronising thing to come up with. I've actually made it very clear. I didn't summarise any evidence at all. I indicated the main facets of the evidence, in fossils, morphology, genetics, anatomy, developmental biology and cellular biochemistry. Go and read a good modern account of the theory of evolution (yes, wrong name but why change now) and look at the evidence yourself instead of blathering on with your head in the stratosphere about the philosophy of science.
>And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe it or not.
Complete cobblers. Just to satisfy your pedantic disease, let me rephrase, thus. "And I say that evolution is true, and I don't give a damn whether you believe me or not."
>Show me evidence that undermines, in any real sense, evolution.
Either, both or neither. I don't give a damn. Just stop waffling tiresomely on and address the substantive issue for once. If you have evidence that demonstrates that evolution is not true, let's have it. Piss or get off the pot before it overflows with cod-philosophical diarrhoea.
Let me make it clear (in the vain hope that you will stop attacking me for something I am not saying). The Theory of Evolution is one of the pinnacles of human achievement. It vastly increases our understanding of the natural world and our place in it. It is so overwhelmingly supported by the evidence that it is unlikely to be significantly changed in it's major points.
No, it doesn't "increase our understanding, etc. etc." It explains life on earth in all its beauty and complexity. It is as simple as that. It does far more than you give it credit for and it does so by making incredibly few assumptions. Your last sentence shows that you really agree with me after all, which completely betrays your motives in making these irritating posts.
But, as you concede, as a theory it cannot be described as "true".
I have conceded nothing. I have told you directly and honestly what I think. As a scientific theory, evolution is perpetually open to question and modification. But that does not mean that evolution is not basically the true story of life on Earth.
How perverse of you. I told you the sun was shining in Cornwall and you didn't ask for evidence, now you tell me it's a good example of truth. I will refrain from accusing you of having religious faith in my pronouncements.
If I were to reveal that, I'd be open to endless personal attacks from one side or the other. Also, personal "authority" means nothing. Logic and accuracy count for everything. True is true, false is false, uncertain or unknown is just that. Everyone seems to agree on that much.
And it's a good thing too. Otherwise no factual discussion of anything would be possible.
All I'll tell you is that I've tried my best to be honest and accurate in presenting the views I've presented.
You're as bad as that other fellow, what with him bragging on about his letters and you bragging that you don't have any (I'm not quite sure what that means we're supposed to think of you - perhaps something akin to the sword of truth slashing its philistine way through the bullshit of worthless academia...). I recommend you get steamed up once in a while. It might just sharpen up that fuzzy thinking of yours.
You are equally insulting with your constant ignorant pronouncements. I submit, in fact, that a lot of people round here have been exceptionally patient with you, considering what rubbish about hard-won scientific achievements you come out with. Some of us are actually scientists, you know.
Well Darwin didn't have the information and resources we have today. He had never heard of genes, for example. But what we do have today confirms the theory in triumphant abundance . That is why Darwin is rightly revered by scientists and why lots of us know that he actually got to the truth. Yes, he was a humble and self-effacing man but begod he's needed his bulldogs to put the case for over a hundred years, in the face of balefully-ignorant religious opposition.
Creationism is the product of closed, bigoted and ignorant minds and does not deserve civility.
Well said on both counts!
"If I were to reveal that, I'd be open to endless personal attacks from one side or the other."
So, Lighter, you're sat on the fence then? To be quite frank, 'personal attacks' on here mean diddly-squat (sticks and stones etc.). But in the real world religious fundamentalists are dangerous and threaten us all.
"All I'll tell you is that I've tried my best to be honest and accurate in presenting the views I've presented."
It's just that I don't understand those views, no matter how 'honestly' they've been presented!
I'm not on the fence. I'm foursquare for truth.
The dangerous jihadists, fundamentalists, totalitarians, zealots, militiamen, revanchists, neo-Nazis, Shining Path guerillas, Basque reactionaries and other assorted armed looney tunes don't read these posts and won't be influenced by anything we say. Their loss.
Oh dear. It's like picking at a scab. You know you shouldn't but somehow you can't stop.
I was not claiming to be better qualified than you, Steve, I was pointing out that I was better qualified than Pete (i.e. qualified at all) in the vain hope that you would see me as someone you could engage in rational discussion. (You had already accused me of talking crap.) My mistake; you don't do rational discussion do you Steve?
Go and read a good modern account of the theory of evolution (yes, wrong name but why change now) and look at the evidence yourself
I have read a great deal about the theory of evolution up to university undergraduate level and will continue to do so without instruction fromn you.
Either, both or neither. I don't give a damn.
Are you now abandoning the distinction between "the theory of evolution" and "evolution"? (Please try and give a straight answer to that instead of another stream of abuse.)
If you have evidence that demonstrates that evolution is not true, let's have it.
Read my lips, Steve old chap. I have absolutely no problem with The Theory of Evolution. It is a work of genius overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It seems highly improbable that it will ever need serious revision let alone be overthrown by new discoveries but as you have said yourself "As a scientific theory, evolution is perpetually open to question and modification." and earlier "I don't say that the theory of evolution is true". Quite right. You do, however, say "Evolution is true.". I don't know what that statement means and your only effort to explain has been a defence of The Theory of Evolution .
Try and get your thoughts in order and come up with some convincing arguments instead of declaming from your self assumed position of authority and vomiting over anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.
Bully for you. You still haven't got much grasp of its implications though, have you?
>Either, both or neither. I don't give a damn.
No I'm not. I'm just weary of you clattering on about this in your obstinate refusal to see what is a perfectly clear distinction. As for "giving straight answers," all you've done in this thread so far is targeted my posts with your pedantic nonsense to the exclusion of everything else. Seven times. Not only do you not deal in straight answers, you haven't contributed anything extra at all to the debate. I take it that this is your futile attempt at retribution for the bashing you got on that ancient thread where you were aligning yourself with some wondrously wacky people. Carry on, but my responses will get terser.
Steve, I think you're labouring under a serious misapprehension. You see Snail isn't like you and me - he is a superior being who is intellectually and morally superior to us poor mortals. But don't despair! Grasping the reality of this situation can be incredibly liberating!
I realised, whilst participating in another thread, that everything I said was not only intellectually inferior but also morally questionable. That meant that every statement of mine was morally and ethically flawed - hence I could say anything! For example writing ... oh, I don't know ... let me think ... something like: "Piss off, Snail, you pompous tw*t!" was no more (or less) offensive to him than: "I think that singaround organisers and participants should be more critical and seek to improve standards."
Alternatively, you could acknowledge his overwhelming superiority, apologise for your failings, and you might find that he then strides off, his halo shining brightly, to do battle with some other lowly worm.
thanks 999.
i suppose if i thought evolutionism were true,i might doubt the virgin birth too.
interestingly to me,when paul spoke to elite greeks in athens[acts 17]he began with creation.it continues to be an issue important in christian communication.
i use the word [evolutionism] because for me,it describes a belief system that is opposed to creationism,and not to confuse with evolution as a fact,in that [in accordance with creationsts pre-dating darwin]there is change within species,but not from one to another.darwin describe such[eg pigeons]early in origins.i,m afraid i,ve not read much further,but if anyone can indicate which part of the book explains his rationale for macro change i will read,just to better understand the theory.
of course,darwin knew nothing of the complexity of cells/DNA but if he did it would be more evidence of design[er]to account for.maybe someone here can explain how mutually dependant parts arise step by step by evolution?.
maybe,i know just enough to ask questions!
lighter-no personal attacks from this side!
I've been reading a lot of Richard Feynman recently. This is what he says about religion. He says much the same thing again and again: that scientists shouldn't be certain of anything, and that's ok.
You appear to be taking us all for fools. Very unwise. You select snippets from Darwin in a manner that betrays the fact that you are perfectly capable of reading it, absorbing it and understanding it. So why don't you just "read much further." And when you get round to "reading much further," you will find that Darwin writes in a crystal clear, almost lyrical way. Superb elegance and honesty of thought. You will also find that he struggles with and ultimately addresses your "question" about mutually dependent parts, etc. I am beginning to think that something in your psyche is preventing you from addressing alternative thinking to that which you have apparently been overwhelmed by. I can only assume that you must have been brainwashed by the Christian Brothers or Jesuits. The Salesians nearly got me, but I narrowly escaped.
it is true i am convinced of my faith steve,but am happy to understand why others refuse it.
i dont know that i want to read the whole of darwin though.
I think you need to. And you also need to know that there is nothing scary about confronting what you believe. How do you think atheists manage to survive in this default-religious world of ours?
Steve Shaw: "Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust."
Take his word for it..he is an expert!!...and was there!!..in fact, still is! He has more genetic strains of baboon than human!
Opinions are like assholes..everyone has one, and most of them stink!
Gosh, you're several days behind. Where have you been? Good stuff was it? Whatever it was, it didn't nobble those exclamation marks that substitute for your inability to express yourself properly, I notice.
Don't get me started.
Hey ever even attempted to answer those questions I asked you???
Nobble nobble.
"i use the word [evolutionism] because for me,it describes a belief system that is opposed to creationism,and not to confuse with evolution as a fact,in that [in accordance with creationsts pre-dating darwin]there is change within species,but not from one to another."
So where does this "change within species" lead to if it doesn't lead to another species then?
No I'm not. I'm just weary of you clattering on about this in your obstinate refusal to see what is a perfectly clear distinction.
If the distinction is so clear, it should be the work of a moment for you to explain it and then to explain what you mean by "Evolution is true." which you have so far conspicuously failed to do.
i use the word [evolutionism] because for me,it describes a belief system that is opposed to creationism
Thank's for that, Pete. Very timely. It is Steve's "This is true. You'd better believe it." attitude that leads him open to accusations of quasi-religiosity.
steve-you are making a unwarrented assumption about whether i need to confront what i believe.it is me that is at least looking at the other side to some measure.so far as i can ascertain,you have not read any creation science-and spare us the oxymoron evasive answer.
some atheists have for whatever purpose read some of it and for that i respect them.
shimrod
"micro change in species seen
groundless to enact
theorizing macro change
as though a proven fact"
who says it has to lead anywhere beyond the bounds to which the species may change by natural selection.
For goodness sake, I was indoctrinated by Catholic teachers and priests, and a combination of both, those blessed Salesian Fathers, for thirteen years. I was so hoodwinked by the damned thing that I could recite the Mass in Latin from memory. I even thought I was going to be a priest at one time. I assure you that I got enough creation doctrine shoved down my throat to stuff a hundred mattresses. I was in my 30s before I confronted this and rejected it all out of hand. Ask any ex-Catholic who has done this and they will tell you it takes considerable resolve and courage (especially when your family are believers as well) to go through with it. So yes, I know both sides and I've done my confronting, thank you. On the other hand, you seem so afeared of questioning that you refuse to read anything that runs the risk of not confirming what you hold in your cotton wool-wrapped comfort zone. I reckon that if there really was a good Lord floating around up there somewhere he'd be sorely pissed off with you for refusing to use the best gift he gave you, your brain.
And if you're going to carry on refusing to study Darwin, why don't you stop asking daft, nit-picking questions about it here. And yes, "creationist scientist" is an oxymoro, whether you're fed up of hearing it or not.
oxymoro n
As you have never actually managed to compose a comprehensible question in your life, let alone put together anything resembling an articulate sentence in what is commonly regarded as "English," I find that an odd thing to be confronted with. Have you ever considered putting yourself forward for a bit part in a future series of The Young Ones?
I have conspicuously done it in words of as few syllables as I could muster. Isn't it the gastropod breeding season or something?
A good, standard, Shaw answer. No information. No rational argument. A gratuitous insult.
Well, Steve, I've looked but I can only find one post of yours that might count as an explanation. I asked you what you meant by "Evolution is true in every facet of its general thrust." and you replied -
and shortly afterwards you said -
Just for you, I've already expanded above on why I think evolution is true, but you don't appear to have read it yet.
(My emphasis in both quotes.)
If you can't work out whether you are talking about evolution or the theory, how can you expect me to? Remember that it is you who insists on the distinction between The Theory of Evolution (which you don't say is true) and Evolution (which you do say is true).
If I have missed your monosyllabic explanation, here is your chance. If it's there already, you don't even have to type it in, you can just cut-n-paste. With a few seconds effort you can humiliate me completely and get me off your back.
How can you resist this opportunity?
Nobody's listening to you any more. Your own medicine. Aren't you snails both sexes in one body? In that case, I could suggest that you...no, Stevie-boy, no, don't...
I'll take that as a "No" then.
Keep up the good fight Steve. With Shimrod by your side, how can you fail?
Yep, take that as a no. There, a simple instruction in words of one syllable. OK now? Ever seen those little mites that run around all over garden snails?
Yep, Snail, I'm on Steve Shaw's side against your pomposity and insufferable self-righteousness!
Is anyone making book on this fight?
Fight? Surely not. A vigorous discussion carried out with mutual respect on all sides.
However, I shall quietly withdraw now as I cannot possibly hope to compete with the scientific rigour of Steve's arguments (He knows far more about the sex lives of snails than I do) or the precision of Shimrod's debating skills as exemplified in this first post to another thread.
After all, as Shimrod said, "You see Snail isn't like you and me". For some reason, I don't seem to feel as upset by that as you might expect.
You don't try to compete. All you do is attack what someone else has said. I rarely, if ever, see a constructive alternative point emanating from your keyboard. Every single post in this thread has been a snipe at me. That is easy. The hard bit is contributing to the debate.
Steve, please tell me what you mean by "Evolution is true.".
I've told you. Now contribute something of your own for once by telling me which bits of evidence undermine my contention that evolution by natural selection is the true story of life on Earth in all its beauty and complexity. No evidence from any facet of evolutionary theory comes near to contradicting that. You think I'm wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong, show me the contradicting evidence and we'll discuss it properly. But you won't, because you are disingenuously clinging to your dishonest position of claiming not to understand.
Snail, Steve is notorious on here for making irrational, illiterate posts, complete with half-witted insults...and not answering questions posed to him....he says; "As you have never actually managed to compose a comprehensible question in your life,.." but then, ironic, considering he claims to have a Catholic school education, he is still disoriented trying to sort out seeing spiritual things, as a whole different realm, than his Catechism class. All that he lives within, is his bitter rejection, of 'less than accurate' religious 'teachings'..but hasn't found where to go, to get it sorted out.....(and BTW, that WASN'T an insult, just an observation of the obvious)...so he rejects any and everything that even resembles a clue, that could imply that there is a God, or intelligent life.
NOTE: 'Time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once!'
Funny, how religious nuts, are waiting for eternity to begin!
P.S. Before you start hacking at your keyboard, to refute common sense, try considering comprehending the post, first....it won't bite!
Well, it's certainly dense and badly-written. Hands up all those people here who think I'm illiterate. Or, to put it another way, illiterater than Guffs ex-Sanitorium.
It suddenly hit me whilst preparing my tea. Snail is so ittitating because he is Mudcat's self-appointed censor! In many of his posts he demands that other posters submit to his impertinent interrogations or alter their views to conform with his.
He attempted to censor one of Mudcat's most distinguished contributors (work it out, Snail!) because he called for greater critical standards within the British Folk scene.
He attempted to censor me because I called for greater critical standards within the British Folk scene and expressed myself robustly and somewhat facetiously.
He attempted to censor Steve Shaw because he did not approve of Steve's word choice.
I, for one, do not recognise you as Mudcat's censor, Snail. I will decide how I express myself. I do, however, accept the authority of the site's moderator and will happily conform to any standards which he imposes.
Do you know why women have legs????
.....>>>>>> V
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
VVVVVVVVV
VVVVVV
VVVV
Because if they didn't
There would be snail trails
All over the sidewalks!
'Guest from Sanity', do you really think that anyone here would find such disgusting misogyny funny? To be frank such dubious filth is quite a long way from sanity! What planet are you on?
JESUS H. CHRIST!
I'm out of here.
Good. Maybe we can discuss something sensible for a change then. Yep, nice joke, Guff-ex. What a misfire. Only post sober is my advice.
Hey Steve, Now 'Snail' will pick on me, instead of you...though you're the one who deserves it.. I did you a favor. Consider bitching less.
"Ah, hem, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a failyuerr to communicate."
May I ask, who is pissed off at whom?
From: Ringer
"No, [the theory of evolution] doesn't "increase our understanding, etc. etc." It explains life on earth in all its beauty and complexity.
Not so. It explains the development of life on earth, but only after that life was there. It has nothing to say about how self-replicating life-forms came to be there in the first place.
And who is to say that pre-life forms could not have been subjected to natural selection? We may never know, of course, whether life arose once or millions of times, or whether it arrived on a comet, etc. But that life was subject to natural selection wherever it was, and I can think of no good reason why natural selection was not operating right from the word go, if not even a tad earlier. I would also go so far as to claim that natural selection would very likely be able to explain life on whatever planet it arises. Your description is a little abject in that you leave out complexity and beauty and diversity. Perhaps you think that we atheists are incapable of appreciating all that.
i was reading about a creature i,ve not heard of before.
the colugo does,nt fit neatly into any category ,having unique features, and features found in other disparate creatures.
fossils alledgedly 34 mill yr old are apparently little different to modern colugos .
i thought to myself;thank God they didnt become extint a few thousand years past or the darwinists would be claiming an intermediate find!.
i thought-maybe a break in the slanging match!?
"I can think of no good reason why natural selection was not operating right from the word go..."
Then think a little harder. Natural selection requires self-replicating entities to "work" on. If that is the case, natural selection could not, by definition, have created self-replicating entities from entities which did not self-replicate.
"Your description is a little abject ..."
I described nothing; how, then, could my description be abject?
"Perhaps you think that we atheists are incapable of appreciating all that."
I did not know you were an atheist; equally, you do not know that I am not. What on earth has atheism or its lack got to do with this?
I made no explicit reference to "complexity and beauty and diversity" because my argument does not involve them. Your introduction of them is a red herring.
News to me, too, Pete. Looked 'em up on Google Images and they look like a cross between a squirrel and lord knows what.
is it not a scientific law that life only arises from life.
scientific observation has never attested any other way has it?. unless you qualified people know otherwise.
There are lots of organisms aound that haven't changed much for millions of years (e.g. certain ferns and fern relatives and certain marine organisms). That doesn't 'disprove' evolution it probably means that those organisms are well suited to their particular ecological niches, those niches are relatively stable and hence the particular organism hasn't been subjected to much selective pressure.
Still, the obsessive 'exception hunting' that 'creationists' indulge in is a waste of time! You are not going to discover some overwhelming exception which 'proves' that 'it wus God wot did it' and that we can then throw 'The Origin of Species' in the bin!
From: Amos
There's a good deal of speculation concerning basic life mechanisms arising from non-organic silicates, clays and the like under certain conditions. Dawkins goes into this in some interesting detail. And life has been generated from non-organic elements inlaboratory experiments thought to simulate possible conditions early in the planetary history. Don't have the reference to hand, sorry.
But that doesn't mean it happened that way, or thatr there were no other factors in play. Or even that it happened on Earth.
i dont suppose evolutionism can be disproved.it seems to me that every time some part of the evidence is removed or distanced by new evidence,darwins followers appeal to the non regid scientific method.
disproved-no,proved neither.
creationists dont regard their research as a waste of time.it has results.and not just among laymen like myself.
Actually, though some of the so-called "evidence for evolution" has been discredited (notably "Piltdown man"), none of what's been discredited has any bearing on the remaining, vast, foundational evidence that evolution exists or that natural selection can explain it.
Now, if significant parts of that remaining evidence were shown to be false, evolutionary theory would be in trouble.
Equally to the point, the fact that false "discoveries" like Piltdown man can be discredited by the procedures of science itself, coming at the problem from multiple directions and specialties, suggests strongly that the evidence that remains undiscredited is genuine and reliable.
Some anthropologists were suspicious of Piltdown from the start. The proof of fraud finally came from independent radiation dating. It was unmistakable and there was no scientific scrambling to deny it. Some major anthropologists were embarrassed, but they admitted they'd been fooled without crying "foul!" Darwin's theory was unaffected because "Piltdown man" wasn't needed to explain anything.
Had the fraud never been discovered, Piltdown man might have seemed so odd, so detached from the rest of the human family tree, that some people would undoubtedly have claimed, erroneously, that Piltdown man itself was proof of Creationism.
In 1971, when I was studying botany at Imperial College, I wrote an essay on the origin of life (I got an "A", but hey). In researching for the essay I discovered that coacervate droplets, a long way back from the threshold of life, could indeed replicate from materials available in their environment. It taught me not to look at the point of origin of life in black and white. I suggest you adopt the same philosophy. Things are not always as crystal clear as popular science would portray them as.
You said that evolution can describe the development of life. How dry and unimaginative that is. Natural selection does far more than that. It's a common problem for people who think modern science must always deal in complex ideas. For those like you and Pete who refrain from taking a close enough look, natural selection must seem to be too ridiculously, suspiciously, simple to explain anything. But the sheer elegance and beauty of the idea (far more beautiful than any false creationist construct, which is one hell of a struggle even for its most ardent supporters) is its glory. It explains everything about life on Earth yet assumes almost nothing. No better idea has ever emanated from science. It explains the whole of life on Earth in all its beauty and diversity and complexity. I think I prefer my less abject description over yours any day.
Piltdown Man is a total red herring. It was a complete fraud that had nothing to do with science and it is equally fraudulent to attempt to use it to besmirch science, which, on the whole, is practised by people of good faith. I can't think of one good reason why you should have raised it in this context.
Please apprise us of the research papers published by these creationist researchers. Pete, just cut the bullshit, will you.
Drivel.
Personal anaecdote time.
Some years ago now I purchased and read a copy of Stephen Jay Gould's book of essays, 'Ever Since Darwin'(1980) ... which contained, you guessed it, essays about Evolution (although none of them contained anything about something called "evolutionism").
I remember being very impressed by this book - the essays in it were beautifully written and taught me a lot about Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.
A couple of weeks after I had finished the book an Evangelical Christian came to my door and attempted to convert me to his particular sect of Christianity. He offered me a booklet which purported to be the last word on Creationism (i.e. 'God did it, it's all in the Bible, the end'). I said that I would read his pamphlet if he would read Gould's book (I even offered to lend him my copy). He made a muttered excuse and left and I never saw him again ... funny that!
One reason that Piltdown man was recognized as a fraud was because it contradicted evolutionary principles. One of the distinguishing features between hominids and the great apes is the shape of the lower jaw, so if you mix a pongid mandible with a hominid cranium suspicions will be aroused.
"As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull. Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct."
I should have thought it impossible to misconstrue my mention of Piltdown man.
pete asks:
"tia-just so i understand;are you saying that when surprise was expressed at 65mill blood residue that they had no basis or reasoning for such amazement?."
Plenty of reason for amazement. No one had tested for it before, and everyone **assumed** it could not exist. But someone had the idea to actually do science and perform the test, and found the residue, and overturned a long-held, unproven (and untested) ****assumption****. An all-around amazing story.
"maybe someone here can explain how mutually dependant parts arise step by step by evolution?."
The human eye is the classic example (and one often cited by creationists). Complex organs with mutually dependant parts arise just like everything else - in very small, almost imperceptible steps. All the steps that did not provide an advantage died out, while those very very few that did provide an advantage also provided a (perhaps imperceptibly slightly) greater chance to be passed on by reproduction. For the eye, all of the incremental steps along the way still exists somewhere in the animal kingdom, and can be observed today:
simple photosensitive cells
collections of pigment cells unserviced by a nerve
nerve cells surrounded by pigment cells
nerve cells surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent membrane
pigment cells forming a small depression
pigment cells forming a deep depression
pigment cells forming a deep depression with a translucent curved membrane (proto lens)
the membrane over the depression forming an actual lens (but fixed)
muscles surrounding the membrane that allow it to adjust or focus
All of these are still found, still functional, and provide the creature that bears them with some benefit in their particular niche.
A similar description is possible for all of the other so-called "unevolvable" mutually dependant systems such as the woodpecker's tongue, hawk moth and bombardier beetle defense systems, vertebrate heart, bat sonar, etc.
In fact the entire book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins addresses this issue. If you truly want to understand this answer, go read Dawkins, not Darwin. Darwin did not have the understanding and evidence available to Dawkins 150 years later.
And this leads to another important point...it is wrong and unscientific to expect all explanations of evolutionary processes to be explained in Darwin's writings. Science (remember, it is a method) ensures that our body of knowledge necessarily changes. Any meaningful argument with any product of science must argue with the current knowledge - not some idea that has since bee expanded, refined, or discredited.
And finally, here is the crux of the difference between science and religion: I will state the (hypothetical) evidence that would make me question or even deny the current theory of evolution. There are many possibilities...for instance a dinosaur bone stratigraphically beneath a lava flow that has a K-Ar date of something less than say 20 million years... a hominind footprint (actually any footprint) in a sedimentary formation that also includes brachiopods or trilobites...a dinosaur bone with tool marks on it....I could go on and on.
Now pete (and anyone else); what is the specific (hypothetical) evidence that would make you doubt or even deny the biblical account of creation? If there is none, we are not having a conversation about science. If there is such hypothetical evidence, let's go see if we can find it! That is how science works.
That's right. Darwin did not have the wherewithal that we have today - the knowledge of genetics and biochemistry to help him to put the complete jigsaw puzzle together. I also agree with you that Dawkins is a great modern source for explanation of evolutionary theory in the modern context and I wouldn't be without him. Of course, we don't want anti-evolutionists busting blood vessels, do we! The reason I keep telling Pete et al. to read Darwin is twofold. First, Darwin writes about his ideas in a clear and elegant manner, and second, he is honest almost to a fault, the best kind of scientist, fully addressing his own doubts at every juncture. Reading "Origin" would be an object lesson to anyone who's been taken in by the charlatans who push the creationist story. Note, charlatans, Pete, with not a scrap of honesty in sight, not "creationist scientists."
But Darwin's big idea, the role of natural selection, remains at the heart of evolutionary theory, no matter what has been discovered since to modify the theory. He was the man!
When I said "That's right...", I was responding to your last but one post.
Agreed. To be fully informed, read Darwin, then Dawkins (and some Stephen Jay Gould would not hurt).
Actually it might hurt some people.
Somewhere above you wrote:
"creationists dont regard their research as a waste of time.it has results.and not just among laymen like myself."
Why do 'creationists' need to do 'research' when they believe that they already know the 'answer' (i.e. 'God did it, it's all in the Bible')?
I suspect that their real motive for doing 'research' is in order to 'prove' that the Theory of Evolution is false. But I've got news for them - and you - you can't prove a negative and it is illogical and unscientific to try. No scientist, in the real world, would receive research funding for such a project!
thanks tia for your reasoned response.i am not equal to the challenge of presenting evidence to counter it.my respect for explaining your position.most others have just offered assertions and insults.
i have always stated that i start with the bible,and i think every creationist who would be competent as a scientist to debate your position, admits to the same presupposition.
Tell you what, I'll stop 'insulting' you if you go off and read Darwin, Dawkins and Gould.
Still trying (and failing) to get my head round, " ... every creationist who would be competent as a scientist ...". Please name a creationist who would be competent as a scientist and provide a list of his/her publications.
"I should have thought it impossible to misconstrue my mention of Piltdown man."
How were you miscontrued?
I forgot Gould. Cheers. TIA (and Shimrod) for reminding me.
Right, this bloody Piltdown oojah. This was a deliberate hoax perpetrated ninety bloody nine years ago. NINETY BLOODY NINE. Within two years it was blown apart by sensible scientists, though too many others were temporarily deluded by it for a good few years afterwards. More fool them. Put that into context by recalling that billions of people are deluded, not temporarily but permanently, into believing in God by similarly fraudulent "evidence", and then it doesn't sound quite so bad. It has absolutely no bearing on any sensible discussion about science. I can't begin to think what motives anyone might have for harping on about it in 2011. Well yes I can, actually. The next person who mentions it in any kind of serious way will get a bloody gobful from me. I will call them a clot and possibly much worse. So there.
>Actually, though some of the so-called "evidence for evolution" has been discredited (notably "Piltdown man"), none of what's been discredited has any bearing on the remaining, vast, foundational evidence that evolution exists or that natural selection can explain it.
What the earlier poster characterized as discredited "evidence for evolution" is no evidence at all. Piltdown man - for example - is frequently cited by Creationists (though not in this thread) to show that evolutionary scientists are not very bright in the first place and then won't acknowledge their blunders when they're exposed.
Some Creationists believe that dinosaur footprints have been found alongside human prints; this supposedly "exposes" the foolishness of geologists, who are too proud, stubborn, and protective of their jobs to admit the "truth." A different sort of case, but the same mistaken principle, namely that "Evolutionary scientists don't know what they're talking about, and cover up their embarrassing blunders."
Piltdown, even when it was thought real, was hardly vital to the general case for the existence of evolution (which is what some Creationists seem to think). And Piltdown was a fraud. Thus the quotation marks and "so-called."
A thoughtful reading of the entire post, I believe, would have cleared up any confusion.
Like I said, drop Piltdown Man. It has no bearing on anything connected to evolution and hasn't had for longer than most people on this list have been alive. Or dead. Or dead from the neck up, like all creationists.
just to clarify;my post was not referring to fraudulent finds like the piltdown man.i,m not sure how long it took for it,s exposure to be public knowledge ,and how many people forfeited their faith on account of a hoax.
i understand that haeckals fraudulent embryos drawings persisted a long time and can even be found in current text books.
i am not however implying that evolutionists in general resort to such dishonesty.
shimrod-i,m not going to waste time reeling out a list of scientists who were creationists, or currently are ,for someone who has no intention of civil discussion.if i perchance misjudge you,i suggest you go to creation.com where their scientist,s bios etc are available.best wishes,pete
I'll go to creation.com (although I know what I'll find) if you'll tell me why creationists need to do research. Surely, if you know the answer already you don't need to do research ... do you?
i,m not sure how long it took for it,s exposure to be public knowledge
Well go and look it up. It couldn't be easier. I assume that, because you can post here, you actually have a computer that connects to the internet. "I'm not sure" my big fat well-calloused chocolate-covered arse.
Oh yes you are. The trouble is that you can't produce any evidence because you never look anything up that might even vaguely challenge you predigested creationist shite. Like Darwin for example.
shimrod-i,m not going to waste time reeling out a list of scientists who were creationists, or currently are ,for someone who has no intention of civil discussion.
What bollix. You can't name any creationist scientists for the very simple reason that there aren't any.
your predigested creationist shite
Steve, this thread is called "Got Science"....can you rule out any other dimension, not visible to the naked eye, at work here???..Oh, yes, and will you do anything to prove the existence, or non existence of that invisible trick called 'intelligence'?
Then from there, prove your embittered 'theories', and in doing so, rule out 'intelligence', or ANY force from another dimension, in play that rules out ANY influence to this dimension!!!....and if you can't, would you please shut up, about things you don't know about??!!??!!
P.S. Now that's not an unreasonable request, is it?
Just let me have some of that stuff you're on. That's all I ask of you.
You are avoiding the question....and trying a feeble attempt to be cute. Either answer the question, or shut up with your unproven theories!
It is not possible to prove that *anything* does *not* exist. Even Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.
As Karl Popper (or perhaps it was Hume originally) said..."it is not possible to prove that all swans are white; but to prove that not all swans are white, one needs to find only a single black swan."
Or as Carl Sagan put it, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence".
So, I trust that no logical person will attempt to argue that some thing doesn't exist. Nor would they fall into the argumentum ad ignorantium and pretend that something must be true simply because it has not been disproven.
But questioned persons can speak for themselves of course.
With all his vitriolic rhetoric, I think he can speak for himself, being as he was asked specific questions regarding his theorem. He's NOT off the hook, so he can either back up his rap, or continue to be clocked as just an empty headed, contentious noise maker.
"Then from there, prove your embittered 'theories', and in doing so, rule out 'intelligence', or ANY force from another dimension, in play that rules out ANY influence to this dimension!!!....and if you can't, would you please shut up, about things you don't know about??!!??!!"
Do you think you could just run that by me again, please?
This thread is in danger of becoming very confused as the 'creationists' tie themselves up in spectacular verbal knots.
Hence, I thought that a summary might be useful. There are, basically, two camps:
Camp 1.
People who are persuaded that the observed diversity of life on earth arises as a result of a natural process called evolution. The Theory of Evolution was formulated by two 19th century English scientists - Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace (let's not forget him!) and both of them published books on it, the most influential of these being Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species'.
The Theory of Evolution is supported by a huge amount of evidence accumulated by hundreds (if not thousands) of reputable scientists in over a century and a half. There are many popular works available on the Theory of Evolution - the names of Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould spring most readily to mind.
As is true of all scientific theories the Theory of Evolution is necessarily incomplete but each new piece of evidence, from fields as diverse as geology and molecular biology, only serves to support it in broad outline.
The Theory of Evolution is politically neutral - although it has been appropriated for political purposes in the recent past - most notably through the wilful misinterpretation of Darwin's phrase, "survival of the fittest". Nevertheless, when interpreted correctly it only serves to strengthen the cases for anti-racism and Green politics.
The Creationists. These people believe that all life on earth was designed and created 6,000 years ago by an omnipotent, supernatural entity called God. Their only real source of information is a collection of ancient of texts (of unknown authorship) called 'The Bible'. They also believe that the Bible is the work of God because it is stated so inside (a circular argument). They appear to believe implicitly in the word of God because they claim to possess something called 'faith' (which appears to be, among other rather fuzzy things, an unshakeable belief in the supernatural without evidence).
This sect is largely American in origin (with adherents in other parts of the world). Adherents of this sect appear to be dismayed by the persuaiveness of, and overwhelming evidence in support of, the Theory of Evolution - largely, I suspect, because it threatens their power and influence in American Society. They have set up several pseudo-academic institutions which do pseudo-reasearch and publish pseudo-academic papers which seek to bolster 'creationism' and refute the Theory of Evolution.
I happen to believe that this sect, and the American Religious Right, in general, are dangerous and deluded. They are autocratic, doctrinaire, paternalistsic, misogynystic (as one contributor to this thread demonstrated in dramatic fashion above) and have been associated with racism in the past (and I wouldn't be suprised to find that certain elements within this group still are racist). They appear to wield considerable influence within American Society and because America is currently the most powerful society on earth they represent a threat to us all. I oppose them and everything that they stand for!
From: GUEST,Mark Twain
in French
Steve, ce fil s'appelle le " ; Science" obtenu ; ….pouvez vous éliminer n'importe quelle autre dimension, non évidente à l'oeil nu, au travail ici ? ? ?. Ah, oui, et vous ferez n'importe quoi prouver l'existence, ou non l'existence de ce tour invisible a appelé ' ; intelligence' ; ? Alors de là, prouvent votre ' rendu amer ; theories' ; , et de cette manière, éliminez ' ; intelligence' ; , ou TOUTE force d'une autre dimension, dans le jeu qui élimine N'IMPORTE QUELLE influence à cette dimension ! ! ! ….et si vous can' ; t, vous svp a fermé vers le haut, au sujet des choses vous don' ; t savent ? ? ! ! ? ? ! ! GfS P.S. Maintenant que ' ; s pas une demande peu raisonnable, n'est-ce pas ?
French to Greek
Steve, αυτό το νήμα s' καλέστε το " ; Science" αποκτηθείς; ….μπορέστε να σας εξαλείψει το n' εισάγετε όποια άλλη όχι προφανής διάσταση, στο l' γυμνό μάτι, στην εργασία εδώ; ; ;. Ah, ναι, και θα κάνετε τα n' εισάγετε quoi να αποδείξτε το l' ύπαρξη, ή όχι l' η ύπαρξη αυτού του αόρατου γύρου έχει καλέσει το ' ; intelligence' ; ; Τότε εκεί, αποδεικνύει το ' σας; επιστρεφόμενος amer; theories' ; , και κατ' αυτό τον τρόπο, εξαλείφει τα ' ; intelligence' ; , ή ΌΛΗ δύναμη d' μη άλλη διάσταση, μέσα στο παιχνίδι που εξαλείφει N' ΕΙΣΆΓΕΤΕ ΌΠΟΙΑ επιρροή σε αυτήν την διάσταση! ! ! ….και εάν εσείς can' ; το τ, παρακαλώ σας έχει κλείσει ανοδικός, σχετικά με τα πράγματα εσείς don' ; τα τ ξέρουν; ; ! ! ; ; ! ! GfS P.S. maintenant que ' ; ο s ένα λίγο λογικό αίτημα, n' δεν είναι;
Steve, this thread s'? call the "? ; Science"? acquiring? ….can you it eliminates n'? import whoever other no obvious dimension, in l'? naked eye, in the work here? ; ;. Ah, yes, and you will make n'? import quoi you prove l'? existence, or no l'? has the existence of this invisible tour called the '? ; intelligence'? ; ; Then there, it proves the '? you? returned amer? theories'? ; , and [kat]'? [ayto] [ton] way, it eliminates the '? ; intelligence'? ; , or ALL force d'? not other dimension, in t o game that eliminates N'? IMPORT ANY influence in this dimension! ! ! ….and if you can'? ; the t, I request it has closed to you ascendant, with regard to the things you don'? ; do the t know? ; ! ! ; ; ! ! GfS P.S maintenant que '? ; a s little reasonable demand, n'? it isn't?
There. Got it now Shimrod?
"You said that evolution can describe the development of life."
No, Steve Shaw. I said, of evolution, that "It explains the development of life on earth..." (emphasis added). I don't think there's "description" there, is there?
Should I have said, to meet your full approval, "It explains the development of life on earth in all its beauty and diversity and complexity?" I am happy to acknowledge the "beauty and diversity and complexity" of life; but haven't you yourself omitted the "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" nature of life? Beauty, after all, like brutishness, is in the eye of the beholder.
"How dry and unimaginative that is."
I picked you up on a point of science, ffs. Why do you vomit all this "dry and unimaginative," "beauty and diversity and complexity" BS? Haven't you got anything scientific to say in response to a point of science instead of this subjective crap?
"For those like you ... natural selection must seem to be too ridiculously, suspiciously, simple to explain anything."
Why don't you read what I wrote? I acknowledged that evolution (which encompasses natural selection) could account for all life except its origin (oops, sorry: for all its beauty and diversity and complexity).
Now: would you like to try again?
Shimrod: "The Creationists. These people believe that all life on earth was designed and created 6,000 years ago...."
Your first premise is off, and then you build on it from there. Both you and the 'Darwinists' (ok, if I call them that?) seem to have a concept of regarding 'Creation', as interpreted by fundamental Christianity, or fundamental Catholicism. It is also what you base your Darwin/Dawkins theories to, as reactionary to those forms of fundamentalism. While there are some good things in both of those 'religions', I DO NOT see 'God', 'spiritual things', 'creation' as a matter of 'religious teachings'...nor do I believe in a 'religion'...but their is a place, where science, and the spiritual intersect, in a most profound way. Neither should rule out the other, because if either or both are true, they would bear each other out. To limit the attributes of either, especially when very little is understood about any other dimensions, that directly affect this dimension, is absolute lunacy, and so-called 'science' promoters, who refuse to allow that reality into their equations, are just as 'nutty' as the fundamentalist zealots, that they are re-acting to.
Also, Steve fell off the radar screen.....must have got too deep for him......................That being said, he'll be compelled to say something nasty and stupid, in return, UNLESS, he actually considers what I've said...and that is(just to refresh your memory), there is a place where the spiritual and the scientific intersect, that because of exclusionary thinking, on both their parts, we know very little about! That includes how other dimensions are at work, that affect this present time/reality, that we readily observe!
Remember, TIME is 'nature's way of not letting everything happen at once, to us..but in reality, it is!
P.S. That was fun.......heavy, too.
"I DO NOT see 'God', 'spiritual things', 'creation' as a matter of 'religious teachings'...nor do I believe in a 'religion'...but their is a place, where science, and the spiritual intersect, in a most profound way."
You appear to be sitting on the fence again, GfS. And evolutionary scientists are NOT reacting to religious fundamentalists - it's the other way round.
In addition, you might have some 'invisible friends' in other dimensions - just don't expect me to believe in them!
Oh yes, and where, exactly, do science and the spiritual intersect?
"Camp" 3: Millions of people who (1) have no problem at all with accepting the theory of evolution and it's validation, or the overwhelming evidence for the great ages of earth and the universe, (2) are inclined to believe that the evolutionary process and its results reflect intelligent guidance, and (3) realize that that belief is subjective, is outside the realm of the scientific method, and has nothing to do with the content of science textbooks or journals, or govenment publications.
"Camp" 4. Those who (1)accept as fact that evolution has occured, and that evolution and "creation" have occured over billions of years, (2) believe that they see objective proof for the intelligent guidance of evolution as a creative process, and (3) feel compelled to battle for the inclusion of their beliefs in textbooks and other scientific materials.
Camp 3 people should have a right to the designation "creationist", but it has been co-opted by camp 2. They should have a right to the designation "intelligent design", but it has been co-opted by camp 4.
Oh, yeah:
Camp 5: My cousin Melvin, who believes that everything happened by pure chance, but that it all started 37 years ago.
shimrod.
re creationist research.
yes the bible gives us the answer,but that does not preclude scientific research.if it did ,you might have reason to discount creationism.historically it was creationists that advanced science.can you cite any instance of them doing otherwise?
i think i can find instances of evolutionistic "science"hindering progress .i,ll look them up later if pressed.
one example of creationist research has been star/light travel which apparently poses problems for evolutionists also[though i cant get my head around it much!]
quite obviously with evolutionism being so dominant, and often militant, creationist scientists need to address their opponents.
this however is not done with the animosity common to many evolutionists, but of love for God -and of people who deny Him by theories that discount him.
i,ve read very little politics and no racism in creationism.i suggest that evolutionism has been more guilty of that.
steve-have a nice day.
frogprince-i am aware of the other camps and of course Steve and shimrod dispises us all!.
pete, are you still citing Piltodown in your song as a reason for rejecting Darwin?
Yes, creationists can certainly do research. But if they start with the infallibility of the Bible, it is not *scientific* research...possibly interesting and comforting to some, but not scientific.
And regarding alternate unseen universes, they certainly may (and probably do) exist, and may interact with the one we perceive. And we can never prove that they *don't* exist (see black swans above), but if there is a testable assertion or idea about their existence or nature, suddenly we are able to inquire about them in a scientific fashion. The testable assertion is key. "They exist" is not testable. "We know they exist because determining the spin state of a photon in Chicago should instantaneously affect the spin state of a coupled photon in Denmark" *is* (and was) testable! And the test results are a mind boggling example of quantum weirdness.
"one example of creationist research has been star/light travel which apparently poses problems for evolutionists also[though i cant get my head around it much!]"
What??? How the f*ck did "star/light travel" (whatever the f*ck that is!) get into this? Is there anything else that you can't get your head round but still have an opinion on?
And people who are convinced by the Theory of Evolution are only moved to militancy by bone-headed creationists.
frogprince,
As far as I am concerned your Camps 3. and 4. are just sub-sects of Camp 2. - and their silly waffle certainly shouldn't be allowed into text books!!
Well, Guest Not-Exactly-Yet-Ex-Insanitorium, I can hardly consider what you say because you never say anything that is comprehensible in the accepted meaning of the term. One day, maybe, when you actually say something that isn't under the influence of something else...
No, it explains all life on earth in all its beauty and complexity. "Development" sits very uneasily with evolution theory in that evolution does not have a goal, so, development towards...well, what? You tell me. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short...well, that's your interpretation, one used quite improperly as an argument against God, of course (there are far better, and far more interesting, ones). A far better interpretation is to say that every living creature on earth is a victor in the struggle for existence. As for beauty, well, hows about saying that it's the perfect synergy of form and function? That'll do me, though of course there are lots of other ways of putting it if science isn't your numero uno priority. I'm struggling to define the beauty of the Lento of Beethoven's Quartet in F, but then struggle is part of the whole aesthetic when it comes to art, n'est-ce pas? It's a wonderful world.
Steve Pshaw: "
Well, Guest Not-Exactly-Yet-Ex-Insanitorium, I can hardly consider what you say because you never say anything that is comprehensible in the accepted meaning of the term. One day, maybe, when you actually say something that isn't under the influence of something else... "
I'm sorry you can't comprehend simple things. You should try it before moving onto more complex things..........
.........OR..........
Was that just another dumb ploy of yours to avoid answering a question, that you still can't??
Me thinks that's the case!..and..You ain't off the hook.
Answer the question that you've been running from, through THREE threads. Your bullshit is not working..AT ALL!!
Yeah: what Guest from Sanity said. You produced a lot of words, Steve Shaw, but no trace of an answer.
Are you both the same man??
As I plough manfully through this vale of tears (dotted with the occasional sunlit upland) I find more and more that I can only answer questions that are actually questions.
So, in turn, what was the question again?
What do you mean by "Evolution is true."?
I don't know about you, Steve but I find myself having to answer 'questions' like this:
I think that that might be a question ... possibly?
On reflection I think that the answer to the above question might be a Pekinese in marmalade in the King's bed chamber (in another dimension) ... am I close?
Exactly, Shimrod. It makes one feel like Jaysus failing to allow himself to be booby-trapped by the high priests. Don't answer stupid "questions" is my philosophy, and it's even better as I get to decide which the stupid questions are. Like that one that the beshelled one has decided to regurgitate. Are snails like rabbits? Do they continually eat their own shite then spit it out again?
penny-nice of you to remember one verse of "monkey biz"out of the 8 verses i wrote.
a song raising points/questioning darwinism is not a comprehensive argument but an invitation to reconsider what most people accept without thinking it through.
the verse in question does suggest the possibility of deliberate evolutionist fraud but not an accusation.i dont know that any more than who fixed the man/dino prints some place.
BTW at rising sun session last night someone did a funny pro evolution song and i was not at all affronted,but took it as a well written song-as he does mine.
tia-i would say that evolutionism starts with a non negotiable pre supposition also.difference being, it has a lot more room for adjustment ,which i think it has often utilized.
thanks again for your non abusive contributions to discussion.i dont suppose the other sort help your position much!.
From: harmonic miner
I 'believe' in evolution in the same way that I 'believe' in gravity and in Boyle's Law and in sub-atomic particles. I also 'believe' in musical harmony. Call me an gravitationalist or a Boylist or a subatomicparticlist or a harmonicist
Don Williams
I Believe in Love
I don't believe in superstars,
Organic food and foreign cars.
I don't believe the price of gold;
The certainty of growing old.
That right is right and left is wrong,
That north and south can't get along.
That east is east and west is west.
And being first is always best.
But I believe in love.
I believe in babies.
I believe in Mom and Dad.
And I believe in you.
Well, I don't believe that heaven waits,
For only those who congregate.
I like to think of God as love:
He's down below, He's up above.
He's watching people everywhere.
He knows who does and doesn't care.
And I'm an ordinary man,
Sometimes I wonder who I am.
I believe in music.
I believe in magic.
I know with all my certainty,
What's going on with you and me,
Is a good thing.
It's true, I believe in you.
I don't believe virginity,
Is as common as it used to be.
In working days and sleeping nights,
That black is black and white is white.
That Superman and Robin Hood,
Are still alive in Hollywood.
That gasoline's in short supply,
The rising cost of getting by.
I believe in old folks.
I believe in children.
I believe in you.
I believe in love.
"i would say that evolutionism starts with a non negotiable pre supposition also.difference being, it has a lot more room for adjustment ,which i think it has often utilized."
Wow! That's rich coming from a creationist! So the Bible is NOT a "non negotiable pre supposition" then? And, as we've explained to you over and over and over and over, again and again and again and again, ALL scientific theories have lots of "room for adjustment" because ALL scientific theories are necessarily incomplete. Got it yet? What don't you understand?
There's no such thing as "evolutionism".
What is "star/light travel"?
Well I haven't heard Pete's song Monkey Biz, but if it's supposed to be about evolution I have a sneaking feeling that "monkeys" should have been "apes." Pete, careful now you don't make yerself all popular with your anti-evolution songs like Vin did with his anti-abortion songs...
Don't answer stupid "questions" is my philosophy, and it's even better as I get to decide which the stupid questions are. Like that one that the beshelled one has decided to regurgitate. Are snails like rabbits? Do they continually eat their own shite then spit it out again?
You'd know it was Steve even without his name on the top.
You said -
I'm asking, "What do you mean by 'evolution is true'?" Seems pretty straightforward.
Crawl your mucilaginous way up the thread and do some reading. When you've done that and discovered that I have answered your question, please go away.
Steve, along with Nimrod, are pretending they don't 'recall' the question, or somehow can't comprehend it What a bunch of horse shit!! Two peas in a pod. Them Nimrod reposes another post, and stupidly asks' "I think that that might be a question ... possibly?"
If you two are all that the evolution THEORY has, you are in BAD shape, along with your THEORY!!!
Then you act stupid, or AWOL when The Snail asks, " I'm asking, "What do you mean by 'evolution is true'?" Seems pretty straightforward."
So, if you can't answer anything, but turn around and do some juvenile snide comeback remark, trying to avoid a straight forward answer, what are we supposed to think?..that that we might all have to wait for you to evolve, and have a brain???!!!??!!
By the way, Guest 999..very cool piece you posted by Don Williams. Thank you for posting it. It's pretty much a position I hold....but then Steve and Nimrod might not like it, they can't prove 'love' or 'intelligence'....so they must not be true!!!
Regardless, Thanks for the piece!
"Steve, along with Nimrod, are pretending they don't 'recall' the question, or somehow can't comprehend it ..."
I would like to state, categorically, that neither I nor 'Nimrod' understand the question!
Let's return to this "star/light travel" thing again, if we may? Both Nimrod and I are very intrigued by this ... sorry if you find the fact that we appear to be dwelling on this offensive or anything (perish the thought!). But are you implying by this, rather cryptic, comment, that you and your creationist chums are also casting doubt on Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity? I think we should be told!
Who next? Heisenberg, Bohr, Schrodinger, Crick and Watson, Dirac, Turing, Feynman? I bet they're all quaking in their graves!
What's that you said, Nimrod? pete and his creationist mates are a bunch of silly twerps? No, you can't say that it counts as abuse! Now please be quiet!
Phew! I think we got away with it there!
first a little bible study-nimrod "a mighty hunter before the LORD".
Genesis 10 v8ff
this probably means;a big shot strutting his stuff in the face of God,to rephrase notes from ESV bible.seems an appropriate naming!.
i have already admitted not understanding very much of the problem,but as you seem to have no idea to what i refer;i will just quote
..since a light year is the distance travelled by light in one year,and we can see galaxies,does this mean that the universe is very old?.....it,s important to note that the most widely held cosmology..big bang theory,has a problem of it,s own with light travel,called horizon problem.this arises from the universe being thought to be at least ten times bigger than the distance that radiation could have travelled since the big bang,even with their billions of years timescale
creation answers book p87,88
i have read "starlight,time and the new physics"by dr john hartnett but my comprehension of it is sketchy so theres not much i can elucidate further except to assure you einsteins theories are in there somewhere.
Well, at least Ghast ex-Sanitary Ware is hugely entertaining, unlike that boring invertebrate who has not contributed one single substantial opinion to the thread. I love all those exclamation marks. I note he's purporting to teach people to sing in another thread. Would that be er, theory, old boy? Can you prove it's true?
And yes, the Don Williams is for sure the most profoundly philosophical piece I've read for over a minute.
The dynamic team of Shimrod and Nimrod have just googled Dr John Hartnett and here is his take on Cosmology:
"The way I see it, the Bible is true and the stars were created on Day 4. Yes, the universe is very large but we also have a very great God. My personal view is that the explanation probably involves a certain amount of miraculous activity during Creation Week."
Mind you, for a fruitcake, he has got a lot of impressive letters after his name. But then my ex-boss had a lot of impressive letters after his name - but that didn't stop him being a complete tw*t!
Steve is above it all. Must be nice.
Above it all? I just like to debate stuff, but I must admit that being entertained by a pair of flailing nutcases isn't a bad substitute after a long day. Unless you want to make it three. How's your Gaddafi assassination plot on that other thread coming along, by the way?
Just fine, thank you for asking.
Saul I am sure you know that you ask for a rational discussion from people who double down with creationism and place side bets that you are in league with satan for not giving the good lord sole credit for everything. how crazy is that?
Thats OK
I asked Glen Beck for a financial contribution to my social justice foundation. How crazy is that?
I was working towards a detailed response to Steve Shaw's erudite -
when I encountered this -
Well, at least Ghast ex-Sanitary Ware is hugely entertaining, unlike that boring invertebrate [Does he mean me?] who has not contributed one single substantial opinion to the thread. I love all those exclamation marks. [What!?] I note he's purporting to teach people to sing in another thread. Would that be er, theory, old boy? Can you prove it's true?[What the sweet *@&%$£~^ are you talking about?]
I am not contributing to any other threads at the moment. Steve seems to be even more confused that usual.
...and squirming around to do anything but to answer a couple of straight forward questions!..because he is incapable, and can't admit that his rap is nonsense.
Actually, who cares what he says. He's already over the top in avoidance, but manages to throw out snide, juvenile spatter.
"So, in turn, what was the question again?" I am tempted to reply, "crawl your mucilaginous way up the thread and do some reading," Steve Shaw, but that would be to reduce myself to your level, a wholly uninviting prospect.
So I'll restate my point, made initially in my post of 18 Mar 11 - 01:33 PM, in which I pointed out, in response to a post of yours implying that the theory of evolution "explains life on earth," that it did not explain the origin of life, but only its subsequent development.
Please try and avoid the red-herrings of theism/atheism and beauty-complexity in your acknowledgement that I am correct.
Lest you should introduce another red-herring, that I am somehow implying that if it wasn't evolution then it must have been the work of a god or other creator, may I state categorically that I am not. I am only saying that evolution did not originate life, but merely (may I say "merely" when I acknowledge the beauty and complexity of life? *BG*) developed it after it had been originated.
Well let's hear you define the exact point of origin of life before you get all certain that natural selection could not have been involved. As for this dismal repetition of yours about evolution "developing life," well you're simply flying in the face of everything in evolutionary theory. I repeat: evolution has no goal, therefore the concept of its developing life is perfectly nonsensical. Natural selection explains all life on Earth. In all its...well, you don't like my telling the truth so I won't say it again. It really is as simple as that, and for you to say that evolution develops life puts you in a place that no sane evolutionary biologist would recognise. You're trying to put a very ugly layer of gilding on a very beautiful lily. And you really don't need to ask me to avoid what I haven't said in any case.
"Other?" And what, pray, apart from silly sniping, have you contributed to this one? Certainly not an opinion in sight...
Considering you "contribute" to so few threads, one might have thought that your proof-reading could be slightly better.
What were the questions again, el Insanitorio? You don't know, do you? :-)
"Well let's hear you define the exact point of origin of life..." I can't do that, Steve Shaw; can you?
Nevertheless, I maintain that without the somewhat-less-than-perfect self-replicating mechanisms which we associate with "life" there can be no natural selection nor evolution.
Therefore evolution cannot have been responsible for the transition between non-self-replicating (ie non-living) and self-replicating (ie living). If you have arguments to the contrary, now's the time to state them.
I did not mean to imply, by using the word "development," that I thought evolution had a goal or was directed. If you prefer the word "change" to development then that's fine with me; I shall try and avoid the word "develop" in this discussion from now on (except in the next sentence). I do think, though, that to deny the word "development" to describe the change from undifferentiated monocellular barely-organism to the beauty & complexity of life as we know it now is perverse.
"You're trying to put a very ugly layer of gilding on a very beautiful lily." You are mistaken, inferring slights I did not imply.
It's fine to say that life has developed since we were all formless blobs in a soupy ocean, in fact it would be absurd not to say it. We are after all talking about increasing complexity and diversity. But what is wrong is to suggest that evolution drives this development. It explains it, not drives it.
Yep, less than perfect replication (or miscopying as Dawkins calls it) is the sine qua non of evolutionary change. Now you start by stating you can't define the precise starting point of life then you contradict that by implying that it's when entities started to self-replicate. I told you before that I discovered that coacervate droplets, given an appropriate supply of materials in their environment, have been shown to replicate, yet you would not call them living things. I could agree that self-replication involving RNA/DNA would be closer to the mark as a definition. But give me one good reason why selection would have been impossible before that point, as long as replication was possible. None of which is to say that evolution explains the origin or origins of life. The only certainty is that it wasn't a kick-start by a supernatural being (unless one is a subscriber to the God-of-the-gaps logical fallacy). We have work to do.
"None of which is to say that evolution explains the origin or origins of life."
That's all I was trying to get you to admit. Phew.
I didn't say it didn't. I was expressing uncertainty. We lack the information, innit.
pete:
Your answer to me..."tia-i would say that evolutionism starts with a non negotiable pre supposition also.difference being, it has a lot more room for adjustment ,which i think it has often utilized."
Is just about dead on, but contains an internal contradiction, that if cleaned up, puts you in exactly the right spot for science.
A "non-negotiable starting point with room for adjustment" is an oxymoron.
If we simply say "a starting point with room for adjustment (which is in fact *very* often utilized)", **now** we are talking about science.
Well Steve, I have had a look back through your posts and the only ones I can find that seem to attempt any explanation are those of 13 Mar 11 - 08:09 PM and 13 Mar 11 - 08:20 PM but, as I have already pointed out, those deal specifically with The Theory of Evolution. After that you become steadily more incoherent (and abusive) and frequently use "the theory of evolution" and "evolution" interchangeably.
I did come across this oddity that I had either missed or forgotten. In your post of 14 Mar 11 - 11:04 AM you say -
I don't see any discrepancy between saying that evolution is a true description of the history of life (i.e. it is true) and that the theory of evolution is constantly subject to modification as new evidence comes to light.
Evolution is not a DESCRIPTION of anything. From this site, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ -
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time.
Evolution is the process of change and as such it is meaningless to describe it as "true". In what way is a "description of the history of life" distinct from the theory of evolution which you acknowledge cannot be described as true?
From the same site -
A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct.
You keep saying things like -
Now contribute something of your own for once by telling me which bits of evidence undermine my contention that evolution by natural selection is the true story of life on Earth in all its beauty and complexity.
I have repeatedly told you that I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I have no reason to undermine it. My problem is with your assertion that "Evolution is true.". To say "Evolution is not true." would be just as meaningless.
The contribution I am trying to make and which you seem utterly unable to grasp is that the best way of seeing off the creationists is by getting your science right. I don't think Pete offers much of a threat to progress and anyone who bothers to engage with GfS really needs to get out more but out there in the real world the creationists and intelligent design pushers do offer a real threat, especially in the USA where some of them hold political office. You will probably never persuade them of the error of their ways but you can hope to educate the public about what it is that makes science work. By banging on about "truth" and "beauty" and "complexity" and asking people to believe in things, (In another thread you say "I believe that there is an Oort Cloud outwith the solar system that feeds comets in our direction". Not only do you believe in it, you endow it with malevolent intentions.) you are setting up The Theory of Evolution as some sort of sacred text and an alternative (but superior) faith to creationism. By doing so you open yourself to accusations of "evolutionism". The difference between science and religion is the scientific method. Try and get your head round it instead of dismissing it as "pedantic nonsense" and "cod-philosophical diarrhoea".
The reason I take issue with you is that you have appointed yourself as a champion of science against the dark forces of creationism and you are making a pretty bad job of it, dragging science down to their level.
P.S. I have left some deliberate typos in this post to give you something to attack me with.
Pshaw: "What were the questions again, el Insanitorio? You don't know, do you? :-)"
Ringer: ""So, in turn, what was the question again?" I am tempted to reply, "crawl your mucilaginous way up the thread and do some reading," Steve Shaw, but that would be to reduce myself to your level, a wholly uninviting prospect."
So, I will, "...reduce myself to your level, a wholly uninviting prospect."...."crawl your mucilaginous way up the thread and do some reading,"
Matter of fact, you know what the question was, being as it has followed you through three threads! Stop playing your stupid weaselly games...if you are going to propose a THEORY, back it up with more coherence than a second grader!(in public school, of course!)
Hint: It had to do with 'intelligence'.....or do I have to explain to you what that is, TOO!?!?
cheers tia.i may well have expressed it badly, but it seems you got my drift.
ringer-how well you expressed the religious nature,
of some,at least,of evolutionists.
i am ,of course no threat.all i can do is ask pretty basic questions.
things like abiogenesis and macro-evolution.
and you just reminded me.has the oort cloud been observed?i think i read that it is only theorized?
as to the creationist level of science;it seems to me more understandable and evidence supported than any evolutionist sites i,ve visited,and not abusive.
Unfortunately, Snail, you see science as something rather mechanical, something that only a Mr Spock could ever possibly deal with. There's no religion in science, and we scientists, especially those of us at the hairy-arse end of things, have to struggle with ideas whilst at the same time fending off the nutters, like all those stupid creationists, who want to downgrade science to the putrid level of religion, just so they can accuse us of having some kind of alternative religion to theirs. Drag us into their stinking mud. Well I'm brave enough to actually rejoice in what science has revealed, not by witness, hearsay or dodgy ancient texts, but by hard-won evidence (which makes it as far removed from religion as anything could possibly be), and if some moron wants to tell me that I'm degrading science into some form of evangelism then that's their tough bloody luck, to be honest. So what I think is that science has done a hell of a lot more than show us how to do technology and how things work. It has stretched our minds and our imaginations (very important, that last bit), and has shown us the real beauty of the universe, and, on our own patch, the true beauty and elegance of life on Earth. Not that abject, half-arsed version of things that joyless religion purports to give us, but the real deal. And it manages to do that with an idea that, in its own elegance and truth, is fully up to that task. Darwin came up with one of the most elegant and lyrical ideas ever, glorious in its utter simplicity to such a level that even Pete would get it if he bothered to investigate it for a minute. Natural selection tells us everything about life on Earth, and it is as true a description thereof as anything could ever be. If you don't agree, well two things. One, show me the evidence that undermines it. Two, if it isn't true, tell me what is true. Come on, you start answering some bloody questions for a change. Tell me something that is true. Truer than natural selection. You can't. There isn't anything! Either that or tell me that the word "true" should be struck from the dictionary. Science is the greatest fruit of the human mind, and it's for celebrating and enjoying, not gnawing away worriedly at just in case we say the wrong word. Which I'm not, not this time.
If you'd bothered to read the post in which I mentioned the Oort Cloud, you will have read that no-one has ever seen it, but that the evidence for it is reasonable. That happens, Pete, old boy. Note, I said "evidence". Your rather sour post, which appears to cast aspersions on this genuine scientific concept, wouldn't be half so stupid had it not emanated from a man who, without the merest scrap of evidence, rubbishes evolution and promotes the insane concept of creationism. Where I come from we call that double standards.
So what were those questions again, Sanilav?
Yea Steve, and of course the muddle headed religion-obsessives need to twist language and logic so as to label 'Atheism' as 'just another religion' - just so they can deny them too .. :-)
That's it, but, rather like confronting Superman with green Kryptonite, all you have to do with the religious types is utter the word "evidence." They don't like it up 'em...
Date: 05 Jan 11 - 12:04 AM
Steve Shaw: "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..."
Sez who?"
Well being as you are so bent on people 'proving' the unseen, such as God, or that they might have had an experience with God, right?, and you seem to not agree that "'Intelligence' is the ability to processes information..." then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!
"They don't like it up 'em... "
Ah Steve as per "Lance-Corporal Jack Jones" from Dad's Army...
"then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it"
Well Steve it looks like this poster claims to have had no experience of intelligence themself, and thus has thus demonstrated that the Anti-Science Religious do not need intelligence: so all you need now is the 'Proof by Negation' for Science, which as you say is NOT Religion...
Remember those Venn Diagrams? :-)
" ... then its time for you to PROVE that there is intelligence, and/or you have had an experience with it. Go ahead..We're all waiting!!!!"
We're not ALL waiting, GfS - don't be so presumptious!
On the other hand, I'M waiting for you to write a coherent sentence ...
My £1.99 pocket calculator from Woollies can process information but last time I asked it what it thought about Kafka it remained stubbornly mute. I clearly remember jumping up and down on it out of sheer frustration, bawling it out for being so damned unintelligent. And, hand on heart, I can honestly say that I have never required, expected or asked anyone to prove anything to do with God. This hoary old chestnut has at least been abandoned by all the rest of the Wacko Brigade since that massive great atheism thread last year, so it's touching to find that Guest Extra-zany is valiantly flying his solitary, tattered, forlorn flag for it still. Old chap, all I want is evidence. If you happen to have a dictionary that still goes from E to P inclusive (knowing you, you'll probably have used the outer pages for bumwipe, not realising that it was a dictionary at all but scratching your head in puzzlement as to why it didn't have a hole for the string in one corner), you will discover that "proof" does not mean the same as "evidence." Now, have we covered it yet, d'ye think? No, hang on...DO ye think...?
Recent quote from Snail:
"The contribution I am trying to make and which you seem utterly unable to grasp is that the best way of seeing off the creationists is by getting your science right."
But what you appear to be doing, Snail, by dwelling obsessively on the 'correct' word choice in your usual pedantic, self-righteous, pompous way, is to give succour to the creationistas! Steady when getting off that high horse Snaily-boy you might fall and hurt yourself (now there's an odd image: a snail on a high horse)!
ladies and Gentlemen, we are here today gathered in the presence of rare Greatness.
The Fooles Troupe, has since the days of its inception, had a Mission to train, and reward those of outstanding merit in the Field of Fooleishness.
The AnonTroll did present a Thesis, namely, that 'Intelligence does not exist'. This Thesis may be true or False.
The logical extension of this Thesis (if True) is of course that the presenter of This Thesis has no Intelligence!
The Presenter then demands that his opponents then disprove this Thesis!
But The Presenter doth previously assert that He is Intelligent, thus he appears to not support his own Thesis, therefore his Opponents need do nothing to overturn His Thesis, for he has disproved His own thesis, if He claims that HE himself is Intelligent! Of course, if His Thesis be True, then He can have no Intelligence, and can not comprehend the Antithesis!
I have given the matter much Deep Thought, and believe that this action is truly worthy of our attention.
Instituted in the early days, The Order of The T.W.I.T. *** acknowledges those who display leadership and brilliance in our field.
We hereby bestow The Order of The T.W.I.T. on our AnonTroll acquaintance!
Robin the Ruthless in Battel
acting in his Executive Capacity
Head Foole of The Foole Troupe
T.W.I.T. *** Total W*nker In Training
Heheh!
I have given the matter much Deep Thought
Ah, but did you by so doing "process information"?
Unfortunately, Snail, you see science as something rather mechanical, something that only a Mr Spock could ever possibly deal with.
A slightly more subtle insult than your usual lavatorial level.
There's no religion in science, and we scientists [Get him!] , especially those of us at the hairy-arse end of things [Ah yes, hacking your way through the jungles of Cornwall to find the elusive fumitory.] , have to struggle with ideas [Phew!] whilst at the same time fending off the nutters, like all those stupid creationists, who want to downgrade science to the putrid level of religion, just so they can accuse us of having some kind of alternative religion to theirs. Drag us into their stinking mud.
Well I'm brave enough [My Hero!] to actually rejoice in what science has revealed, ["rejoice" "revealed". Why does that sound familiar?] not by witness, hearsay or dodgy ancient texts, but by hard-won evidence (which makes it as far removed from religion as anything could possibly be), and if some moron wants to tell me that I'm degrading science into some form of evangelism then that's their tough bloody luck, to be honest.
So what I think is that science has done a hell of a lot more than show us how to do technology and how things work. It has stretched our minds and our imaginations (very important, that last bit), [You certainly come up with some very imaginitive abuse.] and has shown us the real beauty of the universe, and, on our own patch, the true beauty and elegance of life on Earth. Not that abject, half-arsed version of things that joyless religion purports to give us, but the real deal. And it manages to do that with an idea that, in its own elegance and truth, is fully up to that task. Darwin came up with one of the most elegant and lyrical ideas ever, glorious in its utter simplicity to such a level that even Pete would get it if he bothered to investigate it for a minute. Natural selection tells us everything about life on Earth, and it is as true a description thereof as anything could ever be.
That whole paragraph reeks of religious fervour. You said earlier "I was indoctrinated by Catholic teachers and priests". It shows. You seem to be desperately trying to replace God with Science.
If you don't agree, well two things. One, show me the evidence that undermines it.
For crying out loud, Steve, do you actually read what I say? I'll just have to copy and paste what I said last time -
"I have repeatedly told you that I have no problem with the theory of evolution. I have no reason to undermine it. My problem is with your assertion that "Evolution is true.". To say "Evolution is not true." would be just as meaningless."
Two, if it isn't true, tell me what is true. Come on, you start answering some bloody questions for a change. Tell me something that is true.
The acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth is 9.80665 m/s2 (To five places of decimals.)
I've got an itch on my right knee.
Truer than natural selection. You can't. There isn't anything!
That is a declaration of faith, not a scientific statement.
Either that or tell me that the word "true" should be struck from the dictionary.
No, it should be used where appropriate, not when talking about a scientific theory.
Science is the greatest fruit of the human mind,
I think art, literature and music may be up there alongside it.
and it's for celebrating and enjoying, not gnawing away worriedly at just in case we say the wrong word. Which I'm not, not this time.
No, it is for both celebrating and enjoying and gnawing away at. That is how science works. Every theory has to be poked, prodded and put to the test. If it is not testable, it is not a scientific theory. By saying it is true, you are saying it is not testable.
"Thou shalt not test the Lord thy Science."
For anyone who would like to see Steve in action, here is Steve Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy
If any of the creationist lobby want to take comfort from this, don't. I think your religion is a load of superstitious nonsense with its origins in the stone age which should have died out centuries ago.
Well how can I follow that litany of utter wackiness. For sure, he's right up there with the Petes, the ex-Sanes and the wacko Jackos all right. I have to cut grass now. Or is it ride bikes. I'll chuck a handful of grass cuttings over the hedge for you.
who,s arguing about natural selection,steve
i think i suggested previously that this was discussed by those "nutty" creationists before darwin.perish the thought that darwin borrowed from them!
they of course knew it had limits-or should i say believed that to be so,but darwin stretched it a lot further.
if we are discussing darwinism and you switch to natural selection,methinks you are equivocating on things related [in evolutionary theory]but are not the same.
i presume snail earned some brownie points with you for rubbishing christians!.
as always-best wishes.
Let me get this right. You think that natural selection and, er, "Darwinism" are things you switch between in conversation. You really haven't got a clue, have you.
You see Steve, The Snail is just not at the stage of earning a T.W.I.T. yet ...
He has an itch on his right knee. He says that's true. Well, bejaysus then, he could be an eighth verse in Seven Drunken Nights:
Well it's many a day I've travelled
A hundred miles or more
But patellas on a gastropod
Sure I never saw before.
Well,I'll give Steve and Fool's Toupee partial credit, being as they choked up on proving intelligence can exist, though it is an unseen thing, such as love, or a life force..they certainly proved that stupidity exists!!! We're off to somewhat of a start!
Trolls!
Christ, I got grade 4 Latin "O" Level. Should that be "patellae"?
I'd have got grade 1 had I learned the bloody Virgil...
Who said intelligence doesn't exist? All I did was refute your banal and pointless definition of it. We all know what an arrogant sod you are, but really. You define a thing exceptionally wackily, someone disapproves of your exceptionally wacky definition, so you then claim that that person doesn't believe at all in the thing you so wackily defined. No matter that a far more sensible definition exists! But please, please don't ask me what the sensible definition is. First, you wouldn't get it, and second, I really can't be arsed to take you on any more. Discussing anything with you is like pissing into a strong wind - it all blows back in your face, and all you learn from the experience is that you have to piss with the wind behind you. I will admit that you are very amusing. Please take that in entirely the wrong way.
I noticed this morning that I get better lookin' every day. Do any of you other guys have this problem?
Then if intelligence can exist, though you can't see it, so can Love..and so can God....though perhaps not in the form you were taught!
Fair enough?
My arse exists, though I can't see it. Keep on - it's fun.
"Fool's Toupee"
Hey F#wit Troll!!
Get the F@ing name right if you want respect D#head!
Lots of things can't be seen directly. But their effects can be seen - proving that they exist (provisionally of course).
This only works if there is a coherent theory of the unseen thing. A theory sufficiently developed to make testable predictions, that are then tested, with reproducible results.
Intelligence certainly fits this. So does love. God? Hmm. Would need a theroy and prediction to go further in addressing this with science.
And remember, science cannot prove that the tooth fairy (or anything else) does *not* exist.
TIA: "Lots of things can't be seen directly. But their effects can be seen - proving that they exist (provisionally of course)."
OKAY!! For the first time, in a long time I agree with TIA on this one!
Just as the wind, ultra-sound, infra red, MUSIC, Love, consciousness(collective, or otherwise, though I'm not sure they can be separated), radar, radio waves, light(unless you are referring to a source of light), atmospheric pressure, emotions, need I go on?...oh, and life force.
To say that none of these things do not have a source, is absolute stupidity, and yet we can see or sense the effects. It is the manipulation of these things, that either great benefits, or disaster are wrought...it really depends on the motives, and abilities to serve, that generally determines the the outcome.
As with Steve, the manipulation of historical events, and the use of manipulating those things, have soured his outlook on considering the possibility of a God, or at least anything spiritual. He was probably a 'good' Catholic...but, for every re-action, there is an equal re-action..and that's one reason he has chosen this posture. The act of being sarcastic, is just a method to mask, the effects of his personal disillusionment....and after he comes back with some idiotic punky reply, perhaps, when you get off the computer, and lay your little head down on the pillow, you might just have to turn some of this over. I'm sure it may be troubling to you, but I'm sure you have your more serious moments, in which you may consider the things that haunt you. But, alas, the very thing that he embraced, that now he is re-acting to, in the negative, still has a hold on him....otherwise, you wouldn't even be concerned!....Don't forget, they also told you NOT to listen to anything about God, that didn't come from the 'Church'.. so, in affect, you still are believing in what they taught you...no matter how far you rebel, and pursue your own 'pleasures'. Fair enough?
Foolish Toupee: "Get the F@ing name right if you want respect D#head!"
I'm not concerned with getting your respect, as much as YOUR need for it! I think you are projecting your need for it, perhaps, because you may have issues, in that matter. I'd suggest giving up resenting people who've got you clocked. Just because one may see the 'you' in you, doesn't mean they all dislike it, as much as you do. Lighten up.
Steve: "My arse exists, though I can't see it. Keep on - it's fun."
So is jerking off, but do you really want to do it in public? (Though I really don't want to minimize my prior part of the post to you).
I must be very 'troubled' because, to be honest, I don't really believe in God. Although, as a scientist, I can't prove that He doesn't exist (see Tooth Fairy reference above) and admit the possibility that He, like the Tooth Fairy, might exist. Nevertheless, if people who do believe in God want me to believe in Him too they must produce some convincing evidence for His existence (and please note that I'm completely immune to the usual pious waffle).
I'm not into proselytizing, but, proof?....How about, you are alive, aren't you?..and as a scientist, I'm sure you are familiar with 'Energy can not be created nor destroyed', but possibly change forms. So at what time do you reckon, matter received consciousness, or love, or could procreate? Where did all that come from?
As far as Darwinism, where is the middle link between apes and humans?..shouldn't there be some sort of middle species? Why the leap?.. with nothing in between? Wouldn't they be higher up on the food chain, or evolutionary process, than our normal cat of hairy primates?
Where did they go? Why the radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers?..with nothing in between?
I'm sure, as a scientist, wouldn't that be worth gathering information about?..I mean, isn't science the gathering of information? Why jump to conclusions with so many unanswered questions? Why turn 'theory' into fact, with so much unexplained?..and has science delved into the possibilities of other dimensions that could be affecting this dimension, and have all the answers, to draw conclusions, that rule out those possibilities? In that case, all one can draw a partial conclusion from is partial information...wouldn't you say?
Reasonably Respectful,
From what I've read, GfS, there was no "radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers" (note that contemporary apes, like chimpanzees, use tools). The evolution of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) in Africa was a long and complex (and still incompletely understood) story stretching over, at least, 8 million years. For details see Stephen Oppenheimer's "Out of Africa: The Peopling if the World" (2004). There were many "in betweens" but they all became extinct for the usual reasons why species become extinct. In fact WE almost became extinct at one point.
Existence is chock full of mysteries, unexplained phenomena and possibilities (do you think that I don't wonder about these things and speculate about them?) but I don't think that there's any merit in elevating mysteries and possibilities into facts without proof.
"matter received consciousness, or love, or could procreate"
They NEVER DID. This is not 'Science', but 'Magic' and total bullshit.
The brain works purely because of its structure, not any magic externally endowed on it (especially by some mythical magical invisible sky fairy!).
It's called 'emergent behavior'. Superstition, Magic, and Religion do not, and can not and will not understand this elegant answer.
Google the phrase 'emergent behavior' and learn from the many entries revealed... or shut up and stop making a fool of yourself with your bigoted ignorance.
In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theories of integrative levels and of complex systems.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_behavior
F.O.A D. Ignorant rude C***!
"And remember, science cannot prove that the tooth fairy (or anything else) does *not* exist. "
For exactly the same Philosophical Reason that they cannot be proved to exist. But Philostogen was proved by Science to not exist ... :-)
"Fair enough?" How would I know? The whole thing is completely incoherent.
A couple of things. Darwin himself tussled with this question. I suggest you read him to see what he had to say. You show no signs of having yet done so. Next, fossilisation is an exceptionally rare event, considering the sheer numbers of living things. Early humans/hominids commonly did not live in places conducive to fossilisation. But we do have a pretty convincing, though incomplete, sequence of fossil evidence which confirms that humans evolved in line with evolutionary theory. Next, along with most other ignoramuses who like to cast aspersions at the theory, you don't understand what you're talking about. Humans did not undergo a "leap", or even a crawl, from apes. Humans and apes evolved along their own separate lines from a common ancestor. Finally, let's suppose in a moment of fantasy that we've found complete fossils of two early humans, one a few thousand years older than the other, the only single difference being that one had a big toe 2mm longer than the other. You'd be jumping up and down complaining how terrible the theory was because we didn't have one with a toe size in between. Stick to telling people how to sing, or go and form a nice singing duo with Pete. I hear he's rather good, and he sings your kind of songs, ones which cast Daily Sport-type doubts on "evolutionism."
As Iron Chariots puts it:
-----snip-----
The argument that there are gaps in the fossil record, used by apologists, basically amounts to a claim that there are no transitional forms between the transitional forms we've already discovered.
This argument
1.misunderstands what constitutes a transitional feature.
2.ignores the large number of fossils found.
3.denies the transitions those fossils represent.
4.is ignorant of the fossilization process.
5.creates an expectation of accuracy far beyond what is necessary to illustrate transition.
6.dismisses definitive examples of transitional forms, focusing on the ones that remain undiscovered.
7.theoretically moves the goalposts every time a "gap" is filled, as **each discovery of a transitional form creates two new gaps**.
8.is profoundly ignorant of the mechanisms of evolution itself.
emphasis in pt. 7 added by TIA
I have to be very brief, because I have to go to town, right now, but I wanted to point out, that fossils and the rest, are not inconsistent with what I posted. Again, you are working from the ASSUMPTION, that I was referring to the creationist interpretation, commonly taught in certain fundamental Christian, and Jewish churches. What is in the Bible regarding a 'time-line' in you will, is.. 'day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day' ....so that might offer a little bit of a leeway as to how long things took place. Another thing to consider, is that there is some evidence, that this was NOT the first time the earth, has been populated, and its civilizations destroyed. That IS consistent, though, with the very last versus of the New Testament, that ends with the 'creation' of a 'new heaven and a new earth'. In the first book, of the Bible, when 'God' is creating man, it says, " And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth" ...That would seem to indicate, in the word 'replenish', that the earth was populated before, and depopulated and starting over. This in itself is not taught, so much, in the fundamental teachings of Christianity, but is however, consistent with prior civilizations, who had 'died off'. This is consistent, too, with archeological finds.
So, before, I gotta run, how would the writers(s) of the Old Testament either thought to include that phrase, being as it is a pretty unusual statement?
that being said, I'm NOT saying that everything in the Bible should be taken literally, as certain fundamentalists, teach, as doctrine...nor should the assumption be made, that I am a fundamentalist religious proselytizer. I am not. Along with that, certain things from possibly another dimension, COULD be seen as 'spiritual'..depending on how one would define 'spiritual'...maybe just unseen, by this dimension....and THAT would be the crux of my prior post, and what science is able to compile, as data.
Let's revisit that post.
As far as Darwinism, where is the middle link between apes and humans?..shouldn't there be some sort of middle species? Why the leap?.. with nothing in between?
@@ There are plenty, and here you are talking about a time span that is well-dated to about 6 million years, as opposed to the 10,000 years or less covered by your later rise-and-fall of civilzations post. Not the same subject at all.
Wouldn't they be higher up on the food chain, or evolutionary process, than our normal cat of hairy primates?
@@ Depends on what else is evolving in the same habitat. Creatures on the bottom of the food chain evolve too. Sometimes evolution may create progeny that occupy a different niche in the food chain than their distant ancestors. We do. We are apex predators now. Our distant ancestors were little furry vegetarians that got probably got et regularly.
Where did they go?
@@ Some lines where not as successful, and died out. Others continued (and may continue) to evolve.
Why the radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers?..with nothing in between?
@@ Gradual change over 6 million years is hardly a radical jump, and the process is pretty well documented by lots of "in betweens" - although more are always better, and the search continues.
I'm sure, as a scientist, wouldn't that be worth gathering information about?
@@ As I said, the search continues. In science, an endless string of unanswered questions is revealed by the answering (provisionally) of one.
I mean, isn't science the gathering of information?
@@ Plus the altering of Theories to incorporate that new information. But new information is mercilessly challenged. Truth can withstand this assault. Nonsense eventually is driven away.
Why jump to conclusions with so many unanswered questions?
@@ No jumping is involved - it usually happens very slowly (ask Alfred Wegener...oops, he's dead, damn). And the spot that is landed upon is always open to demolition by the new answers to currently unanswered questions.
Why turn 'theory' into fact, with so much unexplained?
@@ You are using "theory" in a completely different way than it is defined in science. Theories are very well-supported explanations of a body of facts. Gravity is a fact (drop your axe if you don't believe me), but the Theory of gravity is the worst in all of science. It sucks (haha). There is no good "Theory of Gravity". But gravity is still a fact (we need more proof...drop it again).
and has science delved into the possibilities of other dimensions that could be affecting this dimension
@@ Oh Yes. Go Google Multiverse Theory
and have all the answers, to draw conclusions, that rule out those possibilities?
@@ Sorry, you lost me on that one, but it's okay.
In that case, all one can draw a partial conclusion from is partial information...wouldn't you say?
@@ Yes! Double Yes!! We will always have partial information. That is why all scientific hypotheses and theories and even facts are provisional. They will ony stand up until (and if) new information comes along to force their abandonment...happens all the time, and people get really famous doing just that. It is the dream of every scientist to turn the science world on its head. But when you try to, you will be met by merciless scrutiny. This makes the whole process self-correcting, and the results as reliable as any way of the understanding the *natural* world. Spiritual world is awhole 'nother ballgame that science cannot address. But make a testable assertion about anything, and Here Come the Scientists!
Hope that helps. You might see that I agree with you on several (many?) things about this subject, but would like to have a conversation about it using terms the way they are defined, and the way they are used in science. Otherwise we don't even know what we are discussing, and everyone talks right past everyone else. LOTS of that going on here.
Anyone care to define the 'spiritual world'? Does it exist within or outside of Nature? If it exists outside of Nature how are some people able to perceive it? If it is in 'another dimension' (please define 'another dimension')how are some people able to perceive it? Presumably, if some people are able to perceive the 'spiritual world' there must be a flow of information from that world to our world - how does that work?
You see anyone can ask lots of questions! I think you'll find that Science can provide lots of answers to the questions that you have posed, GfS (see TIA's excellent post above) and where it doesn't have answers - well, it doesn't have answers yet (and, in some cases, may never have answers).
"Be fruitful, and multiply, and REPLENISH the earth" ...That would seem to indicate, in the word 'replenish', that the earth was populated before, and depopulated and starting over. "
Folk Memory handed down. You really know almost nothing about Science ---- 'Man' was nearly wiped out, the numbers falling to a very small pool that was almost on the point of losing genetic diversity - almost died out entirely.
If somebody unknown, with no training in your religion, waltzed into your church and started lecturing your congregation that your group knew nothing of what they were talking about and were all wrong, you'd give them the same short shift that some of the people educated in Science who you claim to have 'attacked you' have displayed....
The Foole's Troupe makes an excellent and vivid analogy above. Yes, just imagine me waltzing my Matilda into a Bahai study group (picked them 'cause I know the word, but nothing about them...sorry Bahais), and started using their words to mean things they don't and characterizing them as dummies or idealogues because they don't understand the way I just made up to use these words, and I create straw men (using these new meanings) to kick the shit out of, and accuse them of prejudice because they don't immediately relent and say "okay we've been wrong all along...thanks for straightening us out".
Yup, lots of talking past each other in this thread.
Let's agree on a common language before the discussion even begins.
Oh, and to answer Shimrod on spirituality...yes, what is it? And what assertions can it make?...and are they testable? I prefer to stay out of all that, because I crave testability. But don't misunderstand that - I don't crave absolute truth. Great quote from Matt Cartwright (Anthropologist at Duke U):
"As a young man, I craved certainty, so I became a scientist. That's a bit like becoming a bishop to meet girls".
Well how can I follow that litany of utter wackiness.
I'm sorry you found my post a bit challenging. How are you doing with TIA's post of "25 Mar 11 - 06:02 PM"?
TIA has a sound approach to this issue and TIA, I'm sure, will take me on if I say anything worth taking on. I love constructive challenges to my idiocy. As for your post being challenging, the only challenging thing about you is that you will never be content with anything I ever say and, frankly, I haven't got from now 'til eternity, and in any case I'd only be repeating myself. I'm not Keith, you know. I have bikes to ride, grass to cut, wild flowers to admire.
tia-could you tell me what the links are that you posit between apes and men?.interested pete.
gfs-i think "replenish"occuring in the kin g james bible did not mean what it does now.i prefer the KJV but more recent versions translate from the hebrew without the "re"prefix to "fill"
some people believed in a gap theory,partly as a misreading of their of that word,and wanting to incorporate long ages to appease "science";a futile exercise IMO.
To the mockers-i dont know anyone testifying to a sky fairy.no shortage of believers in God though
a dishonest analogy,i suggest.
"Let's agree on a common language before the discussion even begins."
It's hard enough for scientists even in the same field to agree on definitions/meaning of terms: context conflicts can easily occur between disciplines.
But when the totally uneducated/ignorant with a faith based drum to beat, waltz in and stomp all over a discussion where they are, from their manner and words, clearly out of their depth, and refuse to educate themselves into the context because their infallible invisible magic sky fairy uses the terms in an incompatible different way, they throw abuse around and put down those goddam stupid scientists... well it's at least laughable.
And they wonder why they get ridiculed, or ignored....
For the "links between apes and men" see my previous comment which I reproduce below:
"From what I've read, GfS, there was no "radical jump from apes to sophisticated tool makers" (note that contemporary apes, like chimpanzees, use tools). The evolution of Anatomically Modern Humans (AMHs) in Africa was a long and complex (and still incompletely understood) story stretching over, at least, 8 million years. For details see Stephen Oppenheimer's 'Out of Africa: The Peopling if the World' (2004). There were many "in betweens" but they all became extinct for the usual reasons why species become extinct*. In fact WE almost became extinct at one point."
Previously unknown species of extinct fossil hominids (upright apes) seem to turn up in Africa at pretty regular intervals. A summary of this data, at least up to 2003/4, is contained in the prologue to Oppenheimer's book. He admits that the exact links between these creatures have not yet been fully worked out (but that's cool - we're talking about Science here not 'faith' and superstition).
So if you're going to maintain any credibility in this debate, pete, you're going to have to do some reading (and not just creationist literature).
* Mainly the effects of changing climate on habitat.
The question you ask is so broad and so basic. What are the connections between apes and humans? I think it is one that you need to research for yourself. It is easy to Google, but I encourage you to try to get back to original sources and research rather than believing online summaries by people with (sometimes hidden, sometimes obvious) agendas. You can, of course, try Wikipedia on Human Evolution, but follow the links to original books and journal articles.
If you are really only looking for the short answer (which you won't believe, and will only use to pose new time-consuming questions), just read this summary:
http://www.antiquityofman.com/ape-human.html
But, if you really want to delve into it, Arizona State, the BBC and U. Cal. have put together an interactive documentary/website with TONS of info, and many links back to original sources.
http://www.becominghuman.org/
To truly understand the answer to your question, be prepared to do some background learning in genetics, embryology, forensic and cultural anthropology, forensic dentistry, biostratigraphy, radiometric dating, and on and on. It has taken me many years of formal education and a lifetime of reading to arrive at my current understanding. I wish you great luck, and excitement on your intellectual journey. Now get started - you have a lot of work to do.
And thanks again for the polite and fascinating discussion.
"To truly understand the answer to your question, be prepared to do some background learning in genetics, embryology, forensic and cultural anthropology, forensic dentistry, biostratigraphy, radiometric dating, and on and on. It has taken me many years of formal education and a lifetime of reading to arrive at my current understanding. I wish you great luck, and excitement on your intellectual journey. Now get started - you have a lot of work to do."
Yep years, mate... but of course the hob nail booted brainwashed bigoted dumbo rude trolls with an axe to grind, already think they know all the answers from their infallible magic invisible sky fairy, and just won't listen or waste the time studying like you and me and many others have...
"W hat weha ve her e i sa fai lu re to co m munic ate."
from the flick, "Cool Hand Luke".
To put that quote in proper context, as displayed by the anti-Science attitudes displayed by some here on Mudcat, the AnonTroll saying that is standing with the shotgun cradled in both arms, wearing the reflective sunnies, and the foot on the neck of Science...
tia-thanks to you too.
i guess the answer you give me is that there is no answer that is accessable to the ignorant like myself.
at least you do so without the animosity of other evolutionists on this thread.
i am posting because it is a philosophical/spiritual debate.if it were strictly science the mockers would not be venting their anger on me-or anyone else who even suggests there might be God!
if i were to study deeply as you suggest,it is doubtful i would become an evolutionist since others much brighter than me have remained or become creationists.
you may reject their arguments but they do answer questions and they are usually understandable to me.i,ve not been told by them i need to study years to get an answer to a question.
however tia,in your case i,m sure no ill will/condesention is intended. best wishes pete.
(Pete blinks innocently and grins gormlessly...)
I haven't got from now 'til eternity, and in any case I'd only be repeating myself.
You can't repeat what you haven't said and you have still not answered the question, "What do you mean by 'Evolution is true'"?
If you believe you have, simply point me to the relevant post. Why do you have a problem with that?
Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie...
This statement reveals that you are unable to accept/deal with the fact, that unlike 'religion' or other 'blind faith ' approaches, Science is based on Uncertainty, not 'Faith'. There are NO HARD RULES! This is very disturbing to many people, they have a animal need to attack & destroy such uncertainty. Even that 'gravity' may not work everywhere is accepted by Real Scientists.
"simply point me to the relevant post"
hahahahahahahahahahahaha! Hundreds of posts, that you don't understand, haven't accepted in the past and won't accept now. I am sad for you.....
"if it were strictly science the mockers would not be venting their anger on me-or anyone else who even suggests there might be God!"
Precisely my previous point "the totally uneducated/ignorant with a faith based drum to beat, waltz in and stomp all over a discussion where they are, from their manner and words, clearly out of their depth, and refuse to educate themselves into the context because their infallible invisible magic sky fairy uses the terms in an incompatible different way, they throw abuse around and put down those goddam stupid scientists" started the mocking in order, not to gain personal enlightenment, but to play Power Dominance Games, by attacking the people saying things that upset them. The Deity Botherers are the worst Power Players in a discussion on Science (since they have a need to 'know all the answers' and Science does NOT know 'all the answers', but is trying to not reject new things, which the Deity Botherers ARE), further, they are not the slightest interested in 'Science', their motives are much more basic and selfish than that.
Scientists LIVE WITH CONSTANT UNCERTAINTY, that any currently accepted concept will be overturned, and NEW CONCEPTS found. This gives those who need to cling onto simple unchanging ideas (Religion is only one, political concepts are another), great conniptions and Brain Fugue. The Deity Botherers NEED to shut down new ideas, other than their own, of course - that's why it is only a Power Game, not Science, they are into.
Sadly, Man's early attempts to explain the world around him through guesswork and 'divine inspiration', while not totally un-useful in the past, tend to hinder the acceptance of any new contradicting concept. Certain people are fearful in response and will do all they can to destroy the people who say those upsetting ideas.
Growth creates Structure: Structure inhibits Growth. Ask any tree.
Once and fer all. Darwin's theory is a scientific proposition which is constantly and healthily vulnerable to modification. The amount of evidence gathered in support of it since Darwin's day has utterly overwhelmed any potential there ever was for overturning the theory. It will not be overturned in its main thrusts, though of course details will always have to be tweaked as more evidence accumulates. Chucking off my lab-coat and turning all philosophicalish, I am asserting that evolution is the true story describing life on this planet. If anyone disputes that, let's have the evidence. There simply isn't any and there won't be any. If you don't like my saying that evolution is true, then tell me something that is true. Or truer. There is nothing. You agree that we scrub the word "true" from the dictionary and I'll find another word, I promise. Now, slug, that is my last word on this. Test me on it again and I will stuff something very nasty indeed right up your slime gland.
You have just confirmed, yet again, what we have all known all along, that you are wilfully ignorant. This is a stance that, I personally, find deeply unattractive and contemptible; it is a perverse and pointless stance to take. Because you insist on taking such a stance, you should not be surprised to encounter animosity and hostility. You are like a naughty child sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting, "la, la, la, la, la" because his parent has told him that he has to eat up his greens because they're good for him.
And, Snail, have you stopped taking your mono-mania pills? For God's (whoever he is) sake give it a rest!!! Add something useful to the debate or piss off!
"Thinking is a bit uncomfortable, but you'll get used to it; a matter of time and practice."
--Lloyd Alexander
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
I always felt sorry for Darwin. To lose a child is the hardest thing in the world, puts all the Natural Order out of order, so I guess I understood why he then wanted to prove that God didn't exist....Hard to hold on to your Faith when all around seems so utterly bleak...
However, I bet when Darwin first held his daughter in his arms, that very first moment, he may well have felt he'd been touched by God, or something spiritual, because hell, that's how I felt....such a miracle is Life...
Now of course, The Scientific Ones will tell me about eggs and bacon and sperm and toast, and how all mixed together, along with a little wine, can sometimes result in the same thing...but you know, just for amoment there, when that brand new tiny hand wraps around your finger, all scientific explanation is utterly insignificant...
I don't want to learn about the Death of a star, because I see the magic within them. I don't even want to know how my TV works, because that's magic too...or rather, magical...It's all just so exciting....Whereas if I sat there thinking, as I watched, that this was happening purely because of science...well, it would be a bigger turn-off than turning the TV off...
Water coming out of the tap? Magical!
Birds singing? Magical!
Sunshine and Shadows? Magical!
To dance in the sparkles of Magical Thinking sometimes brings far more excitement than having almost having sex with a test tube... ;0)
Bunsen Burners never did it for me....
And when I came in one Monday morning to find my dear little gerbil, the one I talked to and cared for at school, pinned to the board as Monday's Lesson, well, that kinda put me off those with Scientific Minds forever, because I loved that little fella, and I'd tucked him up safe and warm on Friday evening before I went home, told him to have a good weekend...and he went and died..and instead of him having a spiritual little funeral with buttercups and daises growing on his grave, he ended up like that.....It was horrific...I left the class...went and talked to the Hooded Rats instead, told them what had happened...(they looked a little worried!) and I told them to not die, whatever they did...
As far as God goes, I love it that he made it that no Scientist on earth can either prove or disprove his existence, or tell us where the Big Bang came from and what was there before it...Kinda tells me God has a rollicking good sense of humour.. ;0)
Anyway, I'm off out into my garden now, where God is most definitely hanging around...so much beauty...and I may just see Beloved and Adored, my two wood pigeons, or Nutty, my squirrel, all of whom reassure me that somewhere.....'out there'.....is.................
I don't think that Darwin EVER set out to prove that God didn't exist. For a start, as a scientist, he would have known that you can't prove a negative (absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence!).
Although I am thrilled by the wonder and beauty of existence every day I'm also enthralled by the insights that science can give us into its workings.
On the other hand I'm most definitely not impressed by airy fairy waffle about God, wilfully ignorant people chiding me for knowing more than they do, make-it-up-as-you-go-along bullshit or pious claptrap!
Once and fer all. Darwin's theory is a scientific proposition which is constantly and healthily vulnerable to modification. The amount of evidence gathered in support of it since Darwin's day has utterly overwhelmed any potential there ever was for overturning the theory. It will not be overturned in its main thrusts, though of course details will always have to be tweaked as more evidence accumulates.
That sounds like a fair summary of the current status of the theory of evolution.
Chucking off my lab-coat and turning all philosophicalish, I am asserting that evolution is the true story describing life on this planet. If anyone disputes that, let's have the evidence. There simply isn't any and there won't be any. If you don't like my saying that evolution is true, then tell me something that is true. Or truer. There is nothing. You agree that we scrub the word "true" from the dictionary and I'll find another word, I promise.
Evolution is the natural process by which changes take place in populations of living organisms to produce modified or new species. It is not something that the word "true" can be applied to. It is not the description or the story, it is the thing itself. You might as well say "climate is true", "gestation is true", "spaghetti bolognese" is true. It makes as much sense as "Evolution is purple".
Now, slug, that is my last word on this. Test me on it again and I will stuff something very nasty indeed right up your slime gland.
The trademark Shaw sign off.
Ah yes, but....had Darwin's daughter survived, then who knows what folks would believe...?
I think, with losing belief in a God, whomsoever your God may be, we lost far more than just our belief....
World seems a poorer place without Spirituality, to me at least...
Shimmy, seems to me that many Scientists get awful angry about so many things, especially things that can't be proved, one way or t'other..but then heck, what do I know, being a Wifty Wafty Old Faery... ;0)
I have a very, VERY big book about Darwin...by Adrian Desmond and James Moore..Near on 700 pages, then almost another 200 of Notes, Abbreviations, Bibliography etc...PHEW!
I like the pictures best though......
The Fooles Troupe
This statement reveals that you are unable to accept/deal with the fact, that unlike 'religion' or other 'blind faith ' approaches, Science is based on Uncertainty, not 'Faith'.
I think it's Steve you need to tell that, not me.
I don't believe that the tragedy that Darwin experienced within his family would have changed his conclusions one iota!
As for what scientists believe, Lizzie, please re-read Steve Shaw's post of 27 Mar 11 - 8:29 PM (and ignore, for the purposes of this discussion, the stuff about Snail's slime gland ... although he does deserve to have something nasty shoved up it!).
Also consider the following:
Which group displays the most humility? Religious fundamentalists who believe that they know everything that is worth knowing about the Universe (it's all in the Bible!) or scientists who readily acknowledge that their understanding of the Universe will always be incomplete?
You might also like to contemplate an earlier question of mine about 'spirituality':
"Anyone care to define the 'spiritual world'? Does it exist within or outside of Nature? If it exists outside of Nature how are some people able to perceive it? If it is in 'another dimension' (please define 'another dimension')how are some people able to perceive it? Presumably, if some people are able to perceive the 'spiritual world' there must be a flow of information from that world to our world - how does that work?"
Page 387:
" Annie's cruel death destroyed Charle's tatters of belief in a moral, just universe. Later, he would say that this period chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity, even if it had been a long, drawn-out process of decay. He was also freer to hold his beliefs in the home. Through nine pregnancies, always difficult and dangerous, Emma had need the security of thinking that they belonged to each other for ever. With no more babies, the threat of separation lifted. They would certainly be together for many years to come. Charles now took his stand as an unbeliever."
Religious fanatics are as bonkers as any other type of fanatic. Religion is about control. For me though, 'God' is about something very different. Spirituality is all around us, unseen, untouchable, apart from the way in which we touch the souls of each other at times..
You cannot define everything in life, nor figure out how or why it works, how things happen as they sometimes do, with no logical or scientific explanation....
Bruce....can I borrow that mirror of yours please? I'm in dire need! ;0)
Actually, I find even more magic in understanding various amazing aspects of the universe than in just stating that it's magic and resigning myself to no understanding.
Want some magic? Read a bit about entangled particles and action at a distance. Pure mind-boggling magic. And won't it be exciting if we can figure out how the magic happens?
But, Lizzie, Darwin's main achievement had nothing to with rejecting God but everything to do with formulating the Theory of Evolution (it was the silly God Botherers that got all het up about the implications of the Theory for their religion). Not only that but Evolution was 'in the air' at the time. Remember that Alfred Russell Wallace developed a Theory of Evolution independently of Darwin and is usually credited as the co-discoverer of the Theory (I'm not sure what he thought about God).
I think you'll find that Steve knowns that: you apparently, by your statements need to learn that Science is based on the Certainty of Uncertainty - refer to Heisenberg, discoverer of one of the very basic concepts in Science ...
The wonderful thing about science (speaking as an imaginary alien, looking down in admiration at us Earthlings, obsessed as we are with scientific endeavour) is that it relentlessly batters at the door of knowledge, and, when we break through that door, we find delight and edification in abundance, and our imagination is made to catch fire and burn bright. Science is disciplined but every scientist worth his or her salt is a maverick, untrammelled by received wisdom. Religion, on the other hand, ties people down into an abject word of stilted imagination and stunted intellect. You have already been given the answers, and any leeway you may think you have to ask questions is seriously ringfenced by doctrine, dogma, fear of the consequences of demurral, and that most bogus of all "disciplines", theology.
I think you'll find that Steve knowns that: you apparently, by your statements need to learn that Science is based on the Certainty of Uncertainty - refer to Heisenberg, discoverer of one of the very basic concepts in Science
Oh, and then you should perhaps contact Mr Schrödinger and ask about the health of his cat ... :-0
They're not as bright as they have conned you into believing they are.
Ah - that is exactly what the malicious Power Mongers (Trolls, but their behavior has been around for thousands of years) who have no interest in understanding Science, or even much interest in Religion, other than it gives them a convenient believable cloak to hide under while playing their nasty psychotic manipulative mind games, want you to believe! They Win!
By getting honest trusting people like you to believe them that 'Science is a gibberish work of Satan, corrupting the Only True Way to Think', they intentionally get good people like you caught in their planned and desired retaliatory resulting crossfire that their willful stupid and malicious mocking misrepresentations stir up. Since you see only 'the nastiness in response to them', you become more convinced that they are right and Science is Rubbish. They Win.
To not respond is to let their manipulative gibberish sound believable - to respond at all, guarantees that they often garner trusting followers like yourself by their intent. They Win.
It is necessary to expose their motives, then you can make up own mind who is the nasty one.
Faith is good for humanity, except when it maliciously misrepresents reality to allow the Power Mongers to stomp all over good people like you, even getting your support while they do so. Happens in Politics all the time too ....
Oh, and if you hadn't guessed, it's the same Troll Power Monger Game played on the 'Global Warming is Crap' themed BS threads a while ago ...
Not going to trouble myself unduly over it but I'm curious, TFT, as to why you are attacking me for exactly the opposite of what I am saying.
"Not going to trouble myself unduly over it but I'm curious, TFT, as to why you are attacking me for exactly the opposite of what I am saying. "
Air Force is flying low today....
i was reading about richard errett smally.MA phd. nobel prize in chrmistry.clearly no idiot.most of his life he was agnostic but towards the end of his life he became a christian and after looking into evolution in detail became creationist.
if cancer had not taken his life in 2005,he had intended to openly challenge the macro evolutionist community.
i wonder if a scientist of his standing would have acheived a hearing where others have failed to be heard.la la la....
"Want some magic? Read a bit about entangled particles and action at a distance. Pure mind-boggling magic. And won't it be exciting if we can figure out how the magic happens?"
Nope. Now you see my brain immediately shuts down at the mere mention of entangled particles..Geesh!
The whole point of MAGIC is that it's......Magical! I can imagine a thousand different reasons why it's happening, all of them linked to wild and free thoughts, but the actual science would turn all the lights OFF for me, whereas my magic switches them on, beautiful, dazzlings of sparkling rainbow colours....
You'll feel the same about the Science behind it though...but my brain understands that part of your brain.
I have no picture for a particle. It is non-existant in my brain. I have no pictures for an atom either, but I bet you do....
Just different reasons for different humans, that's all...
>>>>The wonderful thing about science (speaking as an imaginary alien, looking down in admiration at us Earthlings, obsessed as we are with scientific endeavour) is that it relentlessly batters at the door of knowledge, and, when we break through that door, we find delight and edification in abundance, and our imagination is made to catch fire and burn bright. Science is disciplined but every scientist worth his or her salt is a maverick, untrammelled by received wisdom. Religion, on the other hand, ties people down into an abject word of stilted imagination and stunted intellect. You have already been given the answers, and any leeway you may think you have to ask questions is seriously ringfenced by doctrine, dogma, fear of the consequences of demurral, and that most bogus of all "disciplines", theology. <<<<<
I find delight in a raindrop. I have no desire to know the scientific make-up of the rain drop though. I love the colours within it when the sun catches it, the sheer beauty of it shining like a diamond on a spider's web...I see the spider putting on her jewels before she goes out to The Spider's Ball later that evening, reaching up to her web with each of her eight legs, putting a diamond upon each of them...and a string of them around her little chubby neck....Then I see her going off to that Ball, her tiny eyes glistening as bright as the jewelled raindrops that shimmer as she scuttles graciously on her way......
Even the religious ask a million questions, so very often, you know...
I think it's called Theology, ain't it?
Isn't that the 'science' behind religion?
That's lovely. It goes to show, though, that there are different layers of appreciation of the wonderful universe we live in. That's just one layer. A deeper quest into the whys and hows adds a whole nother layer. Equally wonderful it is. Just beware of those who want you to stop questing, that's all. We call 'em religious proselytisers. They will stunt your mind and fill your brain with guilt faster than anything.
i wonder if a scientist of his standing would have acheived a hearing where others have failed to be heard.la la la...
You see, the thing is, Pete, that he was wizard when it came to science but he was a complete dimwit, just like the rest of us, as soon as he got outside his area of expertise. He's no wiser about religion, which is not his subject, than I am, and it's also not my subject. Bill Shankly was the greatest football manager who ever lived (I will not tolerate dissent on this one), and I'd hang on his every word when it came to tactics, team selection and football philosophy. Get him, let's say, on ancient Greek architecture and he's just as bloody ignorant about it as I am (I hope it wasn't his hobby). Quoting the bon mots of scientists on the matter of religion is about as useful as tits on a stallion, to be honest.
"Just beware of those who want you to stop questing, that's all. We call 'em religious proselytisers. They will stunt your mind and fill your brain with guilt faster than anything."
No, Steve, absolutely impossible, I'm afraid. I was born with 'faith', don't know where it came from, other than it came along with me...but I have not an ounce of 'religion' in my soul, for that is man-made, to control and to create fear.
However, as Joe will tell you, there are many 'religous' people who kind, gentle, loving and caring, so not ALL religion is bad, just the people who bend and twist it for their own purposes.
Faith, for me, is far better, for it has no face, no colour or creed, no name, no division....It's just simply 'faith' in something I know I cannot prove or disprove, but it burns inside my soul, in a very good way..
No-one tells me what to believe..I'm my own woman. :0)
Hey, I did say religious proselytisers. I've said a million times that I have no argument (and even that's way too arrogant a thing to say anyway) with anyone's private faith. It's faith made public and stuffed, innocent of evidence, down people's throats, that I object to. Of course, I'm always up for an argument as to why faith sucks big time, but at the same time I'll defend to the hilt your right to hold to whatever faith you like.
"I have no desire to know the scientific make-up of the rain drop though."
So are you saying that you have no curiousity, Lizzie?
Speaking personally I would like to know EVERYTHING - but, realistically I can only know a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Nevertheless, the rigorous application of the scientific method does usually lead to some form of enlightenment. As a former practising scientist (in Industry not Academia) I found that a well-designed experiment could be as beautiful as any raindrop (especially if I had designed it myself ... he said modestly!). And I also used to gain great satisfaction from analysing the data - I used to think of it as extracting kernels of truth from, and finding beautiful patterns in, masses of numbers.
But then I'm probably just a bit weird!
There's nowt weird about having an enquiring mind. If there's a God, which I think there is not, but hey, I think he would be telling us to use the best thing by far that he's given us to its fullest potential, i.e., our brains. I can't think for one second that he would want us to put those mighty machines of ours on hold just so that religious people could peddle their ludicrous bullshit to us. As a matter of fact, a sensible God would get very bloody annoyed indeed with people who just "had faith," and who refused to use their brains to question, question, question.
"...whatever faith..."
No, I don't think you understand. There is no 'whatever' about Faith, it is simply...Faith. It has no 'my faith' 'your faith'...it is purely, Faith.
"So are you saying that you have no curiousity, Lizzie?"
No. That's what you're saying, I think. My curiousity simply differs from yours, that's all.
You may look at the cobweb and see the molecular structure of the twine the spider used, where she spun it from....but I see her in her evening outfit, her jewels shining, her little legs tired from spinning, but still determined to support her a little longer whilst she dances. My curiousity is whether she'll make it home safely, remember where her web actually is....or whether a Molecular Mole may suddenly pop up out of the earth and....for the first time in his life, see something more bright, more beautiful, more outshining than anything that has ever shone through his baffled, bewildered, befuddled little eyes...reach out to that light, and gobble her up, her Raindrop Jewels giving him some much needed wine to taste upon his earth-parched lips......
I have no pictures for numbers.
7 + 7 means nothing.
7 Rainbows plus 7 Rainbows though, is a mighty fine image and so easy to count, bringing back beautiful memories from Double Rainbows so often seen on Dartmoor, where all weather is magnified, not because of MolecularWeatherStructure but purely because of the Dartmoor Pixies who cast their Moorland Magic over those intoxicating tors...
"Curiouser and Curiouser"...said the Scientist.
Yes, well, don't go overdoing it now, Lizzie...
Sorry I've been away..but, for the sake of GOOD science, start off with NO conclusion, as in, "There's nowt weird about having an inquiring mind. If there's a God, which I think there is not,..."--Steve Shaw and start with, " Hey, I don't know shit, but I'm going to gather all information, and see where it takes me".
Fair enough?....But then, THAT'S science.
By the Way Steve, I wasn't picking on you, in fact your post was cool(er)...but, just as in religion, some people start off with a belief in a certain doctrine, then search the Scriptures, in hopes of 'proving it', then cherry pick verses that they like, but ignore the ones that 'tend not to substantiate' their original pet doctrine.
Just 'gleep' (gather) the info, and let it take you where it goes. Also, you might find people's personal EXPERIENCES, helpful.
Hey, Later!
If nobody tells you what to think, how do you decide what to think on your own...just curious.
And shutting up and ducking.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Science is not a doctrine, I know that much. I also know that your definition of science is not one that would be recognised by most practising scientists, nor would your suggested methodology get us very far. And what I find most helpful is evidence.
I've just started reading a new book called 'Here on Earth: A new beginning' by Tim Flannery (2010).It's a "dual biography" of our planet and our species and, of course, a meditation on our possible future(s).
I'm only up to chapter 3 but have already encountered some insights which I think are relevant to this debate. For example, did you know that in 1898 the Chinese scholar Yan Fu translated Thomas Huxley's 'Evolution and Ethics' (which contained Darwinian ideas about Evolution) into Chinese? According to Flannery the evolutionary concepts "found ready acceptance" in China because they were in accordance with Chinese folk beliefs. Contrast this reaction with the on-going furore in the West because these concepts appeared (still appear in the minds of contemporary religious fundamentalists - as we have discovered in this thread) to clash with the dominant religion.
The other thing that Flannery does is to contrast the reductionist views of Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins with the holistic (hate that word - sesame seed shoes anyone?) views of Alfred Russel Wallace and James Lovelock. Wallace was obviously a very important figure and WAY ahead of his time.
pete and GfS might like to know that, so far, the book provides no succour for creationists (and I very much doubt that it will) ... so they won't want to read it then, will they? Their loss!
That looks like a good read. I've just ordered mine! :-)
The Wikipedia entry on Alfred Russel Wallace is an interesting read.
maybe i was not explicit enough,but did you think smally wanted to challenge darwinism with theology!?.
as you concede,a brilliant scientist.he studied the evolution and concluded that macro evolution was bad science,and wished to challenge it.
i agree on one comment though.as regards our brains God does expect us to make the best we can of them,since Jesus called us to love the Lord our God with our mind,and soul and strength.
tia-not sure i know what you,re getting at,but i guess our thinking must start somewhere and it maybe starts with listening to someone,and a choice is made to some extent as to who.
i agree on one comment though.as regards our brains God does expect us to make the best we can of them,since Jesus called us to love the Lord our God with our mind,and soul and strength
And he says with without a trace of irony...
"it maybe starts with listening to someone,and a choice is made to some extent as to who"
I was mostly questioning Lizzie Cornish who says that nobody tells her what to think. The natural question (IMHO) is "how then do you decide what to think on your own?"
For you, I will invite you to answer for yourself - who or what dictates what you think? If the answer is nobody, what process do you use to decide what to think?
These are serious, inquiring (not snarky or trap-setting) questions.
I am as interested in understanding the modern human mind as I am in understanding where humans came from. "Only from deep questioning do we gain deep knowledge" (somebody really cool and famous).
From: mayomick
"What bollix. You can't name any creationist scientists for the very simple reason that there aren't any." Steve
List of Roman Catholic clericâ€"scientists:
Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham.
There must be one or two creationists amongst that lot, Steve.
According to Jonathan Wright in his book God's Soldiers, by the eigteenth century the Jesuits had contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter's surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn's rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light. Star maps of the southern hemisphere, symbolic logic, flood-control measures on the Po and Adige rivers, introducing plus and minus signs into Italian mathematics â€" all were typical Jesuit achievements, and scientists as influential as Fermat, Huygens, Leibniz and Newton were not alone in counting Jesuits among their most prized correspondents.
So sayeth wikipedia .
"He attempted to censor one of Mudcat's most distinguished contributorsâ€쳌 …..Shimrod
Thanks for that Shimrod , but, really I can fight my own battles here. I didn't take it personally . All water off a baby agilisaurus' back as far as I was concerned.
A huge list of Muslim scientists , all presumably creationists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists
I suppose it would be true to say that when religious people are engaged in scientific investigation , they have to set their faith aside . Maybe that's tautological .
A good science blog here from theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel , who seems to share Steve's secular awe at the the "beauty and complexity" of nature and the universe. Siegel calls it The Greatest Story Ever Told.
"Why the Big Bang Won't Work" Won't Work
Ten problems with the Big Bang Explosion theory examined by Ethan Siegal here:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/08/why_the_big_bang_wont_work_won.php
You raise some interesting points, Mayomick, especially with respect to Catholic scientists. But I would make two points:
1. Generally speaking, doing science is expensive. But the Catholic Church had (and still has) immense resources at its disposal and, hence, had the surplus wealth necessary to do the science with. Nevertheless, if we look at the case of Galileo, for example, it's quite obvious that the Catholic Church was equally capable of suppressing the advance of scientific ideas.
2.As you well know, within the Judaeo-Christian world, the creationist world view was the only world view available or permitted - and remained so for centuries (it's still hanging on today, of course). It's not surprising that Catholic scientists subscribed to it - but the most astute of them must have realised that their work was slowly undermining the prevailing religious orthodoxy.
Back on March 16, Steve Shaw said he "got enough creation doctrine shoved down my throat to stuff a hundred mattresses" in Catholic schools. I wonder when that was.
I was in a Catholic seminary in Milwaukee, studying for the priesthood, from 1962 to 1970. During that time, we were taught that God created the world through the wonderful, miraculous, natural process known as evolution. Now, I suppose some people might object to the idea of God being involved in the process of evolution, but does it really make much of a difference whether one sees God in the process or sees simply the process?
We were also exposed to the thinking of the Jesuit Darwinist, Teilhard de Chardin. I think I'd describe him as a mystic who saw God in all the processes of the universe - at the same time being a good scientist. I also have to admit that the Vatican was often not too fond of Chardin.
"I was mostly questioning Lizzie Cornish who says that nobody tells her what to think. The natural question (IMHO) is "how then do you decide what to think on your own?"
Very easily, TIA....for I was born with an inquisitive, thinking mind, as we all are.
mayomick
Er, what?
Some good videos here, which some may be interested in..
Thinking Allowed
tia-i,ve always said that the bible is my starting point in my thinking esp with origins.i do look at opposing stuff though not to the extent you suggest.
shimrod-you may have a point re catholic grasp on science.now evolutionism controls it esp in the UK.i,ve not seen "expelled"but read much of the details.too many places where only evolutionism is acceptable.
not too sure that the papacy was that upset about galileos science as rather other conflicts with him.
will be away a few days and catch up later.
Mayomick, there is a world of difference between a scientist who believes in creationism and a "creationist scientist". I play the harmonica and I am a scientist, but I would not characterise myself as a "harmonicist scientist". There are plenty of scientists who believe in God (mistakenly in my opinion, of course), and even creationism, but they are still perfectly good scientists. It's only when religion attempts to collide with science (and it's always that way round) that things start to cloud over. To me, a "creationist scientist" would be someone who purports to use scientific methods to demonstrate that God created the world, etc. A classic oxymoron then (and a moron to boot). Naturally, before Darwin there would be plenty of scientists pontificating about creation, but be assured that they were never employing proper scientific process in so doing. Even Newton believed in alchemy, you know! Things move on. Eminent scientists are eminent because of their accomplishments in scientific endeavours. As soon as they start spouting about religion they are on exactly the same the same plane as the the rest of us hairy-arses.
Joe, my secondary education collided almost exactly with your seminary training, from 1962 to 1969, in a Catholic grammar school run by the Salesian Fathers and Brothers. We didn't hear about evolution until the sixth form, in biology lessons, and that would have only been those of us who opted to study biology. We happily went along, in our ignorance, with the biblical story of creation until then, and the Salesians made sure, as you can imagine, that we were well-soaked in the mainstream Catholic teachings of the time. I was actually a very devout lad, you know. Aren't people like me supposed to be the worst sorts? ;-) Yes, I remember that Chardin chap. It was a bit too dense for my immature brain. I thought he was well out of favour these days.
I don't object to anyone thinking that God kick-started/runs/is tangentially involved in evolution, but to my way of thinking it's a disappointing approach. It interposes an answer that one may be far too easily satisfied with. The truth is probably far more elegant and awe-inspiring than that, and it's delicious to keep on looking for it. I reckon the laws of nature are our best starting point. I've never understood how you can try to explain what is very difficult to explain by employing the downright inexplicable.
The whole point about our lives, where we live, our Universe and the Beyond Beyond Ones is that none of us will *EVER* find out how it all started, or why, because the research is infinite.
If you decide a Big Bang caused everything, then tell me how and why that happened, where did everything that caused it to happen come from, and where did all that caused those things that caused the Big Bang to happen also come from...ad infinitum...
As a child I'd ponder a lot where 'God' came from, for someone/something must have invented God...and if so, then who invented whatever or whoever it was...ad infintum...
Once you accept that there is one question to which there will never be an answer, not now, not a thousand million years down the line, then you can get on with concentrating on the things that matter that does matter.
I came to the conclusion a very long time ago that one day, when this Mortal Molecule shuffles off this beautiful planet, I may just find the answer, but again, all I'd do is answer the answer with another question, the same question as before...
"Ah yes, but if YOU are the person who invented me, then WHO invented you...."
Maybe that's why some folks get reincarnated, because God (whomsover your God may be) realises that he has to keep recycling the Real Pains in the Arses... ;0)
(written with tongue in cheek and a gentle smile)
Death anxiety linked to acceptance of intelligent design: study
Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.
Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.
The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.
The study was lead by UBC Psychology Assistant Professor Jessica Tracy and and UBC psychology PhD student Jason Martens. It was published in the March 30 issue of the open access journal PLoS ONE.
"Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," Tracy said. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."
The research consisted of five studies with 1,674 U.S. and Canadian participants of different ages and educational, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.
For their study, the researchers had one group of participants imagine their own death and then write about their feelings. Another group, which was used as a control condition, imaged pain from dental work and then wrote about that.
Then, participants read two excerpts from the writings of Behe and Dawkins. Neither excerpt made any mention of religion, but both described the scientific and empirical support for their respective positions.
Those who imagined their own death reported greater support for intelligent design and liking for Behe, compared to those who imagined dental pain.
In an interesting twist, during a fourth study participants read an excerpt from cosmologist and science writer Carl Sagan. The excerpt argued that naturalism, the belief that only natural forces exist in the world, could also provide a sense of meaning.
The participants who read this excerpt showed reduced belief in intelligent design after thinking about death compared to those who had not read the excerpt.
"These findings suggest that individuals can come to see evolution as a meaningful solution to existential concerns, but may need to be explicitly taught that taking a naturalistic approach to understanding life can be highly meaningful," Tracy said.
In contrast to the general population, a fifth study found that natural science students at graduate and undergraduate levels showed greater support for the theory of evolution and liking of Dawkins after thinking about death.
"Natural science students have been taught to view evolutionary theory as compatible with the desire to find a greater sense of meaning in life," Tracy explained. "Presumably, they already attain a sense of existential meaning from evolution."
Phew. Pick the bones out of that one, eh?
Mayomick, I don't think that those early scientists were concerned with the how of creation, but with the way the world worked, with things they could see and measure and work with. Some of them were certainly dealing with things which would undermine what we now call creationism, a branch of study which is very recent, and a response to the findings of science.
I remember the writing of one Muslim scholar who was able to work out sequences of rock formation, building on the original observations of marine fossils on the top of mountains which spoke of uplift. (I wish I could remember his name as I want to read more of his work.) He went on to deduce that the mountains had then been eroded to form new rocks, which had then been uplifted again, eroded again, and uplifted again. He was writing, I believe, in Spain, but he was describing the formation of the Gulf oil fields. Clearly such a process does not fit with current creationist hypotheses about a single global flood, and is dependent on deep time.
It is inappropriate to recruit to a modern position scholars who would not recognise the argument which they are supposed to support.
The geologist may have been al-Biruni, as he also postulated that India was formed from alluvium from the Himalayas, because of the size of particles being reduced in transport from their source. He also put forward a hypothesis not unlike natural selection - look on wikipedia via that list.
From: Folkiedave
I didn't believe in incarnation when I was a frog and I don't believe in it now.
The mention of the Islamic scholar is very interesting. We should never, ever, forget that there were/are other perspectives on the world than just the western/Christian one. Just because we in the west dominated the world during a particulr sliver of history doesn't mean that we did in the past or will do so in the future.
TIA: "If nobody tells you what to think, how do you decide what to think on your own...just curious."
Go for the truth...no matter what you might have preconceived it to be. I think that's why I don't trust the political trip, because the lies are so obvious, and coming from both sides...matter of fact, I've been tending more to my music, than following the 'news', as much, and even just giving away some very dialed in material... but bickering over religion and politics is about as useful as a cardboard rubber!
Eraser or condom?
I agree...go for the truth. How do you decide what is the truth? Methodologically speaking. This is a serious question. Outside of the scientific method, how does one determine "truth" without being told by someone (or some book) what is true. Thus the question: "if nobody (or no book) tells you what to think, how (using what process or criteria) do you decide?"
TIA, often knowing the 'truth' hits you like 'remembering', and you KNOW that it is. Other times, it takes the form of 'discovery' that makes a simple sense, based on other things you know to be true, by experience or logic. There is a difference between 'having knowledge of', having a 'working knowledge of', and 'knowing'. The latter, really denotes having an experience with the subject, to wit, where you and the object become one!..and you EXPERIENCE, whatever the subject, first hand. The others, are utilizing logic and 'educated guesses' that seem to work, but you're not sure, unless you try out your theories on it...and if you get the results you wanted, then one could say you know a lot ABOUT it.
When, in science, it is far better yo be 'objective' than 'subjective', therefor not tainting the gathering of info, to 'fit' a theory, or preconception.
..and though someone on here, may not accept this(I won't say who), 'Intelligence is the ability to process information'. THEREFORE, it is best to keep your 'filters' clean, as not to impede the information coming in, not color it to fit a preference, and keep it objective!!.........(oh, and not all info comes in through the 'ordinary five senses').
In closing, you might even 'fear' having to make a conclusion, that you don't want to accept, as true..but down deep in your innermost being, you already KNOW what that is...stop running, and accept it, and go on from there!
Hey, nice exchanging with you, without all the 'other stuff'.
"oh, and not all info comes in through the 'ordinary five senses'"
Would you care to tell us about the additional senses that, presumably, you possess, GfS?
Perhaps a good 'intuition', and/or certain perceptions,...maybe more,..you know(?).
I think that Penny S. made a very good point above when she said she didn't think that early scientists were overly concerned with the specifics of creation. I get the impression from early writings, that people took scriptural creations stories as half fact, and half an allegory meant to teach us a lesson. Exact specifications for the beginning and ending of the world are a far more important part of Protestant evangelical theology. Almost all religions involve in some speculation about the beginnings and ends of things - but these matters are far more important for Protestant evangelicals.
The Baltimore Catechism that American Catholic school children memorized in the first half of the twentieth century, had little about creation other than to say that God created the world. I think most people believed in a 6-day creation - it just wasn't all that important to them.
I'm still not sure how important the origin of the world is to me. I mean, it's nice that the world is here and all, and it's nice to study and speculate about the origins of things; but won't the sun continue to rise and set without our understanding completely how that process works?
And if there is a God, won't that God continue to function despite our knowledge or lack or knowledge of that God?
"Perhaps a good 'intuition', and/or certain perceptions,...maybe more,..you know(?)."
No, GfS, I'm afraid I don't know. As for 'intuition', I worked for 17, often weary, years with a lot of people who although they had all been scientifically trained often much preferred to rely on their 'intuitions'. All too often this over-reliance on intuition led to endless fire-fighting because their 'intuitive guesses' were just plain WRONG! I can state categorically that intuition is over-rated.
I am uncomfortable with the proposition that truth should be determined by whether something *feels* true.
TIA, It has nothing to do with 'feelings'.
And I'm sorry Nimrod worked with a bunch of dummies....it may explain a lot!
I think highly creative people, with that experience, would know instantly what I'm talking about...I'm not about to start a whole other controversy explaining to you that it exists....like Love, Faith, Compassion, Forgiveness, Patience....all those things actually lead to doors that open to 'other' things, that utilizes....umm.....'other senses'. It's true. Remember, somethings exist, that are NOT confined, nor defined by a material dimension, as we might 'know' it!
"Remember, somethings exist, that are NOT confined, nor defined by a material dimension, as we might 'know' it!"
Which things, GfS? Just so that I know when I 'sense' them in another non-material dimension, that's all!
Hi, TIA.
Actually, I think that when something "feels" true or untrue, it can be a pretty good gauge - especially on the untrue side. I've often come to a conclusion after lengthy and complicated reasoning, but still had the uneasy feeling that my conclusion was incorrect. Further research proved my intuition.
I think it's a good idea to rely on a COMBINATION of rational thinking and intuition, and to remember that neither is infallible.
Can't say I believe in the infallibility of anyone, myself. I try to be always open to new perspectives.
From: Stringsinger
Science, geez? Got education? (Where did it go?)
"i agree on one comment though.as regards our brains God does expect us to make the best we can of them,since Jesus called us to love the Lord our God with our mind,and soul and strength
And he says with without a trace of irony... "
As Steve says, he lnows nothing about theology.
I actually meant to say that he says THIS without a trace of irony, to be clear. I hoped no-one would pick up that omission!
I'm not quite clear who it is who's supposed to know nothing about theology. I suspect it's both of us. I cheerfully confess that theology is not something I've ever given any time to, and I can't think I'm about to start any time soon. I'm sure that a good deal of heartfelt, soul-searching thinking goes into it. But, as it's entirely predicated on a single, huge, false premise, I really can't be arsed with it. I'm sure I'm missing a lot, but I suspect that whatever I'm missing could be got from somewhere else anyway.
I understood you perfectly - both times.
Joe Offer: "Actually, I think that when something "feels" true or untrue, it can be a pretty good gauge - especially on the untrue side. I've often come to a conclusion after lengthy and complicated reasoning, but still had the uneasy feeling that my conclusion was incorrect. Further research proved my intuition."
GfS: "Perhaps a good 'intuition', and/or certain perceptions,...maybe more,..you know(?).
GfS: "TIA, It has nothing to do with 'feelings'.
I think we're on the same page, and that should answer Shimrod's question, as well.
If you want to detect, let's say, 'a lie', you don't take up a study of all the different 'lies' in the world, you just study 'truth'. A 'lie' will jump out as totally out of place, in logic, and substance.
(You can substitute 'lie' with anything else. I just used 'lie' as an example).
As far as creative people, who rack the depth of their souls for perfectly defining, what it is that they are 'tuning into',...those who have done it, know what it is, and what they have to go through, to get it. I don't think trying to explain it, or that there is a place to break through to, could merely be explained, with any satisfaction of proof....you just gotta go there. Then you know...and there are different aspects, depending on the topic.
Let's get this out of the way first, GfS - I'll be honest with you - I'm an imperfect wretch who who lacks piety and a depth to my soul (whatever that is). So, given my lamentable imperfections, how do you suggest that I go about 'breaking through' to these other, non-material dimensions that you appear to be able to 'sense'?
If, on the other hand, you think that I'm a hopeless case and have no chance of 'breaking through' to a non-material dimension or sensing one, I would be very interested in knowing what happened when you 'broke through' to a non-material dimension or sensed one. I would then at least know what I'm missing.
Intuition is the Sixth Sense.
The Inner Eye is the Seventh Sense.
Spirituality is the Eighth Sense...and perhaps the most important.
Many people have turned off these last two senses, looking only as far as Scientific Explanation....not realising there is a whole world that lies far beyond explanation.
It is why we have become desperately disconnected from Mother Nature. The Five Accepted Senses have stultified us as a Species because so many look no further than those.
Science has given the world a great deal of wonderful things. It has also come very close to destroying it, and we are yet again living on the edge at this very moment, waiting to see where the Nuclear Nemesis is about to take us all.
I think the world has had way too much science at present. I think it desperately needs a Spiritual Awakening of Tsuanamic Proportions...and I believe that's starting to happen, out there within the depths of the oceans of many souls.......
My intuition tells me that there is no such thing as too much science. There is definitely such a thing as not enough.
As to intuition or the undefined sense which doesn't seem to fit with the five major ones - and don't forget that we have well recognised further senses, such as the way-up-ness sense determined in our inner ear, or the kinaesthetic sense which allows us to put our fingers on our noses with our eyes shut, or the one which tells us that something is amiss in our gut - there is a perfectly scientific explanation of some expressions of it.
All the time we are taking in, through the normal senses, more than we are consciously aware of. Low level sounds, things seen but not registered, faint scents. Our unconscious mind can be processing this stuff - science now tells us that it is this mind which makes many of our decisions, which can be mapped in the brain before we know of them, so it's a busy little thing - and sending us messages about things which we should be taking note of.
An example would be the relationship between my neighbour and his partner. My mind kept telling me there was something missing by comparison with normal partnerships between people in a new relationship setting up home together. Normally, such people are like pairs of rooks, or ducks on a lake. They don't necessarily stay close, but you can tell they have a bond by the way they move together. This whatever it is was missing. It was only when I realised quite separately that the man showed some signs of Asperger's that I could identify that they didn't make eye contact with each other as much as one would expect. Part of me had spotted this, but could not tell me in so many words. People like Derren Brown use consciously spotted "tells" to cold read "victims". The rest of us can be using the same sort of signs unconsciously.
Such a background processing of normally sensed data could certainly lead to Joe's intuition being so good at spotting wrongnesses. It is wrongnesses that we need to know about.
Until we have ruled out that sort of thing, accepting non-physical senses should be treated with caution.
Penny, speaking as a spiritually unaware person I have to agree with you. You make far more sense than a load of mystical waffle about other dimensions, 'Inner Eyes' and suchlike. Such things, if they exist at all (which I doubt), are always described as being unverifiable, hence I do not feel obliged to believe in them or to take them seriously.
And Lizzie you really can't have "too much science" - that's just silly anti-intellectualism - but I definitely think that you can have too much spirituality and meaningless, pious piffle! Through science we are beginning to understand how the world works and how our particular species relates to it. If we are to save our species at all it will be through increasing that understanding and through convincing other human beings that we must adapt to the world as it is - not how we would like it to be.
I wouldn't be honest if I didn't own that every now and then something makes it past the caution, and cannot be explained, while not allowing itself to be totally discounted because there is too much subsequently confirmed information. Unfortunately, these have been things I have not recorded and sealed prior to confirmation through normal sources, and anecdotes don't cut it scientifically.
By contrast, for years, every time I got on a train for London that went through Hither Green, I had a bad feeling. It didn't stop me travelling, and there was never an accident. But if there had been, I might have linked the two. I always suspect those stories of people with such feelings of having them every time, like me.
"And Lizzie you really can't have "too much science" - that's just silly anti-intellectualism - but I definitely think that you can have too much spirituality and meaningless, pious piffle! Through science we are beginning to understand how the world works and how our particular species relates to it. If we are to save our species at all it will be through increasing that understanding and through convincing other human beings that we must adapt to the world as it is - not how we would like it to be. "
Pardon my language, but what completely unscientific, wifflywaffley crap.
For your information, the Indigenous Peoples around the world have lived their whole life long understanding how the world works. They have lived as a PART of Nature, not wanting to be the RULERS, the DOMINATORS.
Of course, most Indigenous Peoples have been decimated, or totally ignored, in the rush for Science to take over the planet and teach us how to live our lives, living beside very safe Nuclear Plants...
It's such a lot of crap, Shimmy...
You want REAL Science? Then go back to the words of Crazy Horse...and study those....
Scientists are not all Mr Spocks you know. Shimrod hunts down his fumitories and yesterday I found a patch of moschatel in a wood at Boscastle, only the second time I've ever seen it. My wife must have thought I was some kind of a nut, yelping with delight and crawling on the leaf-mould on my belly to try to get a photo of it (I got one that wasn't half bad, though the light conditions made it tough). I doubt that either of us thinks we are contributing over much to the great body of scientific knowledge by hunting for wild flowers, but by Christ we don't half have a good time. Whatever this spirituality lark is that many believers like to insinuate that we pagans lack, I think I have it in truckloads, if going around with eyes open in wonderment and delight and indulging in reveries surrounded by the natural world is anything to go by. In fact, I will go so far as to make the outrageous claim that believers are more likely to find their "spirituality" somewhat stunted by their belief in something that they falsely imagine is at the heart of it. The amazing and delicious ordinariness of nature isn't good enough for some people.
Both from the same pen. Nothing further to add really.
:D (eG)
No mention of common sense, I see.
"For your information, the Indigenous Peoples around the world have lived their whole life long understanding how the world works. They have lived as a PART of Nature, not wanting to be the RULERS, the DOMINATORS."
Hhhhmmm! Is that really true, Lizzie? In that book that I told you about earlier in the thread ('Here on Earth' by Tim Flannery) he suggests that that is a bit of a myth too and, in reality, things were not quite so simple. It's highly likely that human beings (that's 'spiritually aware', 'primitive' ones) began to disrupt and destroy eco-systems as soon as they moved out of Africa. For example, the 'Mammoth Steppe' of northern Eurasia once teemed with mega-fauna (like mammoths) and 'primitive' humans simply ate them - with profound consequences for both the region and the rest of the world. They did the same to Australia and North and South America too.
And pre-industrial people didn't let their spirituality stand in the way of inflicting terrible violence on each other. In a startling passage in Flannery's book there is an account of an encounter between an 18th century British lieutenant named Watkin Tench and an Aboriginal woman named Goreedeeana. He examined her head to find it " ... covered with contusions and mangled by scars" the result of wounds administered by her husband. She had also suffered a wound above her knee as a result of having a spear thrown at her by another man who had dragged her off and raped her. Tench observed that this sort of violence inflicted by men upon women was the norm rather than an exception. A male member of the same tribe, named Bennelong was covered by scars received as a result of fights with other men.
As for Crazy Horse he may have said a lot of wise and poetic things - but I bet he wasn't above scalping, raping and killing Pawnee and Crow women and children when the opportunity arose.
I'll give you an example of the mindset of Native Americans: In the 1820s the Arikara indians, who lived on the Big Bend of the Missouri, got into the habit of ambushing white fur trappers. The American government sent an armed force against them under the command of a General Leavenworth. Leavenworth bombarded their villages but allowed them to escape under cover of darkness. His Sioux allies were outraged by this because they wanted to slaughter the lot! Hardly the attitude of gentle and spritually aware people I would have thought (?) (and, no, I have no sympathy for the attitudes of the fur trappers, the American government or General Leavenworth either - in case you're wondering?). Oh yes, and the Arikara themselves were in the habit of driving whole buffalo herds over the bluffs of the Missouri, taking what meat they wanted and leaving the rest to rot in a vast, stinking pile.
Lizzie, I have a feeling that your 'touchy-feely' world view is far too simplistic - the world is a complex place and we're a complex species.
I happen to lean toward Lizzie on this one. Either she is just making it up, OR she has been there, (unless she is speaking of theoretics, which I somewhat doubt).
The difference between the way some of you, are posting, is like blind people, consoling each other that there is nothing to see, and trying to convince people who CAN see, that there is really nothing at all, just because they can't see it!
As far as Shimrod's post, I'd LOVE to turn you onto ANYTHING that would brighten your day, but on here, I'm not into defending simple truths, that we have within us, just for the sake of responding to all the interference of the aforementioned blind....BUT..I can give you a couple of things, that point the way. I had posted a good start on a previous thread, in which some of the willingly stubborn blind, commenced with their 'semi-literate diatribes' (READ: Half witted frothing rants)!
What I can say, for now, is there is a LOT more of what you are aware, or capable of being aware of, built right into your 'carbon unit'(body). We condition ourselves by, being convinced that the material is all that there is, and that somehow, we are not connected to the rest, as a whole...thereby cutting us off, and separating us, not by reality, but by our 'mind's thinking', that somehow there is no more...so to that person, he doesn't see it, or acknowledge it...and lives day to day as a 'thing' rather than a 'being'. Both political CONTROLLERS need you to think this way to control your thoughts and be a 'subject', while profiteers need you to be nothing more than a 'consumer'.....so, if you turn to those sources, you get NOTHING!!!!!...in fact, you get a lot of the same shit you read on here, by those who bought into their methods, of CONTROL! If you turn to 'religion', at least most organized religion, you run into more 'control freaks'.
I think the first thing in order, is to admit honestly to ourselves, that we are missing something, that opens a conduit, to the very force from where we got life, and wonder, what or how life would have evolved for me, if I let that force blossom within me, for all these years....instead of trying to keep up with those who don't know diddly.....I'm guessing there's some little voice in you, that KNOWS what I'm talking about...and it's probably been shut up, or thought to be 'lame'. THAT my dear fellow poster, IS the voice that needs YOU to allow it to ask the 'things' it needs, and YOU follow, instead of you telling it to 'quiet down', so you can pursue the latest 'desire' that you've been convinced either by others or by yourself.
Its much like a talent. Did the State give you a talent? Did you buy a talent from a corporation?.....or do you develop a talent that you already had? Where did it come from, and for what purpose? To promote the State?...To make more money, like the corporations most all seem to hate?...or to reach someone else's 'little voice' within, and speak to it??...and touch their hearts? You can pursue ANYTHING you want....but somethings keep going on.
Will see how this one goes.
Hi, Lizzie!!!! Glad you posted as you did. I know you can take a lot of heat for it...and if you are in your (posted)eighth sense, it's water off a duck's back!
"As far as Shimrod's post, I'd LOVE to turn you onto ANYTHING that would brighten your day, but on here, I'm not into defending simple truths, that we have within us, just for the sake of responding to all the interference of the aforementioned blind....BUT..I can give you a couple of things, that point the way. I had posted a good start on a previous thread, in which some of the willingly stubborn blind, commenced with their 'semi-literate diatribes' (READ: Half witted frothing rants)!"
Don't worry about me, GfS - most of my days are bright enough, thanks! Facing reality can be as enlightening as all the wishy washy, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, frothy stuff in other dimensions.
And I didn't quite catch that about "'semi-literate diatribes'" ... just run that past me again ...
Science can be intuitive just as religionists claim that province for themselves, only.
Science can be creative without introducing religion at all.
Science should be applied to the study of theology.
Science is not a religion in spite of what so many here claim. It is a method.
Science can be appreciated as an intuitive experience that doesn't need "spirituality"
to defend it.
Science is anti-reactionary because of the methods that it employs. Reaction is based on unquestioning.
Science is scary to those who have been indoctrinated by theological brain-washing.
There are good scientists who are religious but they must live in logic-tight compartments to practice their craft. They must cut out their religious beliefs through a sort of intellectual "intercission" (check the Golden Compass) when practicing science.
Science is not faith. It is anti-faith as it allows for no evidence that isn't empirical.
Science is not a god. It's nature is anti-god. It seeks no occult explanations.
Frothing rants? And this person, without a trace of irony, can post in the most frothingly ranting manner seen here for many a long day? I love it! No, let me emulate. I LOVE 'it'!!!!
I'm LOVING 'it' too, Steve!!!
The discussion is using language I do not even understand, so I must just listen...and wonder.
Okay, We Give Up
As I suspected, the blind leading the blind, in circles. Stringsinger's post was cool...had no problem with it.
some of the others were just stupid stuff. See ya'!
I can't resist cutting and pasting a comment from 'JfBirmingham' made in response to the 'Scientific American' article cited by 'The Fooles Troupe' above:
"God does not exist. This is my belief and I have as much right to state the same dogmatically as any other believer. Having said this I agree that a magazine such as SciAm must present all sides of all arguments. ALL sides of ALL arguments. This means that unless there are some pretty extensive articles about the creation of the world by the ancestral spirits during the Australian Dream-Time, I shall be forced to assume that SciAm is manipulating human knowledge for it's own dark ends, quite possibly out of racism against the native peoples of Australia."
So, 'creationists', what do you think about that then?
as usual argument from mockery.then of course the usual supposed science opposed by religion claim,conveniently forgetting the influence and advancement of science by christians historically.
i did read the counter claims by sci-am re "expelled".admittedly unsettling if accurate.in fact i,m surprised if the makers of the film are not taken to law for misrepresentation .maybe i dont know enough about US law.
" ... conveniently forgetting the influence and advancement of science by christians historically."
We've been over all that, pete. No-one is denying (or forgetting) that many early scientists were Christians. But many of them were working at a time when everyone in European society was a Christian. In addition if a scientist decides to adopt a particular religious faith there's nothing stopping her/him.
We now know that many Muslims, Hindus, Taoists etc. were scientists but that doesn't require any of us to adopt those religions or to believe in their teachings.
Just answer this question: If I was to adopt a religious faith why should I choose Christianity over Islam, Hinduism or Taoism ... or any other 'ism'?
If you have to ask why, then don't.
They just don't get it.
"If you have to ask why, then don't."
OK. You mean I don't have to believe in a lot of irrational rubbish? Pheww! That's a relief! Bit of a cop-out on your part, though ...
"They just don't get it."
Speaking personally, no I don't get it - never did and never will. And I bet you feel sorry for me, don't you, GfS? But don't worry, you don't have to, I'm fine!
"Bit of a cop-out on your part, though ..."
No. Just the truth.
From: GUEST,Patsy
Knowledge of Science is a good thing and it revolves around our everyday lives whether we like it or not. Cooking is an example of science too. Experimenting with ingredients to make a recipe successful is all part of that, how to make a cake rise or how to avoid a Hollandaise or mayonnaise sauce curdling, it is based on science. Warnings regarding cleaning products used in everyday life in the home which could be lethal if mixed with another chemical. Without science knowledge all kinds of hazards could happen whether toxic or explosive.
But I do feel that some Scientists see themselves as little demi gods, everything they say these days is the word, especially when it comes to informing (scaremongering)the public about every little nit picky thing imaginable. Give us a break! It could be a conspiracy to drive us all bananas.
To be fair to scientists, the scaremongering is often a lot more to do with how the science is presented by the media, which is usually God-awful and buttock-clenchingly bad. Next time you hear a news reporter saying "Experts have said that...", join me in throwing ping-pong balls at the telly.
Programs like Tomorrow's World were great at the time because it was informative and entertaining for the whole family about the new advancement of new technologies and science without dwelling on the downside of anything. The 'big bang theory' I think that's the name of the program currently on at the moment is informative, light-hearted designed for family viewing but doesn't have the enthusiasm that Tomorrow's World had when presenting the show.
I will be ready with the ping-pong balls.
Horizon does my brain in with all that swirly camera work and daft background music. A lot of the popular science series are pretty on sound. I was thinking more of what we get in news reports on telly and in the press.
Yikes! Not pretty on sound. I meant pretty sound.
so shimrod are we agreeing that being religious/christian has not produced bad scientists?.
you asking me why you should choose christianity over another faith is like me asking you which brand of evolutionism i should choose.
i dont believe any of it.likewise you reject God,period ,so far as i can determine from your posts.
"so shimrod are we agreeing that being religious/christian has not produced bad scientists?."
That's a pretty odd question! It's highly likely that some scientists who have professed to have religious faith have been good scientists, and some atheists have also been good scientists. I'm not sure if there's any sort of correlation between religious faith and the ability to do good science. I do know, though, that creationism is bad science because 'creationist scientists' start from a position of certainty and hunt for exceptions so that they can discredit genuine scientific insights that happen to clash with those certainties - that's not how science is done.
"you asking me why you should choose christianity over another faith is like me asking you which brand of evolutionism i should choose."
There are different schools of thought within the scientific disciplines connected to the Theory of Evolution. As an interested layman I read about these different schools - but I'm in no position to choose one to 'believe' in. But then it's not a matter of belief, is it, pete?
Finally, I do not reject God! I have seen no convincing evidence for the existence of God, that's all. No-one can say that God doesn't exist because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It just seems silly to me to base one's whole life and philosophy on absolute belief in a 'magic sky fairy' for whose existence there is no evidence.
Atheists do not reject God, Pete. Atheists reject the very human and very misguided notion of a God. It's the notion we reject, Pete. We feel reasonably strongly that there is no God to reject. As for evolutionism, there is really only one "brand" of it. If you choose to reject it, more fool you. There is a massive body of evidence for the thing you reject and not a single scrap of evidence for the thing you believe in. You might as well take off your clothes, put a pair of underpants on your head and a pencil up each nostril and march up and down your nearest high street with a sandwich board proclaiming that you are not a rational man whilst at the same time shouting "wibble."
Unless you've had that experience, you can bitch piss and moan, all you want, but....
Problem is, to all those who won't even ask, when others are trying to tell you, that some answers come as a life changing EXPERIENCE, is like a bunch of happily married people, trying to convince some frigid bitches, that there really are orgasms!!!...but you gotta be willing to get laid!!!!
What EXPERIENCE (similar, apparently, to a female orgasm!) would that be, GfS? Note that I'm asking you what you're trying to tell me.
I should point out that lack of orgasms is not just a particular feature of "frigid bitches". That remark was completely uncalled for as well as being highly disrespectful. And, on a point of accuracy, you do not need to get laid to have orgasms. "Frigid bitches" included.
Yes Steve, nasty little virgin bitches..horny as ever, but afraid to get laid...only thing more pathetic is rapidly aging homosexuals, watching their time run out!!
Must be hitting close to home, eh, Steve?
As for Nimrod, last time you asked me a question, like you were pretending to want a real answer, I began to lay a premise, that was easy to follow..but didn't go too far, just to see if you were really interested, or if you were going to make an ass of yourself....you chose the latter.
Sit on it.....you just missed a great one go by...
If you weren't such a vacuous, clearly drug-addled/alcohol-fuelled (who's to know which, if not both?), demented, useless, feckless, unfocussed, tasteless, hopeless twat, I would take that as offensive. Instead, I'll merely ascribe it to your utterly unintentional third-rate comedic attributes. Off you go for a quick flick, which is apparently what you've been building up to all evening. You're on your own, but you'll manage, eh?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Awwwww, c'mon!
If you weren't such a vacuous, clearly drug-addled/alcohol-fuelled (who's to know which, if not both?), demented, useless, feckless, unfocussed, tasteless, hopeless twat, I would take that as offensive.
Pot and kettle!
Ever heard of something called civility? If I were part of "management", I'd consider that as objectionable and unhelpful enough to merit censorship of the post, and possibly even expulsion!
Dave Oesterreich
OK, Dave, has anyone who doesn't know you from Adam ever called you a rapidly-ageing homosexual? I happen to have been married for 35 years, etc. etc. What would you call 'em? Have you ever looked at this guy's demented and sick posts at all, or are you just swanning in like some bloody high-and-mighty moralising Johnny-come-lately twerp? Come off it, will you! I'm cross here, you know!
Previously from Steve Shaw -
"Now, slug, that is my last word on this. Test me on it again and I will stuff something very nasty indeed right up your slime gland."
There's a lot more where that came from.
Ah, another crawler-out-of-the-woodwork! Ever been called a rapidly-ageing homosexual by a pointless little homophobic gobshite, have you, invertebrate (note the deliberate allusion to spinelessness...)? Tell me, as I don't know you from Adam either, were I to call you a rapidly-ageing homosexual, how would you respond?
Actually, you misinterpreted my post, AGAIN!...and again...and again...and again.....and again...
No wonder you don't believe in intelligence being the ability to process information!!! You're too busy bitching!
Damn the fake Scientific American really got me worked up until I got to the last sentence.
DOn't do that to me.
"As for Nimrod, last time you asked me a question, like you were pretending to want a real answer, I began to lay a premise, that was easy to follow ... "
You SEEEMED to be implying, GfS, that you had EXPERIENCED some sort of EXPERIENCE and you expected me to understand the nature of that EXPERIENCE on the basis of you stating that you had EXPERIENCED it.
I assume that your EXPERIENCE involved some sort of encounter with God? Mind you lots of people claim to have encountered God - in fact anecdotes involving so-called encounters with God are ten-a-penny. In scientific terms anecdotes do not constitute proof.
It's very unfortunate though, that when you had your encounter with God He failed to mention to you that misogyny and homophobia are now generally considered to be uncivilised and immoral traits. Unless, of course, you encountered the God of the Old Testament who appears to have considered all forms of human sexuality to be sinful and, in addition, advised his chosen people to massacre and enslave their enemies, sacrifice their children etc.
were I to call you a rapidly-ageing homosexual
How do you know I'm not?
I was merely pointing out that you are no stranger to playground abuse yourself when rational argument fails you. I you want to raise the level of debate, start with yourself.
You have appointed yourself as a spokesman for science so talk like a scientist. Better still, think like a scientist.
You forgot the bit about the fact I don't know you from Adam. If I call you a rapidly-ageing homosexual, whilst not knowing you from Adam, it would be intended as a deliberate, homophobic slur. If I knew you were a rapidly-ageing homosexual, I might think it in good taste not to refer to it on a thread which has no need for anyone to be apprised of the fact. Whichever way you look at this, you appear to be aligning yourself with a brainless, gobby little troll. Well good for you. Weird how you lie there in hibernation for a week and just emerge to have a snipe, eh? And I haven't "appointed" myself as anything, thank you. I am what I am and I happen to posting on a thread about science, OK? Would you rather I went into a state of denial and joined your little cult of the philistine?
"No wonder you don't believe in intelligence being the ability to process information!!!"
Ah - more inchoate raving from the one honored with The Order of The T.W.I.T. by so loudly proving himself lacking that attribute!
I never called anyone here a rapidly aging homosexual...it was a simile.
Idiots!
...only thing more pathetic is rapidly aging homosexuals, watching their time run out!!
You wouldn't know what a simile was if it jumped up and bit you on your nasty little gonads. Your insinuation was crystal clear. Oops, sorry, I was using rather long words for you there, wasn't I?
Did your EXPERIENCES involve any 'similes', GfS? If so you might want to find out what a simile actually is, re-visit your EXPERIENCES and re-evaluate those EXPERIENCES in the light of the new information.
I see that Guffs From Simile is slagging off "frigid virgins" in another thread now. In between bouts of severe Godliness too. There must be a name for that condition. Or at least a simile for it. "Barking" springs to mind...
i guess we come back to the same thing yet again.you ask for evidence for Gods existence.you deny that there is a deity to reject; and yet in a disrepectful ,insulting manner that reeks of rebellion more than asking for evidence of his existence.
i confess, i believe ,that generally people just know,though some like yourselves believe you dont.
you claim that i am in denial re darwinism yet i see no reason to believe it.you seem to think that i would ,if i read into it much more,despite a number of phds also rejecting it.
you write off such scientists for their biblical presuposition yet evolutionism involves unproven presupositions such as abiogenesis and macro change via information losing mutations
best wishes. pete
Gawd, will you lot please stobbit!
We've all got the gist, even if we haven't got science! Now put your bunsen burners on, warm up your hearts and souls and get ready for The Second Coming, either of God or the Now We're Not So Frigid Virgins....
and then...SMILE!
Yeesh, too much science makes chaps awful serious! ;0)
'This is my way; where is yours?' thus I answered those who asked me 'the way'.
For the way - that does not exist. (Nietzsche)
as quoted in 'The Scorcese Connection' by Lesley Stern.
The virgins are coming, tra-la-la-la
Will the virgins, be unfrozen,
by and by, Lord, by and by?...
"She said, 'There is no reason
and the truth is plain to see.'
But I wandered through my playing cards
and would not let her be
one of sixteen vestal virgins
who were leaving for the coast
and although my eyes were open
they might have just as well've been closed"
"i confess, i believe ,that generally people just know,though some like yourselves believe you dont."
Some people convince themselves that 'they know' all sorts of silly things - but could it be that they actually know nothing?
"you claim that i am in denial re darwinism yet i see no reason to believe it."
It's not a question of belief, is it pete? It's a question of evidence. And for the umpty-ninth time the Theory of Evolution, like all scientific theories, is INCOMPLETE. There's nothing wrong with that - live with it!
And, Lizzie, I'm awfully tired of your relentless anti-intellectualism - you'll be burning books next!
i believe ,that generally people just know,though some like yourselves believe you dont
Then you're an insufferable, pompous sod then, aren't you?
frogprince - you being naughty again?
God is dead!-(Nietzsche)
Nietzsche is dead--(God)
As far as the simile, I noticed, Steve, that you cut off the first part of the quote, liking people who 'poo-poo' God, to frigid nasty virgins, as in horny and frustrated, but unwilling to try 'it' out.
So, let's stay in context,(for once) and don't cherry pick parts of phrases that you can so easily misconstrue!
It's also dishonest!
"And, Lizzie, I'm awfully tired of your relentless anti-intellectualism - you'll be burning books next!"
Only books where every chapter is seemingly filled with the same pontificating thoughts and words, Shimmy.
YOU know I know nuzzink....
*I* know I know perhaps one helluva lot more than you do.
...but my thoughts come from inside me, rather than from inside books which are, lets' face it, merely thoughts from inside other people.
'Original Thought' shimmy, is the section in the Library where you should be looking...but I'll give you a clue, the shelves will be empty......
All you have to do is to figure out why....
And now, back to endless rounds of "Oh yes there is!" "Oh no there isn't!"
I wonder, if Darwin's daughter had *lived*, would he have fallen to his knees and thanked God, in a purely instinctive reaction?
Just a thought.......
Of course he would Lizzie ... he had Faith.
"...but my thoughts come from inside me, rather than from inside books which are, lets' face it, merely thoughts from inside other people."
'Merely' thoughts from inside other people? So, you're the only person capable of having original thoughts, then, are you Lizzie? What insufferable arrogance!!
Far from being original, your thoughts seem to consist of much re-hashed, cliched bunkum about 'spirituality' mixed with a lot of lazy, smug anti-intellectualism.
He was, I believe, so it says in er...'books', already questioning his belief, and when his daughter died, so his faith died with her and his thoughts on Evolution evolved ever faster.....But if she *had* lived, would his faith have continued to live alongside her, alongside his evolutionary thoughts?
Would God and Evolution have become entwined into an EvolutionaryRevolutionaryGod....?
Just another thought..that's all.
Now, Shimmy, WHY would I be 'anti' anyone like you?
I have great respect for those who are true teachers, who want to help others to learn purely for the love of it, but I ain't into folks who seemingly want to anhilate the thoughts of others, purely because they go against all they believe in.
By the way, what exactly IS an 'Intellectual'? I mean, in what way does someone who writes that on their forehead differ from someone else who may have not a single degree or examination to their name, but who has profound wisdom jumping in every part of their body, alongside a huge desire to share that wisdom with others who want to listen...?
Is it that The Intellectual deems himself/herself to be far more er...intelligent?
Hmmmmmmm
Oh...and Shimmy, don't worry yourself too much about me, for I have bookcases FILLED with beautiful books here in my home, as do my children. :0)
I've always assumed that you can't label yourself as an 'intellectual'. And if you want some 'help' from me (which you probably don't), I would lose that massive chip on your shoulder - no-one is claiming to be more intelligent or 'better' than you. Conversely, I'm not convinced that you are 'better' than me because you claim to be 'more spiritual' than I am!
Getting back to the previous topic, wisdom always seems to be based on the thoughts of those that came before. There may have been a time, in the distant past, when one could have completely 'original thoughts' - but it's much more difficult at this time in history. Nevertheless, it seems that gifted individuals can build upon the thoughts of others and gain new insights into the way that the world works - sometimes merely by viewing the insights of others from a novel direction or by realising that something is missing and filling in the gaps. Many great scientists have taken existing tools created by others - like theoretical mathematical techniques, for example - and found that they could be applied to solve real world problems - sometimes in completely unexpected ways. One of the greatest scientists of all time, Isaac Newton, is said to have said, "I stand on the shoulders of giants".
And that brings us neatly back to Charles Darwin, the Theory of Evolution, his daughter's tragic death, the possible effects of that death on his religious convictions and their possible effects on his theory. As I wrote in a previous post, Lizzie, the Theory of Evolution wasn't just down to Darwin (even though he now tends to take the credit) - it was independently discovered or formulated by Alfred Russel Wallace. The Theory of Evolution was 'in the scientific air' in the mid-19th century and would have emerged anyway with or without Darwin (which is not to detract from Darwin's achievements).
"would God and Evolution have become entwined into an EvolutionaryRevolutionaryGod....?"
Darwin would have become irrelevant and his place in Evolution History been taken over by Wallace - who was actually nearly more famous than Darwin, but whose fame has now been usurped.
Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alfred Russel Wallace, OM, FRS (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist and biologist ...
http://www.google.com/search?&q=wallace
Research Alfred Russel Wallace
Apparently relevant post number one, all of it:
Apparently relevant post number two, all of it:
So, Guest From Shamtitty, tell me how I cherry-picked. Also, tell me where the simile is. I could offer you some advice. When your little head hits the pillow tonight, just before you start dreaming about educating frigid virgins as to how to have multiple orgasms (coo, I bet that'll be a nifty dream!), just mutter one final little word to yourself: "Facsimiles..."
I do not expect anyone to have experienced what I have. If you have experienced internal time dialation (psychological) you are one among many. If you have experienced an external time dialation (non psychological) then you have had a rare experience. One in which most people will not relate to it. So what. If there are some people who not only will not relate to it but are on a mission to discredit the observer who had the experience, let them. We know who they are.
Sometimes the mere timiming of an event is crucial.
If you played video games on your computer via dial up it is no big deal, but if you did it in 1969, it is a rare experience.
If you have had a rare experience, a sighting that is contrary to current physics, a satori, enlightenment or perhaps something that you should not be able to remember or understand,
I strongly recommend that you remain courageous enough to to share it here.
I assure you that most expereinces will have aa foundation of understanding in science, and for those esperiences that don't - those are the ones that have the potential to expand our scientific understanding. The unusual and unknown is the food of discovery.
go for it.
I have over the years. I have seen outlandish criticism. I'm still here along witht he events I fortold or warnedabout.
Donuel: "I assure you that most expereinces will have aa foundation of understanding in science, and for those esperiences that don't - those are the ones that have the potential to expand our scientific understanding. The unusual and unknown is the food of discovery.
go for it."
Donuel, great insight!....which surpasses, some of the other nonsensical posts of other fad centered, closed minded wannabe 'intellectuals'. on here!!
...and yes, I did have a rather unique experience, in the late of 1969, which opened my eyes, and changed everything for me, ever since! I have found it consistent with some other people's experience, but in rather vivid, and lucid detail! It gave me a rather deeper perspective on the 'reality' that we live in, and since then science, yes science, has backed up what I saw, and experienced! I, myself, have been keenly open, to ANYTHING consistent, that sheds more light, on what this was....because it was 'earth shattering'.
You might have noticed in some of my previous posts, that I used the word, 'dimension' to try to best describe attributes of what we fully live within, and also to acknowledge, a fuller 'reality', than what is commonly looked at as 'everything that there is'.
We know that matter, such as the 'known' universe(this dimension), is comprised of about 20%, of all matter, while 'black matter'(not commonly detectable by the commonly available tools of this dimension), comprises about the remaining 80% of the total!! Within this 80% are 'powers' or 'energies' that constitute what people attribute to 'spiritual', or 'meta-physical', quantum physics, intelligence(collective or otherwise), the 'life force', gravity, magnetism, telepathy, and possibly the 'initial cause'..among others!!
What we will find out, sooner or later, is that ALL of these are ONE, and only singular attributes of the whole.
To rule out any of these factors, in the SCIENTIFIC explanation of how life came to be, or evolved on this planet, or anywhere else, is certainly short-sighted, at best!!!!
I'd love to share some of that on here with ANYONE who was not so bent on trying to be contentious, for the sake of stupidity, but rather share them with you face to face, or even a phone call...if you are/were really interested.
Little Hawk, Lizzie, Pete 'seven stars', among others,(possibly you) seemed to be a bit more open, and able to gain from each others experiences. It has been said, that music (original, creative that touches others souls and hearts), comes from this 'other' place. Scientists agree, that they DO NOT know, why certain music works this way, nor where it originates....but DO agree that playing this type of music, activates more parts of the brain, than ANY other activity known to mankind...including sex!.......Therefore, the sexual similes, that I gave, and the sheer panic of some frigid mindsets, who would be terrified of experiencing something out of their 'comfort zone' of their small minded self absorption!!!
Let me add, to those who considered it an 'insult' that I was 'accusing' them of homosexuality, ON THIS thread, must look at homosexuality as an INSULT...but then accuse OTHERS of being biased!!
If it is an insult, who's got the bigoted bias???????????
Beauty, as well as ugly, is in the eye of the beholder!!!
Ooops..maybe a overly quick drawn overreaction?? What they need to ask themselves, is 'WHY?'.....for the sake of 'science'.
Anyway, Donuel, maybe we can hook up. I'm sure the benefit would be mutual!
Isn't this a pretty good candidate for a thread that needs to be put down?
"We know that matter, such as the 'known' universe(this dimension), is comprised of about 20%, of all matter, while 'black matter'(not commonly detectable by the commonly available tools of this dimension), comprises about the remaining 80% of the total!! Within this 80% are 'powers' or 'energies' that constitute what people attribute to 'spiritual', or 'meta-physical', quantum physics, intelligence(collective or otherwise), the 'life force', gravity, magnetism, telepathy, and possibly the 'initial cause'..among others!!
What we will find out, sooner or later, is that ALL of these are ONE, and only singular attributes of the whole."
Did you postulate the existence of 'black (sic) matter', GfS? It's commonly referred to as 'dark matter', by the way, but leaving that aside, as I understand it, at the present time, 'dark matter' has been postulated to explain certain anomalies in cosmological measurements. I thought, in my ignorance, that no-one had actually observed it directly because it's ...well ... dark ...?
But to my amazement I see that, not only have you solved the mystery, but your observations are far superior to anything that those stuffy old scientists can come up with (IDIOTS - huh!)! You not only know what this 'dark matter' is but you've been able to link it to 'meta-physical' (sic), quantum physics, intelligence(collective or otherwise), the 'life force', gravity, magnetism, telepathy, and possibly the 'initial cause' etc. AMAZING! You must be some sort of GENIUS!!! Have you PUBLISHED 'your' results yet! When the relevant journal hits the shops you'll probably be up for a NOBEL 'prize'!!!
I know that, at this stage - presumably pre-publication (?) - you'll not want to give too much away, but how did you do it, GfS? Don't tell me - you've got a radio telescope and a particle accelerator (both SPIRITUALLY powered, of course) in the garden shed! BRILLIANT!!!
Nimrod: "I know that, at this stage - presumably pre-publication (?) - you'll not want to give too much away, but how did you do it, GfS? Don't tell me - you've got a radio telescope and a particle accelerator (both SPIRITUALLY powered, of course) in the garden shed! BRILLIANT!!!"
Thank you!..Links are available. Do your homework!..it beats proselytizing mutant gnome thinking!
"playing this type of music, activates more parts of the brain, than ANY other activity known to mankind...including sex!......."
History Quiz:
Now which Ancient Greek Philosopher had that Original Idea?
""playing this type of music, activates more parts of the brain, than ANY other activity known to mankind...including sex!.......""
Ah - now I understand the AnonTroll .... stop it or you'll go blind!
The Toupee: "History Quiz:
Just the first link I pulled up.....there are more....do your own homework!
Got Science???
Ooops.....led with his mouth, again!
" ... it beats proselytizing mutant gnome thinking!"
Tut, tut, GfS! Mutant gnomist as well as misogynistic and homophobic. Still, I suppose we should make allowances - you being a brilliant, spiritually powered COSMOLOGIST and all!!
"The Toupee"
Ah! The Gutless Bullying A*hole C*nt stops masturbating to the Cosmic Music in her head and rears her Ugly Head Again!
Let me try to be very patient with you. And please don't respond too quickly, as, going from your posts of this evening, you appear to need to sleep something off first. Now, person (I have to call you "person", as I have no idea whether you are a boy, a girl, or neither; I was actually amazed to hear you recount something that happened to you in 1969, as you write like an eleven-year-old on speed), I actually celebrate homosexuality as just one part of the wonderful spectrum of human experience. I just happen, for my sins, to be not gay myself, and therein, unfortunately for you, lies the rub. You see, I am not insulted that you call me homosexual when I am, in fact, not. I am insulted by the fact that you feel you are able to attribute to me any quality at all of which you have no knowledge whatsoever insofar as that quality may, or may not, pertain to me, since, as far as I recall, we have never met, still less exchanged either pleasantries or unpleasantries. In other words, sweetie, stop making things up as you go along, eh? I am actually totally astounded that any remaining sense of dignity you may still be clinging to (if you are, you don't deserve to be, but hey, anyone can get deluded) permits you to think you are still OK posting to this forum. You are a laughing stock, frankly, and the tragedy is that you wouldn't notice when people are, rightly, taking the piss out of you even if it reared up and bit you on your pert little arse. Now go and have a nice lie down, huh?
Gosh, italics not intended there for my bit. Which started on line three, just in case anyone still can't distinguish me from our resident idiot non-savant.
Steve and The Fool,
Stupid rants, BUT.................
.........Do you 'Got Science?'
Smilin' at ya',
The Snail made a good point, but was not followed up on, so....to acknowledge his point, I thought I'd re-post it. It encompasses what I was saying, in the way of NOT excluding, all that you can't see....
The Snail: "You have appointed yourself as a spokesman for science so talk like a scientist. Better still, think like a scientist."
The Snail made a good point
The Snail, just like you, has thus far shown itself incapable of making any good points. It snipes, whilst you flap around with unformed and incoherent notions which you appear to have extreme difficulty communicating to anyone. No, on reflection that isn't fair, because you have communicated very well that you are misogynistic and homophobic. I'm not surprised that you and it get on so well (I have to say "it" as I don't know whether Snailie-wailie's a boy, girl or neither either, as with you, though I understand that some members of the order of Mollusca it purports to belong to are actually capable of shagging themselves - hmmm, something to ponder there...). Of course, I'm always willing to be proven wrong. Now what was it you were saying?
as a non involved observer of the slanging match,i think that gfs comment re ageing homosexual, was not too clever.albeit,i certainly read steves initial response as gfs describes it,but modified in subsequent posts to be PC in keeping with what he would normally profess.thats how it looks to me ,anyway.
gfs. i would certainly be happy to speak with you,as it sounds interesting but i dont know how that is facilitated.
is,nt dark matter something posited by cosmologists to account for anomalies in time/space measurement,which like oort clouds are as yet theoretical.this is a ? not a statement.
This is NASA's version
oort clouds
Your monumental research efforts have let you down once again. There is but one Oort Cloud. They don't drift over in droves. "Oooo look, a bunch of Oort clouds! And what this...? Oh no! It's raining Oorts and dogs now!"
My monumental HTML efforts have let me down again. More unwanted italics. What these two persons do to your brain is nobody's business...
Thanks for posting the NASA article on Dark Energy/Matter, GfS. I notice that they didn't include your remarkable, spiritually powered observations on the relationship between Dark Energy/Matter and: "'spiritual' (sic), or 'meta-physical' (sic), quantum physics, intelligence(collective or otherwise), the 'life force', gravity, magnetism, telepathy, and possibly the 'initial cause'..among others!!"
Scientists! What are they like? They're probably just jealous!
No, just Nasa's version!
It's simpler than you thought................
thanks gfs.loved the video.i still got the 7inch in my collection but great watching the live take.
my grasp of the NASA article was sketchy,even though i had read some of the concepts before.the expanding universe is a feature of creationist theory also,the non tec bit being that the bible speaks of God "streching out the heavens".
I agree with McGrath...there is so much nonsensical claptrap reverberating around on this thread that there really is no longer any meaningful exchange of information. Just lots of posing.
Put it down.