The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match! by Causal

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 7:26 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 7:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 7:31 AM

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wow, everything I posted just disappeared!

Anyhoo...

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:14 AM

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:36 AM

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:42 AM

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:54 AM

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 18, 2007 8:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 10:14 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 10:19 AM

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

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

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

Saturday, August 18, 2007 12:15 PM

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 18, 2007 12:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Sunday, August 19, 2007 9:02 AM

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

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

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

Sunday, August 19, 2007 9:08 AM

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

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

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

Sunday, August 19, 2007 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

It's a hard to grasp concept.

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

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

Sunday, August 19, 2007 12:18 PM

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

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

Quote:
It's a hard to grasp concept.

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

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

Monday, August 20, 2007 2:58 PM

FREDGIBLET

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

Unsurprising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thats your opinion Mal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since you refuse to consider the fossil record there is no current examples of an "archetype" shift that you will accept. This is not evidence that such a shift could not take place. Has not does not equal could not, I have not reproduced (thankfully) but the fact that I have not has no bearing on whether or not I can. You still have not provided any backing for your archetype barrier. Interestingly enough you are the one who complains about scientists pulling models out of thin air.

Quote:
are there any 'endangered species'(is that in dispute)? so why dont they just change and adapt, so they are no longer endangered?

There's a few issues, first off is time, right now there are significant changes being made by man in a short period of time which causes the extinction of some species (Condors for instance), evolution takes time. Second there are things that can't really be evolved for, for instance one of the causes of the Condor issue is lead poisoning, lead poisoning isn't something that can just be selected against as the reasons for it being harmful are deeply rooted in our bodies. Third, there is the issue of what they would change into, most if not all of the niches in the biosphere are accounted for by species that are well adapted to their niche, a new species trying to move into that same niche would be outcompeted. Fourth, being endangered is a function of population, even if Cheetahs had magically evolved in the course of a couple generations to not ave the traits which were causing trouble before they would still be endangered until their population rebounded which would take quite a while. Fifth, there's the question of genetics, cheetahs that live near ranches are more likely to get killed, but the only way that that would be selected against is if it rooted in genetics and if the alternative isn't worse (i.e. not hanging around ranches results in starvation).

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

You are again falsely equating evolution with atheism, your beliefs cannot be reconciled with evolution, but the beliefs of the majority of the world can.

Quote:
to me, the eye is complex beyond the 'chance' that these particular elements could successfully create the eye, without any prior design or blueprint.

Well that's the fun part about evolution, there was a previous blueprint. There is a perfectly plausible and logical path for the evolution of the eye from a single light-sensitive nerve to the modern setup.

Quote:
then i have to logically assume that the odds these elements would ever settle, to create anything of the complexity of a tomato seed or our galaxy, or a human being, would be astronomical

Why?

Quote:
that we shouldnt just relegate this all to what is quite literally chance (in the naturalist view)

Then it's a good thing we don't isn't it? After all natural selection isn't chance.

From Sig

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

Eh, actually we almost certainly won't, we will be able to say that certain possibilities could happen, but we can't exactly look back and find the first self-replicator and see where it came from. So for instance if some future Miller experiment creates a self-replicator then we would be able to say that it was a possible beginning but there's really not much chance of us being able to tell if that particular method was what actually happened all those billions of years ago.

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 10:02 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really, you're only fooling yourself anti!

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

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

Quote:
Quote:
What I've told you before is that nature is not purely random. It is guided by physical and chemical forces, and those have acted to create order. This is well documented.
but how? are you suggesting that the eye, or the complexities of the human brain, given enough time will design and order themselves? i know this is something we cannot possibly duplicate or test in a lab.. so why hinge an entire theory on this premise?

Yes, they do order themselves. The forces of nature and behavior of materials lead to that.

But evolution is not just premised on this one idea - there are piles of evidence, as I gave before.

So, why do you premise a whole system of denial and disbelief on your doubt that nature is up to the task of creating an eye? Do you really believe that human consciousness is so superior to the forces of the universe that only a being who thinks like we do could create anything? Kind of selling nature short, I'd say.

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

In the beginning, yes. He/She/It wouldn't be necessary now, is my point. Hence - evolution does not replace the existence of God. In fact, science could be thought of as a way of worshipping His/Her/It's mighty wonderfulness, by bringing us a better understanding of His/Her/It's true method of creating us. (snark intentional

)

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

Clearly, you don't understand so very well, since you refuse to look at a great deal of nature... And you appreciate it just fine, except that you say nature couldn't possibly create amazing things like eyes... Aw, pathetic, weak little nature. It's not intelligent and structured and wise like us... right?

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:01 PM

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

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

Never claimed it was easy to imagine ;-)

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

====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:30 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:35 PM

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:49 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:00 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:06 PM

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:08 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:56 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

are complete nonsense.

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:27 PM

HKCAVALIER

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

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

I'm just sayin'.

Carry on.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 7:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 7:37 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(uh... that was an echo)

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:08 PM

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 3:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Many people enjoy your measured, thoughtful posts.

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:08 PM

:-) Thanks Rue.

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 22, 2007 7:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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

Anti?

Helloooo?

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

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

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 4:58 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 6:20 AM

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I've tried pretty hard to strike up a dialogue on Anti's terms. I think I've done a marvelous job of keeping the snark within bounds. Well, I tried anyway.

And I'm still interested in understanding what it is that Anti finds so necessary about being part of a cosmic battle. I don't "get" the attraction of that idea. Sounds like a lot of work to me, and I have enough problems just handling everyday life! But here I am, still waiting for an honest reply to a sincere question. A PM would do... it doesn't have to be a public discussion. But I expect that Anti doesn't want to discuss this on ANY grounds.

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

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:46 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:56 AM

FREDGIBLET

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

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

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

Quote:
i will always regard part of evolution as theoretical

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

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

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

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

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

@ Leadb

Quote:
Many people enjoy your measured, thoughtful posts.

Thirded

@ MAl

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

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

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

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

Quote:
Regarding Anti, I've personally reached the conclusion he doesn't understand the science well enough to defend the position he believes in in a 'scientific mode'; so I personally don't see a point in hounding him on the matter; frustrating as I find some of his claims to be

I agree for the most part, but as for why I will keep doing it I refer you back to the first part of this reply.

Quote:
however, I do not feel it is fair to compare Causal's decision to bow out to Anti's inability to defend a position in a particular mode.

Completely agree, Causal bowed out because he didn't see the conversation as being productive and felt it was going to go downhill, anti can't back up his position and can't understand why we won't just accept his word for it.

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 7:59 AM

FREDGIBLET

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, August 23, 2007 8:38 AM