One's the "how" and one's the "why".

Many astronomers agree the first passages of Genesis detailing the creation of the universe jibe correctly with the "big-bang" theory that is the current accepted scientific explanation of the creation of the universe...

You left off Stinky's last line to that:

"Music is the best."

(OK, so that was FZ from Joe's Garage, but I think the riff is the same...)

I am thrilled that Stinky came to see it my way on this matter.

There is no conflict between faith and science. Those who tell you otherwise are selling something.

It's interesting how the people who said that they were most in conflict were those who were pushing the DI creationist position to the exclusion of all other positions - that to deny creationism was to deny religion or spirituality, even though there is no reason that both religion and science could not coexist.

re: #2 LoFlyer

Many astronomers agree the first passages of Genesis detailing the creation of the universe jibe correctly with the "big-bang" theory that is the current accepted scientific explanation of the creation of the universe...

When you take the "gap" theory, the earth "became" waste and void (not was). And that the Big Five extinction events divides time into 6 periods (the 7th being rest) it gets even closer.

re: #2 LoFlyer

Many astronomers agree the first passages of Genesis detailing the creation of the universe jibe correctly with the "big-bang" theory that is the current accepted scientific explanation of the creation of the universe...

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory... As in, a big flash of (let there be) light.

re: #5 Sharmuta

There is no conflict between faith and science. Those who tell you otherwise are selling something.

Someone needs to tell the Department of Education.

The Creation Story is all about God's love for us. Infinite, neverending, love. All was created for us.

Science is the language on which God wrote the world.

IMHO.

re: #10 Crimsonfisted

Science is the language on which God wrote the world.

Because C++ hadn't been invented yet.

re: #9 politicalinsomniac

Most DoE's in this country are rejecting the line the DI is selling.

Once again:

Everybody who believes in evolution, please raise their hands.

re: #11 JamesTKirk

Because C++ hadn't been invented yet.

Old school!
C Sharp!

re: #7 jcm

When you take the "gap" theory, the earth "became" waste and void (not was). And that the Big Five extinction events divides time into 6 periods (the 7th being rest) it gets even closer.

Interesting! I don't want to sound stupid, but I have no idea of what you are talking about. How about some background and a link or two. I love learning new stuff and ideas!

That's great. I think this guy, Pat Buchanan, and Richard Dawkins should all go on a nice cruise together.

re: #14 jcm

Old school!
C Sharp!

Wasn't that Fortran? or F Flat?

re: #11 JamesTKirk

Because C++ hadn't been invented yet.

Science actually preprocesses into C++.

re: #14 jcm

Old school!
C Sharp!

Old school is FORTH.

re: #8 JamesTKirk

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory... As in, a big flash of (let there be) light.

If a tree falls in a forest, with no one around, does it make a noise? Heck yes! I would imagine the "big flash" produce the biggest bang ever heard in history!

Preach!

re: #8 JamesTKirk

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory... As in, a big flash of (let there be) light.

Though it is understandable that "Bang" would be chosen as in our experience an event such that would be accompanied by a noise. Had they called it the "Big Flash" someone would have mentioned sound and then the whole subject would be steered off course while the explanation was given that there is no sound in space and then at some future date that dispute would finally and the discussion could only then return to the matter at hand. It was easier to just it was a big bang and keep it as a metaphor within human experience for massive movements of matter. :)

re: #21 Killgore Trout

Preach!

Actually I am in "reach" mode! I'll leave the preaching to others better qualified.....

re: #22 Pshawalaw

Though it is understandable that "Bang" would be chosen as in our experience an event such that would be accompanied by a noise. Had they called it the "Big Flash" someone would have mentioned sound and then the whole subject would be steered off course while the explanation was given that there is no sound in space and then at some future date that dispute would finally and the discussion could only then return to the matter at hand. It was easier to just it was a big bang and keep it as a metaphor within human experience for massive movements of matter. :)

Actually, if they called it "The Big Flash", high school science classes would devolve into another round of snickering sexual innuendo (the first round involved the planet Uranus).

re: #20 LoFlyer

If a tree falls in a forest, with no one around, does it make a noise? Heck yes! I would imagine the "big flash" produce the biggest bang ever heard in history!

That is close to what I say two comments later, but so much briefer.

re: #24 JamesTKirk

LOL, too true.

In space, no one can hear you bang.

re: #27 JamesTKirk

In space, no one can hear you bang.

Even a GONG?

re: #8 JamesTKirk

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory... As in, a big flash of (let there be) light.

If it were the "Big Flash" theory, certain people would claim the evil atheists were trying to teach pornography to their children.

re: #27 JamesTKirk

In space, no one can hear you bang.

But even in space, they can hear you yelling "Khan!" from the terraformed center of a hollow satellite.

re: #28 Pshawalaw

Even a GONG?

Or was that bong?

re: #25 Pshawalaw

That is close to what I say two comments later, but so much briefer.

Why don't we just call it the "Hot flash" and open the gates of sexual innuendo?

re: #28 Pshawalaw

Even a GONG?

Only if you're dirty and sleek, and clad in black, etc.

"Lao Stinky," I like that.

The Tao that can be named is not the Tao that turns the wheel in the hamster cage.

The ten thousand spokes arise and spin, but each one turns about the void.

What was the trailer for Aliens "no one can you scream in space?".

re: #32 LoFlyer

Why don't we just call it the "Hot flash" and open the gates of sexual innuendo?

I'm always game for a round of sexual innuendo.

/ "The best bang since the Big One"

re: #27 JamesTKirk

In space, no one can hear you bang.

Which is a good thing for you, o' Captain of the USS Shagtastic..

;-P

re: #35 LoFlyer

What was the trailer for Aliens "no one can you scream in space?".

"In space, no one can hear you scream." That's what I was paraphrasing in #27.

re: #27 JamesTKirk

Ha!

I found the video touched on exactly what is going on with the ID movement- that ID is trying to divide people into two camps. Those who accept evolution, and those who believe in God, while excluding the middle ground. This is exactly what the Wedge Strategy was designed to do, and I'm glad to see believing scientists speak out against this false dichotomy.

re: #35 LoFlyer

What was the trailer for Aliens "no one can you scream in space?".

Let me rephrase that;
"In space, no one can hear you scream!".

re: #34 ContraJihadi

"Lao Stinky," I like that.

The Tao that can be named is not the Tao that turns the wheel in the hamster cage.

The ten thousand spokes arise and spin, but each one turns about the void.

Very nice.

re: #36 JamesTKirk

I'm always game for a round of sexual innuendo.

/ "The best bang since the Big One"

/Hmm, that right up my alley!

re: #42 buzzsawmonkey

What came before the Big Bang? The Big Date.

Or first base!

Shatner owes his career to a big bang (by Captain Von Trapp!)

re: #43 Sharmuta

Very nice.

Thanks, Sharmuta. A few good things did come out of the Sixties. I gained an appreciation for Taoism then. I suspect Charles did too.

re: #45 LoFlyer

Or first base!

What's the guy on first base?

No, Who's the guy on first base!

I don't know!

Third base!

OT: I'm starting to collect my vacation reading material. Any recommendations for books on Stoicism. I'm also think about brushing up on my Zen.

re: #42 buzzsawmonkey

What came before the Big Bang? The Big Date.

....both followed by the Big Disappointment.

re: #47 ContraJihadi

I received my first copy of the Tao te Ching on my 19th birthday. One of the best gifts I was ever given.

re: #50 Killgore Trout

....both followed by the Big Disappointment.

[Link: failblog.files.wordpress.com...]

re: #46 JamesTKirk

Shatner owes his career to a big bang (by Captain Von Trapp!)

Interesting, but it was actually a kidney stone, not sex that did the guy in. Apparently Shatner did a masterful job with "Henry the fith", He also did a great Twilight Zone with gremlins attacking a Jet-liner and Shatner the only one to see or fight them....

render unto caesar that which is caeser's...

re: #53 LoFlyer

Interesting, but it was actually a kidney stone, not sex that did the guy in. Apparently Shatner did a masterful job with "Henry the fith", He also did a great Twilight Zone with gremlins attacking a Jet-liner and Shatner the only one to see or fight them....

It was sex that loosened the kidney stone, apparently.

And John Lithgow also did that Twilight Zone story (when they remade it for the movie); a fact that they made reference to when Shatner appeared on "Third Rock From The Sun".

re: #53 LoFlyer

Interesting, but it was actually a kidney stone, not sex that did the guy in. Apparently Shatner did a masterful job with "Henry the fith", He also did a great Twilight Zone with gremlins attacking a Jet-liner and Shatner the only one to see or fight them....

Didn't they do that story in Twilight Zone: The Movie with John Lithgow?

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Daisetz Suzuki is a good name to search on. Good bibliographies for further reading, too.

re: #53 LoFlyer

That Twillight Zone is a true classic. One of my favorite episodes

re: #56 talon_262

Didn't they do that story in Twilight Zone: The Movie with John Lithgow?

Same story, just a bigger budget!

re: #54 bosforus

render unto caesar that which is caeser's...

re: #42 buzzsawmonkey

And for those who are challenged, there's always the Inflatable Universe.

re: #51 Sharmuta

I received my first copy of the Tao te Ching on my 19th birthday. One of the best gifts I was ever given.

re: #50 Killgore Trout

re: #42 buzzsawmonkey

What came before the Big Bang? The Big Date.

....both followed by the Big Disappointment.

...and the big, "I'll call you lie".

I have long thought that people who believe science is in conflict with religion don't understand science and that people who think science can "disprove" religion don't understand religion. The first is to imply science can evaluate something it can not measure or observe, and the second is impossible at least in the case of Christianity and Judaism and probably for many other religions too.

My question remains what created the "Big Bang"?

You, Me & the Bourgoise

re: #64 wondering aloud

My question remains what created the "Big Bang"?

Me and two Orion slave women.

re: #52 JamesTKirk

Heh.

re: #62 ContraJihadi

All I see is you quoting me.

re: #63 Pshawalaw

...and the big, "I'll call you lie".

Correcting the punctuation:

The big, "I'll call you" lie.

re: #8 JamesTKirk

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory... As in, a big flash of (let there be) light.

Actually, there was no flash either. The universe had to cool to a few million degrees kelvin before light could appear... a few hundred thousand years, if I recall correctly.

God may or may not exist. It is above my pay grade to answer that.

But do you all believe the perfectly slanderous things said in evolutionary theory about man?

re: #62 ContraJihadi

Sorry, that didn't quite work.

Whoever gave the a copy of the Tao was very considerate. I first read it when I was 18, after having read a bowdlerized version by Timothy Leary. Yes, I was a hippie then, and I experimented as hippies did experiment. Fortunately, however, I was never so foolish as to embrace socialism.

re: #64 wondering aloud

I have long thought that people who believe science is in conflict with religion don't understand science and that people who think science can "disprove" religion don't understand religion. The first is to imply science can evaluate something it can not measure or observe, and the second is impossible at least in the case of Christianity and Judaism and probably for many other religions too.

My question remains what created the "Big Bang"?

Peer Pressure!

re: #57 godfrey

Thanks, I made a note of that.

re: #70 stevieray

Actually, there was no flash either. The universe had to cool to a few million degrees kelvin before light could appear... a few hundred thousand years, if I recall correctly.

Visible (to humans) light, that is.

re: #71 Cato

God may or may not exist. It is above my pay grade to answer that.

But do you all believe the perfectly slanderous things said in evolutionary theory about man?

What, that we're related to apes?

I don't find that very hard to believe, given some of my relatives.

re: #71 Cato

But do you all believe the perfectly slanderous things said in evolutionary theory about man?

Such as?

I don't think anyone argues that a belief in God precludes a belief in evolution. Of course, if you know nothing of God, or are imagining a God to fit the facts as you think you know them, that God will not preclude any of your previous beliefs. You can hold any belief except "there is no God" and still believe in God.

The rub today is that for Christians (or members of many other religions), we have specific things we think we know both about God and his character, and about his acts in history. The important question for us is the more specific "does a belief in the Christian God preclude a belief in evolution."

Why we really shouldn't care what the celebrities say.

Okay, I'm on board. Science and religion are not in conflict and I guess I haven't followed the ID threads on LGF because it seemed so conflicting. This video explains it much better. We can all get along. whew

re: #61 godfrey

And for those who are challenged, there's always the Inflatable Universe.

I remember at work a long time ago they gave me an inflatable girl as a gag gift. It was great! They had already inflated and dressed her, so I walked her out to the car, installed her in the passenger seat, had a great conversation and lots of stares from other drivers on the commute back home!

re: #81 LoFlyer

I remember at work a long time ago they gave me an inflatable girl as a gag gift. It was great! They had already inflated and dressed her, so I walked her out to the car, installed her in the passenger seat, had a great conversation and lots of stares from other drivers on the commute back home!

Did you drive in the HOV lane?

re: #78 kc8ukw

The important question for us is the more specific "does a belief in the Christian God preclude a belief in evolution."

Again- no, it doesn't.

re: #73 saberry0530

A more neutral way to put that might be: What "was" before the Bang?

re: #84 godfrey

A more neutral way to put that might be: What "was" before the Bang?

Something Big.

Ron Jeremy's got nothing on God.

re: #84 godfrey

A more neutral way to put that might be: What "was" before the Bang?

Heavy Petting?

re: #8 JamesTKirk

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory... As in, a big flash of (let there be) light.

Correct me if I'm wrong (like I won't be if I am :>) but before the "Big Whatever", there wasn't any "Space" was there? As I understand it there was no there there then. Not til after. And it's more like the Big Expansion Of Nothing Into Everything Moment but Big Bang is shorter and sexier.
Correct me if I'm wrong (like I won't be if I am :>) but before the "Big Whatever", there wasn't any "Space" was there? As I understand it there was no there there then. Not til after. And it's more like the Big Expansion Of Nothing Into Everything Moment but Big Bang is shorter and sexier.Correct me if I'm wrong (like I won't be if I am :>) but before the "Big Whatever", there wasn't any "Space" was there? As I understand it there was no there there then. Not til after. And it's more like the Big Expansion Of Nothing Into Everything Moment but Big Bang is shorter and sexier.

Yes we can, discuss Evolution.

re: #64 wondering aloud

My question remains what created the "Big Bang"?

Could have been an alien phyics experiment gone horribly, horribly wrong.

re: #83 Sharmuta

Especially if you believe that the Christian god is the same as the Jewish god. Very few Jews have a problem with evolution. Ben Stein excepted, of course.

Evolution of ....

re: #82 JamesTKirk

Did you drive in the HOV lane?

I would have but I don't have them on my commute. HOV lanes, running empty while the others are packed. Liberals at work!

re: #87 jcw46

Correct. Space itself was created by the big bang. Even today it is rolling out like a carpet on the crest of the Big bang.

Kewl! A new Zombie thread! Has he been busted yet?

re: #94 LoFlyer

Kewl! A new Zombie thread! Has he been busted yet?

Hope not. Blogging from the KOS tent was ballsy.

Or ovariesy, as the case may or may not be.

Science conflicts witrh religion in countless ways, including evolution which is based on the random mutation of DNA.

To say otherwise is a cop out.

re: #81 LoFlyer

Superb. Given the tech we have these days, surely it's possible to construct a pretty convincing mannequin. Robots will become increasingly impressive. I'm sure there are teams working on IP-addressable "persona" constructions, such that you could select, for your morning commute, based on your mood, a variety of personality types. One to remind you of everything you need to do, another to spout off about current events, a third to enthuse about sports -- what you will.

And in the end, you'll get annoyed with the software and trade it in for a real girl.

OT: Alex Jones calling for the murder of Michell Malkin

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: I'm starting to collect my vacation reading material. Any recommendations for books on Stoicism. I'm also think about brushing up on my Zen.

Anything by Marcus Antoninus Aurelius, he's the most eloquent ancient stoic that I've found.

If one believes that God created the universe, and eventually life itself, through the process of evolution, then one does believe that the universe was designed by an intelligent creator.

What the Discovery Institute has done is taken a legitimate philosophical and/or theological idea and dressed it up as a scientific theory.

Personally, I don't need a scientific theory to believe in God; all I need is to witness the beauty of the universe - from the smallest flower in my garden to the incredible images from the Hubble Telescope, from the music of Bach to the beautiful face of my small daughter - to know that God exists.

re: #20 LoFlyer

If a tree falls in a forest, with no one around, does it make a noise? Heck yes! I would imagine the "big flash" produce the biggest bang ever heard in history!

If a tree falls in a forest, with no one around, does it make a noise? And if there is a man and a woman in a distant city, does the woman still blame the man for the tree falling?

re: #102 jcm

That jackass needs to be taught some manners, dark alley style.

No, because that's the same twisted logic he's trying to apply to Michelle.

/Not that it wouldn't still be satisfying in his case, but no.

/But we can think about it.

re: #97 godfrey

Superb. Given the tech we have these days, surely it's possible to construct a pretty convincing mannequin. Robots will become increasingly impressive. I'm sure there are teams working on IP-addressable "persona" constructions, such that you could select, for your morning commute, based on your mood, a variety of personality types. One to remind you of everything you need to do, another to spout off about current events, a third to enthuse about sports -- what you will.

And in the end, you'll get annoyed with the software and trade it in for a real new upgrade girl with a new orgasmatron processor and internal heater and of course the verbally activated speaker on/off switch.

re: #102 jcm

Tell me someone eventually got up in that pig's face.

re: #103 JamesTKirk

No, because that's the same twisted logic he's trying to apply to Michelle.

/Not that it wouldn't still be satisfying in his case, but no.

/But we can think about it.

LOL! You're right of course. I doubt he be so brave with a couple of real men standing next to Michelle. His kind are cowards and can be turned into whimpering for mama real quick.

re: #90 Killgore Trout

That would be the big crunch dude.

re: #106 jcm

LOL! You're right of course. I doubt he be so brave with a couple of real men standing next to Michelle. His kind are cowards and can be turned into whimpering for mama real quick.

Yeah, it wouldn't be much of a fight.

I wouldn't even have to rip my shirt or roll on the ground.

Either I have to check my enthusiasm for this thread or I have to go to the store and get some more potable spirits; but I'll just throw out this question in order to get a sense of what lizards might think:

For those who do believe in God, do you conceive of God as a (Trinity of) Person(s) transcending the created world? Who existed in some kind of time before time? This is the "traditional" understanding of the monotheisms.

Or do you conceive of God as Spirit immanent in the world? Whose existence cannot, nevertheless, exhaustively be understood as to be "located" in time and space? Cf. the Christian Gospel: The spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou canst not know whence it cometh nor whither it goeth.

Or do you think: I don't want this ContraJihadi fellow trying to sneak in more Hegel?

After I return from the spirit store, I'll take a sneak peak at the LGF spy.

re: #99 Thanos

Thanks, noted.

re: #106 jcm

Jones is the lowest of the low. He's getting off on his abusive behavior. You can see him psyche himself up for repeated assaults. Absolutely disgraceful.

He needed to be pushed back. The cops should monitor to make sure that sort of thing doesn't turn into assault and battery, but a good getting up in the face, pushing back, and moving him to the margin is totally necessary. His kind needs to know it won't gain the field. Period.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: I'm starting to collect my vacation reading material. Any recommendations for books on Stoicism. I'm also think about brushing up on my Zen.

Every Day Is a Good Day
Unmon said: "I do not ask you about fifteen days ago. But what about fifteen days hence? Come, say a word about this!" Since none of the monks answered, he answered for them: "Every day is a good day."

Manjusri Enters the Gate
One day as Manjusri stood outside the gate, the Buddha called to him, "Manjusri, Manjusri, why do you not enter?" Manjusri replied, "I do not see myself as outside. Why enter?"

The Short Staff
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"

These aren't too bad. Some koans make my head hurt. :>

re: #109 ContraJihadi

CJ, those two views aren't mutually exclusive. Cf. Aquinas. It's good to be precise about what you mean by time and immanence.

re: #110 Killgore Trout

Thanks, noted.

What's interesting about Marcus' maxims is that they could be used in sermons from most Christian pulpits, with an occasional substitution : G-D for gods, Lord for nature etc.

Many of the good parts of Christian reformation philosophy are Marcus re-written.

re: #111 godfrey

Jones is the lowest of the low. He's getting off on his abusive behavior. You can see him psyche himself up for repeated assaults. Absolutely disgraceful.

He needed to be pushed back. The cops should monitor to make sure that sort of thing doesn't turn into assault and battery, but a good getting up in the face, pushing back, and moving him to the margin is totally necessary. His kind needs to know it won't gain the field. Period.

That kind is used to people backing down to bluster to avoid confrontation. They get really flustered when some won't back down.

re: #112 jcw46

Too cerebral. Try this:

A monk asked Chao-chou, "Has the dog Buddha nature or not?" Chao-chou said, "Mu."

re: #109 ContraJihadi
"The spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou canst not know whence it cometh nor whither it goeth."

I don't believe that passage refers to G!d. ?

re: #112 jcw46

Hakuin

re: #1 JamesTKirk

One's the "how" and one's the "why".

Whut?

re: #119 sparrowlake

Whut?

Second base!

Mu

say "whut" one more time m^&***%% and I'm gonna shoot you!

Whut? BANG!

One of my favorite scenes from Pulp Fiction.

Religious beliefs explain the stuff we can't explain scientifically. As scientific explanations are developed and proven over time, they tend to displace the corresponding religious beliefs. It is the tension caused by this displacement and the resistance to it on the part of entrenched religious institutions which accounts for much of the present strife.

re: #49 Killgore Trout

Well, I always love the classic Meditations by Marcus Aurelius.  Haven't read enough different translations yet to be able to tell which I prefer the most, but that gives you an open end to book selection.

}:)     [And I'm sure it's available free online from Gutenberg ... ]

re: #87 jcw46
re: #93 Killgore Trout

Not quite. The singularity in cosmological theories that people tend to think of as the 'big bang' doesn't mean the universe popped into existence from nothing or that space and time didn't exist before. It means that the theory is meaningless at that point.

These simple cosmological models become invalid anyway at some point when quantum mechanical effects become relevant to space-time. We can't say anything meaningful about the universe before this point. Space-time may or may not exist before then. The universe may have suddenly appeared or it may have always been.

The name 'big bang' only really means that the univese was once much hotter and denser and it has expanded since.

re: #77 Killgore Trout

re: #76 JamesTKirk

Darwin:"Every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers."

If this were the case then abortion, adoption, fondness for alcohol, anal intercourse, asceticism and altruism could not exist, and that is just the A's.

Darwin: "Of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive."

What is the infant mortality rate in your town?

re: #8 JamesTKirk

"Big Bang" is a misnomer. There's no sound in space. It should be called the the "Big Flash" theory...

Only true if one observes the Big Bang from a distance. If one is within the Big Bang there would be sound.

That's two votes for Marcus KT, better go get a copy. I think Borders still stocks the "Everymans Library" small hardcover with the built in cloth bookmarker.

re: #11 JamesTKirk

I would have guessed he was a LISP man.

re: #126 Cato

re: #76 JamesTKirk

Darwin:"Every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers."

If this were the case then abortion, adoption, fondness for alcohol, anal intercourse, asceticism and altruism could not exist, and that is just the A's.

Darwin: "Of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive."

What is the infant mortality rate in your town?

First point: Animals don't say to themselves we must increase our numbers. Sex is instinct to them. Humans find pleasure in sex, but choose to remove the reproductive factor from the act for mostly economic reasons.

Second point: Infant mortality is pretty bad in places where knowledge in science is poor.

re: #78 kc8ukw

I don't think anyone argues that a belief in God precludes a belief in evolution.

There are, in fact, plenty of people that argue just that.

re: #126 Cato

What a load of crap. There are animals that adopt the offspring of others, animals that get intoxicated, animals that engage in homosexual behavior, and animals that exhibit altruism. Some of the item on your list just make no sense.

That we've evolved to discover medicines and practices that allow more babies to live is somehow supposed to disprove evolution? Nice try, but I suggest you go back to the drawing board.

re: #132 Sharmuta

That we've evolved to discover medicines and practices that allow more babies to live is somehow supposed to disprove evolution? Nice try, but I suggest you go back to the drawing board.

What's that term where someone tries to make a point but ends up disproving their point? Is it cognitive dissonance?

re: #130 Basho

1 - I am glad that the very engine of evolution does not apply to man, since man can choose to ignor it.

2 - Infant mortality is that bad? If only a "small number can survive" in Darwin's own words, what is that 10%? 20%? Even in third world countries how many women who have 10 childred have only 1 or 2 surviving?

re: #134 Cato

1 - I am glad that the very engine of evolution does not apply to man, since man can choose to ignor it.

They don't ignore it. People are still having sex aren't they? According to many fundamentalists the premarital sex in this country is out of control.

re: #132 Sharmuta

All of which are arguments against the engine of evolutionary theory. The theory works well with pines and cod, but poorly with man. The theory requires high rates of death for natural selection to work.

re: #133 Basho

Cognitive dissonance is holding two contrary opinions at the same time.

re: #135 Basho

The theory requires striving "to the utmost". Each failed copulation is a renunciation of the theory.

Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.
Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.
Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

Very true. But this is a much more sterile (hands-off) God than an evangelical wants in his life.

re: #134 Cato

2 - Infant mortality is that bad? If only a "small number can survive" in Darwin's own words, what is that 10%? 20%? Even in third world countries how many women who have 10 childred have only 1 or 2 surviving?

The only animals I know of in which their offspring survive in such low percentages are mostly killed by predation. They compensate by having a huge number of offspring.

I don't think human babies have to worry about falcons feasting on them.

re: #136 Cato

Did you hear about the dearth of tall Frenchmen after Napoleon's wars?

re: #5 Sharmuta

There is no conflict between faith and science. Those who tell you otherwise are selling something.

Though that depends on the nature of the faith...

re: #136 Cato

What is it with the machine analogies the DI people always use? I think they like a deterministic, mechanical universe over reality.

re: #136 Cato

Uh- man is 100% certain to die.

And infant and child mortality rates used to be much higher.

I think you're confused about evolution. You should study it more before you embarrass yourself any more.

re: #137 Sharmuta

Thanks. I knew I was wrong. Can't quite come up with the word or phrase I was thinking of.

Several eminent evolutionary biologists have been Christians (eg. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ken Miller, Francis Collins; Dobzhansky added enormously to Darwin's original theories and is responsible the modern evolutionary synthesis).
Several eminent Christians, not modernists, but traditional ones, have believed in evolution (C.S. Lewis, Rev. Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II, J. Gresham Machen; Machen was a fundamentalist leader in the early 20th century. Evolution denial was not originally central or necessary in Fundamentalism.)

These individuals could all have been wrong, of course, but it's doubtful that they were all antirational, idiotic, or incapable of basic logic.

"I believe that god created everything, but he did it through evolution." - teacher from vid

This broad has completely missed the point. I could just as easily (and with equal validity) say that the fairy queen holds us to the earth, but she does it through gravity. it's called occam's razor, lady.

You are free to claim that the metaphysical proposition of "God" is not in conflict with science, but the instant you invoke him as a force that intervenes in the natural world (origin of the universe, immaculate conception etc.) you most certainly have made a claim incompatible with science. sam harris does a good job of elucidating this point.

The claim of a non-personal, non-intervening god is clearly not subject to proof or disproof - faith, by definition, is belief without proof. But people must have reasons to pick and choose those beliefs that they apply faith towards - if I tell you that I have faith my cat is psychic, but give you no reasons for this faith, you will think me crazy. These reasons, and not the actual metaphysical claim, are subject to scrutiny, dialogue and (I would hope) rational inquiry.

re: #140 Basho

High infant mortality is REQUIRED by Darwin to produce enough variation for natural selection to work. Failure of mortality then failure of natural selction.

re: #113 godfrey

CJ, those two views aren't mutually exclusive. Cf. Aquinas. It's good to be precise about what you mean by time and immanence.

Yes, but as a didactical exercise... And, the fact that Christianity, especially those strains flowing from the Calvinistic branch, could use healthy dose of Thomism.

I know, I'd make a poor pollster, but how many polls are similarly inexact?

Thanks for answering, though, with insight.

There was an interesting coincidence tonite on the tv iin my hotel. Surfing along and on TBN is a guy showing those faux footprints from Texas, over on the History Channel, Evolution. The contrast was amazing. Guy on TBN was saying all the fossils, and footprints were laid down together during the Flood and on the History episode the evolution of eating for energy. How jaws and teeth started and the whys, etc... Very good stuff.

re: #148 Cato

High infant mortality is REQUIRED by Darwin to produce enough variation for natural selection to work. Failure of mortality then failure of natural selction.

I don't think you know how natural selection works.

Oh, for goodness' sake. Evolution has been going on for 3,000 years, ever since the Lord created the universe.

re: #117 jcw46

"The spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou canst not know whence it cometh nor whither it goeth."

I don't believe that passage refers to G!d. ?

To whom do you think it does refer?

re: #148 Cato Wrong. Death is not criteria. Reproduction is.

re: #148 Cato

High infant mortality is REQUIRED by Darwin to produce enough variation for natural selection to work. Failure of mortality then failure of natural selction.

You are completely confused. Infants are not capable of passing on their genetic material to another generation.

Finally: Someone that agrees with me that isn't flat-out nuts!

I think we have more DI TP here. I'm betting this is cut and paste argumentation without understanding.

Basho: Cognitive dissonance is evident here. He's using the outcomes of the benefits of science (lower infant mortality rates) to attack science.

re: #144 Sharmuta

I am afraid you are confused. Darwin adopted the Malthusian doctrine in order to "prime the pump" for variation needed for natural selection to work. It falls short with man (and most slow-breeding mamals I should think).

re: #158 Cato

No- you're confused. Evolution is not dependent on death, but reproduction.

re: #157 Thanos

I am not attacking science. I am attacking poor theory.

re: #155 Sharmuta

You are completely confused. Infants are not capable of passing on their genetic material to another generation.

What if a baby is cloned 1,000,000 times?

re: #158 Cato

I am afraid you are confused. Darwin adopted the Malthusian doctrine in order to "prime the pump" for variation needed for natural selection to work. It falls short with man (and most slow-breeding mamals I should think).

Got a link for that which doesn't go to a DI or AIG site?

re: #160 Cato

No- you're making a fool of yourself, but carry on if you must.

re: #159 Sharmuta

What is natural selection if not death prior to reproduction?

re: #158 Cato

I am afraid you are confused. Darwin adopted the Malthusian doctrine in order to "prime the pump" for variation needed for natural selection to work. It falls short with man (and most slow-breeding mamals I should think).

Specialized animals evolve very slowly. Environmental changes and other pressures to diversify animals.

All of this doesn't even matter since what Darwin knew in his day is minuscule to what we know.

re: #164 Cato

You're suggesting the passing of genetic mutations occurs after death?

re: #165 Basho

...other pressures *are required to*...

re: #157 Thanos

Your "argument" isn't. It is mere name calling.

Where is your understanding?

re: #166 Sharmuta

Have you been hitting the fortified wine again?

Cato:

Darwin doesn't require anything by the way, he's dead and in a grave.

Can you iust cut to the chase and just get to the "Science leads to killing people" part? These circumnavigatory routes to get there are growing tedious.

re: #7 jcm

When you take the "gap" theory, the earth "became" waste and void (not was). And that the Big Five extinction events divides time into 6 periods (the 7th being rest) it gets even closer.

The numerologists would love you, not to mention Nostradamus.

In a very real way, ID strikes me as bordering on blasphemous. God by His/Her/It's nature is infinite. Space-time itself is part of God's creation. But, ID has God controlling the course of events from within space-time. It puts God within and constrained by space-time. God is a little more powerful and a little more infinite than that.

re: #165 Basho

All of this doesn't even matter since what Darwin knew in his day is minuscule to what we know.

In what way has that portion of evolutionary theory changed since Darwin's time?

re: #169 Cato

You've lost the argument. You began by bemoaning the 'slanders' of evolutionary theory, and now you engage in your own silly attacks.

re: #169 Cato

So- you have no response to my point except to question my sobriety? Weak. And pathetic.

re: #168 Cato

Your "argument" isn't. It is mere name calling.

Where is your understanding?

So you've got nothing to back your sweeping assertion up with. This is LGF, state your case in concise terms, prove it, or you will get run through the mill. So far I see nothing but general insipid and ill informed opinion from you.

He's got nothing, just another shrill shill from DI-ville.

I haven't read the 170+ comments to see if anyone else said this or not, but I've always thought of this topic in this way:

God is the ultimate scientist.

re: #170 Thanos

Science doesn't lead to killing people any more than does soccer. That people sometimes die of soccer hooliganism is no indictment of soccer, just as Madame Curie's leukemia is no indictment of science.

Of course certain unnamed religions may induce murder, but we will skip that.

re: #176 Thanos

Two direct quotes from Darwin himself. I have seen not a glimmer of intellect from you.

re: #164 Cato
The ones best suited to their environment will reproduce. The "infant mortality" rate is a very short-sighted view. It misses the most telling aspect of evolution; how variations within a group affect survivability for the individual, and the whole. Study up on the theory. People learning to be doctors, medical researchers, etc. also are part of evolution. We have no fur. We clothe ourselves. The fur part is gone. You can say that we have progressed beyond evolution, but you would be missing the forest for the trees. I have no problem with a fair, well reasoned critique of evolution,(some do!) but please understand what you are criticizing.

re: #148 Cato

High infant mortality is REQUIRED by Darwin to produce enough variation for natural selection to work. Failure of mortality then failure of natural selction.

Ok let me try to debunk this carefully; In natural selection, species with the fittest traits (traits that will lead to survival in a given ecosystem) reproduce more often than those that don't. The most fittest animals will naturally have more children. Therefore, high infant mortality is NOT required for natural selection. Infant mortality levels are dependent on a variety of factors, but natural selection does not necessarily have to do with that.

re: #175 Sharmuta

Your point was idiotic. Not, dead people don't pass on their genetic material, except in very extraordinary cases (dead mother, live fetus, cloning, etc.).

re: #137 Sharmuta

Cognitive dissonance is holding two contrary opinions at the same time.

Not necessarily at the "same time", just at different times when one happens to have an opportunity to express one or the other, such as in church and later in the office, or bar. The cognitive dissonance is an ability to switch from one mode to the other depending on circumstance or convenience.

It can also be called hypocrisy.

Heck, I'd already posted the link for that same vid twice....maybe three times on this board.

re: Big Bang.
I've often wondered if there'd have been less of an argument if it had been referred to as the 'Big Begin' instead.

re: Alex Jones.
He's a blowhard moron.........and a coward........and I'd like to punch him in the throat.

re: #183 Cato

You completely misunderstood what she was saying. She was saying that if 80% of infants are dying off, they can't pass their genetic material. See #181 and #182 for why infant mortality has nothing to do with natural selection.

re: #157 Thanos

re: #184 Naso Tang

Thanks. Looks like I had the right idea. Good to know my vocabulary hasn't become too terrible :)

re: #183 Cato

But that's the point you're trying to make. That infant mortality is necessary for evolution. You have it exactly backwards.

re: #148 Cato

High infant mortality is REQUIRED by Darwin to produce enough variation for natural selection to work. Failure of mortality then failure of natural selction.

No it is not. Simply higher adult procreation, of some, will achieve the same and this latter is much more likely to be the primary factor, after all nature currently kills off close to 50% of "procreated" human infants even before they are born.

What?

I'm supposed to be impressed by a quote mined out of context, misunderstood, and put forth in a manner to deny the meaning of the original work? The import of the individual struggle to reproduce is not how much it extends that individual's family, but rather the overall survival of the species.

It matters not that some individuals fail at it. Darwin's general point in the section you quote from is that because all individuals strive to reproduce, the overall survival of the species is ensured. You seem to have missed that part in your hurry to notice the word "single".

Nice try.

re: #172 Bill Dalasio

In a very real way, ID strikes me as bordering on blasphemous. God by His/Her/It's nature is infinite. Space-time itself is part of God's creation. But, ID has God controlling the course of events from within space-time. It puts God within and constrained by space-time. God is a little more powerful and a little more infinite than that.

If to blaspheme is deliberately to denigrate or deny the existence or goodness of God, then I suspect that it's more of matter of one's motivations in believing in ID or hypothesizing evolution by random natural selection, or how far one pushes one's claim.

If "God is truth," the blasphemy would enter when a person from either camp tried to distort a finite truth (a truth about the world observed), that is, tried to suppress a fact he knew was actual. An ID advocate could blaspheme by distorting the empirical data regarding fossil records.

Or one could blaspheme if one tried to make claims about domains of experience that his hypotheses were incompetent to address. A Darwinian could blaspheme by insisting that a theory that treats the world only as a congeries of external objects fully explains why the individual human person, a subject and an interiority, makes moral decisions.

re: #182 Basho

Excellent attempt. Finally a mind to communicate with. Ultimately wrong.

First, Darwin held that conspecifics reproduce up to (and slightly beyond) their available food supply. This constant and unceasing pressure of conspecifics against that supply of food accentuates the utility of variations that can produce better adapted individuals. Adapted to what? Adapted to obtaining foood primarily (disease and natural conditions also play a role in the theory, but a very subsidiary one).

But how could elephants press against food supplies? They reproduce, at most, 6 times in the life of a mother. There is nearly always more food than population to fill up the niche. Same for man. As well as the theor works for pines and cod, it fails for man.

On top of all that, since you seem to want to apply this to Homo Sapiens specifically, who's to say that lower reproductive rate once you've achieved a critical mass of intelligence as a species isn't a survival trait?

We certainly control more about our environment and wield more power without crowding in the US for instance. Numbers do not always ensure success as the Immortals who protected Sadaam Hussein can tell you.

re: #190 Thanos

If your interpretation were true, and it is not, then it is completely at odds with the newer evolutionary theorists like Richard Dawkins. Do you recall he wrote the "Selfish Gene"? In it he posits that it is each individual's genetc material that is important and seeking its own immortality, not that of the species.

re: #101 David IV of Georgia

If a tree falls in a forest, with no one around, does it make a noise? And if there is a man and a woman in a distant city, does the woman still blame the man for the tree falling?

The way I heard it, the all-important philosophical question actually posed was:

"If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman to hear it, is he still wrong!?

re: #194 Cato

If your interpretation were true, and it is not, then it is completely at odds with the newer evolutionary theorists like Richard Dawkins. Do you recall he wrote the "Selfish Gene"? In it he posits that it is each individual's genetc material that is important and seeking its own immortality, not that of the species.

So is Dawkins channeling Darwin or is it vice versa?

By chance is your IQ 167?

You put forth the Darwin quote, you misunderstood it. You are the fool. Now, can you get to your real point?

In other words, quit slinging ouit of context quotes just get to your point, your proposition, your argument. Please state it concisely.

re: #193 Thanos

On top of all that, since you seem to want to apply this to Homo Sapiens specifically, who's to say that lower reproductive rate once you've achieved a critical mass of intelligence as a species isn't a survival trait?

Answer: Darwin

I repeat: "Every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers."

If you are correct, and I think you just might be, Darwin is wrong. But do not believe it is a minor problem with the theory. On the contrary it is central to it, because, you will see, at NO TIME was man subject to the kind of evolutionary pressures Darwin sees as being universal. Our long developmental period makes that obvious.

From talk.origins:
"Selfish gene: (n) 1. A theory proposed by Richard Dawkins that states that the unit of selection is the gene, not the organism. The theory's rejection of the role of the organism in the selection process is currently viewed as incorrect.
2. A catchphrase which, like "survival of the fittest", can be distor -- er, _employed_ to show that {evilutionists} are immoral."

re: #192 Cato

I see... your problem is how can species with low reproductive rates evolve. (Though your food pressure point is waaay wrong) Biologists know it takes humans a long time to change. Skin color alone requires about 7 to 10 generations (200 years about, if my math isn't too bad).

As the wise and venerable Lao Stinky once said:

Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.
Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.
Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

Ah.. stinky, you are so right, thanks for posting this. I came across an interesting interview with John Polkinghorne who feels the same way.

Quarks & Creation

re: #199 jaunte

Viewed BY WHOM as incorrect? The book is still taught to my consternation.

re: #202 Cato

Tell your consternation to get some updated literature.

re: #200 basho

Charles posted about bacteria in several petrie jars that took 30 years to mutate. How many gazillions of individual bacteria were created that did not mutate? If it took so long for bacteria, why so small a sampling for man to change?

re: #192 Cato

First, Darwin held that conspecifics reproduce up to (and slightly beyond) their available food supply.

Wrong. Silly oversimplification.

This constant and unceasing pressure of conspecifics against that supply of food accentuates the utility of variations that can produce better adapted individuals.

Wrong.

Adapted to what? Adapted to obtaining foood primarily (disease and natural conditions also play a role in the theory, but a very subsidiary one).

Wrong.

But how could elephants press against food supplies? They reproduce, at most, 6 times in the life of a mother. There is nearly always more food than population to fill up the niche.

Wrong.

[blockquote]Same for man. As well as the theor works for pines and cod, it fails for man.

Finally, you are partly correct in that humans have the ability to control their environmental pressures and, more importantly, their gene pool is so intermingling that any selection, like geniuses marrying geniuses, is not likely to dominate the gene pool and a black sheep of the family somewhere sometime is sure to breed below the previous standard and revert to the "norm".

What we need to see evolution in humans is to send a bunch of them to Apha Centauri, and then check them out in, say, 10,000 years.

Here is question #8 from the quiz I am giving tomorrow in Moral Theology class:

T or F: The proofs that St. Thomas (Aquinas) provides for the existence of God disprove the theory of evolution

And the answer is...

re: #198 Cato

Sorry, but one does not necessarily follow the other.
Try again.

Please give me an example of behaviour humans do that animals do not, since that seems to be what you are getting at. Altruism? Animals do that. Celibacy? Animals do that.

Herd and social nature are part of species survival mechanisms as well. We aren't alone in having some tendencies.

re: #204 Cato

Sigh...

Honestly, understand the subject before trying to educate everyone else. If you're confident you got the theory defeated, send an article to Nature and ascend to fame.

re: #205 Naso Tang

I shall answer you when "wrong" becomes an argument and not, in Monty Python's memorable phrase, "just a simple series of contradictions."

re: #123 sparrowlake

Religious beliefs explain the stuff we can't explain scientifically. As scientific explanations are developed and proven over time, they tend to displace the corresponding religious beliefs. It is the tension caused by this displacement and the resistance to it on the part of entrenched religious institutions which accounts for much of the present strife.

This hits upon the source of the conflict, but it's even simpler than this:

1) Science concerns itself with nature.
2) Religion concerns itself with the supernatural.
3) There is no overlap between the natural and the supernatural; therefore there need not be any overlap (i.e., conflict) between science and religion.

HOWEVER, as you suggest, the problem comes in when a religion "steps off the reservation", so to speak, and makes claims about the natural world (followed by the insistence, of course, that such claims be accepted as a matter of faith - or else - regardless of whether the facts of reality confirm or deny them). I might add that additional, analagous, problems occur with other trespasses (ethics and government, for example - the part of religion that tries to lay claim to you).

re: #209 Cato

I shall answer you when "wrong" becomes an argument and not, in Monty Python's memorable phrase, "just a simple series of contradictions."

I thought you were here for abuse. Arguments are down the hall and to your right.

re: #199 jaunte

There's evidence for the selfish gene, though it seems to be such a special case that many dismiss it.

re: #198 Cato

I repeat: "Every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers."

No, it is simply to survive. An immortal being would have no incentive to reproduce.

If you are correct, and I think you just might be, Darwin is wrong. But do not believe it is a minor problem with the theory. On the contrary it is central to it, because, you will see, at NO TIME was man subject to the kind of evolutionary pressures Darwin sees as being universal. Our long developmental period makes that obvious.

How much do you actually know of Man's developmental period? Are you including pre homo sapiens in that statement? Identifiable Homo Sapiens date to only a couple of hundred thousand years at most. That is barely a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms, but it has given us blue eyes, "slanted" eyes, brown eyes and a lot of other variations in between since then, all of which are now being averaged out in much less than the blink of the previous eye.

You really don't know what you are talking about here, but what would be interesting to know is where you received your education on evolution?

re: #209 Cato

I shall answer you when "wrong" becomes an argument and not, in Monty Python's memorable phrase, "just a simple series of contradictions."

:shrug: You make one statement after another that is wrong; as in "ignorant". This is not a school, it is a correctional institute.

re: #198 Cato

On top of all that, since you seem to want to apply this to Homo Sapiens specifically, who's to say that lower reproductive rate once you've achieved a critical mass of intelligence as a species isn't a survival trait?

Answer: Darwin

I repeat: "Every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase its numbers."

If you are correct, and I think you just might be, Darwin is wrong. But do not believe it is a minor problem with the theory. On the contrary it is central to it, because, you will see, at NO TIME was man subject to the kind of evolutionary pressures Darwin sees as being universal. Our long developmental period makes that obvious.

There are more people alive today on the earth than ever before, so I fail to see how humans have failed to increase their numbers.

And I think you fail to grasp the forces that shaped man to fill the evolutionary niche in which we've found ourselves. To me, that would be, get smarter or die. That's what we did. Without the ability to craft tools, we would not have been able to defend ourselves from predators. Without the ability to understand nature, we would not have been able to cultivate the land or learn to ward off or cure disease. We did indeed have evolutionary pressures- you just don't want to acknowledge them.

The segment Cato quotes goes on and on and on after about the variability of forces on special survival, food is just one.

Cato's being simplex for a reason.

The section concludes thusly:
Hence, also, we can see that when a plant or animal is placed in a new country amongst new competitors, though the climate may be exactly the same as in its former home, yet the conditions of its life will generally be changed in an essential manner. If we wished to increase its average numbers in its new home, we should have to modify it in a different way to what we should have done in its native country; for we should have to give it some advantage over a different set of competitors or enemies.

It is good thus to try in our imagination to give any form some advantage over another. Probably in no single instance should we know what to do, so as to succeed. It will convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it seems to be difficult to acquire. All that we can do, is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio; that each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.

/pimf special == species

Muslims are god believers. Let's not do like Muslims!

re: #207 Thanos

You have it backward, that animals do that is a problem with the theory. Remarkably, it is the sociobiologists who understand this. They, for example, wonder why monkey adoptions occur because it lessens the ability of tha adoptor to procreate itself. They wonder, for example, why there are submission signals among wolves. Isn't it always better for the stronger wolf to kill or maim its antagonist? Doesn't that increase his ability to mate and decrease that of the vanquished?

The funny thing is that the experts recognize these things as "problems" for the theory, but no one here does. I think these are more than problems for the theory -- I think it makes the theory incomprehensible and contradictory at the human level and possibly several grades below that. For pines and cod it is perfectly acceptable.

re: #211 swamprat

No, that is the ministry of silly walks.

re: #218 EIDE_Interface

Muslims are god believers. Let's not do like Muslims!

Muslims use foot baths, let's stop washing our feet. Shit! They breath air and drink water too, whatever shall we do?
/
Booo dude, boooo!

re: #215 Sharmuta

There's even evidence that humans were once on the brink of extinction. Fascinating stuff.

re: #219 Cato

No, it's only a "problem with the theory" to someone with a simplex mind. If you can't accept all of the factors, of which natural selection is just the "unifying field", you fail to grasp reality.

You seem to think that the theory of natural selection is about "survival of the fittest" when it's really about survival of those best able to adapt to the niche they find themselves in.

I'm curious, are you cribbing from David Stove's book by chance?

re: #49 Killgore Trout

OT: I'm starting to collect my vacation reading material. Any recommendations for books on Stoicism. I'm also think about brushing up on my Zen.

For Zen, I recommend Buddhism Without Beliefs, by Stephen Batchelor.

re: #222 basho

Lake Toba looks very peaceful today:
[Link: www.flickr.com...]

re: #51 Sharmuta

I received my first copy of the Tao te Ching on my 19th birthday. One of the best gifts I was ever given.

I recommend augmenting it with Chuang Tsu. I prefer the Burton Watson translation.

re: #219 Cato

You have it backward, that animals do that is a problem with the theory. Remarkably, it is the sociobiologists who understand this. They, for example, wonder why monkey adoptions occur because it lessens the ability of tha adoptor to procreate itself. They wonder, for example, why there are submission signals among wolves. Isn't it always better for the stronger wolf to kill or maim its antagonist? Doesn't that increase his ability to mate and decrease that of the vanquished?

The funny thing is that the experts recognize these things as "problems" for the theory, but no one here does. I think these are more than problems for the theory -- I think it makes the theory incomprehensible and contradictory at the human level and possibly several grades below that. For pines and cod it is perfectly acceptable.

Stop saying ''pines and cod.'' lol
Animals submit in fights to reduce injuries. Can't be the leader of the wolf pack with infections all over your body. (Among other reasons)

The fact is that what you see as problems, people have long found answers. You're not doing yourself a favor by staying uninformed.

re: #216 Thanos

Great. Let's parse this:

All that we can do, is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase at a geometrical ratio;

Really? I repeat, if this were true, adoption, abortion, anal intercourse, asceticism would not exist. Rape would be commonplace. So is this the slander against the human race you condone?

Also, please note that the formulation of the "geometrical ratio" is taken VERBATIM from Malthus.

that each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life, and to suffer great destruction.

Is this what life is like where you live? If it is not, why not?

re: #218 EIDE_Interface

Muslims are god believers. Let's not do like Muslims!

Clarification, please?

re: #223 Thanos

I'm still trying to figure out the whole infant mortality leads to natural selection thing.

re: #231 Sharmuta

Just read the Meryl Streep line from that movie with 'Darwin' in place of 'dingoes.'

re: #228 basho

Yes, I understand why animals submit. What no one can understand is why the stronger animal accepts the submission.

re: #222 basho

There's even evidence that humans were once on the brink of extinction. Fascinating stuff.

In which case we would likely be like that guy who doesn't like Geico.

re: #229 Cato

And I repeat- you're confused. Learn something about evolution or continue to embarrass yourself.

re: #227 Salamantis

I recommend augmenting it with Chuang Tsu. I prefer the Burton Watson translation.

I have that too.

re: #233 Cato

Submission: It's more useful to have a functioning, dominated member of a hunting pack than risk getting bitten by a desperate, though weaker, rival animal.

re: #229 Cato

Again one does not follow the other if you have a brain. The exceptions do not make the rule, except to fools.

re: #71 Cato

God may or may not exist. It is above my pay grade to answer that.

But do you all believe the perfectly slanderous things said in evolutionary theory about man?

What's so slanderous about what evolutionary theory has to say about human beings?

re: #222 basho

There's even evidence that humans were once on the brink of extinction. Fascinating stuff.

I always wondered if the people that crank these theories out have anybody checking their statistics that know what the heck they're doing. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, just that it sounds like headline-grabbing sensationalism, to me.

Lines of descendancy die out, and once somebody's lines die out, they cannot come back. What that means is that the number of people who were living 10000 years ago - and have descendants today - can only go down. If we are the descendants of 1000 people who lived 10000 years ago (or whatever the actual numbers are), it doesn't mean that only those 1000 people were alive back then. There could have been 9000 other people with no living descendants. In another millennia, maybe it will be down to only 950 that have living descendants. Do they figure that stuff in? It gets complicated...

I find your views disappointing Charles. There is no reason to mix reason, logic, persuasion, with blind faith, mysticism, and superstition.

Science is based on reason, and observing reality and going by the facts. Religion is the opposite; you close your eyes and pretend that Jewish zombies can walk on water and that virgins can give birth. Faith is believing something without or against evidence. Why the hell would you mix the two?

Sure, you can believe some valid things and some stupid things, but why not call things what they are and follow reason all the way, all the time? Religious morality is destroying the world. If Western civilization is to survive, religious morality, altruism, must be totally rejected and instead man living his own life for his own sake by his own effort with his own mind must be advocated.

re: #231 Sharmuta

ROFLMAO

re: #164 Cato

What is natural selection if not death prior to reproduction?

Seriously. This is so bad, I might stick it in my favorites just to get a chuckle.

re: #233 Cato

Because they live in packs?

re: #224 Thanos

Yes. Stove is a wonderful tonic . I started out thinking that there was something wrong with the theory because its propositions could not be disproven, even in theory. Stove touches on that by saying that if a biologist discovered an animal that had 100 children but killed 99, he would have an explanation for that behavior. If it were then discovered that he killed only 80, they would just as easily have an explanation for that too. This aspect of the theory always bothered me.

However, Stove makes a strong case that vast swaths are just wrong under any common sense understanding of the theory.

re: #241 Student of Objectivism

Hyperbole and bullshit. For every bad thing you can point to about religion, I can show you something good that it's done.

Destroying the world? You purport to be a student of objectivism, get a grip.

re: #241 Student of Objectivism

Some thought flying, spliting the atom, etc., were stupid and unreasonable things.

re: #219 Cato

You have it backward, that animals do that is a problem with the theory. Remarkably, it is the sociobiologists who understand this. They, for example, wonder why monkey adoptions occur because it lessens the ability of tha adoptor to procreate itself. They wonder, for example, why there are submission signals among wolves. Isn't it always better for the stronger wolf to kill or maim its antagonist? Doesn't that increase his ability to mate and decrease that of the vanquished?

The funny thing is that the experts recognize these things as "problems" for the theory, but no one here does. I think these are more than problems for the theory -- I think it makes the theory incomprehensible and contradictory at the human level and possibly several grades below that. For pines and cod it is perfectly acceptable.

Which experts recognize the "problems" you describe? Are the associated with the DI bunch by chance?

You have a way of simplifying issues to an identifiable point and then claiming that that is a fundamental issue when it is not. The wolves example, for example, is simply an argument from ignorance and a tendency to only state that which can be comprehended by someone who is otherwise ignorant of what is known. It is easily answered, and Darwin easily answered it too, but you choose to ignore that because you have an agenda which involves trying to debunk anything that contradicts your predefined answers.

I asked before, from what school or other sources do you base your debunking of scientific knowledge?

re: #147 ssawtell

it's called occam's razor, lady.... the instant you invoke him as a force that intervenes in the natural world .... you most certainly have made a claim incompatible with science.

1) "Occam's razor" is not an immutable law of the universe. It's a useful rule of thumb which is sometimes wrong. Invoking Occam to prove anything (or win an argument) is much like invoking God to explain the unknown -- it's a philosophical, not scientific, argument, and it is of little value.

2) invoking God as a force that intervenes in the natural world is not "at odds with science"; science is perfectly compatible with the idea of beings taking actions, regardless of the power level of those beings. It's not as though science would cease being valid if a god revealed itself tomorrow; science would simply have to account for that god's actions when gathering data and creating theories. What's "incompatible with science" is invoking God as an undetectable, unpredictable, unreliable, random force in order to explain singular phenomena.

faith, by definition, is belief without proof

That's a poor definition of "faith".

A better definition of "faith" is continued belief in something you know to be true when the evidence is not immediately in front of you. It's not at odds with reason; it's at odds with emotion, which is often fickle. It's not the opposite of science; it's the opposite of forgetfulness.

Consider the statement "I have faith in my wife." That doesn't mean I have unjustified belief in her. Instead, it means that, based on my past experience, I trust my wife to behave in a certain way even if I'm not directly observing her at the moment, and even if I have some emotional insecurity that might lead me to think otherwise. It means that I haven't forgotten who my wife is just because she's not in the room with me; I haven't gotten all emotional and silly and thought "she must be cheating on me" just because she's late getting home.

I also have faith in science to provide answers to questions about the universe. Even when a particular subject is tricky and difficult to gather data for, even when my emotions tell me it's hopeless because a particular experiment was fruitless, my experience and reason tells me that the process of science will (eventually) uncover the physical laws that underly whatever phenomena I'm interested in.

My definition also works better than yours in light of phrases like "acting in good faith", "remaining faithful", and "faithful friend" -- it has nothing to do with blind/unjustified belief, and everything to do with staying true to something in spite of emotional pressure. Faith is the triumph of reason and experience over emotion.

The form of faith I describe is a virtue; it's a good character trait. The form of faith you describe is a vice; it's a character flaw. (And it greatly saddens me that so many people claim to have "faith" according to your definition.)

re: #78 kc8ukw

I don't think anyone argues that a belief in God precludes a belief in evolution. Of course, if you know nothing of God, or are imagining a God to fit the facts as you think you know them, that God will not preclude any of your previous beliefs. You can hold any belief except "there is no God" and still believe in God.

The rub today is that for Christians (or members of many other religions), we have specific things we think we know both about God and his character, and about his acts in history. The important question for us is the more specific "does a belief in the Christian God preclude a belief in evolution."

The literal reading of Genesis is contradicted by empirical science. Radiometric dating shows the earth to be 4.6 billion years old and terrestrial life to be more than 3 billion years old. It also shows early humans to have been around for a couple of hundred thousand years. Artifactual retroviral DNA shows that humans and great apes evolutionarily diverged from common ancestors a few million years ago, and in fact, that most life, even the very dissimilar, diverged from a few common ancestors no more than a few billion tears ago. A literal reading of Genesis, on the other hand, calls for the earth and all species in it to have been created within the space of a week 6000 years ago, and for all species to have been independently created as is.

However, Christian theologians from Origen through Augustine and Thomas Aquinas viewed Genesis as spiritual metaphor, and not to be read literally - all before Darwin was even born.

re: #245 Cato

Ok so you are likely cribbing from his piece in "Darwian Fairytales" debunked, and delusional.

If Darwin’s theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few of any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.
This inconsistency, between Darwin’s theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by “Darwinism’s Dilemma”.

In this first Essay (Darwinism’s Dilemma), he identifies three ways of dealing with the inconsistency. The Cave Man (human life used to be like that but, at some unspecified time, stopped being so); the Hard Man (actually, it still is, we are just deluding ourselves) and the Soft Man (we will just ignore the inconsistency). Both the first two responses are clearly false and last is obviously not a solution.

So continue to conflate Social darwinism with the theory of evolution, meanwhile I'm going to get some sleeps.

G'nite all.

re: #241 Student of Objectivism

... There is no reason to mix reason, logic, persuasion, with blind faith, mysticism, and superstition.

Science is based on reason, and observing reality and going by the facts. Religion is the opposite; ...

Sure, you can believe some valid things and some stupid things, but why not call things what they are and follow reason all the way, all the time? ...

Aside from all of your end-of-the-world stuff, I thought I said that. (#210)

re: #247 basho

Some thought flying, spliting the atom, etc., were stupid and unreasonable things.

They were wrong. What has that got to do with anything?

re: #244 basho

How could a pack form if, from the beginning, each individual seeks only its own reproduction? What venerable wolf was the first to put forward this radical proposal? And how did the ravenous throng take it?

re: #96 etohliver

Science conflicts witrh religion in countless ways, including evolution which is based on the random mutation of DNA.

To say otherwise is a cop out.

Only if your definition of religion is utterly circumscribed by not only Christianity and Judaism, but also the Genesis literalist variety.

re: #240 Optimizer

It's best not to think about. All those people I dated are in reality related to me? Lalala I'm not listening!

re: #248 Naso Tang

When you actually answer a question posed I will answer you. If you say Darwin answered it, provide the proof as others have attempted to do.

re: #240 Optimizer

I always wondered if the people that crank these theories out have anybody checking their statistics that know what the heck they're doing. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong, just that it sounds like headline-grabbing sensationalism, to me.

Lines of descendancy die out, and once somebody's lines die out, they cannot come back. What that means is that the number of people who were living 10000 years ago - and have descendants today - can only go down. If we are the descendants of 1000 people who lived 10000 years ago (or whatever the actual numbers are), it doesn't mean that only those 1000 people were alive back then. There could have been 9000 other people with no living descendants. In another millennia, maybe it will be down to only 950 that have living descendants. Do they figure that stuff in? It gets complicated...

What you are missing is that all of those 1000 people 10,000 years ago did have common descendants, and also had common descendants with the other 9000 that you mention, which means that even though a direct paternal or maternal lineage may have been terminated, the genetic linkage has not.

When you state lines of descendancy you need to also state with what degree of commonality you are talking about and whether you are referring to male or female lines and in the case of male lines, what genes you are talking about.

re: #247 basho

Some thought flying, spliting the atom, etc., were stupid and unreasonable things.

Yes, but reason proved otherwise. Isn't that nice?

Talk Origins on David Stove

Cato:

Darwin and Malthus are not exactly "state of the art". Arguing that Darwin or Malthus were wrong is like arguing that Pope Whats-His-Face from 329 years ago was wrong. You may very well be correct, but it has virtually no bearing on whether the CURRENT idea is correct.

Please take the time to figure out what current scientists call "evolution" before you try to argue against it. Darwin's contributions were important, but the theory has grown and changed a great deal since his time.

re: #241 Student of Objectivism

I remember when I believed in Objectivism! Good luck with that.