Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society interviews Answers in Genesis’s star young earth creationist Georgia Purdom (who has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University), at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY on February 18, 2009.
Apparently this video may not be on Google video for much longer, so watch while you can or download a copy for yourself by going to this page.
(Hat tip: The Panda’s Thumb.)
1 |
saberry0530 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:21:19pm |
They will give a PHD to anyone these days. (For enough $)
| 2 |
notutopia Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:22:09pm |
Pathogenic Bacterial strains have NOT evolved? Uh, I think the pharmocodynamics and chemists who are creating new antibiotics every few years, would strongly disagree.
| 3 |
Jim D Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:22:13pm |
They just hand out PhDs to anyone these days, it seems.
| 4 |
Bloodnok Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:22:25pm |
Money quote at 14:27
When asked "How would you test this hypothesis against that hypothesis"
Ms. Purdom says
"Well we wouldn't do that, there'd be no point in that. We know God did it."
| 5 |
Neutral President Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:23:28pm |
re: #1 saberry0530
"You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit." - Droz from PCU
| 6 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:25:24pm |
re: #5 ArchangelMichael
"You can major in Game Boy if you know how to bullshit." - Droz from PCU
Classic role. Jeremy Piven at his best.
| 7 |
Bloodnok Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:25:37pm |
She reminds me of Mackenzie Phillips, the One Day at a Time years.
| 8 |
notutopia Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:25:45pm |
re: #2 notutopia
Pathogenic Bacterial strains have NOT evolved? Uh, I think the pharmocodynamics and chemists who are creating new antibiotics every few years, would strongly disagree.
Evolution of bacterial pathogenesis
[Link: www.springerlink.com...]
| 9 |
DistantThunder Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:26:55pm |
| 10 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:27:04pm |
re: #7 Bloodnok
She reminds me of Mackenzie Phillips, the One Day at a Time years.
She was a druggie. Just saying.
| 12 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:30:18pm |
"I'm not interpreting it. That's just what god's word says."
/Ya gotta love fundamentalists.
| 13 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:30:32pm |
Damn. A PhD in molecular genetics and she said that pathogenic bacteria don't evolve?
OMG
Her advisor needs to lose tenure.
| 14 |
DistantThunder Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:30:57pm |
re: #9 DistantThunder
Untouched by the Hand of God: How people in various countries view evolution
Chart.
Related article in the Economist: Unfinished business - Charles Darwin's Ideas have spread widely but his revolution is not complete
Gould’s view was thus that the evolution of human intelligence while not exactly an accident, since it was a response to a long series of circumstances, was certainly not a foregone conclusion. If that series of circumstances had been even slightly different, there would have been no egg-headed Homo sapiens.That view is being questioned. For example, in a study published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences a group of researchers looked at crustaceans (crabs, shrimps, woodlice and so on) over the past 550m years and found far more examples of groups of species evolving towards complexity than in the other direction. Matthew Wills of the University of Bath, in England, commented at the time that it was the “nearest thing to a pervasive evolutionary rule that’s been found.” In this study, the only crustaceans that became simpler were either parasites or those living in remote habitats, such as isolated marine caves.
Simon Conway-Morris, a palaeontologist at Cambridge University, in England, is the champion of a new interpretation of evolution—one that challenges the view that it is largely governed by the accident of circumstances. Unlike Gould, he thinks that if evolution were replayed from the beginning, a lot of things would turn out the same.
Dr Conway-Morris has arrived at this view from a detailed study of what is known as convergent evolution. Darwin himself was intrigued by this phenomenon, in which different groups of organisms independently evolve similar solutions to similar problems, whether these solutions are teeth, eyes, brains, ecosystems or societies. Where other biologists have noted such convergences as “remarkable”, Dr Conway-Morris believes they actually tell a broader story.
His argument is that, given the nature of physics and chemistry, there may be only a limited number of ways in which things can work. Evolution will be channelled into these successful paths, and thus does have trends. Two of these, he thinks, are towards complexity and intelligence. He adds that things “don’t just happen in chemistry”. They happen because of pre-existing causes. Whether it is the molecules of crystallin that are used to build an eye or the haemoglobin that makes blood carry oxygen, the nature of molecules themselves means that evolution is more likely to follow a path determined by their basic structure. Evolution is a mechanism, and it works within rules.
Dr Conway-Morris’s view of the world may or may not turn out to be correct. If it is, it may prove more palatable to some people than the current interpretation of the biological world as ultimately materialist and purposeless.
| 15 |
Gus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:31:00pm |
I only have word to describe her pseudo scientific views: ridiculous.
| 16 |
Fat Jolly Penguin Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:31:03pm |
Apparently this video may not be on Google video for much longer
Why?
| 17 |
Lazarus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:31:43pm |
Where is she being interviewed from, her parents' basement?
| 18 |
Bloodnok Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:33:24pm |
The RNC is seriously considering booking her for the next Obama address rebuttal.
//
| 19 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:33:34pm |
I honestly wonder if she is learning disabled. Once a person has a diagnosis, it's very hard to kick them to the curb.....I thought that only held true through undergrad, but it appears that even graduate programs in the hard sciences aren't immune.
/coming soon to a medical school near you
| 20 |
Killgore Trout Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:35:01pm |
re: #19 funky chicken
No, I think she just has a little speech impediment.
| 21 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:35:14pm |
When I watch someone like her, my mind tends to wonder, so I was thinking: She is pretty flat isn't she?
| 22 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:36:12pm |
So Jews are going to Hell? I better pack my shorts and the sun screen.
| 23 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:36:29pm |
Understand from a creationist perspective....
From that sentence alone you see how she went off the path.
Some biblical science ideas:
Thou shalt not look for what you want to see. lest you color the truth with your own presuppositions.
Thou shalt only see what is actually there to the best of your ability and thou shalt only draw inferences therefrom.
| 24 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:37:12pm |
re: #17 Lazarus
Where is she being interviewed from, her parents' basement?
Nope, the Creation "Museum". She really does work there. One of the good things you can say about her is that she's not getting government money, so at least we're not paying for her "research".
| 25 |
Cathypop Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:37:12pm |
She definitely does not like the word evolution.
| 26 |
Cathypop Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:37:45pm |
re: #21 Nevergiveup
When I watch someone like her, my mind tends to wonder, so I was thinking: She is pretty flat isn't she?
I want to pull a Mandy and WHACK her!
| 27 |
IslandLibertarian Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:37:58pm |
I have an ex with a PhD from Columbia.
I'm no longer impressed by letters before or after names.
And I've stopped wrestling with my faith...........what a relief.
| 28 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:38:12pm |
re: #15 Gus 802
I only have word to describe her pseudo scientific views: ridiculous.
I'll use three words: GEOLOGIC EPIC FAIL
| 29 |
Gus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:39:01pm |
She mentions carbon-14 and diamonds.
Watch this!
Young earth creationists and Carbon-14 "dating" of diamonds
She's a quack.
| 30 |
avanti Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:39:28pm |
She's obviously very bright and shows the power faith has over intellect. Early childhood influences can imprint you for life. Better that she was taught to believe in a young earth, rather then being raised a racist for example, but still sad on some level.
| 31 |
notutopia Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:39:33pm |
She actually said, We have E coli now that is good for us and E coli that makes us sick....
E coli is found as a good bacteria normally in our large intestine. They are responsible for the synthesis of our bodies formulation of Vitamin K.
Ecoli tat is returned to your mouth and upper GI tract, or Urinary Tract, cause infections. This is why we teach hygiene in toileting and hand washing.
| 32 |
Soona' Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:42:15pm |
re: #10 Nevergiveup
She was a druggie. Just saying.
A side-street stumbling, ally sleeping, curb kissing drugie.
| 33 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:42:16pm |
re: #30 avanti
She's obviously very bright and shows the power faith has over intellect. Early childhood influences can imprint you for life. Better that she was taught to believe in a young earth, rather then being raised a racist for example, but still sad on some level.
You've got to be carefully taught:
| 34 |
Digital Display Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:43:25pm |
Hi lizards! after work i posted a link to one of my favorite scientist/Astronomers web site..Bad astronomy..Cause it was a science thread.And you guys know I love science sites...Phil..does a major slap-down of Bobby J. on his web site.
One word of advice..If you are running for political office in the 21st Century..
You better be a 21 century candadate..
You have to be ahead of the curve not behind it..
Gosh..I better shut up lizards...Is this a natural cycle of politics..The whole thing about when you get voted out of political power..You reinvent the message..the goals..the players...Everything is on the table..
The Dems have going through this for 8 years..
| 37 |
avanti Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:47:09pm |
re: #33 Dark_Falcon
You've got to be carefully taught:
If you recall South Pacific was very controversial when it came out because of the race mixing theme. We've come a long ways from the days when Lucy marrying Desi was a scandal too.
| 38 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:47:58pm |
re: #36 Bloodnok
We'll always have Paris. See ya'.
Not for much longer. The Islamists will probably take it over in our lifetimes.
| 39 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:48:08pm |
| 41 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:50:14pm |
"I have a five year old daughter, she's a guilty sinner..."
/arrggggggggggggg
| 42 |
nyc redneck Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:51:33pm |
wow, he has the patience of a saint.
they were not really having a meaningful conversation.
he was just enduring her tainted beliefs abt. science.
i could tell he was stunned by what she was saying.
no scientist could take her seriously.
it is shocking how "belief" can hinder learning.
| 43 |
Lazarus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:52:01pm |
re: #24 Dark_Falcon
Nope, the Creation "Museum". She really does work there. One of the good things you can say about her is that she's not getting government money, so at least we're not paying for her "research".
Maybe not directly, but I'm sure there are insane organizations like the Discovery Institute who fund them and lobby for public funding to peddle creationism. They weave a tangled web.
| 45 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:52:28pm |
| 46 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:54:47pm |
Georgia Purdom: "Our starting points are important for understanding what happened in the past."
So she suggests there is no objective reality. Postmodernism again.
| 47 |
notutopia Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:56:13pm |
re: #41 Thanos
"I have a five year old daughter, she's a guilty sinner..."
/arrggggggggggggg
That one line makes me so angry. The original sin gone haywire. To think that a baby is labeled and taught this crap, as a guilty sinner, it's exasperating!
| 48 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:56:34pm |
I want to comment on some of the AGW and creationist crossover. This is a repost from another thread that I have edited a bit. There is the same sort of almost religious fervor in the arguments.
As soon as one starts going into one world government conspiracy theory, particularly from the scientific community on AGW, they seriously damage your credibility as a "level headed scientific type." It is hard enough hanging with the Elders of Zion to keep appeasing my masters at the APS...
Respectfully, "I hate Al Gore" is not a scientific statement. I am not his biggest fan, but please consider that he is not a scientist and he does not really represent the community. He is a politician. The political circus around him is not science either.
To really get at what is going on with AGW you need to know something about that non linear systems. Non-linear dynamics is my field.
If you wish to get into this I will be glad to. However, I wish that you keep the tone respectful.
CO2 really is a greenhouse gas. We know this for a fact from the absorption spectra and we can even calculate said spectra using QM. This is not in debate.
Many point out a lot about carbon from other sources, but they neglect many other facets of the system. For one thing, many different forms of pollution have deeply depleted ocean algae and there has been massive deforestation in the last century. This is caused by man, and it means that there is much less of a carbon sink.
Further, if it were just a matter of natural volcanic cycles, blah, blah, blah, we would not see the steady increases in CO2 from Keeling curves that we do. This is not the hockey stick, but rather direct optical measurement of concentrations in the atmosphere. The rate of eruptions has not been increasing dramatically in the last fifty years. So it must be something else.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Another issue that is rarely taken into account is methane from vastly increased farm industrial farming operations. This is dismissed smugly as "cow farts" but the problem is not just cow farts at all. Consider a CAFO. A pig produces per day, as much feces as eight adult humans. That means one CAFO in Texas, with two million swine (and there are many CAFOs, and not just in Texas) produces as much feces as the New York metro area. What happens to all of that fecal matter? For one thing legislation was passed to ease regulation on cleaning it up so, unlike New York, there is no waste management or sewage treatment. In fact, there are giant lakes of feces. This releases vast amounts of methane. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
There is also a conversation about water vapor and us silly scientists not noticing it. Again, like the creationists, that like to misquote the Second Law, do people really think that they figured out something really basic, that somehow the whole scientific community missed? Do consider that if it gets warmer for other reasons, there will be more water vapor in the air and now you have a feedback loop.
Finally, there are those who love to cherry pick facts. On a cold day they gloat that Aha, there is no global warming. It is supposed to be cold in winter. What is more accurate is to look at all of the trends and notice a lot of warm days too.
Then there are those who want to say "how can warming possibly cause cooling?" They then smugly discredit anything that might follow. The answer to that question is in most people's kitchen - and once again goes to not understanding Thermodynamics. How does a refrigerator work?
Quixote asks that when those come to yell at me, we keep it respectful.
| 49 |
twincitiesgirl Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:56:42pm |
I didn't watch it all--from what I did see, her thinking/logic is kind of sloppy. Although she's bright, Christian apologetics is not her forte, and the way she relates it to science is embarrassing. Here's something she'd dispute:
| 50 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:57:33pm |
re: #45 Nevergiveup
You have to be real careful what your kids are taught!
Be for ever vigilant
Indeed. I always see that clip and remember that the odds are the boy who starts off the singing would in real life have probably been part of the SS. He would have been made into a monster that the Allies would have most likely had to kill. Another part of Hitler's evil: To turn what was good and fair into something ugly and vile.
| 52 |
Russkilitlover Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:59:17pm |
re: #7 Bloodnok
She reminds me of Mackenzie Phillips, the One Day at a Time years.
When she was perpetutally high?
| 53 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:59:49pm |
Re: Carbon-14 dating.
One of the all-time favorite science class activities that we did (You can do this at home, too! Without adult supervision!) is the radioactivity of candium.
Does my heart good to see them so interested in science.
| 54 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 4:59:55pm |
re: #50 Dark_Falcon
Indeed. I always see that clip and remember that the odds are the boy who starts off the singing would in real life have probably been part of the SS. He would have been made into a monster that the Allies would have most likely had to kill. Another part of Hitler's evil: To turn what was good and fair into something ugly and vile.
Yup,I've always thought that was a chilling scene.
| 55 |
notutopia Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:00:06pm |
re: #44 UberInfidel67
MRSA comes to mind.
Even MRSA is evolving!
the evolution of MRSA a step further, revealing new information about how MRSA bacteria in general, including the USA300 group, elude the human immune system.
[Link: www.sciencedaily.com...]
| 56 |
freedombilly Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:00:15pm |
"Well to me, that sounds like evolution." at the 58 second mark.
Priceless.
| 57 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:01:16pm |
re: #46 jaunte
Georgia Purdom: "Our starting points are important for understanding what happened in the past."
So she suggests there is no objective reality. Postmodernism again.
I hadn't even thought of that. The creationsts have studied the success of the left very well. Hmmmmm
| 58 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:01:50pm |
I wonder who taught her PhD program, Woody Hayes?
| 59 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:03:17pm |
re: #57 funky chicken
I hadn't even thought of that. The creationsts have studied the success of the left very well. Hmmmmm
I think that's what the tactic of claiming that 'science is just another faith' come in.
| 61 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:03:36pm |
I like how she essentially says that all previous interpretations of scripture were wrong. The one they are speaking about is now the correct one. Even better, the interviewer caught it and calls her on it. One reason I dislike talking to really religious Christians about science or faith. They're right, you're wrong.
| 62 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:04:20pm |
I can't believe the patience this guy showed to this completely psychotic young woman.
I'm watching the whole thing, and it really is a textbook example of psychosis -- an entire worldview built on a fundamentally illogical and self-contradictory foundation.
I realize that he's showing deference to her in order to let her hang herself, but even I would not have been able to keep a straight face.
If she is considered a "star" of the creationist movement, I can only shake my head in pity. A total embarrassment.
| 63 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:04:47pm |
re: #58 Nevergiveup
I wonder who taught her PhD program, Woody Hayes?
She is most likely the result of a drive from certain evangelical groups to send people to get PhDs and then come work for them.. They see themselves a sort of "secret agent" for God.
| 64 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:05:19pm |
re: #62 zombie
I can't believe the patience this guy showed to this completely psychotic young woman.
I'm watching the whole thing, and it really is a textbook example of psychosis -- an entire worldview built on a fundamentally illogical and self-contradictory foundation.
I realize that he's showing deference to her in order to let her hang herself, but even I would not have been able to keep a straight face.
If she is considered a "star" of the creationist movement, I can only shake my head in pity. A total embarrassment.
Doublethink is strong.
| 65 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:05:43pm |
re: #62 zombie
Good point, but look who the Republicans put forward last night?
| 67 |
UberInfidel67 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:07:28pm |
re: #55 notutopia I went through it with my son. DIsgusting! He did one round of antibiotics...but it always comes back. They have to run tests to see what it will respond to. It literally leaves HOLES in the tissue. UGH!
| 68 |
Digital Display Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:07:29pm |
re: #53 EmmmieG
Re: Carbon-14 dating.
One of the all-time favorite science class activities that we did (You can do this at home, too! Without adult supervision!) is the radioactivity of candium.
Does my heart good to see them so interested in science.
I swear to God I had a prof tell me this in College..we were chatting about the age of the Earth and the Universe..blah blah..
He said that if the great flood really happened it would change all the Carbon 14 aging theories and everything works out in the timeline..
He sited a 'study' of a fossil found that the head measured using carbon 14 dating was like 23000 years different from the tail..
My jaw dropped...I swear he said that..The big flood changes everything..How do you deal with that logic? Where did all the F*cking water go Einstien?
| 69 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:07:30pm |
She comes straight out and says:
Since we know the Bible is literally true, we need to re-interpret all data and toss out all observations which contradict the Bible.
Which is the definition of anti-science. Sheer crazytown.
| 70 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:08:33pm |
"That sounds like evolution"
"Oh, no! It's not evolution, they're still bacteria."
They really don't understand that evolution means change over time. Even little changes. Wow- just stunning to see willful ignorance on display.
| 71 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:09:11pm |
Quick change of topic;
International Air Transport Association warns it may follow US Federal Aviation Administration, downgrade Israel’s aviation safety ranking. Should decision materialize, EU airport may refuse Israeli planes' landing
[Link: www.ynetnews.com...]
This has nothing to do with actual Israeli Planes and safety. It has to do with issues at Israeli's new Airport near Tel Aviv. Run Ways and air space and control tower issues.
| 72 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:09:40pm |
re: #69 zombie
She comes straight out and says:
Since we know the Bible is literally true, we need to re-interpret all data and toss out all observations which contradict the Bible.
Which is the definition of anti-science. Sheer crazytown.
Which is why I said that from her almost first sentence, "from a creationist view" she left the realm of science. In science you look atwhat is there, not at what you want to be there.
| 74 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:10:05pm |
re: #62 zombie
I can't believe the patience this guy showed to this completely psychotic young woman.
I'm watching the whole thing, and it really is a textbook example of psychosis -- an entire worldview built on a fundamentally illogical and self-contradictory foundation.
I realize that he's showing deference to her in order to let her hang herself, but even I would not have been able to keep a straight face.
If she is considered a "star" of the creationist movement, I can only shake my head in pity. A total embarrassment.
Just imagine having to sit through her seminar presentation once a year as a fello grad student. I couldn't have done it.
I'm frankly stunned she got enough profs to sit on her qualifying exam and dissertation committees. Ohio State University!?! I'd guess the offensive linemen make more sense than this gal.
| 75 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:10:30pm |
Nirthers at CPAC:
| 77 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:11:37pm |
re: #70 Sharmuta
She's actually the first person that has said that 'biblical kinds' is roughly equivalent to the family level of classification. I haven't seen much detail in creationist thinking on that point, as far as precisely defining the boundary of one 'kind' vs. another.
| 78 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:12:43pm |
re: #75 Charles
Nirthers at CPAC:
We need to get thes people going on about flouride conspiracies again... I love hearing about "our precious bodily fluids..."
| 79 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:14:12pm |
Sudden Impact is on:
We're not gonna let you walk out of here
Who's we sucker?
Smith, Wesson, and Me.
Bang Bang Bang
Go ahead and make my day
| 80 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:14:13pm |
I'm still watching.
This young woman is doing a really good job of convincing me that...
...that...
...fundamentalist creationist Christians are just nuts.
| 81 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:14:21pm |
re: #75 Charles
C'mon Charles - everyone knows that Alaska and Hawaii aren't really part of the US....
////
| 82 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:14:24pm |
For too many, unfortunately, PhD translates into "Piled Higher and Deeper".
| 83 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:15:33pm |
Oh my God.
She is completely crazy.
Girl, are you fluent in ancient Hebrew? No? Then shut up. You just contradicted yourself.
| 84 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:15:37pm |
Any word on attendance at CPAC compared to past years?
| 85 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:16:39pm |
"Eternity lasts a very long time; you better make sure you have the right answer."
Well isn't that special.
| 86 |
BlueCanuck Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:16:56pm |
re: #80 zombie
Having experienced those groups first hand from the inside, I believe you aren't stating it strongly enough. Throw in a little conspiracy theory craziness and you are getting close to how they really are. See also RFID chip conspiracy theories, and tie them in with the Mark of the Beast. Knew a lot of people that believe stuff like that.
| 87 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:17:03pm |
re: #70 Sharmuta
"That sounds like evolution"
"Oh, no! It's not evolution, they're still bacteria."
They really don't understand that evolution means change over time. Even little changes. Wow- just stunning to see willful ignorance on display.
And Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are still animals.
And Drosophila melanogaster and Homo Sapiens are still animals.
My undergrad degree is in microbiology. THEY'RE STILL BACTERIA! OMFG
I'm gonna apply to Ohio St to finish my doctorate. Apparently their standards are quite low...should be done in 6 months.
| 88 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:17:12pm |
re: #73 Maui Girl
Don't let the door hit you on your grass skirt on your way out.
| 89 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:17:26pm |
He's wrong about Ken Miller- he's not evangelical, he's Catholic.
| 90 |
SFGoth Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:18:01pm |
Between the commie left and the myth-worshiping right, ugh, what a horrible dichotomy. Think I'll have to go with whichever side has better looking gals and more entertaining parties. Off to the Wilderness.
| 91 |
rbuchberger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:18:52pm |
I drive by that museum fairly often; I'm always tempted to stop by and test my debating skills. Though as a Catholic I doubt they'd consider me a real christian...
| 92 |
Randall Gross Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:18:54pm |
re: #89 Sharmuta
There are evangelical Catholics, but they are mostly Eastern Orthodox I think.
| 93 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:20:24pm |
that vid was pretty cool I admit...arguments that even I can understand...I got through 16 minutes and had to fold...like a cat playing with a mouse
| 94 |
Sharmuta Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:20:34pm |
Well- there it is at 5 minutes in- you can't be a good Christian if you don't take the entire Bible literally.
| 95 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:21:12pm |
re: #94 Sharmuta
Well- there it is at 5 minutes in- you can't be a good Christian if you don't take the entire Bible literally.
Keep watching. It gets 100 times worse.
| 96 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:21:13pm |
re: #85 jaunte
"Eternity lasts a very long time; you better make sure you have the right answer."
Well isn't that special.
Standard fundamentalist threat: "Believe as I do or burn in Hell!" My parents told me about a fundamentalist preacher talking like that on Rush street in Chicago. The crowd at an outdoor restaurant seating area got so sick of him they finally drown him out with a chant of "Satan, Satan, Satan!"
| 97 |
SFGoth Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:21:37pm |
It's nonsense like this that underlies why I reject the concept that it's ok to vote for someone who pushes this shit in private but not in public. No, this is not akin to privately listening to Motley Crue in a soundproofed basement where no one can hear while publicly supporting the symphony (which btw, S+M is a great album). It's akin to brainwashing your offspring so that they bust out and make it public down the road. If Palin personally advocates myth worship as science, gone. Jindal, gone. Bueller?
| 98 |
rbuchberger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:21:55pm |
re: #94 Sharmuta
Well- there it is at 5 minutes in- you can't be a good Christian if you don't take the entire Bible literally.
Of course not. The bible was intended to be not only a moral guide, but a scientific textbook and perfect, literal documentation of historical events as well.
| 99 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:21:55pm |
re: #82 rightymouse
For too many, unfortunately, PhD translates into "Piled Higher and Deeper".
But it used to be that the hard sciences were immune to this kind of thing...you couldn't get a doctorate in something like molecular biology if you were an idiot. Either they kept her and passed her along because of fear of a lawsuit (based upon her diagnosis as learning disabled or upon threats from fundamentalist nuts) or because the po-modern movement has infiltrated even the "real" sciences.l
Whatever the explanation, I'm shocked.
| 100 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:22:17pm |
Ahh, yes, the whole what do you mean by a day thing....
I truly wonder how people could ever take such an obvious metaphor literally. I mean, forget science for a moment, the definition of a day depends on the Sun... The Sun is not created first. That is a big hint that the days are not literal.
| 101 |
rbuchberger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:23:04pm |
re: #98 rbuchberger
(can't believe i kept a straight face saying that...)
| 102 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:23:22pm |
I don't usually get to involved in these threads, but this PhD is a pisser. I'm not particularly thrilled by these creationists being so front and center in the Republican Party. Hopefully people like this girl will embarrass them out of the party and off the national stage, but maybe I'm to optimistic.
| 103 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:25:03pm |
actually the more I watch....this should be the classic, well articulated and considered debate on the subject....very clear lines are drawn and the participants are respectful and easy to listen to....I give it 5 stars
| 104 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:26:13pm |
I'm sceptical that she even really believes what she is saying.
| 105 |
tradewind Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:26:28pm |
OMG... turned to the info for AnimalChannel and the title is ' Walking With Dinosaurs'.
I thought for a minute it had been hit by the IDs, but no.. the 'walking 'was theoretical....
| 106 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:26:32pm |
re: #102 Nevergiveup
I don't usually get to involved in these threads, but this PhD is a pisser. I'm not particularly thrilled by these creationists being so front and center in the Republican Party. Hopefully people like this girl will embarrass them out of the party and off the national stage, but maybe I'm to optimistic.
You're too optimistic. True believers can't be embarrassed of the stage. You need to bring out the hook and yank them off.
| 108 |
Neo Con since 9-11 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:26:52pm |
Arrrgh she just said she went to Ohio State, I'm so embarrassed right now.
| 110 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:27:01pm |
re: #75 Charles
And he received a good round of applause for that. How. Very. Sad.
| 111 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:27:31pm |
Paul Weyrich now speaking at CPAC.
[Link: www.ustream.tv...]
Weyrich is a creationist and a Dominionist.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 112 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:27:43pm |
re: #105 tradewind
OMG... turned to the info for AnimalChannel and the title is ' Walking With Dinosaurs'.
I thought for a minute it had been hit by the IDs, but no.. the 'walking 'was theoretical....
That was a great show. It does it's best to show Dinos as best as can be determined as they were in life.
| 113 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:29:36pm |
re: #99 funky chicken
But it used to be that the hard sciences were immune to this kind of thing...you couldn't get a doctorate in something like molecular biology if you were an idiot. Either they kept her and passed her along because of fear of a lawsuit (based upon her diagnosis as learning disabled or upon threats from fundamentalist nuts) or because the po-modern movement has infiltrated even the "real" sciences.l
Whatever the explanation, I'm shocked.
Looks like her personal beliefs got in the way of the science she was taught at some point. That said, if she has a PhD, she had to do a dissertation that was accepted in order to graduate. Would be VERY curious to know what her dissertation was all about.
| 114 |
cronus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:29:50pm |
re: #111 Charles
Paul Weyrich now speaking at CPAC.
[Link: www.ustream.tv...]
Weyrich was a creationist and a Dominionist.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
isn't he deceased?
| 115 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:29:56pm |
re: #105 tradewind
OMG... turned to the info for AnimalChannel and the title is ' Walking With Dinosaurs'.
I thought for a minute it had been hit by the IDs, but no.. the 'walking 'was theoretical....
that's a great series, highly recommed it for the artistic merit
as a microbiologist/biochemist type, not sure if the science is perfect, but they worked with the top paleontologists, and I didn't catch anything bad enough to peg my BS meter
| 116 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:30:35pm |
re: #113 rightymouse
Looks like her personal beliefs got in the way of the science she was taught at some point. That said, if she has a PhD, she had to do a dissertation that was accepted in order to graduate. Would be VERY curious to know what her dissertation was all about.
I will bet it is actually kosher and that she purposefully kept her agenda out of that work.
| 117 |
Gus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:31:09pm |
re: #111 Charles
Charles, did you see that I think I found who might be the author of lgfonevolution blog?
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
| 118 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:31:30pm |
re: #108 Neo Con since 9-11
Arrrgh she just said she went to Ohio State, I'm so embarrassed right now.
That's OK every university has it's less than glamorous graduates.
| 119 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:31:54pm |
| 120 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:32:09pm |
re: #111 Charles
Paul Weyrich now speaking at CPAC.
[Link: www.ustream.tv...]
Weyrich is a creationist and a Dominionist.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
He also was involved in peddling some of the "McCain is a Manchurian Candidate who got special treatment in the Hanoi Hilton," right? Hmmmm or was that Wheeler?
| 122 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:32:37pm |
Huh...O'Reilly's doing a segment on Muslim beheadings, including that recent one in Buffalo.
I'm surprised.
| 123 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:32:45pm |
re: #111 Charles
Paul Weyrich now speaking at CPAC.
[Link: www.ustream.tv...]
Weyrich is a creationist and a Dominionist.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Is it a tape? He's dead.
| 124 |
Charles Johnson Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:32:48pm |
re: #117 Gus 802
Charles, did you see that I think I found who might be the author of lgfonevolution blog?
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
Yes, I saw. Could be.
| 126 |
The Pulchritudinous Patriot Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:33:05pm |
re: #122 lobo91
Huh...O'Reilly's doing a segment on Muslim beheadings, including that recent one in Buffalo.
I'm surprised.
I can't watch Bill O anymore...he makes me tense.
| 127 |
Gus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:33:36pm |
re: #124 Charles
Yes, I saw. Could be.
Yeah, I think it's him but I'll let you take it from there. :)
| 128 |
cronus Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:33:39pm |
re: #119 Charles
You're right, he is.
Must be a video tribute. He is an ideological godfather to many in that crowd.
| 129 |
The Pulchritudinous Patriot Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:33:40pm |
re: #123 MandyManners
Is it a tape? He's dead.
Well if it's not a tape, then we should be a bit frightened!
| 130 |
Nevergiveup Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:33:51pm |
re: #122 lobo91
Huh...O'Reilly's doing a segment on Muslim beheadings, including that recent one in Buffalo.
I'm surprised.
Is he for it or against it? With O'Reilly ya never know?
| 131 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:33:53pm |
She nails him time and time again, his argument (and his annoying habit of using the word "think" in an interrogative (What High School do you think you went to?)) is that most people once believe in creationism, but now most people believe in evolution so it must be right. OK, so then most people were wrong but now most people are right?
Further if he is correct that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then the onus is on him to explain why we cannot find life on other planets, and we have been looking with our radio-telescopes for decades and finding nothing. Given that much time how is it possible that this chemical reaction happened only once?
| 133 |
SFGoth Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:34:02pm |
re: #111 Charles
Paul Weyrich now speaking at CPAC.
[Link: www.ustream.tv...]
Weyrich is a creationist and a Dominionist.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
The Dominion? Really? I thought the Federation beat them, but I admit that I gave up watching after a few years -- too serialized.
| 134 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:34:28pm |
| 135 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:34:50pm |
re: #122 lobo91
Huh...O'Reilly's doing a segment on Muslim beheadings, including that recent one in Buffalo.
I'm surprised.
I'm not. O'Reilly has problems but not with that issue.
| 136 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:35:29pm |
| 137 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:35:34pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
She nails him time and time again, his argument (and his annoying habit of using the word "think" in an interrogative (What High School do you think you went to?)) is that most people once believe in creationism, but now most people believe in evolution so it must be right. OK, so then most people were wrong but now most people are right?
Further if he is correct that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then the onus is on him to explain why we cannot find life on other planets, and we have been looking with our radio-telescopes for decades and finding nothing. Given that much time how is it possible that this chemical reaction happened only once?
Most of the planets out there in the universe are farther away than we can see, and we haven't been looking for long.
| 139 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:35:50pm |
re: #116 LudwigVanQuixote
I will bet it is actually kosher and that she purposefully kept her agenda out of that work.
I agree. It would have to be kosher. Ohio State isn't exactly a fundamentalist school.
| 140 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:35:54pm |
re: #113 rightymouse
Looks like her personal beliefs got in the way of the science she was taught at some point. That said, if she has a PhD, she had to do a dissertation that was accepted in order to graduate. Would be VERY curious to know what her dissertation was all about.
ancient hippies causing the Flood and the loss of all mankind? :)
| 141 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:36:14pm |
How can the GOP possibly hope to remain even marginally relevant when promoting, and applauding, the nirthers, creationists, and other assorted kookservatives*?
*h/t: Sharmuta for "kookservatives"
| 142 |
SFGoth Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:36:19pm |
re: #135 Dark_Falcon
I'm not. O'Reilly has problems but not with that issue.
O'Reilly's a putz. When he had a marijuana advocate on, he picked Mark Stepnoski, a guy who took one shot to the head too many playing for the Cowboys. Gee Bill, couldn't find someone who'd give you a run for your ego? Nahhh, O'Reilly's too hard on my digestive system.
| 143 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:37:24pm |
| 144 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:37:31pm |
| 145 |
The Pulchritudinous Patriot Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:38:02pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
She nails him time and time again, his argument (and his annoying habit of using the word "think" in an interrogative (What High School do you think you went to?)) is that most people once believe in creationism, but now most people believe in evolution so it must be right. OK, so then most people were wrong but now most people are right?
Further if he is correct that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then the onus is on him to explain why we cannot find life on other planets, and we have been looking with our radio-telescopes for decades and finding nothing. Given that much time how is it possible that this chemical reaction happened only once?
Carl Sagan had in interesting theory as to why life on other worlds hasn't been found yet...althought it's really the Drake equation..misattribution sucks...allow me to link a wikipedia article...
| 146 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:38:02pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
I can only hope you left off the "sarc tag."
Because please don't tell me you're serious.
| 147 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:38:04pm |
re: #116 LudwigVanQuixote
She must be one hell of an actress then. Molecular biology is basically the study of molecular genetics.
You don't get a doctorate in that field believing that bacteria don't evolve. My senior year of undergrad I took bacterial molbio and molbio of cancer.
I'm just in shock....and kinda pissed. This was my field, and I worked my ass off to achieve in it....and [self deleted]
| 148 |
scarshapedstar Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:38:12pm |
I wasn't planning on going to Ohio for my Ph. D, but now I'm... planning even less.
So she admits that "symbiotic" bacteria can be only one gene away from "pathogenic" bacteria. And she goes on to claim that natural selection, acting on a gene, can never change organisms from one "kind" to another "kind".
There's dumb, and then there's Creationist dumb.
| 149 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:38:22pm |
re: #130 Nevergiveup
Is he for it or against it? With O'Reilly ya never know?
He seemed genuinely surprised that it happens so frequently.
| 150 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:39:15pm |
re: #137 jaunte
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
| 151 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:40:15pm |
I watched all 25 minutes of it.
That little bitch says that God gives one year old kids cancer because they are sinful, and she says it with a straight face!
I couldn't help thinking that Shermer, what with all his fidgeting and nervous laughs, was sometimes trying hard to keep from slugging her.
This type of religion really is a mental disease, and it has a hell of a lot in common with Islam.
| 153 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:41:45pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
She nails him time and time again, his argument (and his annoying habit of using the word "think" in an interrogative (What High School do you think you went to?)) is that most people once believe in creationism, but now most people believe in evolution so it must be right. OK, so then most people were wrong but now most people are right?
Further if he is correct that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then the onus is on him to explain why we cannot find life on other planets, and we have been looking with our radio-telescopes for decades and finding nothing. Given that much time how is it possible that this chemical reaction happened only once?
decades? has it been that long already?...I'm getting impatient
| 154 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:41:49pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
Wow. You should go to work for NASA. Or at the very least, you could tell them how you were able to visit every single planet in existence and study them so closely in such a short lifetime. I am sure they would love know.
| 155 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:42:06pm |
re: #141 Slumbering Behemoth
How can the GOP possibly hope to remain even marginally relevant when promoting, and applauding, the nirthers, creationists, and other assorted kookservatives*?
*h/t: Sharmuta for "kookservatives"
Time for the Freedom Party. Somebody get those modern whigs to change their name and drop the opposition to domestic energy production.
| 156 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:42:22pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
She nails him time and time again, ........
You are really a moron. That was a disgusting exhibition of mindlessness, but I can understand why you can't see it.
| 158 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:44:01pm |
find me some god damned aliens!...I want some aliens NOW!
| 159 |
Racer X Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:44:02pm |
re: #150 Right Brain
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
Language?
Communication method?
Take the blinders off.
| 160 |
Digital Display Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:44:19pm |
re: #150 Right Brain
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
Hey lizard! love astronomy... one sticking point..Radio astronomy have not ventured to the origins of the universe.. We haven't made it past inflation yet..
The bummer of the speed of light..regards..
| 161 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:44:59pm |
re: #151 Naso Tang
I watched all 25 minutes of it.
That little bitch says that God gives one year old kids cancer because they are sinful, and she says it with a straight face!
Gee, I just can't understand why most Americans don't want to vote for these folks?
/
| 162 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:46:33pm |
re: #158 albusteve
find me some god damned aliens!...I want some aliens NOW!
The only reason I watched Chairman Maobama's speech the other night was to see if he would swallow a white mouse on camera...
| 163 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:47:26pm |
re: #151 Naso Tang
I watched all 25 minutes of it.
That little bitch says that God gives one year old kids cancer because they are sinful, and she says it with a straight face!
It's not such a big jump from that kind of thinking to doing away with medical research, because trying to cure illnesses would be against the Intent.
| 164 |
MandyManners Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:47:53pm |
re: #151 Naso Tang
I watched all 25 minutes of it.
That little bitch says that God gives one year old kids cancer because they are sinful, and she says it with a straight face!
I couldn't help thinking that Shermer, what with all his fidgeting and nervous laughs, was sometimes trying hard to keep from slugging her.
This type of religion really is a mental disease, and it has a hell of a lot in common with Islam.
I couldn't watch all of it.
Doesn't that woman know that children are incapable of sinning? Infants? THEY CAN'T EVEN FORM A COHERENT THOUGHT YET.
| 165 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:48:26pm |
re: #146 zombie
Its not a position, I am noting the holes in the arguments, and he is producing the most: whenever someone uses "think" "feel" or "believe" in a question they are violating the rule of parsimony, which is what can be done with fewer assumption is done in vain with more. This rule, also known as Occam's razor is really the foundation of science. Once again, my favorite instructive tool when I taught philosophy was "What High School do you think you went to." The problem is a verbal tick that introduces assumptions, he does it constantly, she never does, because, ta da, she's a scientist.
Now go back and listen to how many times he uses "think" in a question and how many times she does, ie none. She is the one presenting an argument with one assumption ie God made the universe. And to follow his belief we have to have literally hundreds of assumptions, he adds to them every time he opens his mouth. He has not been around scientists that much, his Phd. is in history.
| 166 |
Digital Display Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:48:28pm |
re: #160 HoosierHoops
Hey lizard! love astronomy... one sticking point..Radio astronomy have not ventured to the origins of the universe.. We haven't made it past inflation yet..
The bummer of the speed of light..regards..
Oh please! don't let the Godessoftheclassroom show up and grade the English in my post..PIMF Goddess!
| 167 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:48:31pm |
re: #160 HoosierHoops
Hey lizard! love astronomy... one sticking point..Radio astronomy have not ventured to the origins of the universe.. We haven't made it past inflation yet..
The bummer of the speed of light..regards..
sometimes I find myself driving past the radio telescope thing down on the Plains of Agustin and I'm blown away....those thongs are HUGE and there are like twelve of them....no friffin alien will escape those bad boys forever....we'll snag us some aliens sooner or later
| 168 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:48:48pm |
re: #159 Racer X
Language?
Communication method?Take the blinders off.
That works both ways, you know. Maybe the aliens have been monitoring the crap we watch on TV and are hiding from us as a result...
| 170 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:50:24pm |
Well, I don't know...this is laughable on a number of different levels. It seemed to me that far too much time was spent on inquiring about the girl researcher's religious beliefs. The individual asking the questions failed to make the relevant points about how holding certain religious beliefs interfere with scientific inquiry...the interviewer glanced at these points, but overall (imo) he failed. So what if she believes in a hockey puck in the sky or in a Moon godling or in chocolate pudding? -- I don't care...it doesn't matter -- UNLESS, of course, such beliefs interfere or impede or stymie or distort, etc, the pursuit of science....So, all the questions about "if you don't believe in J.C. you're goin' to hell" -- I don't care or "X believed that slavery was OK, Yeah, everybody believed that" -- I don't care....About the only time the interviewer was "on track" was when he was asking her questions about science (not questions about her religion), for example, about how do you get pathogenic e-coli bacteria? (but the questions were ill-formed and far too brief to even be able to ascertain precisely how this messes up her research -- which I'm quite certain it does if one has the crazy notion that the "bad" bacteria only came about after 'The Fall' -- laughably ridiculous) and then the "confirmation biases", that is one seeks to confirm what one already claims to know -- and her response -- "but you do that too!" was pathetic (again, she should have been nailed for the tu quoque fallacy)...anyway, imo, overall not a great interview -- too much like listening to an atheist trying to convince someone that religious belief is wrong -- when the debate should have been centered on how religious fundamentalist beliefs interfere with or impede scientific inquiry.
| 171 |
danrudy Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:51:28pm |
re: #69 zombie
She comes straight out and says:
Since we know the Bible is literally true, we need to re-interpret all data and toss out all observations which contradict the Bible.
Which is the definition of anti-science. Sheer crazytown.
I think this video is a very good example of why creationism should not be taught in schools.
She interprets her bible one way, someone another way and a different religion completely differently.
The only thing that should be taught is that which can be independently verified and observed. I suppose folks are then welcome to go home and fit these observations into whatever belief system they have (on their own time or with the help of their pastor, rabbi etc).
However, I don't think she is crazy. She is merely trying to fit the observations into her belief system. In fact, within the framework of her system she is quite sane. I don't fear her.
| 172 |
Racer X Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:51:38pm |
re: #168 lobo91
That works both ways, you know. Maybe the aliens have been monitoring the crap we watch on TV and are hiding from us as a result...
LOL!
I was thinking the same thing.
If I was part of an advanced civilization and things were going good, and i knew there were other forms of life, I think I would hide.
| 173 |
albusteve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:51:48pm |
re: #168 lobo91
That works both ways, you know. Maybe the aliens have been monitoring the crap we watch on TV and are hiding from us as a result...
I wonder if they dig pro football?....
| 174 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:53:07pm |
re: #145 The Pulchritudinous Patriot
I was unaware of the Drake theory, let me use it is illustrate the problem:
Drake Theory assumptions
1) There are other civilizations
2) They are technologically advanced
3) Technologically advanced civilizations kill themselves.
4) These technologically civilization did kill themselves.
Creationist theory assumptions
1) God made this earth and no other
See the problem, 4 vs.1.
| 175 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:53:26pm |
re: #172 Racer X
LOL!
I was thinking the same thing.
If I was part of an advanced civilization and things were going good, and i knew there were other forms of life, I think I would hide.
Hell, if they're watching our news, they're probably afraid Obama's going to raise their taxes.
| 176 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:54:01pm |
re: #150 Right Brain
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
I worked once, briefly, for a moron who was heard to say that there were obviously no black holes in the universe because the astronauts in orbit couldn't see any.
Go figure.
| 177 |
CharlieBravo Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:54:07pm |
PhD = Piled higher & Deeper. Stop trying to confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up.
| 178 |
Jim D Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:54:27pm |
re: #165 Right Brain
You taught philosophy? That's scary.
Occam's razor is not about having the fewest number of assumptions, it's about having no more than necessary. Saying that god did it is completely inadequate as a scientific explanation for anything.
| 179 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:54:29pm |
re: #164 MandyManners
I couldn't watch all of it.
Doesn't that woman know that children are incapable of sinning? Infants? THEY CAN'T EVEN FORM A COHERENT THOUGHT YET.
All humans have 'original sin' because of what Adam and Eve did. So, even babies are 'unacceptable to God' - as she so charmingly put it. Unfortunately this is actually a mainstream Christian belief. It was taught to me at the catholic school I attended.
| 180 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:54:55pm |
re: #168 lobo91
That works both ways, you know. Maybe the aliens have been monitoring the crap we watch on TV and are hiding from us as a result...
Remember that after 50 years of probing bottoms they should have figured out that the human bottom is not that interesting scientifically.
| 181 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:55:32pm |
re: #156 Naso Tang
Hey Tang if you want to insult people why don't you go back to Daily Kos, we behave like adults on this site.
| 182 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:55:33pm |
re: #180 LudwigVanQuixote
Remember that after 50 years of probing bottoms they should have figured out that the human bottom is not that interesting scientifically.
Barney Frank dsagrees with you.
| 184 |
Digital Display Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:57:22pm |
re: #173 albusteve
I wonder if they dig pro football?....
Really the only way we get the Aliens to answer back is if Jodie Foster is on line with a radio telescope ala contact..Who doesn't love Jodie?
/ :)
| 185 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:57:47pm |
re: #147 funky chicken
She must be one hell of an actress then. Molecular biology is basically the study of molecular genetics.
You don't get a doctorate in that field believing that bacteria don't evolve. My senior year of undergrad I took bacterial molbio and molbio of cancer.
I'm just in shock....and kinda pissed. This was my field, and I worked my ass off to achieve in it....and [self deleted]
I hear you. I completely hear you. However, and I can not find the links for it, I remember some discussion in the department about the ID crowd sending people to grad school with orders to lay low and get the degree so that they could then become legitimatized talking heads for their movement. I mean they had a call out to places like Liberty University and Oral Roberts U to do this. I honestly think she is the product of this.
| 186 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:58:11pm |
re: #165 Right Brain
Take a look at this photo. It's a picture of an area of the sky called "The Hubble Ultra Deep Field."
In that one image, which is just a teeny tiny portion of the night sky, are countless galaxies extending off to the visible horizon. Each galaxy contains "billions and billions" of stars. And each may have untold numbers of planets. And each planet may have untold numbers of potential life-supporting ecosystems.
All of this in a segment of the sky this big:
Go outside tonight, take a ball-point pen with you, and hold it up in front of the night sky at arm's length. The tip of your pen is about 1 millimeter wide, and at arm's length, it would cover the 10,000 galaxies seen in the Ultra Deep Field image. That's how unbelievably massive the visible universe is.
If you actually try to ponder this, you become completely awestruck.
And even if you then come to the conclusion that homo sapiens are not the center of the Universe, this need not necessarily undermine one's belief in God; in fact, it may only increase your amazement at what he/she/it created.
| 188 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 5:58:41pm |
re: #151 Naso Tang
Shermer has a lot of patience. With Dawkins it would have been a livelier but considerably shorter interview.
| 189 |
Red Pencil Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:00:00pm |
re: #171 danrudy
She is merely trying to fit the observations into her belief system. In fact, within the framework of her system she is quite sane. I don't fear her.
I fear her belief system.
| 190 |
Teh Flowah Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:00:12pm |
Ugh. This makes me angry, sad, scared, and want to throw up all at the same time.
| 191 |
Digital Display Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:01:07pm |
re: #176 Naso Tang
I worked once, briefly, for a moron who was heard to say that there were obviously no black holes in the universe because the astronauts in orbit couldn't see any.
Go figure.
Disgustingly stupid..Just point them to a science site...
Science theater 3000 will probably work in this case..
| 192 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:01:19pm |
re: #163 jaunte
It's not such a big jump from that kind of thinking to doing away with medical research, because trying to cure illnesses would be against the Intent.
We know where we would be if intellectual parasites like this were the norm. We sure as hell would be sitting here communicating like this. If god had meant us to communicate without speaking face to face, we would all have been given ESP (and we would all be New Age hippies living in yurts to boot).
What really pisses me off with this mindlessness is the ease with which pain and suffering can be not only justified, but directed against others. This pretend Phd probably couldn't get a job anywhere except where she is; and I can just imagine her 5 year old mentaly abused daughter being told that if she wets her bed once more god may blind her through brain cancer.
| 193 |
danrudy Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:04:24pm |
re: #171 danrudy
I think this video is a very good example of why creationism should not be taught in schools.
She interprets her bible one way, someone another way and a different religion completely differently.
The only thing that should be taught is that which can be independently verified and observed. I suppose folks are then welcome to go home and fit these observations into whatever belief system they have (on their own time or with the help of their pastor, rabbi etc).
However, I don't think she is crazy. She is merely trying to fit the observations into her belief system. In fact, within the framework of her system she is quite sane. I don't fear her.
And just before people get bent out of shape....my saying I don't fear her is meant as in I don't fear her blowing up my public schools and resorting to violence.
I would be very displeased if this was taught in schools and thus it should be continued to be resisted (with full force)...I just don't think we need to be afraid of these folks as if they were going to be blowing up public schools that fail to teach creationism... this is a different animal then the abortion debate.
Now
| 194 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:04:28pm |
re: #181 Right Brain
Hey Tang if you want to insult people why don't you go back to Daily Kos, we behave like adults on this site.
We also call a spade a spade and a moron a moron when called for. Ignorance is one thing, but outright moral degeneracy excused by religion is another.
You have absolutely nothing in common with most Christians.
| 195 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:05:20pm |
re: #186 zombie
Amazing photo! Even atheists like me start believing something must have started this.
| 196 |
Right Brain Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:06:12pm |
re: #194 Naso Tang
Not a Christian, an atheist. I don't have imaginary friends.
| 198 |
Wendya Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:07:16pm |
re: #2 notutopia
Pathogenic Bacterial strains have NOT evolved? Uh, I think the pharmocodynamics and chemists who are creating new antibiotics every few years, would strongly disagree.
Satan corrupted them and made them bad!
/
| 199 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:07:41pm |
| 200 |
warlock Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:08:10pm |
This woman has drunk more deeply from the fountain of unreason than anyone I have ever heard.
I wouldn't let her teach my daughter so much as how to tie her shoe.
I can hear her in a genetics class: "Class, your DNA contains about 3 billion base pairs. How, you may ask, well I will tell you. God sat down one day and arranged all 3 billion in less than a day."
| 202 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:08:58pm |
re: #196 Right Brain
Not a Christian, an atheist. I don't have imaginary friends.
This is somehow incompatible with the certainty that we are alone in the universe.
| 203 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:09:50pm |
| 204 |
SpartacusDk Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:11:21pm |
I'm proud that Denmark is in second place on the acceptance of evolution list
Next year we'll kick Iceland off the top spot!
| 205 |
danrudy Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:12:56pm |
re: #164 MandyManners
I couldn't watch all of it.
Doesn't that woman know that children are incapable of sinning? Infants? THEY CAN'T EVEN FORM A COHERENT THOUGHT YET.
I never understand why any religion tries to explain a gods motives...especially when it comes to things that seem so incomprehensible. I always thought it was a better answer to say something along the lines of "we don't know god's motives for everything that is done" instead of trying to ascribe some human attribute or explanation.
| 207 |
sattv4u2 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:15:02pm |
re: #203 lobo91
Probably not a lot of actual ones, either.
You owe me a puter screen. Soda ALL over this one!
| 208 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:15:32pm |
Well, if it's true that the lack of sunspots heralds a new Ice Age, this will all be academic.
re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote
I want to comment on some of the AGW and creationist crossover. This is a repost from another thread that I have edited a bit. There is the same sort of almost religious fervor in the arguments.
As soon as one starts going into one world government conspiracy theory, particularly from the scientific community on AGW, they seriously damage your credibility as a "level headed scientific type." It is hard enough hanging with the Elders of Zion to keep appeasing my masters at the APS...
Respectfully, "I hate Al Gore" is not a scientific statement. I am not his biggest fan, but please consider that he is not a scientist and he does not really represent the community. He is a politician. The political circus around him is not science either.
To really get at what is going on with AGW you need to know something about that non linear systems. Non-linear dynamics is my field.
If you wish to get into this I will be glad to. However, I wish that you keep the tone respectful.
CO2 really is a greenhouse gas. We know this for a fact from the absorption spectra and we can even calculate said spectra using QM. This is not in debate.
Many point out a lot about carbon from other sources, but they neglect many other facets of the system. For one thing, many different forms of pollution have deeply depleted ocean algae and there has been massive deforestation in the last century. This is caused by man, and it means that there is much less of a carbon sink.
Further, if it were just a matter of natural volcanic cycles, blah, blah, blah, we would not see the steady increases in CO2 from Keeling curves that we do. This is not the hockey stick, but rather direct optical measurement of concentrations in the atmosphere. The rate of eruptions has not been increasing dramatically in the last fifty years. So it must be something else.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Another issue that is rarely taken into account is methane from vastly increased farm industrial farming operations. This is dismissed smugly as "cow farts" but the problem is not just cow farts at all. Consider a CAFO. A pig produces per day, as much feces as eight adult humans. That means one CAFO in Texas, with two million swine (and there are many CAFOs, and not just in Texas) produces as much feces as the New York metro area. What happens to all of that fecal matter? For one thing legislation was passed to ease regulation on cleaning it up so, unlike New York, there is no waste management or sewage treatment. In fact, there are giant lakes of feces. This releases vast amounts of methane. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
There is also a conversation about water vapor and us silly scientists not noticing it. Again, like the creationists, that like to misquote the Second Law, do people really think that they figured out something really basic, that somehow the whole scientific community missed? Do consider that if it gets warmer for other reasons, there will be more water vapor in the air and now you have a feedback loop.
Finally, there are those who love to cherry pick facts. On a cold day they gloat that Aha, there is no global warming. It is supposed to be cold in winter. What is more accurate is to look at all of the trends and notice a lot of warm days too.
Then there are those who want to say "how can warming possibly cause cooling?" They then smugly discredit anything that might follow. The answer to that question is in most people's kitchen - and once again goes to not understanding Thermodynamics. How does a refrigerator work?
Quixote asks that when those come to yell at me, we keep it respectful.
| 209 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:16:33pm |
Note on some of my earlier comments.
There is a lot of data that shows that life arose on Earth very shortly after it was cool enough to allow it. This suggests that a planet with the right mix of features is actually likely to develop lifeforms of some kind.
The universe is really really big. There are likely many Earth like planets out there. It would be very surprising if Earth is the only one with critters on it.
However, the universe is really, really big. getting from here to there is very far from trivial. If that iis in some way practical to do with as yet undiscovered physics, it would still not be trivial to do. This leads me to doubt that aliens capable of such feats would waste their time sticking their fingers in people's bottoms.
| 210 |
Tigger2005 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:18:33pm |
re: #179 Jimmah
All humans have 'original sin' because of what Adam and Eve did. So, even babies are 'unacceptable to God' - as she so charmingly put it. Unfortunately this is actually a mainstream Christian belief. It was taught to me at the catholic school I attended.
"We are not sinners because we sin ... we sin because we are sinners."
| 211 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:18:45pm |
re: #165 Right Brain
Its not a position, I am noting the holes in the arguments, and he is producing the most: whenever someone uses "think" "feel" or "believe" in a question they are violating the rule of parsimony, which is what can be done with fewer assumption is done in vain with more. This rule, also known as Occam's razor is really the foundation of science. Once again, my favorite instructive tool when I taught philosophy was "What High School do you think you went to." The problem is a verbal tick that introduces assumptions, he does it constantly, she never does, because, ta da, she's a scientist.
Now go back and listen to how many times he uses "think" in a question and how many times she does, ie none. She is the one presenting an argument with one assumption ie God made the universe. And to follow his belief we have to have literally hundreds of assumptions, he adds to them every time he opens his mouth. He has not been around scientists that much, his Phd. is in history.
re: #174 Right Brain
I was unaware of the Drake theory, let me use it is illustrate the problem:
Drake Theory assumptions
1) There are other civilizations
2) They are technologically advanced
3) Technologically advanced civilizations kill themselves.
4) These technologically civilization did kill themselves.Creationist theory assumptions
1) God made this earth and no otherSee the problem, 4 vs.1.
Copy this line of text, paste into a word-processing program, increase the point size to about 48-point, then print it out, and paste it above your desk:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
| 212 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:18:56pm |
re: #185 LudwigVanQuixote
I hear you. I completely hear you. However, and I can not find the links for it, I remember some discussion in the department about the ID crowd sending people to grad school with orders to lay low and get the degree so that they could then become legitimatized talking heads for their movement. I mean they had a call out to places like Liberty University and Oral Roberts U to do this. I honestly think she is the product of this.
um....uh....
jeez. imagine being the duped dissertation advisor?
| 214 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:19:32pm |
re: #208 Tigger2005
Well, if it's true that the lack of sunspots heralds a new Ice Age, this will all be academic.
Truth, but that is also pretty speculative right now and unfortunately has been politicized. I am witholding judgement untill a lot more evidence comes in.
| 215 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:19:35pm |
re: #196 Right Brain
Not a Christian, an atheist. I don't have imaginary friends.
I'm a Christian and don't consider G-d imaginary, nor my friend. We're not peers, you see.
| 216 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:20:48pm |
re: #202 jaunte
This is somehow incompatible with the certainty that we are alone in the universe.
This guy is troll. It takes a minimum amount of intelligence to justify being an atheist, and having done so there is little incentive to make the position appear the sole province of morons.
| 217 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:21:22pm |
re: #212 funky chicken
um....uh....
jeez. imagine being the duped dissertation advisor?
Yeah. That really sucks.
| 218 |
nom de boom Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:21:57pm |
As a layman and a liberal arts type, I am way out of my depth when it comes to this stuff. Could any of you professionals give me a couple of examples illustrating how creationism would influence the actual execution of scientific work like the formulation of anti-bacterial drugs? I always assumed that the theory of origins definitely had an impact on areas like paleontology, but not so much on non-historical fields like microbiology, etc.
| 219 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:22:34pm |
re: #216 Naso Tang
I think you're right. Dropping stuff like "I don't have imaginary friends" into the posts is a dead giveaway.
| 220 |
KansasMom Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:23:38pm |
Ohio State University must be so proud of their graduate.
How in the h-e-doublehockeysticks did this woman get a PHD? "Because God said so" hardly a dissertation makes.
| 221 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:24:09pm |
re: #192 Naso Tang
and I can just imagine her 5 year old mentaly abused daughter being told that if she wets her bed once more god may blind her through brain cancer.
Well, if you are claiming to be an empiricist, please present your evidence in support of the above claim. thank you.
| 222 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:24:15pm |
If a person felt the need to find a spiritual or magical source for something like cancer, wouldn't it be smarter to ascribe it to the enemy...in Christianity's case, that would be Satan, right?
I have come across these kinds of creeps in the past, and they are repulsive....exactly the opposite of what "evangelical" is supposed to mean.
| 223 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:24:29pm |
re: #209 LudwigVanQuixote
Life popped up almost as soon as it had the merest chance, making it seem like a relatively probably event. At the same time, it took a long long time for intelligent life to arise, making that seem like a relatively very improbable event. So while the odds may be that there is likely to be a lot of life out there, it may nevertheless be very unlikely that there is much intelligent life out there.
I rmember reading that someone had calculated that it would take an intelligent civilisation with only modestly improved technology to ours a mere 1 million years to colonise the galaxy, assuming they were in no particular hurry. I can't vouch for the calculations, but if true it would suggest that we could be the only intelligent civilisation in this galaxy?
| 224 |
Daryl Herbert Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:24:37pm |
Michael Shermer is an ignorant f@@@wit.
Specifically, he calls Ken Miller an "evangelical, born-again Christian[]" at about 3:40.
Miller is CATHOLIC.
I doubt Michael Shermer even knows the difference. Shermer just uses words like "evangelical" and "born-again" as synonyms for "wacky believers." That's insulting and degrading to evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike.
| 225 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:25:34pm |
re: #220 KansasMom
Ohio State University must be so proud of their graduate.
How in the h-e-doublehockeysticks did this woman get a PHD? "Because God said so" hardly a dissertation makes.
That was my point earlier in the thread. It's unlikely that she would have presented a PhD dissertation at Ohio State that flew in the face of science.
| 226 |
ConservatismNow! Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:25:35pm |
re: #179 Jimmah
All humans have 'original sin' because of what Adam and Eve did. So, even babies are 'unacceptable to God' - as she so charmingly put it. Unfortunately this is actually a mainstream Christian belief. It was taught to me at the catholic school I attended.
This, unfortunately, is one of the fundamental differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestants and is definitely not a question that man can answer.
| 227 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:26:30pm |
re: #195 Right Brain
Amazing photo! Even atheists like me start believing something must have started this.
More than that, it totally undermines your ridiculous assertion that just because we haven't detected radio signals coming from some extraterrestrial civilization, that means that there necessarily must not be any extraterrestrial civilizations.
99.999+% of the stars and planets in the universe are in galaxies that are unimaginably far away from us. Even if they were pumping out radio waves at a furious pace, it would all quickly get drowned out by the billions of other stars in that particular galaxy, and then that particular galaxy's radiation would have to be detected by us in the first place. And even if we detected it, descrambling the alien's radio signal would be like try to hear a single mosquito's buzz in the middle of a million nuclear explosions all at once -- while standing a thousand miles away.
| 228 |
ConservatismNow! Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:28:04pm |
re: #227 zombie
Yeah, the sheer size of the universe is astronomical. Yes that was a joke.
| 229 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:28:12pm |
re: #218 nom de boom
As a layman and a liberal arts type, I am way out of my depth when it comes to this stuff. Could any of you professionals give me a couple of examples illustrating how creationism would influence the actual execution of scientific work like the formulation of anti-bacterial drugs? I always assumed that the theory of origins definitely had an impact on areas like paleontology, but not so much on non-historical fields like microbiology, etc.
The simple answer is called "the god of the gaps". In the broad sense, not gaps in fossils, but gaps in understanding, anything.
There is no research done by people like this woman in the video (did you watch it?), and she admits as much. Anything difficult has an answer in the bible, so there is no point in investigating it further.
As she also explains, illogically, she does not "interpret" the bible she just reads the meaning, and all those who disagree do so only because "they" interpret.
This type of thinking has an answer for everything difficult, and hence is intellectually lazy. AKA Creationists.
| 230 |
MPH Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:29:06pm |
| 231 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:29:06pm |
re: #220 KansasMom
Ohio State University must be so proud of their graduate.
How in the h-e-doublehockeysticks did this woman get a PHD? "Because God said so" hardly a dissertation makes.
She probably kept her views to herself until she got her Ph.D.
| 232 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:30:17pm |
re: #221 J.S.
Well, if you are claiming to be an empiricist, please present your evidence in support of the above claim. thank you.
I'm guessing you didn't see the video, but if you want a concise answer to the above, it follows:
//
| 233 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:30:41pm |
re: #231 Dark_Falcon
Here you see the oppression inherent in science.
/
| 234 |
MPH Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:31:25pm |
This video is so ridiculous is almost doesn't seem real.
| 235 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:32:05pm |
I also want to make a predicition.
The New ID talking point will be "scientific relativism" that all data is the same, but that I have just as much right to my "starting point" as you do to yours.
Thus they will argue that "if the evolutionist has a valid right to his bias in starting point, our bias is just as valid."
They will then argue that both need to be taught out of intellectual fairness and we will see thes folks glom on to the talking points of the far left.
I am calling this now.
| 236 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:32:26pm |
Right now I'm looking out the window at a new crescent moon, along with some planet -- Venus or Jupiter or Saturn, I assume (I'm not enough of a skywatcher to keep track).
Fantastic-looking. One can almost understand why the Arabs became moon worshippers.
Then that nutcase Mohammed came along and ruined everything.
| 237 |
KansasMom Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:34:47pm |
re: #225 rightymouse
Ah, sorry, came late to the thread. I just read your earlier comment, 113, and yes it would be very interesting to see her dissertation paper. This woman couldn't explain anything without using the "word of God" to justify her answer. In addition to a dissertation, she would have needed to defend it to a panel of professors.
How, how, HOW did she manage that? Its hard to believe she would be any good at closeting her true intentions, but she must have pulled it off.
| 238 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:34:59pm |
Going back to Ludwig's point in 209 and in answer to my own question on #223 it could well be that truly advanced civilisations just don't do the sort of things that we might expect them to. Strange as it may seem to us, they might have better and more interesting things to do with their time than exploring space and colonising galaxies.
| 239 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:37:29pm |
re: #232 Naso Tang
I watched the video. What I am interested in is this -- how did you arrive at the following (and I'm quoting from your post):
I can just imagine her 5 year old mentaly abused daughter being told that if she wets her bed once more god may blind her through brain cancer.
One more time, if you are claiming to be an empiricist, please present your evidence in support of the above claim. thank you.
| 240 |
odorlesspaintthinner Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:37:50pm |
It's cool that Catholics don't have to sweat fundamentalism. Come home, all ye Protestants!
| 241 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:39:47pm |
re: #223 Jimmah
Life popped up almost as soon as it had the merest chance, making it seem like a relatively probably event. At the same time, it took a long long time for intelligent life to arise, making that seem like a relatively very improbable event. So while the odds may be that there is likely to be a lot of life out there, it may nevertheless be very unlikely that there is much intelligent life out there.
I rmember reading that someone had calculated that it would take an intelligent civilisation with only modestly improved technology to ours a mere 1 million years to colonise the galaxy, assuming they were in no particular hurry. I can't vouch for the calculations, but if true it would suggest that we could be the only intelligent civilisation in this galaxy?
Well yes and no about the colonization bit and being in no particular hurry.
I suppose that if we put a large amount of the world's GDP into R&D we could come up with a nice large scale fusion powered ram scoop kind of thing that could carry frozen people on a 1000 year voyage to the neares star. Give the outer colonies a couple of hundred years to terreform and build up a the capacity to send the next wave ok , you gain some 10-20 ly diameter every couple of thousand years. You need to send probes out before each step.
The thing is, there is no near term technology that would make this something you would want to do unless it were some sort of cultural imperative.
A very, very large ship or fleet of such ships even would not carry all that many colonists. It is not a solution to overpopulation. There is no real imperative to do it.
| 242 |
lobo91 Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:41:12pm |
re: #238 Jimmah
Going back to Ludwig's point in 209 and in answer to my own question on #223 it could well be that truly advanced civilisations just don't do the sort of things that we might expect them to. Strange as it may seem to us, they might have better and more interesting things to do with their time than exploring space and colonising galaxies.
Or they might not find us that interesting. Remember what the entry for Earth in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy said:
"Mostly harmless." That was the complete entry.
| 243 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:41:14pm |
re: #185 LudwigVanQuixote
I hear you. I completely hear you. However, and I can not find the links for it, I remember some discussion in the department about the ID crowd sending people to grad school with orders to lay low and get the degree so that they could then become legitimatized talking heads for their movement. I mean they had a call out to places like Liberty University and Oral Roberts U to do this. I honestly think she is the product of this.
Some years ago I tried to get my feet wet with these discussions in some creationists blog, now closed, but the guy who ran it did just that. He went to college to get a degree in biology, specifically so that he could now say he had a science degree and was then qualified to debunk what he had pretended to learn.
I'm serious.
| 244 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:41:27pm |
re: #237 KansasMom
Ah, sorry, came late to the thread. I just read your earlier comment, 113, and yes it would be very interesting to see her dissertation paper. This woman couldn't explain anything without using the "word of God" to justify her answer. In addition to a dissertation, she would have needed to defend it to a panel of professors.
How, how, HOW did she manage that? Its hard to believe she would be any good at closeting her true intentions, but she must have pulled it off.
It would be interesting to find out what her dissertation was all about, for sure. Also, was she an ID convert at the time or did that come later?
Presenting/defending a dissertation, as you point out, is no small feat.
| 245 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:43:01pm |
re: #236 zombie
Right now I'm looking out the window at a new crescent moon, along with some planet -- Venus or Jupiter or Saturn, I assume (I'm not enough of a skywatcher to keep track).
Fantastic-looking. One can almost understand why the Arabs became moon worshippers.
Then that nutcase Mohammed came along and ruined everything.
Probably everyone knows but me; but where are you?
The sky far from cities is whole different universe than 90% of us see.
| 246 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:43:11pm |
re: #235 LudwigVanQuixote
Why do you have to go and give them ideas?
| 248 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:43:29pm |
re: #243 Naso Tang
Some years ago I tried to get my feet wet with these discussions in some creationists blog, now closed, but the guy who ran it did just that. He went to college to get a degree in biology, specifically so that he could now say he had a science degree and was then qualified to debunk what he had pretended to learn.
I'm serious.
I need to find the documents on line somewhere, but this was a real call in these circles some years back. I was not hallucinating the discussions in the department about it.
| 249 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:44:00pm |
re: #246 Slumbering Behemoth
Why do you have to go and give them ideas?
Listen to her carefully, she already has that idea.
| 250 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:46:34pm |
re: #239 J.S.
I watched the video. What I am interested in is this -- how did you arrive at the following (and I'm quoting from your post):
One more time, if you are claiming to be an empiricist, please present your evidence in support of the above claim. thank you.
She was asked about how to justify a 1 year old getting brain cancer. She also repeatedly made references to any sin of any kind by anyone being all equivalent in the eyes of god (her god that is).
The insult was directed at her, not you or anyone I have come to know here. I trust I am not wrong in making that distinction.
| 251 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:46:46pm |
re: #247 Cato the Elder
This woman is a cretin.
No, she's not. She's a committed ideologue. That's a kind of stupidity when the ideology is stupid, but it is a willful stupidity. That's much worse than simply being born a moron.
| 252 |
zombie Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:46:50pm |
re: #245 Naso Tang
Probably everyone knows but me; but where are you?
The sky far from cities is whole different universe than 90% of us see.
San Francisco Bay Area.
I'm hoping to catch a glimpse of that green comet tonight. First cloudless night in weeks.
| 253 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:47:56pm |
re: #249 LudwigVanQuixote
Sorry, I should have been more specific: Why do you have to go and give the trolls ideas?
/not that they wouldn't already be getting similar talking points from other sources
| 255 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:48:26pm |
re: #240 odorlesspaintthinner
It's cool that Catholics don't have to sweat fundamentalism. Come home, all ye Protestants!
Ya know, the husband was raised devout Catholic. I didn't like Catholic church...choreographed, scripture reading only the little chunk in the order of service book (whatever it's called) and the whole Easter Vigil thing weirded me out...and the belief that the little wafer actually becomes a chunk of human/god flesh....and then I'm supposed to eat that?
I'm a scientist by training, so Catholicism was just a bridge too far...but the nonsense in so many protestant churches is out of control. It seems like we'd have to choose between creationist denominations or ones that bash Israel. Since attending some kind of church service is important to my husband, I'm looking at RC again.
| 257 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:49:08pm |
re: #243 Naso Tang
Some years ago I tried to get my feet wet with these discussions in some creationists blog, now closed, but the guy who ran it did just that. He went to college to get a degree in biology, specifically so that he could now say he had a science degree and was then qualified to debunk what he had pretended to learn.
Sounds like Jonathan Wells.
Wells said that "destroying Darwinism" was his motive for studying Christian theology at Yale and going on to seek his second Ph.D. at Berkeley, studying biology and in particular embryology.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 258 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:49:38pm |
re: #235 LudwigVanQuixote
I think you're right. We should expect to see statements like: "Both positions are equally biased. The creationist's bias is their assumptions about the inerrancy of the bible, the scientists bias is the 'assumption' that those assumptions have no place in science."
| 259 |
Wendya Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:49:47pm |
| 260 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:50:55pm |
re: #243 Naso Tang
Some years ago I tried to get my feet wet with these discussions in some creationists blog, now closed, but the guy who ran it did just that. He went to college to get a degree in biology, specifically so that he could now say he had a science degree and was then qualified to debunk what he had pretended to learn.
I'm serious.
I guess people have worked harder to "infiltrate the enemy camp."
deeply disturbing
| 262 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:51:47pm |
re: #252 zombie
San Francisco Bay Area.
I'm hoping to catch a glimpse of that green comet tonight. First cloudless night in weeks.
Weather has been bad here too for this one.
I remember Hale Bop. You know, the one populated by a group of kool aid drinkers. That was visible in daylight.
| 263 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:52:09pm |
| 264 |
pingjockey Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:52:26pm |
re: #261 zombie
Thanks. I'll have to see if it's visible up here in the northwest.
| 265 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:54:03pm |
re: #251 Dark_Falcon
She could be an ideologue, but she could also be a huckster, knowing this is a load of shit but, seeing as how it keeps her in a job with good money...
It's hard to tell. There are certainly examples of both within the creationism industry, and no doubt many who are a bit of both as well.
| 266 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:54:04pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
She nails him time and time again, his argument (and his annoying habit of using the word "think" in an interrogative (What High School do you think you went to?)) is that most people once believe in creationism, but now most people believe in evolution so it must be right. OK, so then most people were wrong but now most people are right?
She hoisted herself on her own rhetorical petards so many times that she must have a permanent wedgie. And yes, with the advancement of scientific knowledge, theories that more closely comport with observed reality blossom while those that don't do so decline.
Further if he is correct that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then the onus is on him to explain why we cannot find life on other planets, and we have been looking with our radio-telescopes for decades and finding nothing. Given that much time how is it possible that this chemical reaction happened only once?
[Link: www.nickbostrom.com...]
| 267 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:54:15pm |
| 268 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:56:32pm |
re: #251 Dark_Falcon
No, she's not. She's a committed ideologue. That's a kind of stupidity when the ideology is stupid, but it is a willful stupidity. That's much worse than simply being born a moron.
True.
My Dad is a retired PhD - a Biblical scholar and translation consultant. He is also an ordained minister. He would scoff at her nonsense. Dr. Purdom does not understand the Bible at all.
| 269 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:56:45pm |
re: #267 Dark_Falcon
What does that stand for?
Cato paraphrased Aquinas, "I fear the woman of one book"
I responded
I think therefore I am depressed,
A play on Descartes.
| 270 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:56:46pm |
re: #113 rightymouse
re: #237 KansasMom
re: #244 rightymouse
Here it is... in the "card catalog". Since it was in 2000 it pre-dates Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) submission.
More info. The first three are likely the papers that came out of her dissertation (i.e. the discrete units that were integrated into the dissertation). A brief glance at the titles suggests she was into Structural Biology (i.e. the shape/function of individual proteins).
| 271 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:56:46pm |
re: #266 Salamantis
Nick Bostrom is an insanely smart dude.
| 272 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:56:57pm |
re: #266 Salamantis
Too late Sal, the chicken shit has taken flight, voluntarily.
| 273 |
KansasMom Thu, Feb 26, 2009 6:59:21pm |
re: #239 J.S.
NT already answered you, but here's my 2 cents anyway.
She did say she had a 5 year old daughter who was a "guilty little sinner". I believe she was trying to say that while childhood cancer is sad, even children are sinners in the eyes of God and therefore not immune to disease. The unspoken conclusion to her statements is that children who have cancer must be especially bad sinners. Because sin=God's wrath=decay and pathogens.
All good Christian parents I know tell their children that God loves them, not that God thinks they are guilty little sinners.
| 274 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:00:24pm |
re: #262 Naso Tang
I remember Hale Bop. You know, the one populated by a group of kool aid drinkers. That was visible in daylight.
I had the great fortune of having to be at work at 5 am during that event. Drinking my morning coffee, staring at that thing in the dark morning sky. Spectacular is a woefully inadequate description.
| 275 |
funky chicken Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:00:34pm |
Well, you guys have a good night. I'm off to wrap my brain around this story, and install Norton updates.
| 276 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:01:35pm |
re: #273 KansasMom
NT already answered you, but here's my 2 cents anyway.
She did say she had a 5 year old daughter who was a "guilty little sinner". I believe she was trying to say that while childhood cancer is sad, even children are sinners in the eyes of God and therefore not immune to disease. The unspoken conclusion to her statements is that children who have cancer must be especially bad sinners. Because sin=God's wrath=decay and pathogens.
All good Christian parents I know tell their children that God loves them, not that God thinks they are guilty little sinners.
Yeah, this is sick. It also means that they missed out on the entire book of Job. The point being that God does things we will not understand.
| 277 |
Wendya Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:01:48pm |
re: #224 Daryl Herbert
I doubt Michael Shermer even knows the difference. Shermer just uses words like "evangelical" and "born-again" as synonyms for "wacky believers." That's insulting and degrading to evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike.
The vast majority of evangelicals don't believe in evolution either.
| 278 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:02:07pm |
re: #250 Naso Tang
I think that at times what happens is that insults and abuse are hurled one side versus the other -- and everyone's caught up in the heated exchanges, and meanwhile the more important aspects are overlooked. For example, I don't care about her beliefs about invisible entities or what she claims took place in year X, etc, etc. What I do care about (and perhaps what others should care about) are things such as
1) How, precisely, do her beliefs impede her scientific inquiries? This needs to be specified; it needs to be pinpointed; elaborated. If necessary, perhaps her "research" needs to be re-examined. Examined rigourously...perhaps including her PhD dissertation.
2) How are such individuals (assuming that question number 1 has been addressed) allowed to obtain advanced degrees? Is some sort of disciplinary action required? Who were her supervisors?
(imo, these matters may be more important than whether or not she's believing that "sin causes cancer.")
| 279 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:03:17pm |
re: #272 Naso Tang
Spankings in absentia are one of the fine traditions of creationism threads.
| 280 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:03:56pm |
re: #150 Right Brain
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
They can hear if someone is broadcasting on the monitored frequency...but the farther away the source, the louder the broadcast would have to be. They certainly cannot overhear two aliens chatting with each other on an extraterrestrial other-planet-circling-other-star street corner. And the noise from various electromagnetic sources throughout the univere would tend to distort a lot of radio transmissions beyond recognition as patterned and intelligent, and even blot many out. I would suggest a deep space solar powered beacon in order to transmit something receivable and recognizable.
| 281 |
Dark_Falcon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:04:09pm |
re: #272 Naso Tang
Too late Sal, the chicken shit has taken flight, voluntarily.
They tend to run when Sal is coming. His posts have been known to cause creationist heads to explode.
| 282 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:04:30pm |
re: #270 Dan G.
re: #237 KansasMom
re: #244 rightymouse
Here it is... in the "card catalog". Since it was in 2000 it pre-dates Electronic Thesis and Dissertation (ETD) submission.
More info. The first three are likely the papers that came out of her dissertation (i.e. the discrete units that were integrated into the dissertation). A brief glance at the titles suggests she was into Structural Biology (i.e. the shape/function of individual proteins).
If I read that right, it was a theses? Isn't theses work considered Master's level?
Still, it does look like her focus was on Structural Biology. I would be hard pressed to conceive of the notion that that she deviated from what was expected from her at the PhD level for an acceptable dissertation at Ohio State.
| 283 |
VioletTiger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:06:36pm |
re: #272 Naso Tang
Too late Sal, the chicken shit has taken flight, voluntarily.
Or as Brit in Japan would say, he had to 'walk a giraffe'
| 284 |
mirage Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:07:35pm |
re: #133 SFGoth
The Dominion? Really? I thought the Federation beat them, but I admit that I gave up watching after a few years -- too serialized.
The last three years of DSN were much, much better than the first 4.
| 285 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:08:07pm |
re: #282 rightymouse
If I read that right, it was a theses? Isn't theses work considered Master's level?
Still, it does look like her focus was on Structural Biology. I would be hard pressed to conceive of the notion that that she deviated from what was expected from her at the PhD level for an acceptable dissertation at Ohio State.
Doctoral Thesis is a dissertation. No I am certain now she was one of the stealth plants for this. The timing is correct for it too.
| 286 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:08:54pm |
re: #275 funky chicken
Well, you guys have a good night. I'm off to wrap my brain around this story, and install Norton updates.
Norton is banned around here, since the last time I did that. Good luck.
| 287 |
Wendya Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:09:44pm |
And from Holland.....
Yesterday 3 Feb, the Dutch evangelical, TV presentator and former director of the Evangelical Broadcast Organisation (EO), Andries Knevel, openly rejected his belief in Young Earth Creationism and ID. He apologized for promoting those beliefs in the past years to his children and the public. He wants credibility, reliability and belief. He desires an open debate about God and evolution with believers and non-believers alike. He believes GOD and evolution do not exclude each other. Both science and belief have their own value. He still belief that God created heaven and earth en that Jesus is our Saviour.
On July 27 2007 it was discovered and documented [Link: evolutie.blog.com...] that the EO censored all evolution and old earth from the BBC documentaries of David Attenborough. Now the EO no longer denies it was censorship indeed by showing fragments they censored in the past years. This is a remarkable breakthrough and conversion. Especially hopeful in the Darwinyear 2009. There are still YEC’s in Holland, but the main evangelical television station has made a very promising move.
Gert Korthof
[Link: pandasthumb.org...]
| 288 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:11:35pm |
re: #279 Jimmah
Spankings in absentia are one of the fine traditions of creationism threads.
Sorry, I got carried away there I think.
Carry on Sal.
;)
| 289 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:16:46pm |
re: #288 Naso Tang
Sorry - my post there reads a bit like a reprimand. I should have added a ;-).
| 290 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:17:21pm |
re: #285 LudwigVanQuixote
Doctoral Thesis is a dissertation. No I am certain now she was one of the stealth plants for this. The timing is correct for it too.
Would have no clue about anyone being a stealth plant. Here are her own words - looks like this may have all started about the time she got her PhD?
| 291 |
ladycatnip Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:17:54pm |
I had to stop the feed about 60 seconds into it because I found her irritating. For one who has her Ph.D in molecular genetics, her aversion to the word evolution borders on the superstitious.
| 292 |
KansasMom Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:19:11pm |
re: #270 Dan G.
Well, she did say that the issue of creationism never came up while she was in college. Hard to believe, considering her degree field. I'm not a biologist, but if she stuck to the mechanics of proteins, instead of their function in a system perhaps she managed to dodge the issue.
Until she graduated, then her focus appears to shift.....
| 293 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:19:26pm |
re: #291 ladycatnip
I had to stop the feed about 60 seconds into it because I found her irritating. For one who has her Ph.D in molecular genetics, her aversion to the word evolution borders on the superstitious.
It looks like she tried to reconcile her knowledge of science with her faith and science lost out.
| 294 |
VioletTiger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:19:35pm |
After watching the entire video it's hard to believe that she can talk about organisms changing but not see that she was saying that they evolved. Just because she doesn't see bacteria evolve into fruit flies doesn't mean they haven't evolved. The existance of something like MRSA is to me some of the biggest proof of evolution. These organisms evolved from less lethal forms of bacteria, or at least forms that were not so resistant to antibiotics. The stress on their population was probably the antibiotics we use. The result is bacteria that is very resistant to antibiotics. That's why we need to keep coming up with different antibiotics and the ones from 20 years ago don't work as well.
| 295 |
Wendya Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:19:57pm |
re: #290 rightymouse
Would have no clue about anyone being a stealth plant. Here are her own words - looks like this may have all started about the time she got her PhD?
Good grief!
I remember going back to my room that afternoon and thinking if that information is correct then I have no choice–God said it, that settles it.
Time to turn off the brain.
| 296 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:20:34pm |
re: #165 Right Brain
Its not a position, I am noting the holes in the arguments, and he is producing the most: whenever someone uses "think" "feel" or "believe" in a question they are violating the rule of parsimony, which is what can be done with fewer assumption is done in vain with more. This rule, also known as Occam's razor is really the foundation of science. Once again, my favorite instructive tool when I taught philosophy was "What High School do you think you went to." The problem is a verbal tick that introduces assumptions, he does it constantly, she never does, because, ta da, she's a scientist.
Now go back and listen to how many times he uses "think" in a question and how many times she does, ie none. She is the one presenting an argument with one assumption ie God made the universe. And to follow his belief we have to have literally hundreds of assumptions, he adds to them every time he opens his mouth. He has not been around scientists that much, his Phd. is in history.
I couldn't help noticing that you refer to holes in his arguments, without mentioning a single one specifically. As far as assumptions goes, empirical science endeavors to proceed with as few assumptions as possible. She, otoh, premise everything on a really big and empirically untestable assumption, and tries to argue against the empirically testable with it.
My BA is in philosophy, and it is the major track in my humanities interdisciplinary MA. If you were indeed a philosophy teacher, which your comments have led me to most sincerely doubt, I have contempt for your teachers and pity for your students. Especially since you mention Occam's Razor, which says that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation requiring the least explanatory entities while still accounting for all the observable phenomena to which it is supposed to apply is most likely the best. This is the logical principle that many people have invoked in argument against the existence of an intelligent designer, which, in order to possess the intelligence and will necessary for it to create the universe, would itself of necessity have to be more complex than the universe itself, and would therefore require even more explanation that the universe alone requires. And this hypothetical deity's creator would of necessity be required to be more complex still, and IT'S creator even MORE complex, in an infinite regression...ever more complex turtles, requiring ever more explanation, all the way down a bottomless pit.
| 297 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:20:50pm |
re: #290 rightymouse
Would have no clue about anyone being a stealth plant. Here are her own words - looks like this may have all started about the time she got her PhD?
OK she got religion while in or shortly after school and managed to save her dissertation from her crap.
As to Yom being a literal day.... Well, let's say I will put my knowledge of Hebrew and my Rosh Yeshiva z"l up against her "speaker" any day.
| 298 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:21:57pm |
| 299 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:23:33pm |
re: #42 nyc redneck
wow, he has the patience of a saint. [...]
i could tell he was stunned by what she was saying.
I very much doubt he was "stunned" -- Shermer is a veteran skeptic and has heard similar levels of kookiness many times before. Not just from YECists like her, but from New Age crystal healers, UFO abductees, Holocaust deniers, 9/11 Troofers, etc. And some of these people (certainly not all of them) are in fact very intelligent and well-educated in certain fields.
But they also have an amazing knack for "compartmentalized thinking" that allows them to block off their pet theory from the ordinary common-sense filters that they apply to other ideas.
As to how she managed to obtain a PhD from a respectable public university, my guess is that she did it by carefully hiding her creationist views -- in other words, she stayed In The Closet for as long as was necessary to earn her degree.
| 300 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:24:31pm |
re: #171 danrudy
I think this video is a very good example of why creationism should not be taught in schools.
She interprets her bible one way, someone another way and a different religion completely differently.
The only thing that should be taught is that which can be independently verified and observed. I suppose folks are then welcome to go home and fit these observations into whatever belief system they have (on their own time or with the help of their pastor, rabbi etc).
However, I don't think she is crazy. She is merely trying to fit the observations into her belief system. In fact, within the framework of her system she is quite sane. I don't fear her.
I don't fear her, but I sure don't want to see her foisting off either her religious convictions or her creationist interpretations of the empirical data to pliable young minds in public high school science class. They clearly don't belong there.
| 301 |
rightymouse Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:25:13pm |
re: #297 LudwigVanQuixote
OK she got religion while in or shortly after school and managed to save her dissertation from her crap.
As to Yom being a literal day.... Well, let's say I will put my knowledge of Hebrew and my Rosh Yeshiva z"l up against her "speaker" any day.
She is the type of person who is incapable of reconciling her personal faith with science. All those years of education and knowledge were flushed down the drain.
| 303 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:28:31pm |
re: #278 J.S.
I think that at times what happens is that insults and abuse are hurled one side versus the other -- and everyone's caught up in the heated exchanges, and meanwhile the more important aspects are overlooked. For example, I don't care about her beliefs about invisible entities or what she claims took place in year X, etc, etc. What I do care about (and perhaps what others should care about) are things such asBut I don't see how these beliefs that you diminish in importance can be divorced from everything else. Certainly this woman would not separate them out.
1) How, precisely, do her beliefs impede her scientific inquiries? This needs to be specified; it needs to be pinpointed; elaborated. If necessary, perhaps her "research" needs to be re-examined. Examined rigourously...perhaps including her PhD dissertation.
Granted, she could do "research" of the sort that is done by research assistants, cataloging chemical reactions and biological interactions. She herself said that understanding broader issues was not necessary and didn't enter into her work (I paraphrase).
2) How are such individuals (assuming that question number 1 has been addressed) allowed to obtain advanced degrees? Is some sort of disciplinary action required? Who were her supervisors?
It would be interesting to hear if someone can play detective and follow that up, but we have had stranger people in academia in many fronts.
(imo, these matters may be more important than whether or not she's believing that "sin causes cancer.")
They are important in understanding how our education system fails, but in this case my reaction was simply due to the fact I sometimes get pissed off when fanatics tell me, directly or indirectly, that I'm going to burn in hell because of their loving yet unforgiving god. It is a vain conceit (a sin I believe) that deserves no respect.
| 305 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:30:33pm |
re: #289 Jimmah
Sorry - my post there reads a bit like a reprimand. I should have added a ;-).
Gee, so sensitive you are... :=)
| 306 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:31:19pm |
re: #174 Right Brain
I was unaware of the Drake theory, let me use it is illustrate the problem:
Drake Theory assumptions
1) There are other civilizations
2) They are technologically advanced
3) Technologically advanced civilizations kill themselves.
4) These technologically civilization did kill themselves.Creationist theory assumptions
1) God made this earth and no otherSee the problem, 4 vs.1.
Your four assumptions are, taken together, incoherent. Which leads me to the conclusion that they are not assumptions of Drake's theory, but of your misconstrual of it.
Maybe you meant 'were' instead of 'are', but this wouldn't work, either, as there are stars, and supposedly planets circling them, at all stages in their life cycles, so supposedly there could be civilizations at all kinds of different technology levels as well. But you really need to read that essay I posted earlier:
[Link: www.nickbostrom.com...]
It seems to me to integrate Drake' theory with the anthropic principle, the observer selection effect, and many other considerations well worth a ponder.
| 307 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:32:09pm |
re: #294 VioletTiger
But don't you know, bacteria are not becoming more resistant to antibiotics because they are evolving, but because we are sinning more.
/
| 308 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:32:49pm |
re: #223 Jimmah
I rmember reading that someone had calculated that it would take an intelligent civilisation with only modestly improved technology to ours a mere 1 million years to colonise the galaxy, assuming they were in no particular hurry. I can't vouch for the calculations, but if true it would suggest that we could be the only intelligent civilisation in this galaxy?
An interesting hypothesis I read in a great hard science-fiction website:
In a life-sustaining planet chosen at random, we would encounter apes or angels, but not man.
The first idea is that non-intelligent life existed on the Earth for hundreds of millions of years before humans came along. The second is that technology evolves so rapidly that an intelligent civilization would reach a singularity point and exist for hundreds of millions of years.
Intelligent life like humans, therefore, exist for only a tiny amount of time. We have accomplished a lot in 12,000 years of recorded history, and in another thousand we would probably become "angels". But that makes up a minuscule section of multi-billion year old planet.
So, there is likely no chance we would meet an alien species that are around our level of science and technology. Either they will be much more advanced than us, or very primitive.
| 309 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:33:06pm |
I just got done reading her bit that righty gave as a link.
Please pardon a small rant. I fully respect Christianity as its own religion. I respect the beauty in it. I respect other's rights to believe what they will. I accept that there will be theological differences inevitably.
That said, I get rather annoyed when the fundies decide that they are now Torah scholars, understand biblical Hebrew without the benefit of the Oral Tradition and then try to tell me what my book says.
Shhesh, I don't presume to tell them what Matthew, Mark, Luke or John really means.
| 311 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:34:31pm |
re: #299 Throbert McGee
But they also have an amazing knack for "compartmentalized thinking" that allows them to block off their pet theory from the ordinary common-sense filters that they apply to other ideas.
That is what is called cognitive dissonance, as I probably learned from Salamantis.
:)
| 312 |
odorlesspaintthinner Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:34:49pm |
re: #255 funky chicken
Ya know, the husband was raised devout Catholic. I didn't like Catholic church...choreographed, scripture reading only the little chunk in the order of service book (whatever it's called) and the whole Easter Vigil thing weirded me out...and the belief that the little wafer actually becomes a chunk of human/god flesh....and then I'm supposed to eat that?
I'm a scientist by training, so Catholicism was just a bridge too far...but the nonsense in so many protestant churches is out of control. It seems like we'd have to choose between creationist denominations or ones that bash Israel. Since attending some kind of church service is important to my husband, I'm looking at RC again.
I'm just going to make a few comments. In all, scriptural readings from the Missal actually cover about 90% of the Bible over a 3 year period. Most Protestant churches read only a few verses at a time, too. Did you want to sit through a long Biblical reading? Genealogies in II Chronicles, perhaps?
The belief in the wafer becoming human flesh is not what is meant by transubstantiation. There is no change in the molecular content of the bread. The change is in its substance, which is purely spiritual.
Finally, what pageant or show would you want to watch that had no choreography?
No soapbox, here. I'm not going to take on all comers. I just think in general the positive side of the RCC gets short shrift. It's easy to make fun of the guys in the big hats (Bill Mahr). Vatican II says all Christians are part of the same Baptism. 'Nuff said.
| 313 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:34:56pm |
Hello Lizards, just got back from the hospital. My mother has been in hospice care now for two days. Her condition has been stabilized and she has been sleeping peacefully most of the time. Her doctors have taken her off her heart meds and are concentrating on stabilizing her blood sugar. (She hallucinates when it gets too high, always a source of entertainment./)
My brother is with her now and I pity the staff because he is a revolving horse's ass.
I think I am experiencing stress.
| 314 |
Brit in Japan Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:36:11pm |
re: #239 J.S.
I watched the video. What I am interested in is this -- how did you arrive at the following (and I'm quoting from your post):
One more time, if you are claiming to be an empiricist, please present your evidence in support of the above claim. thank you.
She typed with her own fingers that she herself could "imagine it", therefore she can imagine it.
QED.
| 315 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:36:13pm |
re: #24 Dark_Falcon
Nope, the Creation "Museum". She really does work there.
Specifically, the Museum cafeteria. I'm pretty sure that long phallic baguette-like shape on the wall mural behind her is meant to be Noah's Ark.
| 316 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:36:35pm |
re: #307 Slumbering Behemoth
But don't you know, bacteria are not becoming more resistant to antibiotics because they are evolving, but because we are sinning more.
/
You say that with a sarc. Make me unsure if you saw all the video. That is exactly what she said.
| 317 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:36:41pm |
re: #313 USBeast
Hello Lizards, just got back from the hospital. My mother has been in hospice care now for two days. Her condition has been stabilized and she has been sleeping peacefully most of the time. Her doctors have taken her off her heart meds and are concentrating on stabilizing her blood sugar. (She hallucinates when it gets too high, always a source of entertainment./)
My brother is with her now and I pity the staff because he is a revolving horse's ass.
I think I am experiencing stress.
Ouch...
I pray for your mother's recovery.
| 319 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:39:09pm |
Telescope Captures 'Eye of God' in Space:
[Link: news.aol.com...]
He is watching us heathens you know...
| 320 |
Neutral President Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:39:30pm |
It would be most interesting to impress your memory engrams on a computer, Doctor Purdom. The resulting torrential flood of illogic would be most entertaining.
| 321 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:39:49pm |
re: #218 nom de boom
As a layman and a liberal arts type, I am way out of my depth when it comes to this stuff. Could any of you professionals give me a couple of examples illustrating how creationism would influence the actual execution of scientific work like the formulation of anti-bacterial drugs? I always assumed that the theory of origins definitely had an impact on areas like paleontology, but not so much on non-historical fields like microbiology, etc.
Think about why we have to develop a new flu vaccine every year: it's because the little buggers evolve and the old one doesn't immunize us any more. It's also why we need to keep developing new antibiotics; bacteria evolve resistance to the older ones.
| 322 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:42:54pm |
re: #311 Naso Tang
they also have an amazing knack for "compartmentalized thinking"That is what is called cognitive dissonance, as I probably learned from Salamantis.
I think "cognitive dissonance" generally implies that a leak has developed between the mental compartments, so that the person becomes uncomfortably aware of trying to maintain two logically contradictory beliefs. The more thoroughly that a person is able to maintain the wall between the beliefs -- thus the more successful he is at never thinking about both at the same time -- the less dissonance there is.
| 323 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:43:37pm |
re: #317 LudwigVanQuixote
Ouch...
I pray for your mother's recovery.
Thanks, but pray instead for swift and painless passing. She has lung cancer. The doctors went from predicting weeks to days on Tuesday. She is on morphine.
My fear is that she will suffer horribly before the end. She is a tough old Minnesota farm girl and, while she has said she's ready to go, her body may not agree.
| 324 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:44:09pm |
re: #282 rightymouse
Yes, and no. Thesis is a somewhat generic term. If you look at the detailed entry it says "Thesis (PhD) [...]"
| 325 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:45:08pm |
re: #195 Right Brain
Amazing photo! Even atheists like me start believing something must have started this.
Moby Alert!
This troll is trying to lie for Jesus by practicing reverse psychology taqiyyah; pretending to be the exact opposite of what it is, then making obtuse and offensive statements, in the hope that people will consider it to be representative of that opposite, and thus reject it.
| 326 |
Occasional Reader Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:45:25pm |
re: #321 Salamantis
Think about why we have to develop a new flu vaccine every year: it's because the little buggers evolve and the old one doesn't immunize us any more. It's also why we need to keep developing new antibiotics; bacteria evolve resistance to the older ones.
Well if you'd just quit sinning all the time, you wouldn't have that problem.
/
| 327 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:45:29pm |
re: #303 Naso Tang
There is a whole lot of speculation going on, and not much evidence to support a variety of conclusions. The conclusions are guesses and hunches...not much else. There are ways in which bizarro beliefs can be held by Phds -- fringe beliefs, hobbies, etc -- and these beliefs could be pursued on the side (looking for UFOs for example)-- the beliefs would not necessarily interfere with conducting scientific research, writing up and publishing papers, and so on. Hence, it doesn't follow that "Because individual X believes in kooky weirdo things, therefore they cannot conduct legitimate scientific research." Again, as per my first question, one needs to establish precisely how certain beliefs are impeding/distorting/warping the research...and if you don't establish the connection, then it's just ad hominem attacks. Anyway, it also, though raises questions about the department (from which she received her Phd) -- is this a "representative" sample? is she a fluke? (As you note, it would take detective work here.)
| 328 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:46:05pm |
re: #292 KansasMom
Yes, the structural guys are actually closer to physics in the methods that they use. The field would 1) be easy for her to keep her cover (if she was trying to be clandestine about it) and 2) would prepare her for the type of work Behe was doing (i.e. flagella structure).
| 330 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:46:44pm |
re: #325 Salamantis
"Even atheists like me."
This writer is not going to win any awards for the subtlety of their craft.
| 331 |
KansasMom Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:47:42pm |
re: #323 USBeast
I've heard nothing but wonderful things about hospice care, and I hope your experience is no exception.
I hope your mother's experience is peaceful and comfortable, and full of love from her family.
Don't forget to take care of yourself either.
| 332 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:48:23pm |
re: #323 USBeast
Thanks, but pray instead for swift and painless passing. She has lung cancer. The doctors went from predicting weeks to days on Tuesday. She is on morphine.
My fear is that she will suffer horribly before the end. She is a tough old Minnesota farm girl and, while she has said she's ready to go, her body may not agree.
I am deeply sorry to hear that. If you don't mind, please tell me her name (first) and her mother's first name. I will add her to my prayers.
| 333 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:49:11pm |
re: #331 KansasMom
Ah... such kind words that only a mother can say with such eloquence ;D
| 334 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:49:58pm |
I'd also like to add that if she pursued her Ph.D. with the intent to undermine science then her lack of integrity is right in line with other political creationists. No one could honestly pursue a title that includes "philosophy" (i.e. love of wisdom) and then show such disdain for knowledge with her appeals to mysticism. There will be more people like her, don't doubt it. The political creationists need some authoritative weight and they think that they'll get credibility from having Ph.D.'s (albeit dishonest Ph.D.'s) on board.
| 335 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:52:51pm |
re: #309 LudwigVanQuixote
That said, I get rather annoyed when the fundies decide that they are now Torah scholars, understand biblical Hebrew without the benefit of the Oral Tradition and then try to tell me what my book says.
From their point of view, the Torah and Tanakh (and thus Judaism itself) were revealed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -- that is, the triune God of Christianity, who has always existed. It is, in other words, their book as much as it is yours. In fact, the Torah is more "theirs," since they correctly understand that the Torah was revealed as a mere precursor to the NT, and Jews fail to grasp this.
/don't shoot the messenger; it's not MY belief
| 336 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:53:00pm |
re: #334 Dan G.
"There's no idea on God's green earth so crazy it can't find at least one Ph.D. to support it."
-James Trefil
| 337 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:56:30pm |
| 338 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:57:14pm |
As to the whole Evolution/Creationism question: Put both their bodies of evidence on the scales. If the verifiable evidence of one weighs more than the verifiable evidence of the the other we have a winner and this whole pointless, tiresome argument goes away...unless, of course, it doesn't.
| 339 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:57:36pm |
re: #277 Wendya
The vast majority of evangelicals don't believe in evolution either.
The Assembly of God are evangelicals and reject evolution (Pat Robertson is a famous evangelical). Southern Baptist and Southern Methodists are nonevangelical fundamentalists (Jerry Falwell is - well, was - a famous nonevangelical fundamentalist), and also reject evolution.
| 340 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 7:58:34pm |
re: #334 Dan G.
No one could honestly pursue a title that includes "philosophy" (i.e. love of wisdom) and then show such disdain for knowledge
In her case, Ph.D. stands for "Doctor of Phallocephaly".
/ © James Joyce
| 342 |
ladycatnip Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:02:26pm |
#293 rightymouse
It looks like she tried to reconcile her knowledge of science with her faith and science lost out.
Faith lost out too. It's demeaning to faith when one tries to convince, explain, rationalize, or justify a position outside of science or outside of the tangible. Which is why it's called faith and not science.
| 343 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:03:06pm |
re: #335 Throbert McGee
From their point of view, the Torah and Tanakh (and thus Judaism itself) were revealed by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost -- that is, the triune God of Christianity, who has always existed. It is, in other words, their book as much as it is yours. In fact, the Torah is more "theirs," since they correctly understand that the Torah was revealed as a mere precursor to the NT, and Jews fail to grasp this.
/don't shoot the messenger; it's not MY belief
No shooting I promise! I don't doubt that they believe this. I was more or less making an academic point which is that Torah has some very difficult to understand passages, and that there is an entire 3000 year old Oral Tradition to come and explain the language.
These people do not have that Oral Tradition and they do not believe in it. So, they are honestly making a lot of stuff up as to what the Hebrew "really" means.
An example: The words for milk and fat are separated by a vowel. Torah Hebrew has no vowels. So if you come across a phrase like do not cook a kid in its mother's milk, it could just as easily have been fat, with no context in the text to tell the difference. There would have been entirely different laws of kashrut if taken the other way. However, the oral tradition makes the meaning plain.
This is what bothers me. I do not mind that anyone believes in their own religion. I mind that sometimes they claim to know what mine says without actually looking into it. In this case, her speaker's interpretation of Yom is way off.
| 344 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:03:57pm |
re: #332 LudwigVanQuixote
I am deeply sorry to hear that. If you don't mind, please tell me her name (first) and her mother's first name. I will add her to my prayers.
Thanks, but just pray all those in hospice care and their families. If you want you can mention my nick. God knows who I am.
| 345 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:03:59pm |
re: #340 Throbert McGee
Has that term (or its common translation) ever been predicated of a woman?
| 346 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:04:29pm |
re: #316 Naso Tang
'Twas the point. She said (paraphrasing) that harmless bacteria didn't evolve, but became "evil" after "the fall". Running with that premise, I was saying that bacteria are becoming "more evil" because we are sinning more, and not because they are continuing to evolve. I included a sarc tag to indicate I was being sarcastic.
| 347 |
AMER1CAN Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:04:30pm |
she is a great example of book smarts but no street smarts. None.
| 348 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:04:31pm |
re: #311 Naso Tang
That is what is called cognitive dissonance, as I probably learned from Salamantis.
:)
You can also call it memetic filtering, in order to prevent cognitive dissonance.
| 349 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:05:24pm |
| 350 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:06:41pm |
re: #344 USBeast
Thanks, but just pray all those in hospice care and their families. If you want you can mention my nick. God knows who I am.
You got it.
| 352 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:10:56pm |
I wonder about her opinion of Theodore Dobzhansky...no, I don't.
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution
[Link: people.delphiforums.com...]
| 353 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:10:58pm |
re: #349 LudwigVanQuixote
Yes, and they'd also make G-d into a liar...while simultaneously congratulating themselves for their "extensive knowledge" of Hebrew, Torah, etc.
| 354 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:13:09pm |
re: #353 J.S.
Yes, and they'd also make G-d into a liar...while simultaneously congratulating themselves for their "extensive knowledge" of Hebrew, Torah, etc.
Exactly.
| 355 |
ladycatnip Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:13:23pm |
#312 odorlesspaintthinner...is there such a thing?
The belief in the wafer becoming human flesh is not what is meant by transubstantiation. There is no change in the molecular content of the bread. The change is in its substance, which is purely spiritual.
Finally, what pageant or show would you want to watch that had no choreography?
No soapbox, here. I'm not going to take on all comers. I just think in general the positive side of the RCC gets short shrift. It's easy to make fun of the guys in the big hats (Bill Mahr). Vatican II says all Christians are part of the same Baptism. 'Nuff said.
Completely agree with you. I yield to my Catholic roots every time I take communion in our Protestant church. ;-)
| 356 |
VioletTiger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:14:32pm |
re: #325 Salamantis
Moby Alert!
This troll is trying to lie for Jesus by practicing reverse psychology taqiyyah; pretending to be the exact opposite of what it is, then making obtuse and offensive statements, in the hope that people will consider it to be representative of that opposite, and thus reject it.
Ah, and now I finally understand what a Moby is!
Now if somebody could please point out a sockpuppet....
| 357 |
Zimriel Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:14:57pm |
re: #343 LudwigVanQuixote
No shooting I promise! I don't doubt that they believe this. I was more or less making an academic point which is that Torah has some very difficult to understand passages, and that there is an entire 3000 year old Oral Tradition to come and explain the language.
These people do not have that Oral Tradition and they do not believe in it. So, they are honestly making a lot of stuff up as to what the Hebrew "really" means.
An example: The words for milk and fat are separated by a vowel. Torah Hebrew has no vowels. So if you come across a phrase like do not cook a kid in its mother's milk, it could just as easily have been fat, with no context in the text to tell the difference. There would have been entirely different laws of kashrut if taken the other way. However, the oral tradition makes the meaning plain.
This is what bothers me. I do not mind that anyone believes in their own religion. I mind that sometimes they claim to know what mine says without actually looking into it. In this case, her speaker's interpretation of Yom is way off.
Christianity has its own tradition of Biblical interpretation. I had recourse to Saint Jerome recently (on Matthew 20). I'd like to know if any of this is translated into English; it would make the process easier.
I note that when I look into Protestant commentaries on the Bible, they do refer to Jewish tradition on the OT, but they start from scratch with the NT. I didn't see Protestants citing Jerome, Irenaeus etc on Matthew 20, despite that these worthies had much of interest to say on it.
You can take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt (I am Catholic) but I think this is a shame; since Jerome and other Church fathers, particularly when they are showing interest in the Bible's words, are not the enemies of Protestantism. Don't forget that Jerome's Vulgate was taken straight off the Masoretic Text; it was the King James Bible of its day...
| 358 |
Tarkloon Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:16:14pm |
re: #356 VioletTiger
I am Thanos' sockpuppet - he's the dirty, stinky one though.
| 360 |
VioletTiger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:17:14pm |
re: #313 USBeast
Sending prayers and hugs for you and your family.
| 361 |
ladycatnip Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:18:45pm |
#313 USBeast
Prayers of blessing, comfort and peace to you and your family.
| 362 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:21:11pm |
re: #356 VioletTiger
Same individual, different login/handle. Glen Grenwald [?] did this to stage arguments for his audience.
| 363 |
Zimriel Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:22:49pm |
re: #309 LudwigVanQuixote
I just got done reading her bit that righty gave as a link.
...
That said, I get rather annoyed when the fundies decide that they are now Torah scholars, understand biblical Hebrew without the benefit of the Oral Tradition and then try to tell me what my book says.Shhesh, I don't presume to tell them what Matthew, Mark, Luke or John really means.
Things do get ... interesting, though, when Dead Sea scholars show up with their "Pesherim on Habbakuk" and "Damascus Documents" and "Temple Scrolls"; suddenly a whole Enochian / Essene field of anti-Rabbinic (reactionary!) Jewish commentary pops up.
Ahh, I love this field.
| 364 |
VioletTiger Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:25:17pm |
re: #362 Dan G.
Okay, makes sense.
Cute avatar!
| 367 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:27:22pm |
re: #359 Tarkloon
I like the site you selected for your URL.
[Link: www.atlasoftheuniverse.com...]
It would have been useful for Right Brain up at post 131
| 368 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:27:58pm |
re: #357 Zimriel
Christianity has its own tradition of Biblical interpretation. I had recourse to Saint Jerome recently (on Matthew 20). I'd like to know if any of this is translated into English; it would make the process easier.
I note that when I look into Protestant commentaries on the Bible, they do refer to Jewish tradition on the OT, but they start from scratch with the NT. I didn't see Protestants citing Jerome, Irenaeus etc on Matthew 20, despite that these worthies had much of interest to say on it.
You can take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt (I am Catholic) but I think this is a shame; since Jerome and other Church fathers, particularly when they are showing interest in the Bible's words, are not the enemies of Protestantism. Don't forget that Jerome's Vulgate was taken straight off the Masoretic Text; it was the King James Bible of its day...
I need to tread a little more carefully here to be clear. I have absolutely no desire to try to take from the worthiness of, or the right of Christians to interpret their own books or the Christian take on the OT.
However, when someone like this woman goes into "the Hebrew" she is trying to steal the authority of the original text. Otherwise, she would have quoted King James (in her case, I doubt she is a Catholic). She also was not quoting one of the great early Christian luminaries. If you are going to do that, try to claim the authority of the original, then you should actually know what that original text actually says, and in the case of what she was writing about, she got it wrong.
| 369 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:28:09pm |
re: #346 Slumbering Behemoth
Was that a double entendre? I wasn't sure if you had independently deduced her logic, or was sarcastically paraphrasing her. This stuff gets confusing sometimes, which I suppose is why Sal is such a good typist and can put out 5 sentence for one of mine.
(That's a joke, Sal)
| 370 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:29:08pm |
re: #131 Right Brain
She nails him time and time again, his argument (and his annoying habit of using the word "think" in an interrogative (What High School do you think you went to?)) is that most people once believe in creationism, but now most people believe in evolution so it must be right. OK, so then most people were wrong but now most people are right?
Further if he is correct that the earth is 4.5 Billion years old then the onus is on him to explain why we cannot find life on other planets, and we have been looking with our radio-telescopes for decades and finding nothing. Given that much time how is it possible that this chemical reaction happened only once?
Just jumped in and way behind, but down dinged on general principles. Your (lack of) logic is faulty.
| 371 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:31:13pm |
re: #363 Zimriel
Things do get ... interesting, though, when Dead Sea scholars show up with their "Pesherim on Habbakuk" and "Damascus Documents" and "Temple Scrolls"; suddenly a whole Enochian / Essene field of anti-Rabbinic (reactionary!) Jewish commentary pops up.
Ahh, I love this field.
Ohhh me too! At the end of the day, we find that the Essenes were essentially gnostic apocalyptics who were equally opposed to the Parushim as the Saduccim.
Actually the DSS gave me a lot of aith that the Rabbaim had the "truest" tradition. Despite the variety of views in Israel at the time, the outlying communites did not write to those groups for halachic disputes. The Jews in Persia and Egypt and Rome wrote to the Rabbaim.
| 372 |
ladycatnip Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:31:21pm |
#301 rightymouse
She is the type of person who is incapable of reconciling her personal faith with science. All those years of education and knowledge were flushed down the drain.
Beautifully said. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33
One part I love about being a Christian is allowing the mystery of God to remain just that - a mystery.
| 373 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:33:03pm |
re: #224 Daryl Herbert
Michael Shermer is an ignorant f@@@wit.
Specifically, he calls Ken Miller an "evangelical, born-again Christian[]" at about 3:40.
Miller is CATHOLIC.
I doubt Michael Shermer even knows the difference.
I agree, this reflects badly on Shermer -- conflating Catholics with evangelicals is an error very roughly akin to saying "well, since you're a Reform Jew, we can safely assume you don't eat lobster."
One wouldn't expect a non-Christian to know about (or care about) every single minor distinction among the denominations of Christianity, but understanding that "born-again evangelicals" nearly always fall under the very broad umbrella of "Protestantism" is a pretty basic point. (It's not that Catholics can't ever consider themselves to be "born again" or "evangelical" -- but if I heard a Catholic self-identify with either term, I would at least be mildly surprised , and would ask him for clarification to make sure I'd heard correctly.)
And Shermer's been a "professional skeptic" long enough to know better.
| 374 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:33:31pm |
re: #336 Basho
"There's no idea on God's green earth so crazy it can't find at least one Ph.D. to support it."
-James Trefil
Like this guy.
Aliens must be real because so many abductees can't be wrong
| 375 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:33:52pm |
re: #362 Dan G.
Same individual, different login/handle. Glen Grenwald [?] did this to stage arguments for his audience.
avideditor had four different sock puppets, all pretending to be differnt people. He would use them to agree with himself on threads, and thus to fake a consensus, in an attempt to influence Lizard opinion to match his own. It is a blatantly dishonest practice, utterly devoid of integrity or decency.
| 376 |
Summer Seale Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:34:46pm |
I watched all of it - every single second of it.
Then I typed something up in this form an hour ago to say what I thought and about my utter revulsion and loathing for this ideology.
But I didn't hit Post because I don't think anyone would have tolerated that level of loathing and invective against this fucking raging lunatic of a woman who thinks that one year old babies are sinners and can go to hell.
Anyone who believes that is an utter fucking fool, and their "morality" that they wish to impose upon all of us scares the hell out of me. They can take their holier than thou attitude and shove it up their asses.
There are doctors, like Dr. Salk, who have literally saved millions of lives by their own hand in the last century. And these creationist fuckers would have us believe that this moronic bullshit artist of a woman sitting there in the creationist "museum" is less offensive to "God" than somebody like Dr. Salk?
It's also nice to know that she thinks that every Jew is going to hell. I wonder if she would have said the same thing to all the Jews being filed into the gas chambers before they were killed.
She's nothing but a vile piece of rectal bile spewing her infectious bullshit.
I find myself contemplating the purest hatred for her and her kind. And this is the moderate version of the post which I was originally going to publish.
| 377 |
Dan G. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:36:51pm |
re: #375 Salamantis
I didn't get to witness that, gladly. The base seem think in the same ruts.
| 379 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:38:10pm |
re: #150 Right Brain
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
Again, way behind and I hope it has already been pointed out but: RADIO telescopes receive RADIO waves (think electromagnetic spectrum). They don't "hear" anything.
Oh, and by the way, your logic still sucks. Your conclusion that there is no intelligent life "out there" has nothing to do with the fact that radio telescopes detect radio waves.
| 380 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:41:03pm |
re: #369 Naso Tang
If "sarcastically paraphrasing" means goofing on her ridiculous argument, then that's what I was doing.
| 381 |
Summer Seale Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:41:18pm |
re: #378 buzzsawmonkey
Why worry about what she believes the fate of Jews in the afterlife is? If you don't share her belief system, it doesn't matter at all.
It matters to me. It also matters to history. Evidently, it matters to science as well, or else these incompetent assholes wouldn't be spewing their crap all over the place trying to disprove reality.
And I dare say that it also matters to the memory of millions of people who died in the Holocaust, not to mention every other dead person in the world who was massacred, simply because they didn't believe like she does.
So yes, it matters.
| 382 |
Zimriel Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:41:30pm |
re: #373 Throbert McGee
(It's not that Catholics can't ever consider themselves to be "born again" or "evangelical" -- but if I heard a Catholic self-identify with either term, I would at least be mildly surprised , and would ask him for clarification to make sure I'd heard correctly.)
And Shermer's been a "professional skeptic" long enough to know better.
Our priest calls himself "evangelical", fwiw. His Sunday afternoon Mass, aimed at teens, is quite "low church". You hear it particularly in the music: it's guitars and pop-Christian anthems, not so much organs and the psalms in the hymnal.
Not to say that there is a movement in Catholicism to "take 'evangelicalism' back!" but, some Catholics do use the term for themselves.
| 383 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:43:06pm |
re: #379 Unakite
But, but.. it's radio! We should be hearing the Alien Show (if there are any, which there aren't!)
/ do I have to?
| 384 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:43:45pm |
re: #343 LudwigVanQuixote
Torah Hebrew has no vowels.
Er, I assume you meant "Torah Hebrew had no vowels"? It's my understanding that including the vowel points in every copy of the Torah has been mandatory for many centuries; so there would really be potential ambiguity only if you dug up a very ancient Torah fragment that pre-dated the custom of putting in the vowels.
| 385 |
J.S. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:43:56pm |
re: #373 Throbert McGee
I've read Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's text "Denying History". It's an excellent book, well worth reading. In the text they established why the pseudo-histories (fabricated by the Holocaust deniers) are so damaging to actual history, and why the deniers need to be answered..
| 386 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:44:15pm |
re: #327 J.S.
-- the beliefs would not necessarily interfere with conducting scientific research, writing up and publishing papers, and so on. Hence, it doesn't follow that "Because individual X believes in kooky weirdo things, therefore they cannot conduct legitimate scientific research.
Of course that can be true in individual cases, as long as the research in question hasn't been found to have a specific conflict with some prior belief.
However the issue here, at least as I was addressing it, is a broader one that such perspectives on existence are bound to, even based upon, a repression of thoughts that could question certain beliefs. That is the death of science and this woman would have achieved nothing with her life except perhaps a PhD in Theology had it not been for all those who did not share her mindset.
In truth I find it sad, after having written harsh words. Eventually she will realize she has nothing in common with her fellows in science, with a dead end job in a creationism sideshow, unable to publish anything of value and a child who will possibly have questions that she can't answer.
On the other hand, there is always an opening at the Disco Institute for PhDs......
| 387 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:44:45pm |
re: #150 Right Brain
I said RADIO telescopes. They can hear things back to origin of the universe, and there is no intelligent life out there.
[Link: apod.nasa.gov...]
I believe you're thinking about the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is what we can detect that goes back to the origin of the universe. If an intelligent civilization sent a radiowave today it would only travel the speed of light and not reach us for quite some time...
| 388 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:45:22pm |
re: #385 J.S.
I've read Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's text "Denying History". It's an excellent book, well worth reading. In the text they established why the pseudo-histories (fabricated by the Holocaust deniers) are so damaging to actual history, and why the deniers need to be answered..
Everything by Michael Shermer is excellent!
| 389 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:45:25pm |
re: #376 Summer
I'm glad you didn't post the original stuff you wrote..........
| 392 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:48:41pm |
re: #296 Salamantis
I couldn't help noticing that you refer to holes in his arguments, without mentioning a single one specifically. As far as assumptions goes, empirical science endeavors to proceed with as few assumptions as possible. She, otoh, premise everything on a really big and empirically untestable assumption, and tries to argue against the empirically testable with it.
My BA is in philosophy, and it is the major track in my humanities interdisciplinary MA. If you were indeed a philosophy teacher, which your comments have led me to most sincerely doubt, I have contempt for your teachers and pity for your students. Especially since you mention Occam's Razor, which says that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation requiring the least explanatory entities while still accounting for all the observable phenomena to which it is supposed to apply is most likely the best. This is the logical principle that many people have invoked in argument against the existence of an intelligent designer, which, in order to possess the intelligence and will necessary for it to create the universe, would itself of necessity have to be more complex than the universe itself, and would therefore require even more explanation that the universe alone requires. And this hypothetical deity's creator would of necessity be required to be more complex still, and IT'S creator even MORE complex, in an infinite regression...ever more complex turtles, requiring ever more explanation, all the way down a bottomless pit.
Upding just because I got a kick out this.
| 393 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:50:49pm |
re: #334 Dan G.
I'd also like to add that if she pursued her Ph.D. with the intent to undermine science then her lack of integrity is right in line with other political creationists.
I read her as being totally sincere. It would take a great deal of intelligence to fake what she was spewing, but there are smarter non PhDs than her who will love to quote her.
| 394 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:53:21pm |
I loved this early in the video and I hope others caught it, but she said,
"It depends on how you define evolution."
| 395 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:54:13pm |
re: #345 Dan G.
Has that term (or its common translation) ever been predicated of a woman?
If a man can be a pussy, why can't a woman be a dickhead?
| 396 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:54:18pm |
re: #378 buzzsawmonkey
If you don't share her belief system, it doesn't matter at all.
Are you saying that nobody should give a damn what you say if they don't share your belief system?
| 397 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:54:30pm |
re: #394 Unakite
I loved this early in the video and I hope others caught it, but she said,
"It depends on how you define evolution."
And on what the meaning of 'is' is...
/
| 398 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:56:16pm |
| 399 |
Euler Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:57:17pm |
re: #165 Right Brain
She is the one presenting an argument with one assumption ie God made the universe. And to follow his belief we have to have literally hundreds of assumptions, he adds to them every time he opens his mouth. He has not been around scientists that much, his Phd. is in history.
How does having a single assumption strengthen an argument? It does not. True enough, the weaker the hypothesis, the stronger the inference, no controversy there. But then there is the little matter of whether or not the hypothesis is true. In fact, by making the single hypothesis that 0=1, I can prove any conclusion q whatsoever with complete mathematical rigor as follows.
We wish to prove that 0=1 => q. The only way this implication can fail is for both 0=1 to be true and for q to be false. But 0 does not in fact equal 1. So the implication does not fail; and we conclude that the statement 0=1 => q is true; i.e., it is a valid implication.
| 400 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:58:34pm |
re: #376 Summer
It's also nice to know that she thinks that every Jew is going to hell.
She thinks EVERY "unsaved" person is going to Hell; and moreover she thinks that this only goes to prove how utterly fairminded God's sense of justice is; and finally she thinks that if you find this preposterous, it's because your human logic is too feeble to understand God's logic.
| 401 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:58:47pm |
Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society interviews Answers in Genesis’s star young earth creationist Georgia Purdom (who has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University)
Ohio State should loose their accreditation.
| 402 |
Skinless Frank Thu, Feb 26, 2009 8:59:56pm |
This is just weird. The good news, I guess, is that these beliefs do not encourage blowing up children eating pizza or people riding the bus to work.
I don't understand how they can believe in such a limited, circumscribed god. If they don't question His omniscience, power, goodness, etc., why do they think they know the extent of His mercy? Do they really think that He cannot do anything not written in the bible? Do they really think they know as much about God as my dog knows about me? Do they really think that the infinite and unknowable can be reduced to a set of rules? It's as if they worship a vending machine: put a profession of faith into the slot, pull the lever of belief, pick up the salvation in the tray below. What a tiny god they worship!
| 403 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:00:19pm |
She takes the cliche 'mad scientist' to a whole new level.
| 404 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:00:32pm |
re: #394 Unakite
I loved this early in the video and I hope others caught it, but she said,
"It depends on how you define evolution."
Those people also love to divide up evolution into categories of their own choosing; the most popular being micro or macro evolution.
If you show one piece of evidence for evolution, well then, that just goes to the the micro bin, and the macro is still coincidentally unsolvable unless my deity got involved.
| 405 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:02:15pm |
If she were born into a radical muslim family, would she be a terrorist now?
| 406 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:02:28pm |
re: #404 Basho
Those people also love to divide up evolution into categories of their own choosing; the most popular being micro or macro evolution.
If you show one piece of evidence for evolution, well then, that just goes to the the micro bin, and the macro is still coincidentally unsolvable unless my deity got involved.
That is indeed what they say about Richard Lenski's e. coli.
| 407 |
Steve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:02:48pm |
Michael Shermer:
Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University.
B.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University
M.A. in experimental psychology from California State University, Fullerton
Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University (1991)
He was a college professor for 20 years (1979–1998), teaching psychology, evolution, and the history of science at Occidental College (1989–1998), California State University Los Angeles, and Glendale College
| 408 |
Basho Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:03:09pm |
re: #400 Throbert McGee
She thinks EVERY "unsaved" person is going to Hell; and moreover she thinks that this only goes to prove how utterly fairminded God's sense of justice is; and finally she thinks that if you find this preposterous, it's because your human logic is too feeble to understand God's logic.
They follow a god who thinks a jew who went through Auschwitz is still deserving of going to hell, but think atheism led to the holocaust...
| 409 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:03:15pm |
re: #373 Throbert McGee
I agree, this reflects badly on Shermer -- conflating Catholics with evangelicals is an error very roughly akin to saying "well, since you're a Reform Jew, we can safely assume you don't eat lobster."
I would suspect that this was a slip of the tongue. He seemed to be having a great deal of trouble keeping a straight face.
In any case, negates nothing else said.
| 410 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:05:20pm |
If only she were born into a circus family, she'd make such a wonderful clown.
| 411 |
Zimriel Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:05:52pm |
re: #401 HelloDare
Ohio State should loose their accreditation [for giving a PhD to Georgia Purdom in molecular genetics ].
No, that's too much. A PhD should be given on the merits of the thesis. Remember "A Beautiful Mind"? Just because someone goes insane (and even antiSemitic in Nash's case) can't be held against the original work of scholarship.
If Purdom had written a bushel of lies, then Ohio has the right to revoke the PhD; but I haven't heard that Purdom's thesis was fraudulent.
| 412 |
CorruptedSynapses Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:06:14pm |
re: #46 jaunte
Georgia Purdom: "Our starting points are important for understanding what happened in the past."
So she suggests there is no objective reality. Postmodernism again.
Idealism isn't considered postmodernism as far as I know.
| 413 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:06:48pm |
I wish I could hear what Shermer said as soon as the camera was off and she was out of earshot.
| 414 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:07:21pm |
re: #384 Throbert McGee
Er, I assume you meant "Torah Hebrew had no vowels"? It's my understanding that including the vowel points in every copy of the Torah has been mandatory for many centuries; so there would really be potential ambiguity only if you dug up a very ancient Torah fragment that pre-dated the custom of putting in the vowels.
Nope, to this day, if you look in a Torah scroll, there are no vowels.
I also want to continue the thought about translations and interpretations.
It seems to me that there are sufficiently different choices in translation and interpretation that King James OT should be regarded as a different book all together from Tanach. I am not making a value statement here. That is the holy book of one faith whereas the Tanach in Hebrew is mine.
Consider the following example:
Lets start with Genesis:
In the beginning God Created
as opposed to
Bereshit bara Elokim
There is a small point and a major point to be made.
Small point: Elokim is plural G-d is singular. There is a river of ink written about what this means in the Jewish tradition. Rambam holds that it means that G-d used the natural laws that he ordained to create the universe. Others hold it is a royal "we." Kabbalah has deep mystical layers to add to that choice of phrase.
G-d, as per King James means G-d the Father.
Big Point: "G-d created" is past tense. The creation is a done deal. Man has no role in shaping it.
The Hebrew on the other hand is either "In the beginning of G-d's creation" or "When G-d began to create." Creation is a work in progress and man's works contribute to it and have a role. Man was created as a partner in the completion of the universe not just an inhabitant.
My point is that from the first sentence, the choice of translation has produced a completely different theology.
I am not trying to argue who's theology is better or that anyone should necessarily accept mine. I am arguing though that going to "the Hebrew" really does mean looking at an essentially different text in many ways.
| 415 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:08:34pm |
| 416 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:08:42pm |
re: #412 CorruptedSynapses
She is claiming that reality is malleable depending on the belief system one was raised in. I'd say that was relativism, and not idealism.
| 417 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:09:15pm |
re: #413 HelloDare
I wish I could hear what Shermer said as soon as the camera was off and she was out of earshot.
"I need a stiff drink and a shower." would be my guess.
| 418 |
Throbert McGee Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:10:52pm |
re: #396 Naso Tang
Are you saying that nobody should give a damn what you say if they don't share your belief system?
BSM is saying that it looks ridiculous (and possibly a bit insecure) to be bothered by "threats" of a Hell that you regard as a non-existent fantasy.
I don't get offended if a New Age quack tells me my chakras are out of alignment, because I don't believe there are any such things as "chakras."
Why, then, would I get mad if an evangelical Christian tells me I'm going to burn in Hell because I'm not born-again? (The only reason I might get mad is *if* I were another stripe of Christian -- it would bother me that the evangelicals are giving non-Christians a reason to dislike Christianity with all of the obnoxious Hellfire talk.)
| 419 |
Zimriel Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:10:59pm |
re: #414 LudwigVanQuixote
Nope, to this day, if you look in a Torah scroll, there are no vowels.
I also want to continue the thought about translations and interpretations.
...I am not trying to argue who's theology is better or that anyone should necessarily accept mine. I am arguing though that going to "the Hebrew" really does mean looking at an essentially different text in many ways.
Let's talk Septuagint!
In Hebrew: 'Cain said to his brother. And when they were in the field...' (Huh? What did Cain say?!)
In Greek: 'Cain said to his brother, "let's go into the field!" And when they were in the field...'
In Greek, Cain's act was premeditated. In Hebrew, Cain could have said anything... we just don't know.
| 420 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:11:49pm |
re: #383 jaunte
But, but.. it's radio! We should be hearing the Alien Show (if there are any, which there aren't!)
/ do I have to?
TV waves are more recent than radio waves. I hear that "I love Lucy" is a big hit in the universe (but if you're too many light years away, you still won't have reception).
| 421 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:12:22pm |
re: #419 Zimriel
Let's talk Septuagint!
In Hebrew: 'Cain said to his brother. And when they were in the field...' (Huh? What did Cain say?!)
In Greek: 'Cain said to his brother, "let's go into the field!" And when they were in the field...'
In Greek, Cain's act was premeditated. In Hebrew, Cain could have said anything... we just don't know.
You know your stuff!
| 422 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:12:29pm |
re: #420 Unakite
One day we're gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
| 423 |
vinnymeyer Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:14:23pm |
I listened to this and thought my head was going to explode. I'm an MD, and I deal with the evolution of bacteria on a daily basis - natural selection for antibiotic resistance verses new antibiotics. She even early in the interview admits that this exists, but really balks at the label "evolution" for the process of organisms evolving.
Guess we shouldn't have eaten from the tree of then knowledge of good and evil - as according to her God didn't create pathological bacteria until "after the fall"
Has anybody tracked down her Doctoral thesis?
V.
| 424 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:15:08pm |
re: #412 CorruptedSynapses
Idealism isn't considered postmodernism as far as I know.
When she says "Our starting points are important for understanding what happened in the past", what she is doing is asserting a deconstructionist argument. Deconstructionism is the epitome of postmodernism. She is sayingm, in a roundabout way, that whether or not something is true depends upon one's perspective upon it or one's interpretation of it, not upon the facts of the matter at issue itself.
"There is your truth, and then there is my truth."
JZ Knight, channeling Ramtha.
But truth does not depend upon perspective or interpretation. Whatever the whole truth about something is in itself, it must nonccontradictorally include as a component or part the capacity to manifest in all different perspectival observers of it the different facets they perceive of it.
| 425 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:16:40pm |
re: #413 HelloDare
I wish I could hear what Shermer said as soon as the camera was off and she was out of earshot.
He probably just facepalmed while shaking his head...
| 426 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:16:55pm |
| 427 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:19:26pm |
re: #411 Zimriel
No, that's too much. A PhD should be given on the merits of the thesis. Remember "A Beautiful Mind"? Just because someone goes insane (and even antiSemitic in Nash's case) can't be held against the original work of scholarship.
If Purdom had written a bushel of lies, then Ohio has the right to revoke the PhD; but I haven't heard that Purdom's thesis was fraudulent.
I wasn't serious. I keep forgetting to use the sarc tags.
| 428 |
Oh no...Sand People! Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:20:31pm |
re: #41 Thanos
"I have a five year old daughter, she's a guilty sinner..."
/arrggggggggggggg
Only time for a drive by post.
My audio isn't working. Is that a direct quote? I am assuming it is.
I reject 'original sin'. What a B.S. concept. Born guilty in sin? (cue 'Deliverance' background music...) While pastor 'Fred Phelps' and the dino-riders are out to 'guilt' us all into paying them money. "Guilt" and self loathing is a tool of liberalism. No wonder we lose elections...it's built into the religions. Well, I guess if I am guilty due to the actions of a predesessor before I was even alive, why not start ponying up the dough for 'slave reparations'? I will continue living a life of doing as good as I can but not 'damning children to hell'.
You can interpret your 'word' however you want, but when I look at my 5 year old, I see a noble, innocent, intelligent, curious, vibrant and alive beautiful child, in my opinion, of God.
Those who think otherwise, I reject you and your pastor's opinions you rode in on.
-Oh no...Sand People!
| 429 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:22:36pm |
Georgia Purdom has two Ph.D.'s. One in molecular genetics. And one in Stupid.
| 430 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:22:40pm |
re: #422 jaunte
One day we're gonna have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Fortunately, we won't be here. I'm beginning to come around to the idea of passing on to future generations. :)
| 431 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:24:17pm |
It does make you wonder about the self-contradiction of antiabortionists asserting on the one hand, that the 'unborn child' is innocent, while on the other hand, insisting that God infuses a zygote with a soul the moment the spermhead penetrates the ovum wall.
By their own theology, it would have to be 'fallen' at that very instant.
| 432 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:25:49pm |
re: #430 Unakite
'Galaxy Quest' did the idea justice in a funny way, but I do wonder if our television broadcasts might at some point have an effect on an alien culture.
| 433 |
Oh no...Sand People! Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:26:46pm |
re: #431 Salamantis
It does make you wonder about the self-contradiction of antiabortionists asserting on the one hand, that the 'unborn child' is innocent, while on the other hand, insisting that God infuses a zygote with a soul the moment the spermhead penetrates the ovum wall.
By their own theology, it would have to be 'fallen' at that very instant.
DING DING!
I have but only one upding to give.
| 434 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:27:52pm |
re: #429 HelloDare
Georgia Purdom has two Ph.D.'s. One in molecular genetics. And one in Stupid.
I've said it before. I'll say it again. "A Ph.D is no guarantee its owner is not an idiot."
| 435 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:30:07pm |
re: #434 USBeast
I've said it before. I'll say it again. "A Ph.D is no guarantee its owner is not an idiot."
The smarter you are the more rationalizations you can come up with for a stupid position.
| 436 |
Steve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:30:22pm |
re: #428 Oh no...Sand People!
Only time for a drive by post.
My audio isn't working. Is that a direct quote? I am assuming it is.
I reject 'original sin'. What a B.S. concept. Born guilty in sin? (cue 'Deliverance' background music...) While pastor 'Fred Phelps' and the dino-riders are out to 'guilt' us all into paying them money. "Guilt" and self loathing is a tool of liberalism. No wonder we lose elections...it's built into the religions. Well, I guess if I am guilty due to the actions of a predesessor before I was even alive, why not start ponying up the dough for 'slave reparations'? I will continue living a life of doing as good as I can but not 'damning children to hell'.
You can interpret your 'word' however you want, but when I look at my 5 year old, I see a noble, innocent, intelligent, curious, vibrant and alive beautiful child, in my opinion, of God.
Those who think otherwise, I reject you and your pastor's opinions you rode in on.
-Oh no...Sand People!
We are born into a sinful world. We are not born with sin. Sin does not happen until we know the difference between right and wrong.
| 437 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:32:13pm |
re: #432 jaunte
'Galaxy Quest' did the idea justice in a funny way, but I do wonder if our television broadcasts might at some point have an effect on an alien culture.
ooh...I have to plead ignorant on "Galaxy Quest," but it will be a long time before anyone (anything?) else sees "Ed Sullivan," much less "American Idol."
| 438 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:32:28pm |
re: #436 Steve
We are born into a sinful world. We are not born with sin. Sin does not happen until we know the difference between right and wrong.
Which is why people may be found innocent in courts of law by reason of insanity - insanity being defined as the inability to distinguish between right (good) and wrong (evil).
| 439 |
HelloDare Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:32:56pm |
I was raised a Catholic. When I heard about original sin as a child I thought it was bunk. Trouble is, I felt guilty for thinking it was nonsense.
| 440 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:33:01pm |
re: #418 Throbert McGee
BSM is saying that it looks ridiculous (and possibly a bit insecure) to be bothered by "threats" of a Hell that you regard as a non-existent fantasy.
I don't get offended if a New Age quack tells me my chakras are out of alignment, because I don't believe there are any such things as "chakras."
Why, then, would I get mad if an evangelical Christian tells me I'm going to burn in Hell because I'm not born-again? (The only reason I might get mad is *if* I were another stripe of Christian -- it would bother me that the evangelicals are giving non-Christians a reason to dislike Christianity with all of the obnoxious Hellfire talk.)
You are right of course, in the larger sense since I know very well that many are saying that right now, and I could care less.
There is however a difference between someone expressing a sincere belief, but based on a lack of understanding, and someone like this woman who has had educational opportunities that few get (let alone are qualified for) and then compounds the matter by expressing what to my eye is a perversion of morality through her justifications for her beliefs.
Of course I don't feel threatened by her statements, nor insulted since that would imply respect on my part, but she does represent the mindset that wants our children, so to speak, and in that regard her beliefs are a threat, even while they are not to my philosophy.
| 441 |
Steve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:33:19pm |
re: #438 Salamantis
Which is why people may be found innocent in courts of law by reason of insanity - insanity being defined as the inability to distinguish between right (good) and wrong (evil).
In the courts, yes. With God, no.
| 442 |
Achilles Tang Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:35:09pm |
re: #436 Steve
We are born into a sinful world. We are not born with sin. Sin does not happen until we know the difference between right and wrong.
And then it takes only a millisecond, right?
| 443 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:35:17pm |
re: #438 Salamantis
Which is why people may be found innocent in courts of law by reason of insanity - insanity being defined as the inability to distinguish between right (good) and wrong (evil).
This could also entail that the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve purportedly consumed was in fact the apple of sanity.
| 444 |
jaunte Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:35:18pm |
re: #437 Unakite
ooh...I have to plead ignorant on "Galaxy Quest," but it will be a long time before anyone (anything?) else sees "Ed Sullivan," much less "American Idol."
Yep. We won't be here to know it, but I like to think some creature will someday respond to one of our dumb reality shows:
*@# taste beautiful colorsss #@*
| 445 |
Steve Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:36:14pm |
| 446 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:36:56pm |
re: #443 Salamantis
This could also entail that the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve purportedly consumed was in fact the apple of sanity.
Or are we instead saying that the mere knowledge of the difference between good and evil is itself an evil knowledge?
| 448 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:41:14pm |
re: #439 HelloDare
I was raised a Catholic. When I heard about original sin as a child I thought it was bunk. Trouble is, I felt guilty for thinking it was nonsense.
I understand. I became a Free Thinker on the night of my Confirmation.
| 451 |
Zimriel Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:45:37pm |
re: #446 Salamantis
Or are we instead saying that the mere knowledge of the difference between good and evil is itself an evil knowledge?
That would be the view of the European Romantics, starting with Rousseau I believe.
They were good at poetry, art, and music. At philosophy, not so much.
| 452 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:47:47pm |
People here might find this interesting, as regards the whole good and evil discussion:
[Link: www.geocities.com...]
excerpt:
Yahweh's precise words:
16 Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden.
17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die."
Fateful words, those. We will refer back to this admonition later. Then Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don't forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, "male and female," who are presumably doing just fine somewhere "outside the gates of Eden." But this setup in Eden is Yahweh's own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny.
21 So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh.
22 Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man.
Right. Man gives birth to woman. Sure he does. But that's the way the story is told here.
25 Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other.
Well, of course not! Why should they? But take careful note of those words, as they also will prove to be significant . . .
Now this next part is where it starts to get interesting. Enter the Serpent:
Gen. 3:1 - The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"
2 The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden.
3 "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death'"
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die!
5 "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."
What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh.
Obviously, one of them has to be lying. Which one, do you suppose? And, if the serpent speaks true, wouldn't you wish to eat of the magic fruit? Wouldn't it be a good thing, to become "like gods, knowing good and evil"? Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?
6 The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths.
The author makes an interesting assumption here: that if you realize you are naked you will automatically want to cover yourself. Further implications will unfold shortly...
8 The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.
9 But Yahweh God called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked.
10 "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid."
11 "Who told you that you were naked?" he asked. "Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?"
And so the sign of the Fall becomes modesty. Take note of this. The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked. It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked are, by definition, not carriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!
12 The man replied, "It was the woman you put with me; she gave me the fruit, and I ate it."
Right. Blame the woman. What a turkey!
to be continued...
| 453 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:48:20pm |
continued...
13 Then Yahweh God asked the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman replied, "The serpent tempted me and I ate."
So of course she blames the serpent. But just what did the serpent do that was so evil? Why, he called Yahweh a liar! Was he wrong? Let's see...
21 Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on.
Out of skins? This means that Yahweh had to kill some innocent animals to pander to Adam and Eve's new obsession with modesty!
And now we come to the crux of the Fall. Yahweh had said back there in chapter 2:17, regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter 3:4-5: "No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." So what actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse:
22 Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."
Get that? Yahweh himself admits that he had lied! In fact, and in Yahweh's own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover, Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam (and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge. To prevent them, in other words, from truly becoming gods!
So who, in this story, comes off as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes off as a tyrant? THE SERPENT NEVER LIED!
| 454 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:49:06pm |
There were a lot of geologists even before Darwin's time "coming up with the concept that the world was a lot older than it appears. they were going away from the scriptural models...what Scripture makes clear, and instead inserting their own ideas, into well, that it took a long period of time.."
It wasn't Darwin, it was the DAMN GEOLOGISTS!
| 456 |
USBeast Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:50:11pm |
re: #451 Zimriel
That would be the view of the European Romantics, starting with Rousseau I believe.
They were good at poetry, art, and music. At philosophy, not so much.
Good point. Rousseau rationalized but never reasoned.
| 458 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:53:02pm |
| 459 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:55:11pm |
All the narrative is doing is taking the Bible verses as given, and drawing out the logical conclusions and ramifications entailed.
| 461 |
Lynn B. Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:59:34pm |
re: #414 LudwigVanQuixote
Nope, to this day, if you look in a Torah scroll, there are no vowels.
I also want to continue the thought about translations and interpretations.
It seems to me that there are sufficiently different choices in translation and interpretation that King James OT should be regarded as a different book all together from Tanach. I am not making a value statement here. That is the holy book of one faith whereas the Tanach in Hebrew is mine.
...
It most certainly is a different book altogether, as I have tried to point out here and other places time and time again. Not only because of your examples but because of the more obvious fact that not only are the translations and interpretations entirely different but many verses are arranged in a different order, as are many of the books.
When I actually get the opportunity to sit down with someone and compare ANY version of an English translation of the Old Testament portion of the Christian Bible to any English translation of the Tanach (Hebrew Bible), the point is self-evident. And that's without regard to the nuances of the original Hebrew that you point out.
Sorry to drive by but I've gotta get some sleep.
| 462 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 9:59:37pm |
re: #399 Euler
How does having a single assumption strengthen an argument? It does not. True enough, the weaker the hypothesis, the stronger the inference, no controversy there. But then there is the little matter of whether or not the hypothesis is true. In fact, by making the single hypothesis that 0=1, I can prove any conclusion q whatsoever with complete mathematical rigor as follows.
We wish to prove that 0=1 => q. The only way this implication can fail is for both 0=1 to be true and for q to be false. But 0 does not in fact equal 1. So the implication does not fail; and we conclude that the statement 0=1 => q is true; i.e., it is a valid implication.
Respectfully and without rancor, your correct argument proved you more of a mathematician than your handle!
| 463 |
lostlakehiker Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:06:34pm |
re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote
I want to comment on some of the AGW and creationist crossover. This is a repost from another thread that I have edited a bit. There is the same sort of almost religious fervor in the arguments.
As soon as one starts going into one world government conspiracy theory, particularly from the scientific community on AGW, they seriously damage your credibility as a "level headed scientific type." It is hard enough hanging with the Elders of Zion to keep appeasing my masters at the APS...
Respectfully, "I hate Al Gore" is not a scientific statement. I am not his biggest fan, but please consider that he is not a scientist and he does not really represent the community. He is a politician. The political circus around him is not science either.
To really get at what is going on with AGW you need to know something about that non linear systems. Non-linear dynamics is my field.
If you wish to get into this I will be glad to. However, I wish that you keep the tone respectful.
CO2 really is a greenhouse gas. We know this for a fact from the absorption spectra and we can even calculate said spectra using QM. This is not in debate.
Many point out a lot about carbon from other sources, but they neglect many other facets of the system. For one thing, many different forms of pollution have deeply depleted ocean algae and there has been massive deforestation in the last century. This is caused by man, and it means that there is much less of a carbon sink.
Further, if it were just a matter of natural volcanic cycles, blah, blah, blah, we would not see the steady increases in CO2 from Keeling curves that we do. This is not the hockey stick, but rather direct optical measurement of concentrations in the atmosphere. The rate of eruptions has not been increasing dramatically in the last fifty years. So it must be something else.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Another issue that is rarely taken into account is methane from vastly increased farm industrial farming operations. This is dismissed smugly as "cow farts" but the problem is not just cow farts at all. Consider a CAFO. A pig produces per day, as much feces as eight adult humans. That means one CAFO in Texas, with two million swine (and there are many CAFOs, and not just in Texas) produces as much feces as the New York metro area. What happens to all of that fecal matter? For one thing legislation was passed to ease regulation on cleaning it up so, unlike New York, there is no waste management or sewage treatment. In fact, there are giant lakes of feces. This releases vast amounts of methane. Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
There is also a conversation about water vapor and us silly scientists not noticing it. Again, like the creationists, that like to misquote the Second Law, do people really think that they figured out something really basic, that somehow the whole scientific community missed? Do consider that if it gets warmer for other reasons, there will be more water vapor in the air and now you have a feedback loop.
Finally, there are those who love to cherry pick facts. On a cold day they gloat that Aha, there is no global warming. It is supposed to be cold in winter. What is more accurate is to look at all of the trends and notice a lot of warm days too.
Then there are those who want to say "how can warming possibly cause cooling?" They then smugly discredit anything that might follow. The answer to that question is in most people's kitchen - and once again goes to not understanding Thermodynamics. How does a refrigerator work?
Quixote asks that when those come to yell at me, we keep it respectful.
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
| 464 |
lostlakehiker Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:14:05pm |
re: #401 HelloDare
Ohio State should loose their accreditation.
Oh come on. Anyone who does the work earns the PhD. This is a bright woman, articulate, focused, and well informed to a point. It's just she's wrong about evolution. Universities ought not be in the business of denying degrees because the candidate is wrong on this, that, or the other, if their classwork and research makes the grade.
They didn't revoke the certification of whatever University it was that awarded Kaczynski his degree, and he was loopy in a more dangerous way than this lady.
| 465 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:16:56pm |
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
Thank you so much! And of course you are correct!
| 466 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:21:55pm |
My own opinion of the narrative is that it is a metaphorical description of the advent of human conscious self-awareness. Animals, which lack conscious self-awareness, do not act either morally nor immorally, but instinctively and amorally, in response to a combination of genetically imprinted instincts, behavioral conditioning from past experiences, and the apprehension of presently impinging stimuli.
Humans, on the other hand, being self-consciously aware, can abstractly reflect upon their circumstances, and freely choose individual and different responses that are not bound to their identities as members of species with genetically programmed reactions, but instead are a consequence of our personal identities as individual consciousnesses.
The nakedness angle fits in here, too; the moment that we became aware of ourselves as possessing individual minds and thoughts, similar with (because we are all human beings possessing existential, hitorical, linguistic and cultural commonalities with others around us) but not identical to the thoughts of others (because we have different personal histories that inform them), the contents of which we filter before making (only some of) them public through interpersonal discourse, we also became aware of ourselves as possessing individual bodies, naked to the gazes of others who are similar with (because we are all configurational homo sapiens) but not identical to ourselves (due to different genetics, ages, sexes, and configurationally shaping histories). In a way, the selective concealment and elaborate accentuations of our bodies - modesty and vanity (cosmetics) - is an isomorphism of the selective concealment and elaborate misrepresentation of our opinions - discretion and braggadocio and mendacity (lying).
| 467 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:22:13pm |
re: #443 Salamantis
This could also entail that the "fruitcup" of the knowledge of good and evil that Adam and Eve purportedly consumed was in fact the apple of sanity.
FIFY (trying to score brownie points).
| 468 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:25:28pm |
re: #466 Salamantis
My own opinion of the narrative is that it is a metaphorical description of the advent of human conscious self-awareness. Animals, which lack conscious self-awareness, do not act either morally nor immorally, but instinctively and amorally, in response to a combination of genetically imprinted instincts, behavioral conditioning from past experiences, and the apprehension of presently impinging stimuli.
Humans, on the other hand, being self-consciously aware, can abstractly reflect upon their circumstances, and freely choose individual and different responses that are not bound to their identities as members of species with genetically programmed reactions, but instead are a consequence of our personal identities as individual consciousnesses.
The nakedness angle fits in here, too; the moment that we became aware of ourselves as possessing individual minds and thoughts, similar with (because we are all human beings possessing existential, hitorical, linguistic and cultural commonalities with others around us) but not identical to the thoughts of others (because we have different personal histories that inform them), the contents of which we filter before making (only some of) them public through interpersonal discourse, we also became aware of ourselves as possessing individual bodies, naked to the gazes of others who are similar with (because we are all configurational homo sapiens) but not identical to ourselves (due to different genetics, ages, sexes, and configurationally shaping histories). In a way, the selective concealment and elaborate accentuations of our bodies - modesty and vanity (cosmetics) - is an isomorphism of the selective concealment and elaborate misrepresentation of our opinions - discretion and braggadocio and mendacity (lying).
You would love Zohar.
| 469 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:26:16pm |
| 470 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:27:21pm |
re: #469 Salamantis
I own a copy.
Then you know what I am getting at with the nature of Ruach and what the tree of knowledge really is.
| 471 |
transient Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:28:21pm |
re: #470 LudwigVanQuixote
Then you know what I am getting at with the nature of Ruach and what the tree of knowledge really is.
Don't be cagey.
| 472 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:29:33pm |
| 473 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:32:22pm |
But one other thing; I also consider the tale of Cain and Abel to be a parable of the split between nomadic ranchers and settled farmers, once hunter-gatherers chose between them. Of course the smart ones had both herds and fields.
| 474 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:35:24pm |
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
I would add that the damn Vikings were in Greenland over a millennium ago becausethe climate was a lot warmer and THERE WERE NO pig farms in Texas or cattle ranches in South America or factories or traffic jams (and the world population was significantly smaller than it is now). Not being there at the time, I assume that glaciers were smaller then, too, and they survived. Guess what. They did not leave Greenland because of global warming and rising sea levels. They left because of Global cooling!
| 475 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:38:41pm |
re: #471 transient
Don't be cagey.
re: #472 Salamantis
I'll lay back and read as Ludwig elucidates.
I'm sorry, I was not trying to be cagey. I also wasn't really meaning to write what will be another really long essay to do justice to, but the short form is that ruach is the breath that was breathed into Adam. This is something spiritual and with it comes a certain spirtual awareness.
In a very real sense the idea is that humanity, and the creation of humanity is defined by a human souls and a certain human awareness. This awareness and the ability to make choices comes from the Divine and iis the spark of the Divine in Humans.
The Tree of Life is Torah itself, but the concept goes beyond the notion of the printed scroll, rather it is the full spiritual understanding of the mysteries. It was not that Adam and Eve were never supposed to partake of these trees, but rather that they jumped the gun and gained a flawed awareness.
There is a huge amount more to say about this and I am not even close to doing it justice.
| 476 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:39:14pm |
re: #474 Unakite
I would add that the damn Vikings were in Greenland over a millennium ago becausethe climate was a lot warmer and THERE WERE NO pig farms in Texas or cattle ranches in South America or factories or traffic jams (and the world population was significantly smaller than it is now). Not being there at the time, I assume that glaciers were smaller then, too, and they survived. Guess what. They did not leave Greenland because of global warming and rising sea levels. They left because of Global cooling!
Exactly why, although I am prepared to accept that global warming is occuring, I am not prepared to accept that it is significantly anthropogenic in nature. Rather, I consider solar cycles to be responsible for the lion's share of it.
| 477 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:42:29pm |
re: #474 Unakite
I would add that the damn Vikings were in Greenland over a millennium ago becausethe climate was a lot warmer and THERE WERE NO pig farms in Texas or cattle ranches in South America or factories or traffic jams (and the world population was significantly smaller than it is now). Not being there at the time, I assume that glaciers were smaller then, too, and they survived. Guess what. They did not leave Greenland because of global warming and rising sea levels. They left because of Global cooling!
Respectfully, how does it follow from that that the things I mentioned have no effect?
| 478 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:43:09pm |
re: #475 LudwigVanQuixote
I'm sorry, I was not trying to be cagey. I also wasn't really meaning to write what will be another really long essay to do justice to, but the short form is that ruach is the breath that was breathed into Adam. This is something spiritual and with it comes a certain spirtual awareness.
In a very real sense the idea is that humanity, and the creation of humanity is defined by a human souls and a certain human awareness. This awareness and the ability to make choices comes from the Divine and iis the spark of the Divine in Humans.
The Tree of Life is Torah itself, but the concept goes beyond the notion of the printed scroll, rather it is the full spiritual understanding of the mysteries. It was not that Adam and Eve were never supposed to partake of these trees, but rather that they jumped the gun and gained a flawed awareness.
There is a huge amount more to say about this and I am not even close to doing it justice.
The upshot is that, according to the Zohar, the consumption of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was damning precisely because it was the premature consumption of the divine, which Adam and Eve (read ancient humanity) had not sufficiently evolved to be able to wisely internalize and handle. We still don't appear to be handling it all that well.
| 479 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:43:25pm |
re: #465 LudwigVanQuixote
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
Thank you so much! And of course you are correct!
Damn Kissy-fest. What the hell is an "averager" of temperature, and what the hell does the "near-universal retreat" of glaciers mean? If they're retreating now, it means they had to advance at some time in the past. Global Cooling? Guess what! The natural cycles of the earth's climate occur in periods far longer than one or two generations...oh, f*ck it.
| 480 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:44:45pm |
re: #476 Salamantis
Exactly why, although I am prepared to accept that global warming is occuring, I am not prepared to accept that it is significantly anthropogenic in nature. Rather, I consider solar cycles to be responsible for the lion's share of it.
The jury is still out on the solar cycle, it is certainly possible that this has had a mjor effect in the past. However, how does that discount that the thing I have mentioned are having an effect of their own? The models certainly predict that they will have an effect and the models are not all crap.
| 481 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:45:30pm |
re: #478 Salamantis
The upshot is that, according to the Zohar, the consumption of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was damning precisely because it was the premature consumption of the divine, which Adam and Eve (read ancient humanity) had not sufficiently evolved to be able to wisely internalize and handle. We still don't appear to be handling it all that well.
You sure you are not a rabbi?
| 482 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:47:57pm |
re: #479 Unakite
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
Damn Kissy-fest. What the hell is an "averager" of temperature, and what the hell does the "near-universal retreat" of glaciers mean? If they're retreating now, it means they had to advance at some time in the past. Global Cooling? Guess what! The natural cycles of the earth's climate occur in periods far longer than one or two generations...oh, f*ck it.
This is not, however, to say that there are not such things as global ecological tipping points. It is also not to say that there are. But, whether there are or not such things, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was nevertheless sensationalistic bullshit, because a tipping point in the context of geological time would still appear quite gradual in the context of the life spans of human beings.
| 483 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:48:21pm |
re: #479 Unakite
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
Damn Kissy-fest. What the hell is an "averager" of temperature, and what the hell does the "near-universal retreat" of glaciers mean? If they're retreating now, it means they had to advance at some time in the past. Global Cooling? Guess what! The natural cycles of the earth's climate occur in periods far longer than one or two generations...oh, f*ck it.
| 485 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:51:14pm |
re: #481 LudwigVanQuixote
You sure you are not a rabbi?
No, I am a (nonfundamentalist) pagan and a philosopher. Both of these require much deep knowledge and understanding of many different fields to be pulled off well (which I am not claiming that I yet possess, only that I have spent much time and effort aquiring).
| 487 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:54:13pm |
re: #479 Unakite
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
Damn Kissy-fest. What the hell is an "averager" of temperature, and what the hell does the "near-universal retreat" of glaciers mean? If they're retreating now, it means they had to advance at some time in the past. Global Cooling? Guess what! The natural cycles of the earth's climate occur in periods far longer than one or two generations...oh, f*ck it.
Hmmm something odd happened with my comment... I shall try again.
No one is denying that there have been cycles of warming or cooling in the past. The assertion is that we are influencing the cycle. How can you claim that the things that I have mentioned would have no effect in the present? The best models we have indicate that is does make a difference and common sense should indicate that if you change the bioshphere enough things will change in at least some way.
The question is how much?
So please, without anger tell me why these things have no effect?
| 488 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:56:38pm |
re: #486 buzzsawmonkey
Your posts invariably impress me. Your willingness to be beguiled by a latter-day incarnation of Jacob Frank does not.
Wow. That's a little strong there... I wasn't aware that Sal was doing the whole Sabbatai Zvi thing...
| 489 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:57:35pm |
re: #477 LudwigVanQuixote
Respectfully, how does it follow from that that the things I mentioned have no effect?
Respectfully, I think the things you mentioned may have some effect, but much smaller than most people think. Just a cursory review of even recent earth history shows that (relatively) extreme climatological changes occur on larger-scale (think ice ages) and shorter-scale (think medieval warm period from the 10th to 12th century and the little ice age from the 13th to about the 18th century). Given the climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last hundred thousand years (give or take a few) that obviously occurred with minimal anthropogenic input, I think the current hysteria is just background noise.
| 491 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 10:58:36pm |
re: #484 buzzsawmonkey
If you are using the editorial "we" to mean yourself, I agree with you. If not, then speak for yourself.
The paganism you espouse is the antithesis of the divine, being earth- and man-based. It rejects, as you yourself have repeatedly rejected in these threads, any concept of the very idea of the divine--which makes your own faux-pious mouthings regarding divinity little better than an obscenity, even when they happen to be objectively correct--as occasionally occurs, on the stopped-clock theory.
That depends upon what one's definition of 'divine' is. We are tiny and brief-lived parts of a vast and ancient universe, that nevertheless possess the capacity to conceive of its massive and perduring wheel and span. In a way, we can reasonably be considered to be sets of minds and senses by means of which the universe apprehends and comprehends itself.
Whether or not there was a cognizant and purposeful giver, this is a rare gift, to be reverenced and respected. So much of the Universe's contents will never be blessed to see or know such a gift.
| 492 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:02:19pm |
re: #489 Unakite
Respectfully, I think the things you mentioned may have some effect, but much smaller than most people think. Just a cursory review of even recent earth history shows that (relatively) extreme climatological changes occur on larger-scale (think ice ages) and shorter-scale (think medieval warm period from the 10th to 12th century and the little ice age from the 13th to about the 18th century). Given the climate fluctuations that have occurred over the last hundred thousand years (give or take a few) that obviously occurred with minimal anthropogenic input, I think the current hysteria is just background noise.
I am personally not keen on hysteria. If you have seen my other posts on this, I have argued rather strongly that I'm am disgusted with both sets who politicize this debate.
That said I can point you t an awful lot of reputable research that says that the effect is rather large. I am not talking MSM either, but rather in the peer reviewd literature.
As to how large, we do not fully know yet, but there is absolutely no valid research that says it is negligable.
| 493 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:10:47pm |
re: #488 ludwigvanquixote
Wow. That's a little strong there... I wasn't aware that Sal was doing the whole Sabbatai Zvi thing...
I just looked up the dude on Wikipedia. I most definitely am not 'doing the whole Sabbatai Zvi thing..." I have no delusions of being either a prophet or of partaking in some special warrant of divinity inaccessible to other human beings.
Nor do I think that what I have said here would indicate in the slightest to the reasonable reader that I was.
| 494 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:12:07pm |
re: #482 Salamantis
This is not, however, to say that there are not such things as global ecological tipping points. It is also not to say that there are. But, whether there are or not such things, the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" was nevertheless sensationalistic bullshit, because a tipping point in the context of geological time would still appear quite gradual in the context of the life spans of human beings.
Cazactly. But the "tipping points" or thresholds occur and have always occurred naturally and have occurred even in the last few centuries, if not in our immediate lifetimes. Has there been a recent warming trend? absolutely. Has there been an anthropogenic influence? Maybe, but probably negligible.
| 495 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:16:16pm |
re: #493 Salamantis
I just looked up the dude on Wikipedia. I most definitely am not 'doing the whole Sabbatai Zvi thing..." I have no delusions of being either a prophet or of partaking in some special warrant of divinity inaccessible to other human beings.
Nor do I think that what I have said here would indicate in the slightest to the reasonable reader that I was.
That is why I said I thought what Buzzsaw said was harsh. That said, I know full well that you are not a rabbi, I was trying to point out some interesting things in what you said having parallels to the Tradition.
I also really do not want to get into a beef with anyone. I do not know why there is animus between you and Buzzsaw and I honestly will consider delving into it to be Loshan Ha Ra. And I mean that.
| 496 |
transient Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:17:40pm |
re: #475 LudwigVanQuixote
It was not that Adam and Eve were never supposed to partake of these trees, but rather that they jumped the gun and gained a flawed awareness.
re: #478 Salamantis
The upshot is that, according to the Zohar, the consumption of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was damning precisely because it was the premature consumption of the divine, which Adam and Eve (read ancient humanity) had not sufficiently evolved to be able to wisely internalize and handle. We still don't appear to be handling it all that well.
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.
| 497 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:20:40pm |
re: #480 LudwigVanQuixote
The jury is still out on the solar cycle, it is certainly possible that this has had a mjor effect in the past. However, how does that discount that the thing I have mentioned are having an effect of their own? The models certainly predict that they will have an effect and the models are not all crap.
Sounds like the video. You have decided that the models are not all crap, therefore, you have to argue backwards. In essence, you have to believe that the models are not crap so that you can accept what they predict.
I can discount the things that you have mentioned as having an effect of their own (at least a significant effect) specifically because there is so much climatological (and geological) evidence of historic climate variation taking place without the things that you mentioned.
| 498 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:26:48pm |
re: #497 Unakite
Sounds like the video. You have decided that the models are not all crap, therefore, you have to argue backwards. In essence, you have to believe that the models are not crap so that you can accept what they predict.
I can discount the things that you have mentioned as having an effect of their own (at least a significant effect) specifically because there is so much climatological (and geological) evidence of historic climate variation taking place without the things that you mentioned.
No, the models are not all crap because I understand the physics and the mathematics that goes into them. So does the majority of the physics community. The assumptions are not invalid and the mathematics has consequences.
Why do you need to be insulting and try to compare me to that awful woman? Further, you seem to be doing a bit of projection here becuase you have already assumed that the models must be crap.
This is the point where I respectfully ask if you have the background to judge the computations themselves. If you do, lets go into it. If not, then please don't speak with authority you do not possess.
| 499 |
theheat Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:28:11pm |
I loved how every time he mentioned the word evolution, she'd correct him and say it wasn't evolution, it was change.
Apparently, this is the HopeyChangey Museum.
| 500 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:29:48pm |
re: #499 theheat
I loved how every time he mentioned the word evolution, she'd correct him and say it wasn't evolution, it was change.
Apparently, this is the HopeyChangey Museum.
Renaming things is a good way to remove their meanings.
| 501 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:30:19pm |
re: #487 ludwigvanquixote
Hmmm something odd happened with my comment... I shall try again.
No one is denying that there have been cycles of warming or cooling in the past. The assertion is that we are influencing the cycle. How can you claim that the things that I have mentioned would have no effect in the present? The best models we have indicate that is does make a difference and common sense should indicate that if you change the bioshphere enough things will change in at least some way.
The question is how much?
So please, without anger tell me why these things have no effect?
I responded earlier and may have had an attitude. I apologize, and it's a fair question. Part of my response would be that school here (in eastern Virginia) was canceled a couple of weeks ago because the meteorologists were forecasting snow. My wife took a day off from work to stay home with the kids and, guess what, no snow. The local government made a decision that affected thousands of families in this area based on a weather forecast of snow (in the wintertime no less) made only one day ahead. If the models and forecasts are that inaccurate only one day ahead, I respectfully acknowledge that I have very little confidence in models that are claiming to predict climate patterns and trends decades into the future.
| 502 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:32:10pm |
re: #495 ludwigvanquixote
That is why I said I thought what Buzzsaw said was harsh. That said, I know full well that you are not a rabbi, I was trying to point out some interesting things in what you said having parallels to the Tradition.
I also really do not want to get into a beef with anyone. I do not know why there is animus between you and Buzzsaw and I honestly will consider delving into it to be Loshan Ha Ra. And I mean that.
I fully agree. Whatever the subjectively held reasons for buzz's visceral personal animus toward me might be, they are not a fit subject for list tongue-wagging. All that idle speculation upon them succeeds in doing is diverting threads from more legitimate foci, and generating great heat and little if any light.
I will only say this much; he harbors a decided and rather intense disdain for my personal pagan religious faith - a disdain that I personally consider to have crossed the line into intolerance and bigotry. He has expressed as much to me personally and individually on thread. And this is a disdain that I have never personally reciprocated towards his personal faith, although I have expressed offense at his gratuitous and baseless slanders of my own personal spirituality. In fact, I remain unclear as to precisely what constitute Buzz's personal religious faith.
| 503 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:38:23pm |
re: #501 Unakite
I responded earlier and may have had an attitude. I apologize, and it's a fair question. Part of my response would be that school here (in eastern Virginia) was canceled a couple of weeks ago because the meteorologists were forecasting snow. My wife took a day off from work to stay home with the kids and, guess what, no snow. The local government made a decision that affected thousands of families in this area based on a weather forecast of snow (in the wintertime no less) made only one day ahead. If the models and forecasts are that inaccurate only one day ahead, I respectfully acknowledge that I have very little confidence in models that are claiming to predict climate patterns and trends decades into the future.
Local prediction is a differnt problem then large scale trend. These are actaully unrealted problems and completely different sorts of modeling.
For instance, if you handed a group of doctors 1000 smokers and asked them to predict exactly which ones will get sick and when, they would have a hard time doing that reliably. On the other hand, the satement that x percent are like to be sick in ten years can be calculated with much more accuracy.
We can not predict individual storm systems all that well. However, we can say that warming the Earth by x degrees is likely to have certain effects.
| 504 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:39:32pm |
re: #502 Salamantis
I fully agree. Whatever the subjectively held reasons for buzz's visceral personal animus toward me might be, they are not a fit subject for list tongue-wagging. All that idle speculation upon them succeeds in doing is diverting threads from more legitimate foci, and generating great heat and little if any light.
I will only say this much; he harbors a decided and rather intense disdain for my personal pagan religious faith - a disdain that I personally consider to have crossed the line into intolerance and bigotry. He has expressed as much to me personally and individually on thread. And this is a disdain that I have never personally reciprocated towards his personal faith, although I have expressed offense at his gratuitous and baseless slanders of my own personal spirituality. In fact, I remain unclear as to precisely what constitute Buzz's personal religious faith.
Sal, the laws of Loshan Ha Ra are that I will not listen to either of you bitch about the other.
| 505 |
Unakite Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:43:44pm |
re: #492 ludwigvanquixote
I am personally not keen on hysteria. If you have seen my other posts on this, I have argued rather strongly that I'm am disgusted with both sets who politicize this debate.
That said I can point you t an awful lot of reputable research that says that the effect is rather large. I am not talking MSM either, but rather in the peer reviewd literature.
As to how large, we do not fully know yet, but there is absolutely no valid research that says it is negligable.
Got it. I have a tendency (maybe more because of my schedule) to jump in late and may have not seen earlier posts. I agree with your point that we do not know the extent of the human influence. That is why I have a severe problem with the "chicken little" sky is falling (pun definitely intended) crowd that wants to engage in a panicky, crisis-mode knee-jerk reaction to do...what?
I was around in the 1970's (or so) when the scare was global cooling and the new ice age. I shudder to think where we would be now if we had had the same reaction then, and then twenty years later said "woops, my bad."
| 506 |
Salamantis Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:44:38pm |
re: #504 ludwigvanquixote
Sal, the laws of Loshan Ha Ra are that I will not listen to either of you bitch about the other.
Sorry, Ludwig; I wan't trying to bitch about buzz so much as I was trying to explain why he bitches about me. But apparently one cannot attempt the latter without necessarily transgressing into the former. So I will henceforth abandon the endeavor altogether.
| 507 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:46:58pm |
re: #506 Salamantis
Sorry, Ludwig; I wan't trying to bitch about buzz so much as I was trying to explain why he bitches about me. But apparently one cannot attempt the latter without necessarily transgressing into the former. So I will henceforth abandon the endeavor altogether.
Thanks for understanding.
| 508 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:50:13pm |
Lizards, I am about to pass out!
It's been fun...
Sleep well and dream of beautiful things!
| 509 |
useless Thu, Feb 26, 2009 11:52:10pm |
re: #502 Salamantis
Maybe buzzy had a Pagan piss in his corn flakes or make out with his girl at a party. I bet that's it. Girls can't resist us pagan chaps.
| 510 |
Unakite Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:06:42am |
re: #503 ludwigvanquixote
Local prediction is a differnt problem then large scale trend. These are actaully unrealted problems and completely different sorts of modeling.
For instance, if you handed a group of doctors 1000 smokers and asked them to predict exactly which ones will get sick and when, they would have a hard time doing that reliably. On the other hand, the satement that x percent are like to be sick in ten years can be calculated with much more accuracy.
We can not predict individual storm systems all that well. However, we can say that warming the Earth by x degrees is likely to have certain effects.
Responding to this and my post #505. I have some familiarity with modeling, statistics, etc., including model assumptions and weaknesses. I am not a meteorologist, although I have friends that are (I know that doesn't make me an expert). I guess my two late-night points are 1) the global cooling of the last generation did not pan out (in a sense, we are in a position to actually validate or invalidate their predictions), and 2) models are just tools help people understand how complex systems behave. They are not infallible. I agree with your statement that models can tell you that "warming the Earth by x degrees is likely to have certain effects," but I think there is much more uncertainty about how much that "x degrees" will be or what will cause it.
| 511 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:43:29am |
re: #509 useless
Maybe buzzy had a Pagan piss in his corn flakes or make out with his girl at a party. I bet that's it. Girls can't resist us pagan chaps.
I really don't care about the reasons WHY buzz feels as he does, even though I've already stated in this thread what I, for good and ample reasons derived from his own past posts, surmise that they are. Whatever those reasons may be, they appear to be sufficiently justificatory in his rationale for him to engage in a continuing campaign of groundlessly and gratuitously impugning thread commentary against me. His motivations are of no concern to me; I only care about the fact of the execrable thread attacks in which he relentlessly engages because of them. And those actions are indeed irritating, although not intimidatingly so. Nobody likes being falsely and repeatedly smeared and slandered, in the absence of any provocation whatsoever. But such actions will not inhibit in the least my free expression of my considered opinions concerning topics that arise on this site.
| 513 |
Annar Fri, Feb 27, 2009 4:50:30am |
re: #100 LudwigVanQuixote
Ahh, yes, the whole what do you mean by a day thing....
I truly wonder how people could ever take such an obvious metaphor literally. I mean, forget science for a moment, the definition of a day depends on the Sun... The Sun is not created first. That is a big hint that the days are not literal.
Actually ti's an even a bigger hint that the whole story is total nonsense. No self respecting god could be that stupid.
| 514 |
Mr Secul Fri, Feb 27, 2009 5:20:18am |
re: #70 Sharmuta
"That sounds like evolution"
"Oh, no! It's not evolution, they're still bacteria."
Just as we are still vertebrates, still tetrapods, still amniotes, still mammals, still apes. The Finches are still Finches, the fruit flies are still fruit flies. Birds are still dinosaurs.
| 515 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 27, 2009 5:40:24am |
re: #431 Salamantis
It does make you wonder about the self-contradiction of antiabortionists asserting on the one hand, that the 'unborn child' is innocent, while on the other hand, insisting that God infuses a zygote with a soul the moment the spermhead penetrates the ovum wall.
By their own theology, it would have to be 'fallen' at that very instant.
Very true. Not only that, but a soul so badly stained with sin that it is already hell/limbo bound unless baptism is performed. So much for this 'innocence' they speak of.
| 516 |
verderacer Fri, Feb 27, 2009 5:49:07am |
Although I personally dont completely agree with either, I think she is a brave woman to be so candid with her views. I am just wondering how long before the gods of the liberal and "pc" point of view will crucify her.
| 517 |
dahozho Fri, Feb 27, 2009 5:50:07am |
re: #4 Bloodnok
Money quote at 14:27
When asked "How would you test this hypothesis against that hypothesis"
Ms. Purdom says
"Well we wouldn't do that, there'd be no point in that. We know God did it."
And THAT attitude should have precluded her from even getting *admission* into a hard science PhD program.
In viewing the video, it seems to me that she's working WAY to hard to keep from admitting organisms evolve and change. She *knows* what she's supposedly researching is further proof of a natural process (however it developed).
These people are fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
| 518 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 27, 2009 5:59:14am |
re: #516 verderacer
Although I personally dont completely agree with either, I think she is a brave woman to be so candid with her views. I am just wondering how long before the gods of the liberal and "pc" point of view will crucify her.
So, in your mind conservatives never criticize fools, even when they disagree with them?
| 519 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:03:28am |
re: #512 jskern
She has acquitted herself well. She is a fundamentalist believer in the Bible. Nothing she said was inconsistent with that. When you pass her words through your anti-Christian prism you hear horrible things. She spoke of "starting points"--frames of reference, or biases, in other words--and she was right; everyone has a starting point and no one is perfectly objective.
Anyway, if everyone in the world believed as this woman, it'd be a kinder, gentler, safer place in which to live (and Israel would be a garden of Eden!).
I find it increasingly sad how bigotted, hateful and anti-God this site is becoming....
May the love of Yeshua Hamashiach fill every heart. Amen.
And if I said that you have offended the principle of rationality with your excessive political correctness and willingness to suffer fools, and that you might be given brain cancer as a result; would that be significantly different from the way she thinks?
| 520 |
Mr Secul Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:07:40am |
re: #163 jaunte
It's not such a big jump from that kind of thinking to doing away with medical research, because trying to cure illnesses would be against the Intent.
Just like building levees or monitoring volcanoes.
Though I suppose that her argument would be that if God wanted to get you he would get you no matter what you did.
As science improves, God would have to go to greater extremes to get his victims sinners. He'd have to create more and more inventive 'accidents' to kill sinners. It would be like The Omen, only with God as the executioner.
OTOH, since I'm channeling a Creationist at the moment, he'd just get the Atheists to set up another dictatorship and let them kill the sinners for him.
That was scarily easy. :-(
I've been hanging out with IDiots for too long.
| 522 |
theatheistjew Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:22:13am |
As for the Mt. St. Helen's claim:
[Link: www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...]
| 523 |
Teh Flowah Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:34:18am |
re: #232 Naso Tang
I'm guessing you didn't see the video, but if you want a concise answer to the above, it follows:
//
That's not what the original poster was saying though. Catholics are not generally considered part of the "evangelical" movement. That's mostly the domain of Protestants.
@Right Brain
We've made no assumptions with the Drake equation, which is a bad equation to use because you must put in your own numbers of variables and no one can agree on those numbers.
Indeed, you are the one assuming things about it. We don't assume that life just springs up everywhere. We don't assume that such life would automatically discover the benefits of radio communication. We don't assume that were they to discover such communication methods, they would be curious enough to look for life on other planets. We don't assume that the paltry few decades that we have been searching for life outside our own planet would yield results in a universe billions upon billions of years old and untold millions of lightyears in size.
Do you know how little of the sky we can actually watch? It's a funny little thing that happens when you're a sphere and you're surrounded by infinite space. You can view less than .00000000000000000001% of it. We could quite easily just not be watching or listening at the right place at the right time.
Yet you assume that not finding the life on other planets means none exists. Scientists are open to the idea not because of assumptions, but because of statistics. No one who believes in God does so because of the probability of it. Yet ask a scientist why he thinks there must be extraterrestrial life and he will cite the vast size of the universe and the sheer number of suns similar to ours with orbiting planets that on at least a small number of these, must exist conditions similar to earth, and that on a small number of those dopplegangers, must exist some form of life. Just statisically.
You wouldn't expect in a universe with billions of stars like ours, with a billion planets like ours, that we were the only life out there. It's highly improbably. Especially when we apply the knowledge of life on our planet to that statistic. Life arose on this planet pretty quickly after it cooled down, and it has found ways to survive multiple catastrophes. Even when 95% of species are wiped out, "Life finds a way".
| 524 |
uberfasiq Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:35:47am |
Dr. Purdom did an excellent job - she was gracious and remained focused on the Gospel, without shrinking back from the questions at hand. One thing that was covered in this discussion, which is often missed these days, concerns this matter of considering our knowledge of the initial and final states in our scientific analysis of the cosmos, as well as our own planet. On this account, I'll give Mr. Shermer credit for backing down from making assertions about what can be known, empirically, about such matters.
Dr. Purdom's sobriety at the end was especially profound - the discussion of hell is no laughing matter.
| 525 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:44:06am |
re: #511 Salamantis
As you might have noticed, Buzzsawmonkey has had a bee in his bonnet about me for a while too, claiming that I have some kind of deep seething hatred for even the most moderate and harmless manifestation of religion. He always makes this claim while I am criticising some manifestation of religion that is decidedly not harmless, needless to say. He is unable to back up his claims when asked to do so, but unfortunately this doesn't stop him from repeating them and being as insulting as he can manage; the threat that he has much nastier stuff in reserve ("I am being polite") is sadly familiar.
And those actions are indeed irritating, although not intimidatingly so. Nobody likes being falsely and repeatedly smeared and slandered, in the absence of any provocation whatsoever. But such actions will not inhibit in the least my free expression of my considered opinions concerning topics that arise on this site.
Agreed, and well put.
| 526 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:48:32am |
re: #524 uberfasiq
Give me a break. The issue here is not manners. Do you give credence to positions just based on how polite they appear?
As to hell, there are hundreds of millions more Christians who don't believe in hell than there are atheists. Calling her profound when she effectively condemns them to hell (not to mention the rest of humanity) is laughable.
| 527 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:51:21am |
re: #523 Teh Flowah
I wish you wouldn't quote me in the same post in conjunction with certain people.
/Might give someone the wrong impression to some.
| 528 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:52:45am |
re: #526 Naso Tang
You have to remember Naso, that for some virulently religious types, just being polite during such a discussion is a major achievement.
| 529 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 27, 2009 6:53:14am |
What an amazing display of willful ignorance, cognitive dissonance, and rationalizing the irrational. And I still think that if a person reads the Bible, and afterwards thinks the best thing they can do for Jesus is to destroy science, they may have missed the point.
| 530 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:09:17am |
re: #529 Sharmuta
Interesting breakdown of acceptance of evolution by members of different religions:
[Link: pewforum.org...]
| 531 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:18:40am |
I also liked how she accepted natural selection but not evolution. It's usually the other way around- they accept micro-evolution but reject natural selection as the mechanism. But this woman accepted natural selection, which is the mechanism Darwin's theory says is responsible for evolution. That's part of why I found her thinking extra warped. Evolution isn't change over time, but there is natural selection at work..... Right.
How do you correct such convoluted thinking?
| 532 |
lostlakehiker Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:21:18am |
re: #479 Unakite
re: #463 lostlakehiker
Nicely reasoned essay. I would add that glaciers are naturally occurring averagers of temperatures. Their near-universal retreat says something.
Damn Kissy-fest. What the hell is an "averager" of temperature, and what the hell does the "near-universal retreat" of glaciers mean? If they're retreating now, it means they had to advance at some time in the past. Global Cooling? Guess what! The natural cycles of the earth's climate occur in periods far longer than one or two generations...oh, f*ck it.
The claim has been raised that we cannot discern any real evidence that it's warmer now than it was a century ago, because the thermometers cannot be trusted or their placement cannot be trusted. Russian meteorological stations go off the air, cities grow up around stations, that sort of thing.
Well, a glacier is a naturally occurring thermometer that gives you not day by day readings, but decade by decade readings of the average temperature over the past decade. A glacier, through accumulating snow in winter, and losing it in hot summers and not so much losing it in cool summers, retreats or advances. It's just like a thermometer in which a column of mercury advances or retreats, except that it gives you an average temperature over a span of time. And the beauty of using glaciers as thermometers is that you can't argue that scientists made a mistake and put the glacier in an urban heat island, you can't argue that the glacier is broken, and you can't argue that the scientists is lying about what his glacier "reads". The glacier is there for all to see, and we have documented records, with photos, of how it used to look.
Nowadays, and throughout the 20th century, glaciers are nearly all in retreat. Here and there, one runs into a glacier that bucks the trend, but the trend is there. It's nearly universal. Very few exceptions. Got it?
| 533 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:33:18am |
re: #528 Jimmah
You have to remember Naso, that for some virulently religious types, just being polite during such a discussion is a major achievement.
Applies to me too, when I succeed. :=)
| 535 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:55:07am |
re: #532 lostlakehiker
glaciers are nearly all in retreat. Here and there, one runs into a glacier that bucks the trend, but the trend is there. It's nearly universal. Very few exceptions. Got it?
That trend started well before the 20th century for most glaciers, based on available scientific research/observation. In fact, it slowed and reversed for many glaciers DURING the period between 1950 and 1980, during a period of global cooling.
I say this neither to dispell the idea of global warming, nor to confirm it. . . only to note that as usual, there's more to the story than simply saying that the glaciers are in retreat.
And at any rate, it has little to do with the topic under discussion. Georgia Purdom's quote cited by Bloodnok in #4 is where I stopped listening to this nonsense. How does one get a PhD in a science field and still get away with saying things like that, things that are the very antithesis of the scientific method?
| 536 |
thatemailname Fri, Feb 27, 2009 7:57:21am |
Hey folks, put the creationism/evolution debate on hold for a minute and check out this article on John P. Holdren, Obama's "science advisor" (it's also in the LGF links section):
Obama's Biggest Radical
[Link: www.frontpagemag.com...]
Very scary stuff - people with views like this guy Holden, IMHO, represent an extremely serious threat to our future. And now he's the President's "science" advisor - holy crap!
| 537 |
dahozho Fri, Feb 27, 2009 8:03:34am |
re: #531 Sharmuta
Except I don't think we're looking at convoluted thinking so much as just plain intellectual dishonesty. She goes through all sorts of gynmastics to say she's NOT seeing organisms evolving (ie, changing).
Religion is a different disipline from science-- as it should be. Would you want someone with a PhD or equivalant in (insert religion of your choice) suddenly in charge of hard science research? Would you want a hard science PhD suddenly posted as a religious leader with no other religious training? Hopefully, the answer is no. The two do not detract from each other simply by existing. But when we allow one disipline to dictate beliefs of the other, we enter very scary territory.
| 538 |
MrSilverDragon Fri, Feb 27, 2009 8:06:26am |
If I was living with that type of cognitive dissonance as Georgia has, my head would explode like that guy in the movie "Scanners".
| 539 |
thatemailname Fri, Feb 27, 2009 8:13:11am |
re: #532 lostlakehiker
The claim has been raised that we cannot discern any real evidence that it's warmer now than it was a century ago, because the thermometers cannot be trusted or their placement cannot be trusted. Russian meteorological stations go off the air, cities grow up around stations, that sort of thing.
Well, a glacier is a naturally occurring thermometer that gives you not day by day readings, but decade by decade readings of the average temperature over the past decade. A glacier, through accumulating snow in winter, and losing it in hot summers and not so much losing it in cool summers, retreats or advances. It's just like a thermometer in which a column of mercury advances or retreats, except that it gives you an average temperature over a span of time. And the beauty of using glaciers as thermometers is that you can't argue that scientists made a mistake and put the glacier in an urban heat island, you can't argue that the glacier is broken, and you can't argue that the scientists is lying about what his glacier "reads". The glacier is there for all to see, and we have documented records, with photos, of how it used to look.
...
Granted. But what you *can* do is use malfunctioning satellite sensors to make erroneous measurements:
Data Error: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Underestimated by 500,000 Sq Km
As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products.
[Link: climateresearchnews.com...]
| 540 |
Morganfrost Fri, Feb 27, 2009 8:26:50am |
Yesterday, I could not even spell "molecular biologist," and today I are one!
| 541 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 27, 2009 8:39:31am |
Without fail, in every thread on this subject, creationists show up and try to divert the discussion into global warming. Every time.
| 542 |
jdog29 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:13:18am |
I thought the lady did a great job. Part of having faith is something unprovable is being laughed at because it is impossible.
Are you looking for consistency in my life or yours, because if you are looking consistency in mine, God help you.
Also if you don't believe you have inconsistencies in your life, then, well now it is my turn to laugh at you.
| 543 |
The_Vig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:13:35am |
He really got her on the Slavery question. I would have pushed her until she started crying.
| 544 |
The_Vig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:14:21am |
This is the same mind set that leads to suicide bombers.
| 545 |
Lib Wingnut Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:22:40am |
Charles, is this a "no atheists allowed" weblog? Was my comment that offensive or threatening that it needed to be deleted? In reading your blog everyday I've seen FAR more offensive comments in regards to many, many other subjects. Is it my contempt for religion? Is that the third rail of this blog? If we were in the military, would you call me "godless" and threaten me with bodily harm? Was it my tone? I was just reacting to what I saw on a video you posted. Maybe if I used some obscenities and threats of bodily harm, which seem to be permitted and used freely here, it would have been more acceptable?
| 546 |
jdog29 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:25:33am |
[Link: www.space.com...]
Whenever science is wrong it celebrates the breakthrough. Even though as the above link says everything acts and reacts in the opposite way we thought, do you recognize what is missing?
Where is the admission that they had been teaching ignorant lies for years, decades and sometimes centuries depending upon the breakthrough. I love science and am grateful for all the tremendous progress made just in my lifetime. I do, however, believe science asks for even more faith than God asks for because science asks me to put my faith in men.
| 547 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:50:59am |
re: #545 Lib Wingnut
Charles, is this a "no atheists allowed" weblog? Was my comment that offensive or threatening that it needed to be deleted? In reading your blog everyday I've seen FAR more offensive comments in regards to many, many other subjects. Is it my contempt for religion? Is that the third rail of this blog? If we were in the military, would you call me "godless" and threaten me with bodily harm? Was it my tone? I was just reacting to what I saw on a video you posted. Maybe if I used some obscenities and threats of bodily harm, which seem to be permitted and used freely here, it would have been more acceptable?
It was deleted because it was deliberately inflammatory. There's no need to insult people of faith. Criticizing is one thing, insulting quite another.
| 548 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:55:55am |
re: #546 jdog29
[Link: www.space.com...]
Whenever science is wrong it celebrates the breakthrough. Even though as the above link says everything acts and reacts in the opposite way we thought, do you recognize what is missing?
Where is the admission that they had been teaching ignorant lies for years, decades and sometimes centuries depending upon the breakthrough.
This is a joke, right? You think when data reveals errors in past scientific analysis, it's necessary for some Science Overlord somewhere to put out an official apology ... for lying? About the solar magnetosphere?
Heh. That's a good one.
| 549 |
Jim D Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:58:44am |
re: #545 Lib Wingnut
So Charles hates theists and atheists now. Why all the hate, Charles?
| 550 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:01:50am |
re: #549 Jim D
So Charles hates theists and atheists now. Why all the hate, Charles?
Have I mentioned how much I hate agnostics?
| 551 |
Jim D Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:15:38am |
re: #550 Charles
I can't decide if you're going to burn in hell for that or not.
| 552 |
jdog29 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:15:59am |
What would you call the past teaching concerning the Earth's magnetic field? Just an honest mistake. I mean hey, we're not married to anything except the CURRENT facts, which may or may not stand up to the test of time and more scientific breakthroughs, which I look forward to with anticipation and gratitude by the way.
The arrogance of some religious zealots is exactly how each scientific fact is presented until it is unceremoniously swept away by better understanding which is now presented with the same arrogance as the previous fact, now proven laughable, asking me for BLIND FAITH yet again, or at least until THAT fact is proven laughable.
I don't expect any scientist to ever issue an apology for being wrong, teaching lies or making an honest mistake.
| 553 |
KansasMom Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:42:59am |
Wow, when I called it a night yesterday, I was thinking this was the most civil evolution/creationism thread I had seen on LGF.
Never mind.....
| 554 |
Annar Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:52:39am |
re: #552 jdog29
I don't expect any scientist to ever issue an apology for being wrong, teaching lies or making an honest mistake.
You obviously don't read scientific journals or serious vulgarization like Scientific American. Serious scientists do own up to mistakes and sometimes even correct their own errors before others discover them.
| 556 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:06:45am |
re: #552 jdog29
What would you call the past teaching concerning the Earth's magnetic field? Just an honest mistake. I mean hey, we're not married to anything except the CURRENT facts, which may or may not stand up to the test of time and more scientific breakthroughs, which I look forward to with anticipation and gratitude by the way.
The arrogance of some religious zealots is exactly how each scientific fact is presented until it is unceremoniously swept away by better understanding which is now presented with the same arrogance as the previous fact, now proven laughable, asking me for BLIND FAITH yet again, or at least until THAT fact is proven laughable.
I don't expect any scientist to ever issue an apology for being wrong, teaching lies or making an honest mistake.
Respectfully, you need to study the history of science more. Day in, day out, scientists compare facts and make new arguments. Refinements to open questions are made and there are "winners" and "losers."
We get used to being mistaken. Sometimes for good reasons others for not so good reasons. Peer review, debate and reformulation keep the process honest. It is a much stricter process that is taken vastly more seriously than you give credit for.
A great place to see this process in action is with the history of QM. The one who thought it *must* be wrong was none other than Einstein. The one who was successfully beaten in that discussion and who grudgingly admitted it was correct was none other than Einstein.
There is an awful theme in American pop iconology that we scientists really have no clue at all despite all of our "airs" and that an everyday "Joe Sixpack" can always outsmart those "smart people" with his common sense and put "them in their place."
This misconception is how infomercial medical shams make their money. This misconception is part of how everyday Joe Sixpack gets bilked out of his hard earned money. This misconception is how politicians still get sucked into funding perpetual motion pork projects. This misconception is what the ID crowd and politicians like Jindal bank on.
| 557 |
jdog29 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:07:50am |
Kansas Mom,
Comments 1,3,5,10,19,21 .... yeah, chock full of civility. Too bad the uncivil had to show up and ruin the stoning, uh, er, I mean the civil exchange of ideas.
| 558 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:17:09am |
re: #548 Charles
This is a joke, right? You think when data reveals errors in past scientific analysis, it's necessary for some Science Overlord somewhere to put out an official apology ... for lying? About the solar magnetosphere?
Heh. That's a good one.
Actually, the scientist him(her)self will usually retract the argument when it is proven incorrect.
| 559 |
jdog29 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:18:06am |
Ludwig,
Respectfully, you need to study the Word of God more. That didn't feel too respectful did it?
What would call the previous teaching for all those years on the earth's magnetic field in light of the article I linked to earlier?
| 561 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:29:12am |
re: #559 jdog29
Ludwig,
Respectfully, you need to study the Word of God more. That didn't feel too respectful did it?What would call the previous teaching for all those years on the earth's magnetic field in light of the article I linked to earlier?
Disagreeing strongly with false assumptions that you have made is not intended as disrespect. Science really does not work the way you are implying and accusing it does. Further, the types of arguments you are making are precisely the types of arguments made by charlatans to bilk an arrogant populace.
A major flaw in the American character is that if an Olympic sprinter came up to the average American and said "I am probably much faster than you " the average American would concede the point without argument. However, if Einstein were to come up and say "I am probably much smarter than you" the average person will flip out and shout "who do you think you are? Einstein?" Well, yes he does think he is Einstein, and he deserves a little respect - certainly more than the sprinter.
If you feel that I have not studied the word of G-d, you should look up thread a little, or at any of the other threads where I have discussed theological points.
I have not had the time to review the article that you linked to earlier. What post number is it? There are two possibilities though. If it is a kosher article it means that new data of some sort has come in forcing refinements. That is called science working the way it should. If it is not a kosher article then it is not relevant.
| 562 |
Charles Johnson Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:32:33am |
re: #559 jdog29
What would call the previous teaching for all those years on the earth's magnetic field in light of the article I linked to earlier?
Well, let's go to the Science Overlord who announced the new discoveries for that: Leaks Found in Earth's Protective Magnetic Field.
Essentially, the Earth's magnetic shield is at its strongest when scientists had thought it would be at its weakest.
When the fields aren't aligned, "the shield is up and very few particles come in," said physicist Jimmy Raeder of the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Conversely, when the fields are aligned, it creates "a huge breach, and there's lots and lots of particles coming in," Raeder added, at the news conference.
As it orbited Earth, THEMIS's five spacecraft were able to estimate the thickness of the band of solar particles coming when the fields were aligned — it turned out to be about 20 times the number that got in when the fields were anti-aligned.
THEMIS was able to make these measurements as it moved through the band, with two spacecraft on different borders of the band; the band turned out to be one Earth radius thick, or about 4,000 miles (6,437 kilometers). Measurements of the thickness taken later showed that the band was also rapidly growing.
"So this really changes our understanding of solar wind-magnetosphere coupling," said physicist Marit Oieroset of the University of California, Berkeley, also at the press conference.
Guess that wasn't an abject enough apology for you?
You'd prefer something more like, "It is with agonized and troubled hearts that we must announce our sincerest, humblest apologies to the world and especially to our colleagues in the solar wind-magnetosphere coupling community. As part of the Global Science Conspiracy to Destroy People's Religion, we've been lying to you for a long long time. It's all been a hoax, and we can't stand to cover it up any more. Solar wind-magnetosphere coupling works exactly the danged opposite from how we told you. We lied. Repeatedly and without blinking. Please forgive us, and we'll promise never to mention that evo... whatever, any more."
Would that be better?
| 563 |
wrenchwench Fri, Feb 27, 2009 11:47:25am |
| 564 |
jdog29 Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:08:23pm |
I think I'm not kosher, therefore I'm not... relevant.
My point is that among common held-to-be-true scientific facts which I put my faith in, how many, in just the next 10 years will prove to be laughable? Meanwhile, those falsehoods are currently spread as gospel truth and anyone not bowing down to the so called "overlords" as you say, are shouted down as blasphemers.
The previous held beliefs and teachings promoted by the earth's magnetic field gestapo were lies. Maybe ignorant lies, but lies none the less. That's ok because lying to myself is a pastime of mine.
If the aliens who started this planet showed up to take us back to inner core of Jupiter now that the crisis is past would there be no expectation of capitulation?
Don't take me too seriously because I sure don't.
| 566 |
uberfasiq Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:27:49pm |
re: #526 Naso Tang
Naso Tang - It wasn't so much a question of manners (method of action), but instead I said that she was gracious and even sober when discussing heaven and hell. Flippancy and indifference reveals a lack of care for the subject at hand; as well, it reveals a lack of concern for the person with whom the dialogue is taking place. I saw neither in Dr. Purdom's presentation. Ultimately, I can't answer for her intentions any more than I can answer for Mr. Shermer's - but the reasonable dialogue that they had with one another should stand as an example to everyone viewing the video - which is still available on Google...apparently.
| 567 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:31:41pm |
re: #552 jdog29
The arrogance of some religious zealots is exactly how each scientific fact is presented until it is unceremoniously swept away by better understanding which is now presented with the same arrogance as the previous fact, now proven laughable, asking me for BLIND FAITH yet again, or at least until THAT fact is proven laughable.Your posts seem to be trying to draw some equivalence between science and religion, where none exists. Faith exists in the absence of empirical evidence. Scientific theory requires evidence to exist.
| 568 |
Yashmak Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:35:19pm |
re: #564 jdog29
The previous held beliefs and teachings promoted by the earth's magnetic field gestapo were lies. Maybe ignorant lies, but lies none the less. That's ok because lying to myself is a pastime of mine.
Trying to claim that speaking out of ignorance is the same as lying is just silly.
A lie is when you intentionally say something you know to be untrue.
| 569 |
scottishbuzzsaw Fri, Feb 27, 2009 12:56:33pm |
re: #561 LudwigVanQuixote
A major flaw in the American character is that if an Olympic sprinter came up to the average American and said "I am probably much faster than you " the average American would concede the point without argument. However, if Einstein were to come up and say "I am probably much smarter than you" the average person will flip out and shout "who do you think you are? Einstein?" Well, yes he does think he is Einstein, and he deserves a little respect - certainly more than the sprinter.
Very well said, and I believe it's true as well. I do not have a college degree - life circumstances many years ago did not allow for such a delicious luxury - but I've spent the intervening decades pleasantly as an autodidact. What I greatly appreciate is the scientist or intellectual who can articulate their specialty in terms that a reasonably intelligent layperson can understand. I will never attain the depths that someone who has devoted long hours in both education and work has, or the depths of understanding I wish I were capable of, but I am very grateful for those who are so enthusiastic about discovery and knowledge that they generously endeavor to bridge the gap with folks like me.
And I do not understand those who desire to remain in ignorance or resent those who are capable of great things, intellectual or otherwise.
| 570 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:01:10pm |
I know I already said good shabbos and signed out, but curiousity of the developments in this thread pulled me back for about 10 minutes :)
| 571 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:02:24pm |
re: #569 scottishbuzzsaw
Very well said, and I believe it's true as well. I do not have a college degree - life circumstances many years ago did not allow for such a delicious luxury - but I've spent the intervening decades pleasantly as an autodidact. What I greatly appreciate is the scientist or intellectual who can articulate their specialty in terms that a reasonably intelligent layperson can understand. I will never attain the depths that someone who has devoted long hours in both education and work has, or the depths of understanding I wish I were capable of, but I am very grateful for those who are so enthusiastic about discovery and knowledge that they generously endeavor to bridge the gap with folks like me.
And I do not understand those who desire to remain in ignorance or resent those who are capable of great things, intellectual or otherwise.
Everyone deserves respect for what they have achieved. You, I am certain, know a ton of stuff I don't.
| 572 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:07:38pm |
re: #516 verderacer
Although I personally dont completely agree with either, I think she is a brave woman to be so candid with her views. I am just wondering how long before the gods of the liberal and "pc" point of view will crucify her.
I think she is a woman who has been deluded by her chosen dogma to such an extreme degree that it causes her to come off as brutal, cruel and condemnatory towards children. She richly deserves to be criticized for such a stance, and parents should not let her anywhere near a clasroom where childrren are being taught.
| 573 |
Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:09:57pm |
ok now I really do mean Good Shabbos!
| 574 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:15:16pm |
re: #524 uberfasiq
Dr. Purdom did an excellent job - she was gracious and remained focused on the Gospel, without shrinking back from the questions at hand. One thing that was covered in this discussion, which is often missed these days, concerns this matter of considering our knowledge of the initial and final states in our scientific analysis of the cosmos, as well as our own planet. On this account, I'll give Mr. Shermer credit for backing down from making assertions about what can be known, empirically, about such matters.
Dr. Purdom's sobriety at the end was especially profound - the discussion of hell is no laughing matter.
She should quit faking being a practicing scientist (what she really is is a practicing creationist taqqiyist), just drop her mask, and go on the airwaves as a hellfire and brimstone televangelist.
She should also stop confusing biology with cosmology and theology.
| 575 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:17:11pm |
I am simply amazed by the level of contempt for this woman, even by fellow Christians. She asks for no government hand out or grant. She is a non-existent threat of blowing herself up for her beliefs in order to kill as many infidels as possible. She is not trying to conduct a government power grab. She merely believes something different than you and wears a different set of lenses to interpret scientific data - that God created the universe about 6,000 years ago, and about 90% here sound like they'd crucify her given the chance. Why is that?
She says that belief of a young earth is NOT a requirement to be a Christian, it is her belief based on the Genesis 1 Hebrew scripture. Yet even fellow Christians mock her along with the rest. She said the only requirement is a faith in Jesus Christ for salvation - and I think that is where all this anger comes from, courtesy of the lizard army. And unfortunately many here will disregard her entire message about Christ because of her young earth belief.
Whether she is right or wrong, none of us can say with 100% certainty until of course we die (and based on some belief structures, even then we may not know). At least this woman stuck to her beliefs, didn't back down when she knew she will be mocked later for those beliefs, and gave decent explanations based on her world view. And when she says that even a 1-year old is a "sinner" she is referring to all of mankind inheriting original sin, and therefore why all mankind needs forgiveness of sin from their creator. The Christian belief is that those who die before the "age of accountability" automatically enter into paradise (heaven) with Christ so we can tone down the hate for her based on that comment. To ask why God would give a child cancer is like your pet dog trying to ask you why you keep taking him to the vet for painful shots. First, God isn't "giving" the child cancer, God allows disease in a fallen world as the doctor states. As to "why" well this is a question you can ask God. Perhaps because of this cancer, the family will humble themselves, stop living in sin, and come to Christ, who knows.
| 576 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:19:33pm |
re: #536 thatemailname
Hey folks, put the creationism/evolution debate on hold for a minute and check out this article on John P. Holdren, Obama's "science advisor" (it's also in the LGF links section):
Obama's Biggest Radical
[Link: www.frontpagemag.com...]
Very scary stuff - people with views like this guy Holden, IMHO, represent an extremely serious threat to our future. And now he's the President's "science" advisor - holy crap!
We will not derail the thread simply because you tell us to and offer us what you consider to be a yummy. Bait-dangling doesn't work.
| 577 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:22:56pm |
re: #542 jdog29
I thought the lady did a great job. Part of having faith is something unprovable is being laughed at because it is impossible.
Are you looking for consistency in my life or yours, because if you are looking consistency in mine, God help you.
Also if you don't believe you have inconsistencies in your life, then, well now it is my turn to laugh at you.
Umm...science is all about being consistent with the observed evidence. If her religious beliefs won't allow her to do that, she should find another field.
And, actually, she has: creationist propagandist.
| 578 |
scottishbuzzsaw Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:24:09pm |
re: #576 Salamantis
We will not derail the thread simply because you tell us to and offer us what you consider to be a yummy. Bait-dangling doesn't work.
But that hasn't stopped them from trying...repeatedly. ;>)
| 579 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:33:04pm |
re: #546 jdog29
[Link: www.space.com...]
Whenever science is wrong it celebrates the breakthrough. Even though as the above link says everything acts and reacts in the opposite way we thought, do you recognize what is missing?
Where is the admission that they had been teaching ignorant lies for years, decades and sometimes centuries depending upon the breakthrough. I love science and am grateful for all the tremendous progress made just in my lifetime. I do, however, believe science asks for even more faith than God asks for because science asks me to put my faith in men.
When empirical evidence is produced that contradicts a theory, the theory is modified to comply with the new evidence; that's the way science works, and it is a strength. Unlike religious dogmas, which are forever frozen in the face of massive counterfactual evidence.
I find it to be surpassingly strange that you toss a link about the magnetosphere in the middle of a thread about evolution, as if they have anything whatsoever to do with each other. My guess is that you did a web search for anything you could find where something new had been discovered so you could construct your anti-science rant around it, and this is what popped up.
Once again, though, the attempt to reduce empirical science to the level of dogmatic religion will not succeed any more than the attempt to elevate dogmatic religion to the level of empirical science has, because the bright line distinction of the presence of supporting empirical evidence for scientific assertions vs. the utter absence of any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever for dogmatic contentions is a quite indelible line.
| 580 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:40:07pm |
re: #552 jdog29
What would you call the past teaching concerning the Earth's magnetic field? Just an honest mistake. I mean hey, we're not married to anything except the CURRENT facts, which may or may not stand up to the test of time and more scientific breakthroughs, which I look forward to with anticipation and gratitude by the way.
The arrogance of some religious zealots is exactly how each scientific fact is presented until it is unceremoniously swept away by better understanding which is now presented with the same arrogance as the previous fact, now proven laughable, asking me for BLIND FAITH yet again, or at least until THAT fact is proven laughable.
I don't expect any scientist to ever issue an apology for being wrong, teaching lies or making an honest mistake.
Some scientific theories come and go; others come and stay. The core tenets of evolutionary theory - random genetic mutation acted upon by nonradom environmental selection - are as massively corroborated as are any theories in all of science. For 150 years, experimentalist and researchers have investigated and interrogated these tenets, and ALL of the evodence that they have derived has supported evolutionary theory, while NONE of it has contradicted the theory. It is as sound, solid and valid as are the theories of geocentrism, gravitation, ralativity, and quantum mechanics.
To attempt to attack evolutionary theory by tossing up an article about a new discovery concerning the magnetosphere, imply because they're both science, is like attempting to attack Europe by sailing into Antarctica, simply because they're both continents.
| 581 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:43:43pm |
re: #557 jdog29
Kansas Mom,
Comments 1,3,5,10,19,21 .... yeah, chock full of civility. Too bad the uncivil had to show up and ruin the stoning, uh, er, I mean the civil exchange of ideas.
While the manner that Georgia Purdom adopted in the interview was quite polite, I found the content of the expressed interview to be much more than merely uncivil, especially where children were concerned.
| 582 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:51:42pm |
re: #559 jdog29
Ludwig,
Respectfully, you need to study the Word of God more. That didn't feel too respectful did it?
It helps to know something about what one is discussing, if one wishes to discuss it intelligently.
What would call the previous teaching for all those years on the earth's magnetic field in light of the article I linked to earlier?
Incomplete, due to a lack of empirical evidence. It will be more complete now, since it will be modified to comply with the new data. But science can never consider a theory to be complete; there is always the chance that new empirical evidence will emerge that will require elaboration, augmentation, or refinement of the theory. This is a strength of empirical science; its understanding continues to evolve in response to a growing evidentiary environment. Otoh, this is precisely where dogmatic religion is brittle and can be dashed and shattered by an unyielding reality; it cannot change its dogmas in response to new understandings, even when those new understandings empirtically falsify the dogmas.
| 583 |
KansasMom Fri, Feb 27, 2009 1:59:06pm |
re: #575 freedom_fighter
First, God isn't "giving" the child cancer, God allows disease in a fallen world as the doctor states. As to "why" well this is a question you can ask God. Perhaps because of this cancer, the family will humble themselves, stop living in sin, and come to Christ, who knows.
First of all, you contradict yourself. God doesn't give children cancer, but then again he has his reasons for giving children cancer? Ooooh-kay.
Second, that is a vile, reprehensible thing to say about families who have been affected by cancer. Seriously, just horrible.
| 584 |
thatemailname Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:00:23pm |
re: #576 Salamantis
We will not derail the thread simply because you tell us to and offer us what you consider to be a yummy. Bait-dangling doesn't work.
Wasn't trying to "derail" anything, you've missed my point.
My point was, why argue about a trash-can fire when the whole building is about to go up in flames!
| 585 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:04:58pm |
re: #564 jdog29
I think I'm not kosher, therefore I'm not... relevant.
My point is that among common held-to-be-true scientific facts which I put my faith in, how many, in just the next 10 years will prove to be laughable? Meanwhile, those falsehoods are currently spread as gospel truth and anyone not bowing down to the so called "overlords" as you say, are shouted down as blasphemers.
Newton's Laws of Motion were not falsified by Einsteinian relativity; rather, they were subsumed as a special case in a more general theory. Flat earth geocentrism, however, WAS toppled - but not without death threats from the clerics, who embraced it as compatible with their theology.
The previous held beliefs and teachings promoted by the earth's magnetic field gestapo were lies. Maybe ignorant lies, but lies none the less. That's ok because lying to myself is a pastime of mine.
Darwin and Mendel will not be falsified, because we have incontrovertible evidence of the veracity of their theories; it was provided by Watson & Crick. When they identified and isolated DNA, they held up before the world the physical substrate by means of which evolution happens; there can be no rational denying of it any more. That discovery was the final nail in the coffin lid of Biblical biological creationism; especially when different genomes were sequenced and the genetic evidence for the contention that all terrestrial lifeforms evolutionarily diverged from a tiny set of ancient common ancestors became overwhelming.
| 586 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:05:52pm |
re: #584 thatemailname
Wasn't trying to "derail" anything, you've missed my point.
My point was, why argue about a trash-can fire when the whole building is about to go up in flames!
Umm...because we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and don't need to make a choice between them?
| 587 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:08:25pm |
re: #566 uberfasiq
Naso Tang - It wasn't so much a question of manners (method of action), but instead I said that she was gracious and even sober when discussing heaven and hell. Flippancy and indifference reveals a lack of care for the subject at hand; as well, it reveals a lack of concern for the person with whom the dialogue is taking place. I saw neither in Dr. Purdom's presentation. Ultimately, I can't answer for her intentions any more than I can answer for Mr. Shermer's - but the reasonable dialogue that they had with one another should stand as an example to everyone viewing the video - which is still available on Google...apparently.
It stands as an example, all right; an example of why that woman should not be let within ten feet of a public elementary or secondary school classroom as any kind of teacher.
| 588 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:14:02pm |
re: #581 Salamantis
While the manner that Georgia Purdom adopted in the interview was quite polite, I found the content of the expressed interview to be much more than merely uncivil, especially where children were concerned.
It would be hard to argue that she was not polite, and yet, lurking beneath the surface civility was an absolutely nauseating layer of smug. I have to confess, there were moments when I wanted to slap this woman. I had to turn the video off several times and count to ten. I'm not sure what it was about her that set me off but I saw similar reactions throughout this thread by normally civil people.
I continue to struggle with this balance between my fervent belief in the absolute right of others to their own opinions and their beliefs and my deep distrust of people who have no room in their world view for anyone who doesn't buy into their own personal mythology. I don't believe people like Georgia Purdom are capable of keeping their faith a private matter or of resisting the impulse to impose it on others by whatever means might come their way. That's why I don't agree that they aren't a threat simply because today they aren't blowing things up.
Let me be clear. Based on this video, I consider this woman an extremist. Many of the things she said would be revolting to most Christians I know and clearly were to many here. I actually feel somewhat sorry for her, trapped in that narrow intolerant world she inhabits, but as Sal says I would strenuously resist any attempt to put her in a position where she might influence impressionable minds.
| 589 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:17:06pm |
re: #575 freedom_fighter
I am simply amazed by the level of contempt for this woman, even by fellow Christians. She asks for no government hand out or grant. She is a non-existent threat of blowing herself up for her beliefs in order to kill as many infidels as possible. She is not trying to conduct a government power grab. She merely believes something different than you and wears a different set of lenses to interpret scientific data - that God created the universe about 6,000 years ago, and about 90% here sound like they'd crucify her given the chance. Why is that?
She says that belief of a young earth is NOT a requirement to be a Christian, it is her belief based on the Genesis 1 Hebrew scripture. Yet even fellow Christians mock her along with the rest. She said the only requirement is a faith in Jesus Christ for salvation - and I think that is where all this anger comes from, courtesy of the lizard army. And unfortunately many here will disregard her entire message about Christ because of her young earth belief.
Whether she is right or wrong, none of us can say with 100% certainty until of course we die (and based on some belief structures, even then we may not know). At least this woman stuck to her beliefs, didn't back down when she knew she will be mocked later for those beliefs, and gave decent explanations based on her world view. And when she says that even a 1-year old is a "sinner" she is referring to all of mankind inheriting original sin, and therefore why all mankind needs forgiveness of sin from their creator. The Christian belief is that those who die before the "age of accountability" automatically enter into paradise (heaven) with Christ so we can tone down the hate for her based on that comment. To ask why God would give a child cancer is like your pet dog trying to ask you why you keep taking him to the vet for painful shots. First, God isn't "giving" the child cancer, God allows disease in a fallen world as the doctor states. As to "why" well this is a question you can ask God. Perhaps because of this cancer, the family will humble themselves, stop living in sin, and come to Christ, who knows.
We quite rightly criticize her stance because her contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old is demostrably empirically false, just like her contention that millions of different species were created separately and as is in the space of six days.
And stubbornly refusing to back down from one's embrace of empirically demonstrable folly is not exactly what I would consider to be a virtue.
As for cancer in children, the 'God didn't do it; God just LET it happen' defence doesn't work for humans, so why should it work for God? Sins of omission are considered to be no less sinful than sins of commission are considered to be.
| 590 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:21:41pm |
re: #583 KansasMom
This is not a contradiction. Man's sin caused a fallen world. God loves us and wants us to choose for him. Because he allows us to choose for or against him we must have freedom. This freedom also allows for evil in the world to exist. God does not "give" people cancer. He allows evil, disease, etc in this fallen world (and the Christian belief is that satan is the current ruler on earth). Therefore when one dies and is confronted by God, they can ask why God allowed X, Y, or Z. If God did not allow evil in the world, then it would be a world without choice, therefore with love, and therefore a world full of robots just doing what we are told without choice. Not too exciting.
Second, that is a vile, reprehensible thing to say about families who have been affected by cancer. Seriously, just horrible.
I mean not to offend you with any of my comments, but it is far from vile. I used the word "perhaps" as in "I have no idea, I am not God, but I am taking one guess which could be true." Perhaps God is allowing the family to be tested in their faith (obviously Christians have children with cancer too). Perhaps that child will go on to be a guiding light to thousands of others down the road - or be the next Lance Armstrong. Who knows. When I say perhaps, this is obviously not a one size fits all for every situation. If by calling me vile and reprehensible it is easier for you to disregard the message, and therefore feel better about your own position, so be it. I just find it perplexing how much hate is spewed over this lady's beliefs. Arrogant Pride is the chief of sins, and most people don't like to be told they are sinners (or wrong at all for that matter). It is only after one realizes their guilt that they can ask for forgiveness. That is what Christ came for in the first place.
| 591 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:26:40pm |
re: #590 freedom_fighter
"Arrogant Pride" is exactly what I would say this woman showed.
| 592 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:29:36pm |
re: #590 freedom_fighter
This is not a contradiction. Man's sin caused a fallen world. God loves us and wants us to choose for him. Because he allows us to choose for or against him we must have freedom. This freedom also allows for evil in the world to exist. God does not "give" people cancer. He allows evil, disease, etc in this fallen world (and the Christian belief is that satan is the current ruler on earth). Therefore when one dies and is confronted by God, they can ask why God allowed X, Y, or Z. If God did not allow evil in the world, then it would be a world without choice, therefore with love, and therefore a world full of robots just doing what we are told without choice. Not too exciting.
Why is there evil in the world? Because God wants to be nice to us, and give us a chance to sin, so He can fry us for it.
Riiiiight...
Second, that is a vile, reprehensible thing to say about families who have been affected by cancer. Seriously, just horrible.
I mean not to offend you with any of my comments, but it is far from vile. I used the word "perhaps" as in "I have no idea, I am not God, but I am taking one guess which could be true." Perhaps God is allowing the family to be tested in their faith (obviously Christians have children with cancer too). Perhaps that child will go on to be a guiding light to thousands of others down the road - or be the next Lance Armstrong. Who knows. When I say perhaps, this is obviously not a one size fits all for every situation. If by calling me vile and reprehensible it is easier for you to disregard the message, and therefore feel better about your own position, so be it. I just find it perplexing how much hate is spewed over this lady's beliefs. Arrogant Pride is the chief of sins, and most people don't like to be told they are sinners (or wrong at all for that matter). It is only after one realizes their guilt that they can ask for forgiveness. That is what Christ came for in the first place.
Oh Puh-LEEEZE! Georgia Purdom's obvious overweening pride and arrogance in her beliefs has got to be the most blatant display of hubris I have recently witnessed.
| 593 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:32:32pm |
re: #589 Salamantis
As for cancer in children, the 'God didn't do it; God just LET it happen' defence doesn't work for humans, so why should it work for God? Sins of omission are considered to be no less sinful than sins of commission are considered to be.
This is just not true, unless of course you claim to speak for God. Have you read the book of Job? Some pretty awful stuff happens to his entire family (including children) for the purpose of testing Job and glorifying God. So until you are able to understand the motivations of God your argument is in vain. Of course you could read the OT book of Joshua and argue that God ordered him to kill an entire city and that would be a stronger argument to your case. However, once again unless you can speak for God it is basically irrelevant.
| 594 |
twons Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:34:29pm |
re: #517 dahozho
And THAT attitude should have precluded her from even getting *admission* into a hard science PhD program.
In viewing the video, it seems to me that she's working WAY to hard to keep from admitting organisms evolve and change. She *knows* what she's supposedly researching is further proof of a natural process (however it developed).
These people are fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
I think that's what I hate the most about them - they are not only intellectually dishonest, they are shamelessly arrogant, and apparently clueless that they are.
In the discussion of slavery, and how people used the Bible to justify that and many other reprehensible things, she basically said "Well, that's because they interpreted the verses through their human biases. I read the Bible, and I just understand what it says. I don't interpret!" Is she truly that blind to her own biases? I can't conceive of the flawed thinking it must require to be that self-centered. I believe that one must almost be a sociopath, or otherwise be mentally ill, to hold that level of conceit.
| 595 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:37:44pm |
re: #593 freedom_fighter
As for cancer in children, the 'God didn't do it; God just LET it happen' defence doesn't work for humans, so why should it work for God? Sins of omission are considered to be no less sinful than sins of commission are considered to be.
This is just not true, unless of course you claim to speak for God. Have you read the book of Job? Some pretty awful stuff happens to his entire family (including children) for the purpose of testing Job and glorifying God. So until you are able to understand the motivations of God your argument is in vain. Of course you could read the OT book of Joshua and argue that God ordered him to kill an entire city and that would be a stronger argument to your case. However, once again unless you can speak for God it is basically irrelevant.
Basically, you're arguing that if God permits or demands it, it must, by DEFINITION, be righteous, however evil it might appear to us to be. How is this any different than what the jihadis assert about Allah and the call to jihad against unbelievers?
| 596 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:44:03pm |
re: #592 Salamantis
Oh Puh-LEEEZE! Georgia Purdom's obvious overweening pride and arrogance in her beliefs has got to be the most blatant display of hubris I have recently witnessed.
Which "pride" would God have more problems with: Georgia's "pride" of sticking to her belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and basing her scientific understanding and beliefs in that framework and holding to her convictions even though 95% of scientists around her would mock her in a heartbeat... OR
The pride of any person who refuses to acknowledge their creator, thinks that because I am "good" - as Mike was alluding to at the end of the video - that this should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists), and rejects the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world.
If you think Georgia's "pride" is greater, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
| 597 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:47:48pm |
I think, rather, that HUMAN leaders demanded such actions of their followers, and told them that it was God's will that these demands be complied with, in order to place the force of divine will behind their human demands.
| 598 |
twons Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:49:35pm |
re: #596 freedom_fighter
Oh Puh-LEEEZE! Georgia Purdom's obvious overweening pride and arrogance in her beliefs has got to be the most blatant display of hubris I have recently witnessed.
Which "pride" would God have more problems with: Georgia's "pride" of sticking to her belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and basing her scientific understanding and beliefs in that framework and holding to her convictions even though 95% of scientists around her would mock her in a heartbeat... OR
The pride of any person who refuses to acknowledge their creator, thinks that because I am "good" - as Mike was alluding to at the end of the video - that this should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists), and rejects the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world.
If you think Georgia's "pride" is greater, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
I think that the pride of maintianing that "I'm right, you're wrong", even in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is far worse.
| 599 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:50:03pm |
re: #596 freedom_fighter
Oh Puh-LEEEZE! Georgia Purdom's obvious overweening pride and arrogance in her beliefs has got to be the most blatant display of hubris I have recently witnessed.
Which "pride" would God have more problems with: Georgia's "pride" of sticking to her belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and basing her scientific understanding and beliefs in that framework and holding to her convictions even though 95% of scientists around her would mock her in a heartbeat... OR
The pride of any person who refuses to acknowledge their creator, thinks that because I am "good" - as Mike was alluding to at the end of the video - that this should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists), and rejects the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world.
If you think Georgia's "pride" is greater, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
What to me is supreme arrogance and hubris is the insistance that one's own reading of an ancient scripture trumps masses of empirical evidence to the contrary.
| 600 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:50:17pm |
re: #596 freedom_fighter
Oh Puh-LEEEZE! Georgia Purdom's obvious overweening pride and arrogance in her beliefs has got to be the most blatant display of hubris I have recently witnessed.
Which "pride" would God have more problems with: Georgia's "pride" of sticking to her belief that the Bible is the inspired word of God and basing her scientific understanding and beliefs in that framework and holding to her convictions even though 95% of scientists around her would mock her in a heartbeat... OR
The pride of any person who refuses to acknowledge their creator, thinks that because I am "good" - as Mike was alluding to at the end of the video - that this should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists), and rejects the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross for the sins of the world.
If you think Georgia's "pride" is greater, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Your disagreement is noted.
It is not "pride" to believe that because one lives a good and decent life one should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists). Actually, I think the word for that belief is "faith." Just because that faith is not the same as yours certainly doesn't make it "pride." But thanks for helping to illustrate the arrogance that clouds the hearts of those who see the world this way.
| 601 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:54:15pm |
re: #595 Salamantis
Basically, you're arguing that if God permits or demands it, it must, by DEFINITION, be righteous, however evil it might appear to us to be.
That is correct.
How is this any different than what the jihadis assert about Allah and the call to jihad against unbelievers?
It is miles apart. One must understand the nature of the OT (Old Testament). When God ordered Joshua to destroy Jericho is was an order for one man at one exact time and place in history - not a general "kill all those unbelievers" from now until the end of the world. You must remember that the Jews in OT time were often enduring much hardship and in order to protect his people God had to do things that you and I in a "civilized society" would think are quite cold. And of course after Christ revealed himself there is no longer a need for these types of orders from God. The new testament has no calls for killing all those "unbelievers" which is why you don't see Christian jihadis killing in the name of Christ. Wouldn't make any sense. And if someone were to do it (and I'm sure someone will) he is not following in the teachings of Christ, whereas the jihadi is actually following the Koran and the words of Mohammed when he does kill in the name of allah. That is the difference.
| 602 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:56:32pm |
For me, her smug insistance that God demands the suffering of little children in order to fulfill some hidden celestial plan is sick, twisted, warped and demented beyond all rationalization, justification, apology, excuse, or redemption.
| 603 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:57:03pm |
re: #596 freedom_fighter
It's arrogant pride for her to think she's not interpreting the Bible in any way when she in fact is by the very idea she clings to that it's supposed to be read literally. Insisting in a literal reading while simultaneously insisting there's no interpretation with that approach is not logical. She brought her interpretation to the book before she even opened it.
| 604 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 2:58:24pm |
re: #601 freedom_fighter
Basically, you're arguing that if God permits or demands it, it must, by DEFINITION, be righteous, however evil it might appear to us to be.
That is correct.
How is this any different than what the jihadis assert about Allah and the call to jihad against unbelievers?
It is miles apart. One must understand the nature of the OT (Old Testament). When God ordered Joshua to destroy Jericho is was an order for one man at one exact time and place in history - not a general "kill all those unbelievers" from now until the end of the world. You must remember that the Jews in OT time were often enduring much hardship and in order to protect his people God had to do things that you and I in a "civilized society" would think are quite cold. And of course after Christ revealed himself there is no longer a need for these types of orders from God. The new testament has no calls for killing all those "unbelievers" which is why you don't see Christian jihadis killing in the name of Christ. Wouldn't make any sense. And if someone were to do it (and I'm sure someone will) he is not following in the teachings of Christ, whereas the jihadi is actually following the Koran and the words of Mohammed when he does kill in the name of allah. That is the difference.
The only differences I perceive are in the names of the deities and the identities of the scriptures to which each appeals.
| 605 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:02:28pm |
re: #601 freedom_fighter
...
The new testament has no calls for killing all those "unbelievers" which is why you don't see Christian jihadis killing in the name of Christ. Wouldn't make any sense. And if someone were to do it (and I'm sure someone will) he is not following in the teachings of Christ, whereas the jihadi is actually following the Koran and the words of Mohammed when he does kill in the name of allah. That is the difference.
Surely you jest ...
| 606 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:04:16pm |
re: #600 Lynn B.
It is not "pride" to believe that because one lives a good and decent life one should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists). Actually, I think the word for that belief is "faith." Just because that faith is not the same as yours certainly doesn't make it "pride." But thanks for helping to illustrate the arrogance that clouds the hearts of those who see the world this way.
What faith is it that believes that a person who lives a good and decent life qualifies for a positive afterlife (heaven)? Interestingly that is a belief of a large number of people. A great read is a short 90 page book by Andy Stanley called "How Good is Good Enough" and sheds very interesting light on the "good enough" theory. If the good enough theory is true...
1) Who or what has given us the standard of how much is good enough?
2) Is this standard published anywhere? If I am banking my eternity on being good enough, I'd like to know what the standard is and how I meet it.
Questions that are answered quite well in the book.
| 607 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:09:51pm |
re: #601 freedom_fighter
...
The new testament has no calls for killing all those "unbelievers" which is why you don't see Christian jihadis killing in the name of Christ. Wouldn't make any sense. And if someone were to do it (and I'm sure someone will) he is not following in the teachings of Christ, whereas the jihadi is actually following the Koran and the words of Mohammed when he does kill in the name of allah. That is the difference.
Surely you jest.
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]
| 608 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:11:36pm |
re: #606 freedom_fighter
It is not "pride" to believe that because one lives a good and decent life one should qualify for any positive afterlife (if it exists). Actually, I think the word for that belief is "faith." Just because that faith is not the same as yours certainly doesn't make it "pride." But thanks for helping to illustrate the arrogance that clouds the hearts of those who see the world this way.
What faith is it that believes that a person who lives a good and decent life qualifies for a positive afterlife (heaven)? Interestingly that is a belief of a large number of people. A great read is a short 90 page book by Andy Stanley called "How Good is Good Enough" and sheds very interesting light on the "good enough" theory. If the good enough theory is true...
1) Who or what has given us the standard of how much is good enough?
2) Is this standard published anywhere? If I am banking my eternity on being good enough, I'd like to know what the standard is and how I meet it.
Questions that are answered quite well in the book.
I find it to be morally incoherent that people who have conducted themselves with scrupulous kindness and altruistic care for their fellow human beings should be sent to eternal torment in the absence of an embrace of a religious dogma, while serial killers and mass murderers can make a deathbed or pre-execution conversion and be gifted with a slot in Heaven.
| 609 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:11:45pm |
re: #605 Lynn B.
Of course the old crusades argument, which has unfortunately been an excuse for many of the masses to disregard Christianity with a hand-wave instead of gaining a deeper understanding. Like I said in my original post, when people do evil in the name of Christ (and they will - just not so much in the last few centuries) they are not following the founder of their religion, whereas the Islamist is following the teachings of Muhammed and the Koran when he "fights jihad" for allah.
If that makes no difference to you then you are being as "intellectually dishonest" as you claim Georgia is being in her scientific findings.
But we already know why men often fall short of the teachings of Christ and use the Bible for their evil gains - it is called sin. We are all sinners and none of us can live up to Christ's standards, that is the whole point.
| 610 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:15:02pm |
re: #604 Salamantis
The only differences I perceive are in the names of the deities and the identities of the scriptures to which each appeals.
That is from a surface knowledge of religion.
| 611 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:15:28pm |
re: #609 freedom_fighter
Of course the old crusades argument, which has unfortunately been an excuse for many of the masses to disregard Christianity with a hand-wave instead of gaining a deeper understanding. Like I said in my original post, when people do evil in the name of Christ (and they will - just not so much in the last few centuries) they are not following the founder of their religion, whereas the Islamist is following the teachings of Muhammed and the Koran when he "fights jihad" for allah.
If that makes no difference to you then you are being as "intellectually dishonest" as you claim Georgia is being in her scientific findings.
But we already know why men often fall short of the teachings of Christ and use the Bible for their evil gains - it is called sin. We are all sinners and none of us can live up to Christ's standards, that is the whole point.
This is the No True Scotsman logical fallacy:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
We simply have to accept that even people who do bad things are indeed members of the faiths that they profess and otherwise practice.
| 612 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:18:46pm |
re: #610 freedom_fighter
The only differences I perceive are in the names of the deities and the identities of the scriptures to which each appeals.
That is from a surface knowledge of religion.
No, this is from a stance independent of the embrace of either of the faiths being discussed. Jihadis would argue that Christians do evil by merely rejecting Islam, and Muslims do good by following the Quranic call to jihad, by employing the selfsame arguments that you do, only from the perspective of embracing their religion instead of yours.
| 613 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:24:47pm |
re: #608 Salamantis
I find it to be morally incoherent that people who have conducted themselves with scrupulous kindness and altruistic care for their fellow human beings should be sent to eternal torment in the absence of an embrace of a religious dogma, while serial killers and mass murderers can make a deathbed or pre-execution conversion and be gifted with a slot in Heaven.
You failed to answer this question: What faith is it that believes that a person who lives a good and decent life qualifies for a positive afterlife (heaven)?
You find this morally incoherent because you don't realize the magnintude of human sin. You look at religion as a side note, just some "dogma" where I am just suppose to follow X set of rules, check the block etc, but the most important thing is to live a good life, be kind and generous to my fellow man. And while those things are commendable (especially from a human viewpoint) they are like "filthy rags" to a righteous God. If you were created to glorify God and live to worship Him, have a personal relationship with Him and love Him and you rejected Him instead your entire life, how can you not see that this is a bigger deal than the fact that you were "pleasant" to people, paid your taxes on time, and helped elderly across the street? That was not the point of your existence. As to the number of murderous converts on deathbeds, I doubt this number is high anyway, but what concern is that of you. I am accountable for God for my actions not my neighbors. Either way, most "good" people, who would have all their deeds exposed would be shown to be not so "good" anyway.
| 614 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:27:37pm |
re: #606 freedom_fighter
What faith is it that believes that a person who lives a good and decent life qualifies for a positive afterlife (heaven)? Interestingly that is a belief of a large number of people.
Most denominations of Judaism. Perhaps you've heard of it? That's one.
A great read is a short 90 page book by Andy Stanley called "How Good is Good Enough" and sheds very interesting light on the "good enough" theory. If the good enough theory is true...
1) Who or what has given us the standard of how much is good enough?
2) Is this standard published anywhere? If I am banking my eternity on being good enough, I'd like to know what the standard is and how I meet it.
Questions that are answered quite well in the book.
You do realize that your reference to that book assumes your conclusion. Or, to put it as Georgia Purdom might say, it's all about your starting point.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you aren't deliberately trying to insult our intelligence ...
In any event, I need to attend to a few other things now. bbl.
| 615 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:28:25pm |
re: #611 Salamantis
We simply have to accept that even people who do bad things are indeed members of the faiths that they profess and otherwise practice.
I am not saying that they are not members of the faith. I am saying that whether they are or are not, while they are conducting themselves in such a fashion they are deviating from the teachings of the founder. Unless of course you can quote me some new testament scripture where Christ tells his followers to do evil if (int the end) it involves winning converts. I see no such passages, in fact, quite the contrary.
| 616 |
Sharmuta Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:30:04pm |
re: #609 freedom_fighter
But we already know why men often fall short of the teachings of Christ and use the Bible for their evil gains - it is called sin. We are all sinners and none of us can live up to Christ's standards, that is the whole point.
I will pray for you.
| 617 |
freedom_fighter Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:35:23pm |
re: #612 Salamantis
Jihadis would argue that Christians do evil by merely rejecting Islam, and Muslims do good by following the Quranic call to jihad, by employing the selfsame arguments that you do, only from the perspective of embracing their religion instead of yours.
Let us assume that this is the case. Then one should ask, well which religion is correct (as both cannot be). Muslims believe what they do based on Muhammed saying an angel revealed to him the Koran and he wrote it down. Were there miracles he performed - none besides the "writing" of the Koran. Were there independent witnesses to these revelations - no. How was early Islam spread - through the sword.
As far as Christianity, you have multiple (over 500) witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, the performing of miracles, and a faith spread by willing converts under fear of persecution. Of course this is a very short case for Christianity but instead of arguing which faith is right or wrong, perhaps we argue from a standpoint of which is true and follow that one. That is what I think intellectual honesty will lead one to anyway. I must go, thanks for the debate.
| 618 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:36:26pm |
re: #613 freedom_fighter
I find it to be morally incoherent that people who have conducted themselves with scrupulous kindness and altruistic care for their fellow human beings should be sent to eternal torment in the absence of an embrace of a religious dogma, while serial killers and mass murderers can make a deathbed or pre-execution conversion and be gifted with a slot in Heaven.
You failed to answer this question: What faith is it that believes that a person who lives a good and decent life qualifies for a positive afterlife (heaven)?
You find this morally incoherent because you don't realize the magnintude of human sin. You look at religion as a side note, just some "dogma" where I am just suppose to follow X set of rules, check the block etc, but the most important thing is to live a good life, be kind and generous to my fellow man. And while those things are commendable (especially from a human viewpoint) they are like "filthy rags" to a righteous God. If you were created to glorify God and live to worship Him, have a personal relationship with Him and love Him and you rejected Him instead your entire life, how can you not see that this is a bigger deal than the fact that you were "pleasant" to people, paid your taxes on time, and helped elderly across the street? That was not the point of your existence. As to the number of murderous converts on deathbeds, I doubt this number is high anyway, but what concern is that of you. I am accountable for God for my actions not my neighbors. Either way, most "good" people, who would have all their deeds exposed would be shown to be not so "good" anyway.
Any God who would condemn people who had lived exemplary lives to eternal torment simply because they failed to state the Christian equivalent of the Muslim shahada, and yet would admit into Heaven the most execrable of individuals, merely because they recited such a mantra before they shuffled off their mortal coils, would have to be, in my view, petulant, prideful, and ultimately immoral. I cannot see where such a God as you describe would deserve the admiration of decent people, much less their prostrate fealty and obseiance.
Your position condemn Gandhi to Hell. And yet admits Adolph Hitler, who stated in 1941 to his chief of staff, General Gerhard Engel, that he would always remain a committed Catholic, to Heaven.
| 619 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:40:12pm |
re: #615 freedom_fighter
We simply have to accept that even people who do bad things are indeed members of the faiths that they profess and otherwise practice.
I am not saying that they are not members of the faith. I am saying that whether they are or are not, while they are conducting themselves in such a fashion they are deviating from the teachings of the founder. Unless of course you can quote me some new testament scripture where Christ tells his followers to do evil if (int the end) it involves winning converts. I see no such passages, in fact, quite the contrary.
I consider slavery to be evil. So does any moral person in this day and age. And yet it was affirmed, even in the New Testament:
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
| 620 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 3:42:47pm |
re: #617 freedom_fighter
Jihadis would argue that Christians do evil by merely rejecting Islam, and Muslims do good by following the Quranic call to jihad, by employing the selfsame arguments that you do, only from the perspective of embracing their religion instead of yours.
Let us assume that this is the case. Then one should ask, well which religion is correct (as both cannot be). Muslims believe what they do based on Muhammed saying an angel revealed to him the Koran and he wrote it down. Were there miracles he performed - none besides the "writing" of the Koran. Were there independent witnesses to these revelations - no. How was early Islam spread - through the sword.
As far as Christianity, you have multiple (over 500) witnesses to the resurrection of Christ, the performing of miracles, and a faith spread by willing converts under fear of persecution. Of course this is a very short case for Christianity but instead of arguing which faith is right or wrong, perhaps we argue from a standpoint of which is true and follow that one. That is what I think intellectual honesty will lead one to anyway. I must go, thanks for the debate.
None of the syoptic gospels was written by the disciples whose names they bear, or even in their lifetimes. What they amount to is hearsay generations after the purported facts, written when the supposed direct witnesses to them were dead.
| 621 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 27, 2009 4:05:26pm |
re: #613 freedom_fighter
You look at religion as a side note, just some "dogma" where I am just suppose to follow X set of rules, check the block etc, but the most important thing is to live a good life, be kind and generous to my fellow man. And while those things are commendable (especially from a human viewpoint) they are like "filthy rags" to a righteous God. If you were created to glorify God and live to worship Him, have a personal relationship with Him and love Him and you rejected Him instead your entire life, how can you not see that this is a bigger deal than the fact that you were "pleasant" to people, paid your taxes on time, and helped elderly across the street? That was not the point of your existence.
I was going to write something very much like the above as a parody of your morally repellant 'screw goodness, worship the power' position but you beat me to it. Such a being as your God, if it existed, would have to be classified as a narcissistic psychopath.
| 622 |
Ayeless in Ghazi Fri, Feb 27, 2009 4:07:55pm |
re: #613 freedom_fighter
Now at last I know why your 'God' created the universe. He was 'ronery'.
| 623 |
Lynn B. Fri, Feb 27, 2009 4:55:47pm |
re: #613 freedom_fighter
You believe that living a good life and being kind and generous to your fellow man, while "commendable (especially from a human viewpoint)" is like "filthy rags" to a righteous God?
What Jimmah (#621) said.
I honestly don't know what god you worship and wouldn't want to. But the prophet Micah explained it to my people this way:
It has been told you, O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: only to do justice and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
By your standards, Micah's God obviously wasn't a "righteous God."
Now I guess you can claim this exhortation was later superseded by something else or that we should only take the last commandment seriously and ignore the first two or find some other way to layer on your own interpretation of these words. But you obviously don't accept them at face value, even though "God's word is true and it never changes" (-- G. Purdom).
/clearly wasting my time here ...
| 624 |
Achilles Tang Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:36:40pm |
| 625 |
jskern Fri, Feb 27, 2009 9:40:00pm |
re: #623 Lynn B.
You believe that living a good life and being kind and generous to your fellow man, while "commendable (especially from a human viewpoint)" is like "filthy rags" to a righteous God?
What Jimmah (#621) said.
I honestly don't know what god you worship and wouldn't want to. But the prophet Micah explained it to my people this way:
By your standards, Micah's God obviously wasn't a "righteous God."Now I guess you can claim this exhortation was later superseded by something else or that we should only take the last commandment seriously and ignore the first two or find some other way to layer on your own interpretation of these words. But you obviously don't accept them at face value, even though "God's word is true and it never changes" (-- G. Purdom).
/clearly wasting my time here ...
The prophet Isaiah also explained it to your people this way:
You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned—
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags...(my emphasis)
The point is that no matter how good we think what we do is, compared to the Divine Good of God, it is anything but.
Nothing was "superseded", merely fulfilled. Jesus IS the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob and our inferiority to Him hasn't changed because He hasn't changed.
Oh, and you're never wasting your time when you're discussing Him!
| 626 |
Salamantis Fri, Feb 27, 2009 10:38:26pm |
Saying that a deathbed profession of faith trumps all evil actions is like having an ironclad license to do whatever you wanna do, no matter how evil it is, because you can play your trump at the end and head to Heaven anyway. It's like playing theological Monopoly with a Get Out Of Hell Free card.
I look upon such a religious loophole as an enabler of immorality, by pledging that it may be indulged in without negative consequence, by the simple expedient of an end-of-life repentance.
| 627 |
ragnwald Sat, Feb 28, 2009 3:55:02am |
I have never seen someone defend their delusions so sincerely! I'm totally blown away. Shermer only side-swiped the important issues, though, by alluding to them, rather then confronting her with them head on: one of the hallmarks of science is to change the theory when it doesn't explain the facts anymore. What would make her change her mind? What makes her creation myth better than any other? If she really thinks she's doing science, what result would her make her change her mind? If she can't change her mind, it's not science.
| 628 |
Mr Secul Sat, Feb 28, 2009 5:30:04am |
re: #627 ragnwald
I have never seen someone defend their delusions so sincerely! I'm totally blown away.
She believes that she is right. She believes that what she believes is The Truth, is God's Truth. So when Shermer uses Francis Collins' name — she sees this as the opinion of a man against the opinion of God. Who wins, Francis Collins or God? :-) Which is the greater authority on genetics?
You are not arguing with her. You are arguing with God.
She also doesn't believe that she is interpreting the bible. When Shermer says that her interpretation is just one among many she replies that she is NOT interpreting the bible. (6 days is 6 days, duh!)
When Shermer mentions other Christian's interpretations of the bible, she responds by saying that they are not interpreting things differently — they are watering down their faith to fit in with what other people want, they do this to be popular and to not make waves.
She doesn't see other interpretations as interpretations. She sees them as cop-outs and retreats. They are Christian retreats from secular/atheist pressure.
So atheism is the threat, the atheist world-view is intimidating Christians, driving them away from God's word. They wouldn't water down their beliefs if atheists and scientists weren't making it so embarrassing to profess literal belief in the bible.
Shermer only side-swiped the important issues, though, by alluding to them, rather then confronting her with them head on: one of the hallmarks of science is to change the theory when it doesn't explain the facts anymore. What would make her change her mind? What makes her creation myth better than any other? If she really thinks she's doing science, what result would her make her change her mind? If she can't change her mind, it's not science.
Her creation myth is true, the others are not. :-) As to other Christian 'interpretations': they are not interpretations, they are cop-outs. (in her opinion)
As to science: she is not doing science. She is doing God's work. Is it preparation for the next round of court cases or is it an attempt to convince the general public that Christian Science is real science? Or does she want to help people?
I am struggling to understand the point of her work (the particular field that she is investigating).
Whatever she discovers would have no impact as evidence for or against the existence of God. I think she knows that. And she already knows that God exists. I don't think that she is trying to prove it.
Could her discoveries be used to treat people?
Or is she just looking for more quotes for the AIG website? More refutation of Darwin.
Keep watching AIG to find out.
| 629 |
American Sabra Sat, Feb 28, 2009 7:22:28am |
At the risk of coming to a dead thread... I'm glad you made these comments about Christianity v. Judaism. These discussions always make me uncomfy because they tend to ruin otherwise good relationships between our religions. But I think you made some great points in a very respectful way.
What makes me cranky about non-Jews trying to interpret the Torah is that they fail to see that they are RE-interpreting it for reasons Ludwig mentioned. I do understand Throbert's point upthread (#335) that Christians believe they have the correct interpretation and not Jews... and I can accept that... but to say that they have THE ORIGINAL intrepretation when for 1000s of years that interpretation didn't exist makes Purdom seem, well, pretty silly. God's word is either God's word or it isn't. It was the Truth prior to the birth of Christ or it wasn't. She makes this very point, in fact, over and over, but in the next breath says, basically we got it wrong. Well how can that be? If someone has to reinterpret God's word, when was it ever the Truth, now or then? And what does that make of the works of centuries of brilliant scholars (namely Maimonides) whom she's probably never even read. Or maybe God Himself was wrong from the beginning only waiting for the non-interpretation interpretation? Shermer tries to make this point with her, but it goes way over her head.
Mixing science and religion is just bad for both.
| 630 |
American Sabra Sat, Feb 28, 2009 7:23:42am |
| 631 |
dave aaa Sat, Feb 28, 2009 9:43:38am |
re: #618 Salamantis
Your position condemn Gandhi to Hell. And yet admits Adolph Hitler, who stated in 1941 to his chief of staff, General Gerhard Engel, that he would always remain a committed Catholic, to Heaven.
Suicide is a mortal sin. In that tiny fraction of a second between the time he pulled the trigger and the bullet destroyed brain function, Hitler had better have done some massive repenting. Let's just say that seems more than a little unlikely. Former seminary student Stalin, on the other hand, apparently had some hours to contemplate his afterlife at the end. He may well have realized he'd messed up very badly for most of his life and despaired at the thought he'd offended God. I wouldn't put much money on it though.
Theoretically, it's possible for a person who has embraced evil for much of his life to honestly repent on his deathbed, but what's the real odds of that happening? There's more to repentance than simply saying it - one has to actually be repentant to the bottom of one's soul. Being sorry for being caught isn't the same as being sorry you done it. You can't BS God. If you don't mean it, He knows, and you're toast.
As for Gandhi, I'm moderately comfortable with sending him to Hell, if for no reason than his odious belief that Jews should have gone peacefully into the ovens.
| 632 |
dave aaa Sat, Feb 28, 2009 9:54:56am |
re: #602 Salamantis
For me, her smug insistance that God demands the suffering of little children in order to fulfill some hidden celestial plan is sick, twisted, warped and demented beyond all rationalization, justification, apology, excuse, or redemption.
I'm fairly sure that few, if any, serious Christian theologians outside the Westboro Baptist Church types would claim that God gives little kids cancer because they've personally done something to deserve it. Even as a fundamentalist Christian, she exhibits FAIL.
Illness, pain,suffering, and death are just part of life outside the Garden - as are the joys of life. We could have stayed there, metaphorically or literally as one might believe, but Humanity chose to leave.
| 633 |
dave aaa Sat, Feb 28, 2009 10:10:42am |
Just a thought (then flame away):
Every child born will die. Every one. So will you and I. Most now make it to old age first. If one will spend eternity in heaven, is it really so bad for one's time here to be cut short and go to a better place?
Emotion says yes. The loss of a child is even less bearable than the loss of almost any other loved one. Faith would say no, and that can help mitigate the despair of loss.
No reasonable person would think Faith would or should be so overwhelming that one would not be hurt by the death of a loved one, let alone celebrate it as logically one might expect. We know people don't function that way. There is, though comfort in the thought that they've gone to a better place.
| 634 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 10:11:46am |
re: #631 dave aaa
Suicide is a mortal sin. In that tiny fraction of a second between the time he pulled the trigger and the bullet destroyed brain function, Hitler had better have done some massive repenting. Let's just say that seems more than a little unlikely. Former seminary student Stalin, on the other hand, apparently had some hours to contemplate his afterlife at the end. He may well have realized he'd messed up very badly for most of his life and despaired at the thought he'd offended God. I wouldn't put much money on it though.
Theoretically, it's possible for a person who has embraced evil for much of his life to honestly repent on his deathbed, but what's the real odds of that happening? There's more to repentance than simply saying it - one has to actually be repentant to the bottom of one's soul. Being sorry for being caught isn't the same as being sorry you done it. You can't BS God. If you don't mean it, He knows, and you're toast.
So the millions systematically murdered aren't the catch; it's the sincerity of one mass murder's last-second repentance? That shit just ain't right. Or decent. Or moral. In the fucking least.
As for Gandhi, I'm moderately comfortable with sending him to Hell, if for no reason than his odious belief that Jews should have gone peacefully into the ovens.
Gandhi was nonviolent from the beginning to the end - which is why he failed in South Africa, and was deported from there, before he began agitating in India. India was the perfect environment for him to succeed, as its occupier, Great Britain, was populated by people with social consciences. Had he tried in any nation occupied by Hitler or Stalin or Mao what he did in India, he would have had a bullet in his brain the moment he became a nuisance.
Gandhi actually seemed to believe that Jews peacefully going to the ovens would shame the Nazis into halting their extermination, but as it happens, most of them DID go peacefully, and shaming didn't work. Once one's target population is demonized, they can be dehumanized, and seen not as fellow human beings, but as either parasitic liabilities to the welfare of decent society or as actual threats to the realization of one's own culture's perceived destiny, and their genocide can be viewed as either a public service or a holy calling, or both, and thus justified in one's mind. Conscience thus never became an issue with most Third Reich Germans. Not even the Christian 85% of them.
| 635 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 10:19:58am |
re: #632 dave aaa
I'm fairly sure that few, if any, serious Christian theologians outside the Westboro Baptist Church types would claim that God gives little kids cancer because they've personally done something to deserve it. Even as a fundamentalist Christian, she exhibits FAIL.
Illness, pain,suffering, and death are just part of life outside the Garden - as are the joys of life. We could have stayed there, metaphorically or literally as one might believe, but Humanity chose to leave.
If not a sparrow falls without God willing it, it would most certainly have to be God's will that some innocent little children get cancer while others don't. The logical consequences and ethical ramifications of omniscience and omnipotence, and the responsibilities concommitant upon such deific attributes, just aren't evaded so easily.
And don't EVEN start that fucking 'guilty little sinner' rant of Georgia Purdom's; that's just fucking NUTS. As for the mythical Garden Thingie parable, read # 452, 453, and 466.
| 636 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 10:27:20am |
re: #633 dave aaa
Just a thought (then flame away):
Every child born will die. Every one. So will you and I. Most now make it to old age first. If one will spend eternity in heaven, is it really so bad for one's time here to be cut short and go to a better place?
Emotion says yes. The loss of a child is even less bearable than the loss of almost any other loved one. Faith would say no, and that can help mitigate the despair of loss.
No reasonable person would think Faith would or should be so overwhelming that one would not be hurt by the death of a loved one, let alone celebrate it as logically one might expect. We know people don't function that way. There is, though comfort in the thought that they've gone to a better place.
Yep, it's an absurd and nonsensical thought, and here's why;
People will be dead forever. No matter how long one lives, the length of one's life does not subtract from that eternity. For a little child to be born into this world, have life cruelly and brutally cut short before it could blossom and bloom, and spend his or her tiny time here consumed in the throes of savage torment, all due to the mandate of cosmic Will, is evil beyond all redemption.
| 637 |
Dave AAA Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:07:40am |
re: #636 Salamantis
People will be dead forever.
For that reason, God is said to give children a great deal more slack than adults when it come to getting into Heaven. Where's the cruelty to the child in being in Heaven rather than on earth? The point is that they are reborn to live in God's Love. It may be that some kids have irretrievably damaged their souls so much God can't take them, but those few kids would grow up to be monstrous adults anyway.
| 638 |
Dave AAA Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:32:14am |
As for your implication that God might be some Cosmic sadist, well perhaps he is. I'm reluctant, though, to try to guess the mind of a God, especially one in whose existence I do not believe. The Mystery of why He allows bad things to happen to good people is likely to stay one.
Back to the video, if she said that children are pretty much automatically doomed to Hell or that God gives them cancer for their personal sins, then her understanding of Christian theology is about on a par with her understanding of evolutionary science.
| 639 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:32:46am |
re: #637 Dave AAA
For that reason, God is said to give children a great deal more slack than adults when it come to getting into Heaven. Where's the cruelty to the child in being in Heaven rather than on earth? The point is that they are reborn to live in God's Love. It may be that some kids have irretrievably damaged their souls so much God can't take them, but those few kids would grow up to be monstrous adults anyway.
The cosmic cruelty and injustice is in having to spend their short lives in excruciating agony from a vicious disease that no one can rationally maintain that they in the least merit or deserve. And since God, if God is indeed omnipotent and omniscient, must know about and decide everything, God would also have to have decided to allow that child's soul damage to happen, so it would be ultimately God's responsibility, not the tiny child's. As if one can reasonably condemn a tiny helpless defenseless child to torture and torment, and say that they had it coming, in order to try to justify the disgusting choices that would be necessarily dictated by one's deity-conception in the first place, if one's deity is conceived in such a bizarre way; that's just fucking SICK. Which is exactly what's wrong with the deity-conception that so many have proferred; it logically entails that their deity mut be a moral monster.
| 640 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:40:49am |
re: #638 Dave AAA
As for your implication that God might be some Cosmic sadist, well perhaps he is. I'm reluctant, though, to try to guess the mind of a God, especially one in whose existence I do not believe. The Mystery of why He allows bad things to happen to good people is likely to stay one.
Back to the video, if she said that children are pretty much automatically doomed to Hell or that God gives them cancer for their personal sins, then her understanding of Christian theology is about on a par with her understanding of evolutionary science.
I could not consider it to be a decent or ethical choice to embrace reverence for or obesiance to a cosmic sadist that deals out senseless agony to the manifestly undeserving; it would be an act of masochism on a par with a fly worshipping the twisted little boy that pulls off its wings, or the fried ant's last hosannas being raised to the vicious little kid holding the magnifying glass in the sunlight. Which is why I must take strong issue with the assignation of deific attributes that would, when considered jointly with the undeniable suffering of innocents, necessarily entail such a characterization.
| 641 |
Dave AAA Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:19:47pm |
re: #634 Salamantis
So the millions systematically murdered aren't the catch; it's the sincerity of one mass murder's last-second repentance?
Yep.
That shit just ain't right. Or decent. Or moral. In the fucking least.
If sin can't be forgiven,then why stop sinning? I should suspect that even if Stalin thought he repented enough St Peter would be going over his record with a fine-tooth comb before letting him in - and do you really think he'd have thought all of his crimes were unjustified?
Gandhi was nonviolent from the beginning to the end
Fortunately for him, quite a few other Indians were not. I'm sure the Japanese would have been intrigued by his views and would have wanted to subscribe to his newsletter. I don't see the virtue in permitting others to be enslaved, raped, tortured, and murdered because one is too good to fight or support others who do. There's also more than a little doubt about how saintly Gandhi 's personal life really was.
- which is why he failed in South Africa, and was deported from there,
He wasn't deported from South Africa, nor did he fail there. In fact, when he left he was in reasonably good standing with the authorities, having negotiated an agreement with the Union government on the repeal of a discriminatory tax.
but as it happens, most of them DID go peacefully, and shaming didn't work.
Gee, who would have thought Nazis wouldn't be shamed, ya know, besides everyone? What a sanctimonious little prick.
| 642 |
Dave AAA Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:31:49pm |
re: #639 Salamantis
The cosmic cruelty and injustice is in having to spend their short lives in excruciating agony.
What's a couple of years he would endure anyway when there is an eternity of Bliss following? In Christian theology, life doesn't end when the body dies.
God would also have to have decided to allow that child's soul damage to happen,
So what part of free will did you not understand? Over and above the Original Sin, which Jesus will take if asked, sin is a choice that one actively makes. It would be hard indeed for nearly all young children to have formed the intent to sin even if they have the ability.
| 643 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 12:59:59pm |
re: #642 Dave AAA
What's a couple of years he would endure anyway when there is an eternity of Bliss following? In Christian theology, life doesn't end when the body dies.
That isn't the point. The point is that allowing the innocent to suffer is unjust in and of itself, no matter what follows. Supposedly those eternal souls were in Heaven before being sent to earth, so why send them here for a taste of malignant Hell on earth? It simply is beyond all rational justification.
And that isn't even getting into the irretriveable imbalance inherent in the very concept of eternally, infinitely rewarding for a finite fealty, or eternally, infinitely punishing for finite sins.
So what part of free will did you not understand? Over and above the Original Sin, which Jesus will take if asked, sin is a choice that one actively makes. It would be hard indeed for nearly all young children to have formed the intent to sin even if they have the ability.
Precisely. Which is why there's no way that they could possibly deserve cosmically meted out intractable pain. And why its dispensation is immoral, regardless of who is responsible. And an omniscient and omnipotent deity would have to be responsible, because nothing whatsoever could happen without its knowledge and will.
In fact, the whole idea of free will is theologically suspect in the context of an omniscient and omnipotent God who would have to have known and willed what everyone would and would not do in their lives and where they would go when they died - Heaven or Hell - from the very beginning of time (which is why Luther and Calvin, among many others, had problems with it). In fact, one could do whatever the hell one wanted to do under such a doctrine, because one's future location would have been celestially decided before one was even born, and there would be nothing that one could do, or fail to do, that could possibly change it. All human choices, whether good or evil, would ultimately be God's choices, for the one thing that an omnipotent being is not logically free to do is to withdraw its power and control from anything, and still remain omnipotent.
| 644 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:19:44pm |
re: #641 Dave AAA
So the millions systematically murdered aren't the catch; it's the sincerity of one mass murder's last-second repentance?
Yep.
That shit just ain't right. Or decent. Or moral. In the fucking least.
If sin can't be forgiven,then why stop sinning? I should suspect that even if Stalin thought he repented enough St Peter would be going over his record with a fine-tooth comb before letting him in - and do you really think he'd have thought all of his crimes were unjustified?
If one's sins, however many and heinous they may be, can be forgiven in one's final moments, why stop sinning until those final moments arrive? Why not just fuck everybody else over, secure in the knowledge that you have a Get Out Of Hell Free card as your ace in the hole, to be played the moment death approached, but not before?
It reminds me of St. Augustine's prayer: "God, grant me chastity and continence, but not yet."
Gandhi was nonviolent from the beginning to the end
Fortunately for him, quite a few other Indians were not. I'm sure the Japanese would have been intrigued by his views and would have wanted to subscribe to his newsletter. I don't see the virtue in permitting others to be enslaved, raped, tortured, and murdered because one is too good to fight or support others who do. There's also more than a little doubt about how saintly Gandhi 's personal life really was.
We tend to agree here; as George Orwell stated, "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside..."
- which is why he failed in South Africa, and was deported from there,
He wasn't deported from South Africa, nor did he fail there. In fact, when he left he was in reasonably good standing with the authorities, having negotiated an agreement with the Union government on the repeal of a discriminatory tax.
I was unaware that he had achieved these things. Nevertheless, my point stands that a Hitler or Stalin or Mao would have just killed him and dumped his limed corpse in a trench.
but as it happens, most of them DID go peacefully, and shaming didn't work.
Gee, who would have thought Nazis wouldn't be shamed, ya know, besides everyone? What a sanctimonious little prick.
He did have an unshakeable faith in the efficacy of nonviolent protest. It was even unshaken by contradicting facts. Kinda like those true believers who embrace Genesis Literalism, despite conclusive empirical evidence to the contrary.
| 645 |
Dave AAA Sat, Feb 28, 2009 1:51:31pm |
re: #643 Salamantis
The point is that allowing the innocent to suffer is unjust in and of itself, no matter what follows. Supposedly those eternal souls were in Heaven before being sent to earth,
We'll have to disagree on the first part. As for the second, That doesn't sound like any Christian theology I've seen.
In fact, the whole idea of free will is theologically suspect in the context of an omniscient and omnipotent God who would have to have known and willed what everyone would and would not do in their lives and where they would go when they died
Just because He can, doesn't mean He has to.
re: #644 Salamantis
If one's sins, however many and heinous they may be, can be forgiven in one's final moments, why stop sinning until those final moments arrive?
Right. That'd be sincere. God would never see through that scam.
| 646 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 2:24:22pm |
re: #645 Dave AAA
The point is that allowing the innocent to suffer is unjust in and of itself, no matter what follows. Supposedly those eternal souls were in Heaven before being sent to earth,
We'll have to disagree on the first part. As for the second, That doesn't sound like any Christian theology I've seen.
You can conceive of justly condemning innocent children to suffer unspeakable agonies and die in horrible pain while yet young? That would seem to me to transgress the very definition of justice. My conception simply cannot stretch that far; it snaps like an overtorqued rubber band, before it can reach the point of distorting definitions beyond all recognition. It does not posess infinite suppleness. And neither should the definitions of words.
In fact, the whole idea of free will is theologically suspect in the context of an omniscient and omnipotent God who would have to have known and willed what everyone would and would not do in their lives and where they would go when they died
Just because He can, doesn't mean He has to.
Umm, logically speaking, yes it does. A God that circumscribes all necessarily reduced humans to nothing, because once everything is taken, nothing remains. And the very definitions of omniscient and omnipotent logically entail same. Which is one of several reasons I have a problem with the assignation of them as deific attributes.
Another reason is that, like the Irresistable Force and the Immoveable Object, they cannot simultaneously exist in a single universe. If one is omniscient, one knows everything, which logically entails that one knows the course of the future for certain in advance, and is thus rendered powerless to change it; on the other hand, if one is omnipotent, one can do anything, which logically entails that one can alter the future at will, which means that one cannot know its course for certain in advance. So one can be EITHER omniscient OR omnipotent, but one cannot logically be BOTH. It's a mutually exclusive either/or, as far as the two absolute deific attributes of omniscience and omnipotence are concerned; both/and is logically impossible.
re: #644 Salamantis
If one's sins, however many and heinous they may be, can be forgiven in one's final moments, why stop sinning until those final moments arrive?
Right. That'd be sincere. God would never see through that scam.
The fact that they planned it like a scam beforehand would not prevent their deathbed repentance from being sincere. And they could think that loophole through in advance, without invalidating it.
| 647 |
jdog29 Sat, Feb 28, 2009 9:18:00pm |
Salamantis,
You have obviously put some serious thought to these questions. Most of your questions seem to hinge on... "If God exists then why...?"
Why pain?, Why injustice? Why evil? Why destruction of the innocent? etc. I believe all people wrestle with these questions and I believe this was Jesus Christ's question to His Father while hanging and dying on the Cross.
"My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?"
I also believe the answer to Jesus' question was because God had a plan to redeem my life for eternity. The Master and Creator of the universe abandoned His Son for you to live in glory and reign with Him forever.
1 Cor. 1.20-25 is where God through an inspired Paul tells us that the whole plan is foolishness, and it is also true.
Christians get singled out for being exclusive while Judaism and Islam are also mutually exclusive and an Atheist dismisses at least 80% of the population as deluded fools.
I choose to be a fool for Christ.
I also don't know why everything in this World has to be like it is with an all powerful, all knowing, loving God looking on. I still trust and hope in God.
In Job 13.15 Job says, "Though God slay me, yet will I hope in him;" I think that means even if God kills me or decides to allow me to be killed in some unjust way I will hope in him.
Other translations have it, "No matter what happens in my life, I will put my hope and trust in God."
| 648 |
Salamantis Sat, Feb 28, 2009 11:18:15pm |
Embracing the Dostoyevskeyian religious categories of magic (ancient scriptures citing miracles), mystery (the claim that the deific plan is incomprehensible to human minds) and authority (the affirmation that whatever God does must for good reason, simply because God does it) is not sufficient for me to give the senseless tortures and premature deaths of innocent children a gratuitous pass. Nor is it for many others, which is why the discipline of theodicy (the problem of evil) is alive and well in theology. Simply citing scriptures telling me not to concern myself with it but to trust anyway, in the absence of understanding, just isn't good enough for me. And I can't believe that such questions should be celestially forbidden to our naturally questioning minds.
And one other question: If God is benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent, why the necessity to go through the whole passion play, and why the necessity to condemn so many to eternal torment, when their fate was supposedly known by and decided for them by Him long before they were born, beyond the possibility of them choosing otherwise? Doesn't that mean that the ultimate responsibility for their fates, as it also should with everything else, lies not with them, but with Him? And shouldn't a perfectly good and perfectly wise and perfectly strong being simply be good enough and wise enough and strong enough to simply and openly, beyond any possibility of human misconstrual, open His loving arms and embrace all of His children?
| 649 |
jdog29 Sun, Mar 1, 2009 4:48:04am |
Salamantis
No questions are forbidden by God. Actually God defends Job's questions about God being unjust and condemns Job's friends for telling Job he shouldn't talk like that or God will "get" him. Job 42.7
God also does not answer ANY of Job's questions, but instead asks Job many questions to which Job has no answers. "Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me." Job 41.11
I don't understand why things have to be the way they are either. When you ask why the need for so many to be condemned to eternal torment, that is a perfectly legitimate question. I don't have the answer. I have answered it in my own mind, but you raise another legitimate point in that my answer might not be or is not good enough for you and you are right, it's not.
And what post would be complete without a reference to "Bruce Almighty" Jim Carey's character asks God, Morgan Freeman, "How can you get someone to love you without forcing them?" Morgan Freeman says as God, "Now THAT'S a great question." ...and then does not answer it.
God did not want another tree when He created you. He wanted a being who could choose to love or not to love, God wanted Salamantis in everything you are, with all your questions, gave you all your abilities TO question, knows the motives behind your thoughts (1 Chron. 28.9) and loves you so much He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross to pay for ANY of your shortcomings. When God agrees to pay with Himself, I believe that is the ultimate act of love and owning up.
When you get to right hand of God and are creating new universes with your spoken word, show Him how it's done. I can't wait to give it my shot, seriously. Again, I realize I am a fool for having such thoughts and ambitions.
| 650 |
Salamantis Sun, Mar 1, 2009 12:37:14pm |
re: #649 jdog29
Salamantis
No questions are forbidden by God. Actually God defends Job's questions about God being unjust and condemns Job's friends for telling Job he shouldn't talk like that or God will "get" him. Job 42.7God also does not answer ANY of Job's questions, but instead asks Job many questions to which Job has no answers. "Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me." Job 41.11
I don't understand why things have to be the way they are either. When you ask why the need for so many to be condemned to eternal torment, that is a perfectly legitimate question. I don't have the answer. I have answered it in my own mind, but you raise another legitimate point in that my answer might not be or is not good enough for you and you are right, it's not.
And what post would be complete without a reference to "Bruce Almighty" Jim Carey's character asks God, Morgan Freeman, "How can you get someone to love you without forcing them?" Morgan Freeman says as God, "Now THAT'S a great question." ...and then does not answer it.
God did not want another tree when He created you. He wanted a being who could choose to love or not to love, God wanted Salamantis in everything you are, with all your questions, gave you all your abilities TO question, knows the motives behind your thoughts (1 Chron. 28.9) and loves you so much He sent His only begotten Son to die on the cross to pay for ANY of your shortcomings. When God agrees to pay with Himself, I believe that is the ultimate act of love and owning up.
When you get to right hand of God and are creating new universes with your spoken word, show Him how it's done. I can't wait to give it my shot, seriously. Again, I realize I am a fool for having such thoughts and ambitions.
You of course realize that your Bible-quoting attempts at proselytization utterly fail with me. I have myself read the Bible cover to cover three times, and while finding much poetic beauty in the words, and much both moral (some of the commandments, the golden rule) and immoral (deifically sanctioned genocide and slavery) in the passages, I remain unconvinced of its supposed divine inspiration, although I do consider the humans who wrote it to have been quite inspired by their own muses in places.
And you also of course realize that I consider the entire self-son-sacrificing thingy to be a useless pointless kabuki play exercise for an omniscient omnipotent deity to engage in, beyond purposes of self-amusement.
Likewise, I find it amusingly self-contradicting for you, who claim that God's plan is incomprehensible to human ken, to turn around and then tell me what the mind of God wants for me personally, based upon your peronal interpretation of an ancient scripture written when the very idea of my existing as an individual was not for a moment thought by a single human being.
to be continued...
| 651 |
Salamantis Sun, Mar 1, 2009 12:44:05pm |
continued...
But of course it's the way you've been programmed by your faith; you cannot do otherwise. The Great Commission demands that you try, so I don't begrudge you the effort, which is quite beyond your will to stifle. It's a submodule of the memeplexes of most religions that their acolytes must attempt to recruit others to their chosen set of dogmas, to spread the "good news", and "witness" to others, and seek their conversion, both for their own sakes, and for the sakes of their targets. At least you're not offering me the choices of conversion, dhimmitude and death. But I do find it amusing and rather hubritic and pridefully conceited that the "go ye therefore and teach all nations" assumes that others who do not accept your faith are simply ignorant, either willfully or otherwise; they may well know things, even spiritual things, that it might well behoove the testifier to learn, although true believers seem frequently to be as lacking in the prerequisite humility to even entertain this possibility as Georgia Purdom manifestly is.
Christian conversion endeavors were themselves not always so gentle. In the Middle Ages, many who could not be talked into embracing the faith were threatened, coerced, and even quite brutally forced, "for their own good", to accept such conversion, even at the cost of the torture, mortification and death of their mortal bodies, if their eternal souls were saved in the process. At least those dark days are thankfully behind us.
| 652 |
jdog29 Sun, Mar 1, 2009 2:33:24pm |
I personally think that zealots using a particular religion for their own agenda is cyclical. David Koresh and Jim Jones perverted Christianity as some pervert Islam now and I am sure Christianity's turn will come around again if this world lasts. This is not to say that many are not perverting Christianity now for their own agendas.
I believe the support of all human appointed authority is part of God asking us to submit to His will rather than my own. I would be humbled by your praise if you think "I cannot do otherwise" when it comes to spreading the Gospel, prosylitization, (sp?) etc. I am VERY hesitant to ask anyone how they feel about God, Jesus, eternity, etc. out of fear of the very reaction you have given. but who knows how God will work in your life to help you gain eternal life. Christians or more personally, I constantly battle the human nature to be selfish and self promoting.
I mean, what's in it for me to share the Gospel of Christ with someone, only to be mocked, labeled and dismissed as a deluded fool. I left out non-thinking robot minion.
What if a higher knowledge does exist? What if an omniscient and omnipotent being who holds every key to the knowledge of every mystery does exist. What if time travel is possible? What if man from the 1400's were given a week in today's Library of Congress and told to go back and make things better for those living in his time. Wouldn't that man be killed for trying to explain something too wonderful for the people of his time to understand?
What if you were given the opportunity to have access to that kind of quantum leap in knowledge for yourself? Would you turn it down because you can't follow the logic? What if you accepted the offer and with your help God created another world that needed a savior, but this time He asks you to trust Him to let you die and resurrect you to redeem your creation?
Is time travel possible? Jesus says it is. Most people are familiar with the passage of scripture that says. "Jesus Christ is same yesterday, today and forever." How can I claim to be the same 10 years from now if I'm not already there to observe my static self? How long must humanity wait on the feeble minds of fools to figure out the nuts and bolts of that equation. I wonder if the equation will be as beautifully simple as E=Mc2. I think E/c2 = M has got to be getting close.
Are all the social ills just a test to see if we can operate within any system of necessary evil? If I get caught up trying to improve the lives of my great grandchildren, slavery, racism, etc. will I pervert those grand causes to promote my own agenda and quit serving others all the while portending to serving the greater good when more often than not that "greater good" turns out to my own self interests?
You are a searcher of truth, I commend you on that. I humbly suggest the possibilty that Jesus Christ is the answer you are searching for. What if... He is?
| 653 |
Salamantis Sun, Mar 1, 2009 3:13:18pm |
There are many questions that have many answers. There are many truths. Piously intoning the name of your chosen avatar does not answer them; rather it is the admonition not to seek further for answers, but to embrace one religious dogma among others in their place. As Nietszche once said, "All great truths are simple; is this not doubly a lie?" It is doubly a lie not only because some great truths are indeed quite complex, but also because one could never succeed in circumscribing and characterizing the infinite number of possible great truths by the use of the term 'all.' I prefer to continue to seek my answers, to not accept religious dogmas in their place, and to be scrupulously honest with myself concerning what answers I do and do not find, while nevertheless realizing that a finite lifetime prevents me from finding them all. It's a matter of personal integrity with me. I plan to continue to strive to grow in understanding as long as I draw breath, and to not to deceive myself that I have already found understandings that I have not yet found, regardless of what religious faiths sincerely but fallaciously offer me such counterfeit comforts.
There can be no rational need for any omnipotent being to 'test' us with evil, as such a being would know how we would fare before we ever came to be.
We are all time travelers; it's just that relativity postulates that the rate of our procession through time is a function of the speed at which we are traveling relative to a referential frame. To look upon starlight is, in a way, to travel into the past, as the light we see was released from sourcing stars in some cases billions of years ago.
I refuse to embrace what I cannot, or as yet have been unable to, comprehend. Reagan famously said to trust but verify; in the absence of empirical verification, there can be no trust for me.
When people claim to submit to God's will, what they are actually submitting to is their interpretation of what they think God's will must be; in other words, they are submitting to the dictates of their own consciences, dictates which issue from their higher, or greater, or deeper selves. I choose to claim my own still small voice, and to call it by its proper name. And the dictates of such voices must be constantly checked against the effects that following their mandates would have in the world; many are those who have heedlessly obeyed such internal voices without attempting such independent verification, and who have been led by them into the commission of great evil.
btw: the only mathematical formula that for me rivals Einstein's mass-energy conversion equation in elegance and beauty is one by Euler:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 654 |
jdog29 Sun, Mar 1, 2009 6:24:36pm |
I look at the sum total knowledge the human race has accumulated as being part of a single leaf on a giant redwood tree, the tip of the tip of the iceberg of what can be learned if you will. What percentage of what can be learned would you estimate has been learned? Would your estimate be greater or less than one tenthousandth of one percent?
While my believing in God does bring me comfort and spiritual satisfaction, I am still eager to learn all the possible answers that can be learned about any and all systems. Sometimes I think religion is presented as a dead end to curiosity or "Now I don't have the need to know." At least for me, nothing could be further from the truth.
I believe God placed all this material here for us to explore and understand. One of the Proverbs 4.6-7 reads, "Do not forsake wisdom, and she will protect you; love her, and she will watch over you. Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding." I think that would serve any science dept. well as a motto.
I think it is wonderful that there is no end to learning no matter what field anyone chooses to study. There are constantly better understandings gained in every field of study and I anxiously await a new dominant mind to come along and enlighten people in a way never considered before.
Who will be next heavyweight boxing champion that everyone knows his name. Let's see, you've got Joe Louis, Muhammed Ali, Mike Tyson, o.k. were waiting. Same with science, yet on an infinitely more important scale, who will be the next scientist gaining worldwide fame because of a new discovery of how things have been all along, but we just didn't know it 'til now? Let's see, you've got Louis Pasteur, Thomas Edison, Einstein, Crick and Watson, o.k. were waiting. I'm not trying to prove anyone or anything right or wrong, I just want to know the truth.
While I don't agree with everything in the book "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren of the inauguration invocation fame, is an excellent read. I was amazed to find out it is the number two selling book of all time. The Bible is number one. I never read it 'til a few years ago when an elderly lady gave me a copy. I would highly recommend it just from a curiosity standpoint. It is an easy read, but designed to be read only one short chapter a day for 40 days. I have never had the discipline to read it through 40 days straight like the author instructs its readers to do.
| 655 |
Salamantis Sun, Mar 1, 2009 7:54:03pm |
To estimate what percentage of what can be learned has been learned would require someone to have a good idea not only of how much HAS been learned, but of how much CAN be learned. No one can credibly guesstimate such things.
The three sources of knowledge and wisdom that I most favor are empirical science, philosophy, and religion. Empirical science is a signgle system that speaks for itself by means of evidence, so I'll address the others:
As far as religious systems go, although I have indeed found many useful spiritual and moral truths in the patriarchal monotheisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and Bahai); I also have found much to deplore there. But I can say the same about the nontheisms (Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism) and the polytheisms (Hinduism and the various paganisms).
Philosophy has proven to me to be a rich source of understanding. Most particularly, I have benefitted from my studies in phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Camus, and Gurwitsch, among others), Piaget's genetic epistemology, hermeneutics (Ricoeur and Gadamer are most useful here), semiotics (Peirce, Eco and Greimas), and memetics (Dawkins and Dennett).
Of course, philisophical icons such as Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Kant, Hegel, Hume, Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Nietzche, Bergson, Wittgenstein, etc., have proven enlightening, as well as certain figures outside of philosophy proper, such as Levi-Strauss.
But after reading what I have read on LGF concerning Rick Warren's young-earth creationism, his problems with homosexuals, his elbow rubbing with jihadi-funding unindicted co-conspirators, and his self-serving journey hat in hand to Syria's Assad just so he could walk Paul's road to Damascus, the LAST place I would look for wisdom would be anything written by HIM!
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
[Link: www.slate.com...]
| 656 |
Salamantis Sun, Mar 1, 2009 8:02:24pm |
Oh; and as far as the next great genius goes (and I would include Darwin on your list, as well as Richard Feynmann, father of quantum mechanics), one candidate might be Garrett Lisi, whose grand unified theory of everything might finally unite gravity with electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, and unite Einstein's relativity with Feynmann's quantum mechanics. The Large Hadron Collider will soon test it out.
[Link: arxiv.org...]
Favorite excerpts:
We exist in a universe described by mathematics. But which math Although it is interesting to consider that the universe may be the physical instantiation of all mathematics, there is a classic principle for restricting the possibilities: The mathematics of the universe should be beautiful. A successful description of nature should be a concise, elegant, unified mathematical structure consistent with experience.
Hundreds of years of theoretical and experimental work have produced an extremely successful pair of mathematical theories describing our world. The standard model of particles and interactions described by quantum field theory is a paragon of predictive excellence. General relativity, a theory of gravity built from pure geometry, is exceedingly elegant and effective in its domain of applicability. Any attempt to describe nature at the foundational level must reproduce these successful theories, and the most sensible course towards unification is to extend them with as little new mathematical machinery as necessary. The further we drift from these experimentally verified foundations, the less likely our mathematics is to correspond with reality. In the absence of new experimental data, we should be very careful, accepting sophisticated mathematical constructions only when they provide a clear simplification. And we should pare and unite existing structures whenever possible.
The standard model and general relativity are the best mathematical descriptions we have of our universe. By considering these two theories and following our guiding principles, we will be led to a beautiful unification.
The theory proposed in this paper represents a comprehensive unication program, describing all fields of the standard model and gravity as parts of a uniquely beautiful mathematical structure. The principal bundle connection and its curvature describe how the E8 manifold twists and turns over spacetime, reproducing all known fields and dynamics through pure geometry. Some aspects of this theory are not yet completely understood, and until they are it should be treated with appropriate skepticism. However, the current match to the standard model and gravity is very good. Future work will either strengthen the correlation to known physics and produce successful predictions for the LHC, or the theory will encounter a fatal contradiction with nature. The lack of extraneous structures and free parameters ensures testable predictions, so it will either succeed or fail spectacularly. If E8 theory is fully successful as a theory of everything, our universe is an exceptionally beautiful shape.
Trump Allies Test a New Strategy for Blocking Election Results They Don’t Like When a member of Georgia’s Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections refused to join her colleagues as they certified two primaries this year, she claimed she had been denied her right to examine a long list of election ...
Cheechako
US Military M17 & M18 Pistols Causing Unintentional Discharges Documents detail U.S. soldiers shot by their own Sig Sauer guns; military says no reason for concern Around lunchtime on Feb. 8, 2023, inside an administrative office at Fort Eustis in Virginia, a sergeant with the Army’s 221st Military ...
William Lewis
The Cause of the Rain Here? dryad, in Greek mythology, a nymph or nature spirit who lives in trees and takes the form of a beautiful young woman. Dryads were originally the spirits of oak trees (drys: “oak”), but the name was later applied to ... William Lewis
Uncommon US Flags #3: Storm Warning Flags Indianola, Texas after the Civil War became the principal port for the state, due to its location on Matagorda Bay. The town steadily grew as commerce, tourism, and agriculture expanded. In 1875, a powerful Category 3 hurricane struck Indianola, ...
Anymouse 🌹🏡😷
A Friday at the Tail End of SpringJust out and about for a bit. First a walk downtown where the two rivers meet, then a short drive just outside of town. William Lewis
This Civil War Submarine Vanished for 136 Years [VIDEO] A Civil War submarine powered by hand cranks and lit by candlelight. What could possibly go wrong? Meet the HL Hunley. Support the production of these videos through our Patreon: patreon.com Thank you to Nick DeLong from Clemson University ...
teleskiguy
Billions in US Taxpayer Dollars Now Go to Religious Schools via Vouchers Billions in taxpayer dollars are being used to pay tuition at religious schools throughout the country, as state voucher programs expand dramatically and the line separating public education and religion fades. School vouchers can be used at almost any ... Cheechako
Adobe Caught Selling AI Generated Images Imitating Ansel Adams’ Work Adobe scolded for selling ‘Ansel Adams-style’ images generated by AI Adobe found itself in hot water this weekend after the Ansel Adams estate publicly scolded the company for selling generative AI imitations of the late photographer’s work. On Friday, ... William Lewis
The Good Liars at Miami Trump Rally [VIDEO] Jason and Davram talk with Trump supporters about art, Mike Lindell, who is really president and more! SUPPORT US: herohero.co SEE THE GOOD LIARS LIVE!LOS ANGELES, CA squadup.com SUBSCRIBE TO OUR AUDIO PODCAST:Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.comSpotify: open.spotify.comJoin this channel to ... teleskiguy
