Yesterday was a long day, starting in the operating room and finishing at a dinner reception for our visiting speaker today. As a result, when I arrived home, I was sawing the proverbial logs within five or ten minutes of hitting the couch, more or less without realizing it. I was going to just skip today, making it a rare weekday where I don’t provide you, my loyal readers, with a dose of the Insolence, be it Respectful or not-so-Respectful, to which you have become accustomed. But then I saw an article that reminded me of a topic that I haven’t revisited for quite a long time. I’m referring to a topic that I used to discuss fairly often. View it as a subtopic of Medicine and Evolution. I’m referring to the question of why there are so many doctors who deny evolution. We’ve met many of them before over the last decade, although probably Dr. Michael Egnor is the one whose creationist nonsense I’ve discussed and refuted the most. He’s a neurosurgeon, and apparently he’s still at it.
Well, there’s another creationist neurosurgeon in town, and unfortunately he’s running for the Republican nomination for President. I’m referring, of course, to Dr. Ben Carson, a guy who was a really brilliant neurosurgeon in his day but in his retirement appears to have embraced multiple forms of right wing pseudoscience, including, of course, evolution denial. His ascent led a reporter to wonder why some doctors reject evolution and even publish a story about it in Pacific Standard, entitled, appropriately enough, Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution? The article is a good primer on the topic, and not just because it features some quotes from someone who is near and dear to this blog. It’s worth reading in full, and (I hope) discussing here. It also reminds me that I really should revisit the topic of evolution in medicine and physicians denying evolution. Apparently I’ve become so wrapped up in discussing quackery like antivaccine pseudoscience, alternative cancer “cures,” homeopathy, and quackademic medicine (the infiltration of pseudoscience into medical academia) that I’ve neglected other interesting areas of the interface between science and medicine and pseudoscience.
And, thus, Orac demonstrates his logorrhea by using over 400 words just to link to an article he likes. Truly, it does take me nearly 500 words just to “clear my throat,” so to speak. In any case, maybe I’ll have to talk about evolution denial in medicine again sometime soon. It’s one of those topics that keeps popping up and irritating me, but somehow other things manage to distract me, much like Dug the Dog.
1,677 replies on “Why do doctors deny evolution?”
That’s a nice article, and I think very fair all around. And they managed to seek out a good person to quote!
The remark about many doctors being more like engineers than scientists rings true. I sometimes eddicate future doctors, and for some (though not all!) of them, the basic science courses are simply another hoop to jump through.
“Another potential culprit: the memorization-based nature of medical training, which may give a doctor-to-be the impression that biology is a made up list of facts to recall; not a process that has gathered evidence for concepts like evolution over generations of experimentation.”
Honestly, I’d want even my surgeons to be more flexible in their thinking, like the esteemed host of this blog. My medical practitioners – my ortho, my OB – have all been very happy to discuss the scientific literature in their profession with me, and recent developments that have changed their approach over time. I definitely feel better going to a practitioner who is open to new evidence and changing his/her practice accordingly…
I guess that’s a long-winded way of saying that although doctors in some specialties can be competent while holding an anti-science mindset (evolution denial, quackery), not having those mindsets allows the possibility to be better than competent.
I suspect that some of the factors listed in the article as contributing to evolution denial among some doctors also contributes to the tendency of some doctors (probably a group which at least partially overlaps the evolution deniers) to fall for alt-med hype. If science is treated as a list of facts to be memorized, then the distinction between real science and things like homeopathy becomes blurred, because the latter is just a different list of “facts” to be memorized. Never mind that for homeopathy to work, most of what we know about chemistry and physics would have to be wrong, as anybody who took those subjects in high school should be able to figure out. And if physicians think like engineers, then they may mistake placebo effects for actual effective treatment, even though doctors are supposedly trained to know that placebo effects exist (and therefore some patients will appear to respond to alt-med treatments which have no physiological basis for working). One of the ways in which engineers often go wrong is that they apply techniques that worked previously to novel situations where the techniques don’t work (I have firsthand experience with this phenomenon–we lost a major experiment package this way).
This topic is fascinating to me. A former cardiologist of mine in Alabama was a young earth creationist (which I found out when he asked what I was studying in grad school and I said evolutionary biology). Wouldn’t have made much of a difference to me, except that later he tried to tell me antibiotic resistance isn’t a thing and certainly not dangerous, and that prophylaxis using a broad spectrum antibiotic (against then-new AHA guidelines for my condition) was the least dangerous of all. So now I use this story whenever bio faculty try to tell me that evolution doesn’t need to be a required course when the majority of their students are pre-med.
At the risk of moving this thread slightly off-topic, I wonder if anyone has ever analyzed how prone MDs are to falling for scams (financial and otherwise).
About learning by rote..
unfortunately, it may be the only way to *initially* learn masses of new facts, new words and new names in order to capture those items in memory. You can’t work with material unless you have a way of holding on to it.
Courses may require rapid acquisition of loads of data and then, this task is quickly replaced by another set of data, then another and another still.
Obviously once you have a handle on material you can use association as you can if the new items resemble older ones.
But just think what you need to learn in anatomy and physiology. Not to mention pharmacology. And HOW MUCH there is even in general courses.
Since Bobby Jindal, like Ben Carson, is a Republican president wannabe, this might be pertinent:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/05/bobby_jindal_runs_for_president_louisiana_governor_allowed_creationism_in.html
Since Jindal was a biology major at Brown, it appears that his reason for denying evolution is simply that he wants to be president–and lying is just so totally worth it..
Is this really all that surprizing?
Doctors and Surgeons are human beings and those you are considering are American human beings. What is the general rate of evolution denial in the general American population? I suppose the expectation is that to be a doctor requires a higher intelligence than average and also a greater grounding in science. Those factors no doubt play a part in reducing the denial rate form the population average, but I’ll bet its not by all that much. At the end of the day many if not all of these ‘denial’ phenomena are based on sociological and probably more importantly familial factors than any amount of education or even intelligence.
And when anyone talks about the ‘Operating Room’ I instantly think there is something ominous and worryingly covert going on!
#2 Roadstergal
Your doctors may well be up to date with the literature but they may accept it as something handed down, the old ex cathedra, type of thing. They need to believe the results but not need or care about underlying theory. There may be an expection of gradually but steady improvement so new findings are accepted but with little or no understanding of how it is done.
Come to think of it, for years I have expected automotive gas mileage to improve but I have no real idea of the science or engineering that goes into it.
You know, when humans discover life outside the comfy confines of planet Earth, it will change the way we think. And it such life is intelligent, that will change everything. All the religious books (Bible, Koran and Torah) will need to be rewritten. Upgraded, if you will.
Of course, they will be.And a new way to deny evolution will be created. It’s the nature of us humans.
In the linked article, Dr. David Gorski is quoted as saying “Most physicians are not scientists. This is not a knock, but they’re more akin to engineers.”
This reminds me of when I was in school, one of my engineering professors told us that the goal of engineering is to “exploit physics [or science] to make money.”
One could conclude from these two statements that alternative medicine doctors exploit pseudoscience (or at least a belief in pseudoscience) to make money.
shay @5: I haven’t seen this quantified, but doctors as a group have a reputation for being particularly poor, compared to other professionals with similar incomes, at investing. Which is why you should not choose an investment advisor whose office happens to be within two blocks of a hospital. Part of this is because doctors don’t receive any particular training in money management, unlike lawyers (who have to be able to keep escrow accounts separate–bouncing a check from your trust account is a career-ending move if you are a lawyer), many businessmen (who have MBA degrees), and to a lesser degree scientists (who usually aren’t formally trained, but surviving six years on a grad student income is good training for money management). Couple that with doctors thinking they are smart (which is partly true, as you have to have a certain kind of smarts to get into med school in the first place, but not necessarily the kind of smarts you need to manage money), and you have a target-rich environment for hucksters.
I find it somewhat depressing that doctors would be evolution deniers. But I think the article is correct about it being linked to faith. Having been born and raised in TX and recently having moved back to the bible belt, the religious faith on display in everyday life is quite profound. I think a lot of religious people tend to view evolution skeptically at best, and that doctors who are religious would fall in that camp. Since church attendance and overall religiosity is a sign of status in the south then it stands to reason that a fair proportion of doctors would have these beliefs or at least not espouse a pre-creation belief. My two cents.
@JeffM #10, I don’t know about the Koran, but the Bible does not mention anything about life on other planets or the process of evolution. For all we (Christians) know, God could have created life on another planet, no reason to think he would not have, or life could have spontaneously evolved, or some combination of the two. Life on another planet would in no way invalidate the Bible, just as evolution in no way invalidates it.
One other thing I would like to know which the article doesn’t point out is just what Dr. Carson denies about evolution. Is it just, like most Christians, that all life did not come by unguided mutation from one cell. Or does he deny that allele frequencies change, antibiotic resistance isn’t real, etc…? The first is understandable and, point me out if I am wrong, but I do not see how that would make him a worse doctor, but the second would be ridiculous and clearly would affect his practice.
Ugh, Dr. Michael Egnor has re-appeared over at FreeThoughts Blogs (where some former ScienceBlogs folks moved after a thing a few years ago), commenting on PZ’s blog (creationist stuff) and at Ed Brayton’s blog with some pretty unpleasant anti-gay stuff.
So if a TheDukeDog7 shows up here, it’s probably Dr Egnor, come to be difficult.
I’d expect the TYPE of religious belief system/ congregation to be an important factor- not all Christians are fundamentalists ( similarly, Jewish people and Muslims)
We have had 2 quite vocal YE-creationist physicians here. Another of those (Reinikainen) got a little bit angry and wrote back when a docent (Wartiovaara) wrote an article about mitochondrias and medication in local medical magazine (Duodecim, 2006). She mentioned in that article that in ancient times mitochondrias were originally bacteria and this may cause problems with medication, especially with antibiotics as mitochondrias still have properties of bacteria. Aminoglycosides sometimes induces deafness if patient have a special mutant form of mitochondria.
This YEC doctor Reinikainen was vocally trumpeting against evolution in religious radio before elections and were just about to get into national parliament and later also member of EU parliament. But lost both by a hairbreath. (Fortunately.)
Perhaps God is theistic evolutionist and got somebit angry too.. ;D
I’m having trouble thinking of many fields in medicine where knowledge (and acceptance) of evolution of resistance to therapeutic agents is optional.
I suppose you could have a magical view wherein Satan is prompting bacteria to become antibiotic resistant and God wants you to follow the holy prescribing algorithm to minimize Satan’s powers. It would still make me nervous even if the physician was doing the right thing. I’d always wonder what other nonsense was lurking beneath the surface.
Are there antivax physicians who buy into the belief that superior immune systems through supplements, diet and, well, just being superior beings is what counts in avoiding infectious disease, and handwashing isn’t really as important as it’s cracked up to be?
@Dangerous Bacon:
I’m thinking about the JW propaganda that I used to have to read/sit through for some years as a kid, and about the way they talk about evolution. (As an example of a conservative, religious, denialist viewpoint.) IIRC, they acknowledge minor “adaptations” within one species, like how peppered moths changed color due to coal smoke pollution. They object to the idea, however, that one “kind” can “turn into” another “kind.” It is a pretty brain dead position, but it gives the impression of a little bit of nuance or something, I guess. I imagine that some doctors, in a similar sort of way, might recognize that infectious agents “adapt” without actually accepting the wider theory of evolution.
As an aside, I found a discarded copy of the Awake! on the sidewalk the other day and took it home for kicks and giggles. I gotta say, the literature has been significantly dumbed down from even what I remember in the first half of the oughts.
Eric@12 — thank you. I remember reading something to that effect, but it was years ago (as in decades. My brain stores up the oddest things).
Obviously, one can be a world-renowned medical doctor without believing in evolution (e.g. Ben Carson).
But I have two questions right now:
1) Does the med school curriculum include at least one course on biological evolution?
2) Can anyone name just one medical breakthrough or current medical treatment or procedure which required a belief in evolution?
Since evolutionally theory is built on facts, one does not need to believe in it, as it just is.
That’s like saying “I believe the sky is blue.”
The extremes of religious influence in America seem bizarre to Australians. I see articles on the internet about being “openly secular” when people here would actually feel more awkward to publicly announce that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
I am a doctor (not a fancy, published one or anything) and while we didn’t have classes explicitly on evolutionary biology, it is inherent in the science we are taught, and there is certainly no-one running a religious or creationist agenda in medical schools.
Personally, I would not see a religious doctor. It speaks of an inability to assess the evidence, think critically and reach a reasonable conclusion – skills that should be prerequisites for being a doctor. Sure, some people could be good doctors while holding ideas that are not reality-based, but that level of cognitive dissonance scares me. How do I know that a doctor is giving me all the information and good advice, and not withholding things because they think I’m immoral, or they think my medical problem is god’s will?
It’s not that there aren’t religious doctors in Australia, but that we don’t have the same problem of religious saturation that the USA seems to. We even managed to elect an atheist once.
Preventing HIV from not being a death sentence? Then again, that’s just off the top of my head, and question #1 is even more dismayingly ignorant.
^ “from
notbeing”I almost went for “virus first,” but a creationist take on HERV-K won the day.
You make it sound like evolution is a religion. It isn’t. It is just something that is.
It is a bit like suggesting gravity is a religion.
#21
A doctor not accepting evolution would make me wonder what their understanding of biology and chemistry, in fact the scientific process in general, was like and would make me have some very big doubts about their basic competence as a medic: in deciding to not accept evolution they are demonstrating an arrogant tendency towards cherry-picking which does not bode well for their ability to evaluate evidence of the effectiveness of different treatments.
So, I would suggest that you cannot become a world-renowned doctor while not accepting evolution (who is Ben Carson anyway?), because you do not grasp the basics of science, which should underpin medicine.
Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist and would seem to accept his religion’s take on the subject. It’s simply part of the ‘package’ of being an SDA. Egnor, a Catholic, has no such excuse. There is no religious prerequisite for him. It is just his own learned idiocy on the subject.
So, I would suggest that you cannot become a world-renowned doctor while not accepting evolution (who is Ben Carson anyway?), because you do not grasp the basics of science, which should underpin medicine.
The problem with this argument is that medical education, as it is currently structured in the US, requires students to learn certain facts about science, without necessarily understanding the underpinnings of those facts. That’s what rote memorization means. The system in the UK may well be different, and good for them if it is different in this way.
The same issue arises in engineering. If you’re designing a widget, or a bridge, you need to know certain things about the material used in constructing the thing you are designing, and some basic general principles of physics. Except for materials scientists and some electrical engineers, you don’t have to know anything about quantum mechanics, which would tell you why your materials behave as they do. The exceptions I mentioned are disciplines where quantum effects directly constrain your design. Likewise, if you are a doctor you need to know that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics, but you don’t need to know the details of how that happens–just avoid certain obvious mistakes, and you will at least not be contributing to the problem.
Eric Lund @3
Exactly – they have memorized the techniques without knowing the underlying assumptions on which the techniques are based. They then go on to apply these techniques when the underlying assumptions are not longer valid. Realizing this is what got me into my now worthless (thank you very much Packers Plus) specialty of Pressure Transient Analysis. A shallow understanding of a subject is always dangerous. An understanding of evolution is required for a deep understanding of biology.
@See Noevo
Evolution denial indicates a deep anti-intellectualism that is bound to spill over into other areas. Look at the strong correlation between creationism and AGW denial. anti-GBLT bigotry, forced birth advocacy. Furthermore, anyone who believes the Old Testament is literally true either hasn’t read it or is worshiping a vile amoral monster. Ben Carson is black and he is running for a party that has been based on racism since Nixon’s southern strategy. He may or may not have been a “world renowned surgeon”, but he is now a world renowned idiot.
To multiple addressees:
To Lawrence #22:
“Since evolutionally theory is built on facts, one does not need to believe in it, as it just is.”
I would say evolutionary theory is built NOT on facts, but rather on interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts. (Assuming we can even agree on what the “facts” are.)
…..
To Narad #24:
How would “Preventing HIV from being a death sentence” require a belief in evolution?
…….
To ChrisP #27:
“You make it sound like evolution is a religion. It isn’t. It is just something that is. It is a bit like suggesting gravity is a religion.”
Yes, I think evolution is a form of religion. And one requiring far greater faith than, say, Christianity.
But no, gravity is quite unlike evolution. Gravity is something which has been OBSERVED and EXPERIENCED by every living thing in this planet’s history. Very different from evolution.
…………
To Murmur #28:
Among other things, Ben Carson was “professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics, and he was the director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Carson#Awards_and_honors
And he doesn’t believe in evolution.
“How would “Preventing HIV from being a death sentence” require a belief in evolution?”
That is evidence that you have no idea how biology works.
“Gravity is something which has been OBSERVED and EXPERIENCED by every living thing in this planet’s history.”
Actually, pretty much the same with evolution. It has been experienced by everything that consists of DNA and/or RNA. From the simplest virus to the blue whale.
Just because you don’t understand it, does not mean it does not exist and is still happening. This I say as an adult who can drink cow’s milk and whose mouth was remodeled as an adolescent because my jaw was too small for the number of teeth.
See Noevo@32:
Shorter See Noevo: “If it’s outside my personal experience, it doesn’t exist.”
How very small and simple your universe must be.
See Noevo: Scientists who studied evolution were the ones who figured out where one could drill into the ground and get petroleum. If evolution is a lie, why are they usually correct?
If you imply that God deliberately created the illusion of age, you are blasphemously suggesting the God is a deceiver.
If you suggest that the Devil is responsible, that will be taken as a sign of polytheism: The devil is not God.
You’d be wrong, though. The word “theory” has a specific meaning when used in the natural sciecnes: a unifying,self-consistent, comprehensive, falsifiable and tentative explanatory model of a natural process or phenomenon derived exclusively from corroborated hypotheses.
Again, you’d be wrong: evolution lacks three essential elements integral to religious traditions:
It does not possess a system of beliefs or doctrines which relate the believers to the ultimate meaning of life
It does not define practices which represent either norms for behavior or rites and ceremonies of worship or celebration (sacraments, initiations, ordinations, sermons, prayers, services for funerals and marriages, etc.).
It does not unite a body of believers so as to constitute an identifiable community which is either hierarchical or congregational in polity and which possesses a spiritual way of life in harmony with the ultimate meaning of life as perceived by the believers
And once again: wrong. Confidence in the validity of evolutionary models does not represent a article of subjective personal faith but instead derives from the fact that they are comprehensive, predictive, falsifiable, and therefore tentative..
Gravity is exactly like evolution: as is the case with evolution, you have both the fact of gravity (objects possessing mass are observed to exert an attractive force on each other) and a theory of gravity (that this attractive force is the result of objects possessing mass inducing the curvature of space-time).
With evolution, there’s the fact of evolution (that evolution is seen to occur in living populations and to result in the creation of biologically diverse living populations by descnet from previously extant ancestral ones) and we have theories of evolution ( detailed explanatory models of how natural mechanisms which introduce change into population genomes creating novel phenotypes which can be selected for or against as a function of differential fitnesswith respect to a specific enviornment has created the biological diversity we observe in living populations today and/or find evidence of in the fossil record.
The extremes of religious influence in America seem bizarre to Australians
They seem pretty bizarre to a lot of us here.
Back in the day, I was helping (for very small values of help) to find ET and his phone.
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu
One of the enticements for the program was that if ET was found, the person who crunched the data would get a mention in the announcement. There was discussion among the participants, and one school of thought was that it would be smart to decline the honor. If there are people willing to kill the author of a piece of fiction, how many would be willing to kill someone who said ‘there is life out there, and here is the address’?
Yes, most doctors reject the evolutionary approach Bechamp had to micro organisms and accepted the creationist Pasteur and his fallacious germ theory. Bechamp predicted the disaster that following the mythical “killing of germs” and pointed out that this would force them to evolve and eventually kill us all. Instead of trying to modify the soil with antibiotics we should be eating correctly and avoiding the suppression of fevers etc. Pasteur was a liar and an azzhole, adopting his mythology will be the undoing of us all.
Real Johnny, accept no baloney
“but he is now a world renowned idiot.”
Carson has been demonstrating that for many years, and not just about his denial of evolution. He is one of the more virulent anti-gay folks, and his stance that being gay is a choice because
Add to that his conflation of ‘gay’ with ‘child molester’ and ‘animal molestation advocate’ and you have a perfectly despicable person who wears good suits.
Remarkable really, how can doctors just believe the sponteseperatist idea that germs ‘just appear’ as if by magik. If we cut the blood off to the arm, in seven hours we have gangrene, doctors think that it just ‘appears’ like bad miasm or some kind of humor curse.
Proper Johnny, needs no explanation
lowercase johnny, if germ theory is incorrect, then why did penicillin cure people with tuberculosis when no amount of dietary and lifestyle changes did? Why did the rabies vaccine pull people from their deathbeds? Where the **** did smallpox and rhinderpest go?
This discussion conflates the Darwinist view of the origin of man with evolution as a process in nature (e.g. the development of antimicrobial resistance). Many doctors reject the former. Hardly any of those same doctors reject the latter as far as I can tell, notwithstanding the anecdote about the cardiologist in one of the comments above. A proper distinction needs to be made.
Gravity is something which has been OBSERVED and EXPERIENCED by every living thing in this planet’s history. Very different from evolution.
Are you not acquainted with any farmers, gardeners, or animal breeders (pets or livestock)? These folks actively contribute to evolution. For example, the corn grown in many parts of the Americas came from teosinte, a Mesoamerican plant that only vaguely resembles our modern corn. A few thousand years ago, somebody in what is now Mexico thought that teosinte might make a good food crop. He and his successors have been breeding the descendants of that crop to produce a much larger and sturdier plant with a much larger edible portion. The same thing has happened with other food crops, and more recently with ornamentals. Likewise, animal breeders want to encourage certain traits in the offspring of the animals they breed. For thousands of years man did these things without understanding why they worked; we only knew that they worked. Then Mr. Darwin and Mr. Mendel came along to explain the mechanisms that were at work, and noted that these processes also work (more slowly, because nobody is actively intervening in the breeding program) for other living things.
Or you can consider resistance of pathogens to drugs. This includes antibiotic resistance, mentioned above, as well as the resistance malaria has developed to prophylactic drugs such as chloroquine (which can no longer be used for that purpose) and mefloquine (which is the drug of choice in most parts of the world, but there are places in Southeast Asia where it won’t help you). Many specific instances of this have happened during my lifetime. If you accept that evolution is true, explaining this phenomenon is straightforward. Otherwise, you will have to resort to some supernatural explanation: $DEITY is punishing us because we didn’t perform $RITUAL properly, or something along those lines. It’s one thing to resort to the latter class of explanation when you don’t know any better, but today we do.
See if this (PDF) helps – it’s at an undergraduate level.
This discussion conflates the Newtonist view of a heliocentric solar system with the force of gravity as seen in nature. Many doctors reject the former. Hardly any of those same doctors reject the latter as far as I can tell, notwithstanding the anecdote about the cardiologist in one of the comments above. A proper distinction needs to be made.
Seriously, there is no Darwinism. There is only the fact of evolution.
Did you miss the the part about ERVs?
Gray Falcon, more directly to the point of my earlier comment: do you think it’s possible to properly understand the mechanism of antimicrobial resistance if you reject the evolutionary view of the origin of man?
@Robert W Donnell- Science isn’t a buffet. You don’t get to pick and choose what you like and don’t like.
Of course, it goes without saying that they’re being complete idiots when they do so, given the tremendous body of evidence indicating homo sapiens arose by descent with modification from a previously existing ancestral population.
Thanks for adding clarity JGC! I was really trying to call out a straw man for accusing creation minded doctors of denying evolutionary processes in nature. But you rained on my parade. Being such idiots, how could they possibly understand biologic processes of any kind after all?
Would you like to get on with instantiating your version of “proper understanding”? Is it going to be “antimicrobial resistance isn’t genetic” or “‘resistance genes’ existed before antimicrobials”?
Hmmm. Implied straw man again. No, Narad, it’s none of what you mentioned.
Methinks Dr. Donnell is referring to the “microevolution” versus “macroevolution” trope beloved of creationists. And trope it is, because the mechanisms of “macroevolution” (speciation) involve the same sorts of selective pressures that “microevolution” do.
“Implied straw man”? While making a bee noise?
Perhaps you could skip perceived implications and get on to the explicit part.
Robert W Donnell@43
This reminds me of the Bill Nye debate where the other guy kept sayong that there’s a distinction between historical science and observational science. That’s absolute bullsh!t. Science is based on the assumption that what laws exist now prevade time and space. Darwin’s theory of the origin of man comes from applying what we know about the process of evolution across time. As Gray Falcon said, you can’t have one without the other. That is unless you argue that physical laws are not consistent across time, at which point everything we know falls apart.
I wonder a bit about this. As a doctor in a semi-rural area deep in the Bible belt (and a active Christian to boot), I know of no doctors at present in our area who do not accept evolution as valid. When I think of doctors in the past I have known who did not do so, they are invariably from fundamentalist backgrounds and have a strong service ethic which led them into medicine, not entirely a bad thing. I did attend a “Christian Medical-Dental Society” function once, and was surrounded there however of those of the fundamentalist/YEC belief system, and interesting, most were dentists. In fact, I bet dentists are far more likely to be young earth creationists and evolution deniers than doctors.
Most of you don’t believe the “distinction” is real. I get that. This discussion could go on for hours. I would love to continue. I really would. I do work and I do sleep. Maybe some day we can discuss it over beer. At least we would have beer.
Macro-evolution, after all, is defined simply as “”any evolutionary change ocurring at or above the taxonomic level of the species (e.g., speciation and extinction events)” (per the Biotech Life Sciences Dictionary, if anyone’s interested).
We’ve directly observed, both in controlled laboratory settings and uncontrolled in the wild, new species populations arise as a consequence of changes in the genetic composition of a presexisting one, so it can’t reasonably be argued macroevolution does not or can not occur.
” then why did penicillin cure people with tuberculosis when no amount of dietary and lifestyle changes did?” Greyfuckweet
Nice distraction oh greynuts.. We all know TB is a disease of malnourishment and poor overcrowding and no light. Yes you can spray these people with disinfectant if you like, that is the kind of new world order ‘solution’ I would expect from you. it takes far more intellect, capabilities and aptitude to sort the problem out properly. The medical approach of not flushing toilets and spraying everything with juice is what is bringing the next plague of frogs with antibiotic resistance.
You are like those bankers who keep handing out credit cards and then claiming some kind of financial kudos.
He who borrows…………… take no submissions
” then why did penicillin cure people with tuberculosis when no amount of dietary and lifestyle changes did?” Greyfoockweet
Nice distraction oh greynuts.. We all know TB is a disease of malnourishment and poor overcrowding and no light. Yes you can spray these people with disinfectant if you like, that is the kind of new world order ‘solution’ I would expect from you. it takes far more intellect, capabilities and aptitude to sort the problem out properly. The medical approach of not flushing toilets and spraying everything with juice is what is bringing the next plague of frogs with antibiotic resistance.
You are like those bankers who keep handing out credit cards and then claiming some kind of financial kudos.
He who borrows…………… take no submissions
“Of course, it goes without saying that they’re being complete idiots when they do so, given the tremendous body of evidence indicating homo sapiens arose by descent with modification from a previously existing ancestral population.” Jcb
Yes, I can quite imagine you descending as an ape eructates his nates. Nice metaphor oh juicy one
Given that you haven’t said anything content-bearing, “discussion” is giving yourself too much credit.
“That is unless you argue that physical laws are not consistent across time, at which point everything we know falls apart.” Cockwrench
Well they aren’t consistent at all. I mean Newtonian physics, that discovered the apple, has been superseded by the Cern that discovered the pigs bottom. We all know its true, I have read ‘women wear bras and men have a penis’.
Keep it lowercase, jіzzmop.
“Why did the rabies vaccine pull people from their deathbeds? Where the **** did smallpox and rhinderpest go?” Greyfoockwit
But where did the germs come from – if you don’t believe in evolution, where did they come from? The correct answer is not the 9/11. Bechamp could tell you, the problem with Pasteur is that his theory falls down – and he admitted that on his death bed ‘Bernard he is right – the germ is nothing the soil is everything’. You can rewrite history if you want to, but Pasteur can’t explain where the germs come from. Try this, take two fresh chickens eggs, shake one violently for 30 seconds and put both back under a chicken. One produces a chicken, the other ferments and rots. The egg is not broken, where did the germs come from. Try it yourself – it works.
It’s hilarious that you can’t even get your own – ¿cómo se dice? – “fairy story” straight.
Robert W Donnell@58
It certainly doesn’t help that you’ve provided zero evidence to support yourself. All you did was arbitrarily draw up a distinction to support your argument and then storm off indignantly when called on your bull. I like how Narad put it, you really haven’t said anything content bearing.
johnny@65 (like Narad said keep it lowercase; you’re plenty scummy without the added effort you’re putting into impersonating Johnny)
The hell is this supposed to prove?
Does anyone else feel like lower-case johnny has started making even less sense than usual? I mean, he’s usually wrong and weird and insulting, but this thread is edging into “Chopra generator” territory. Germs not coming from “the 9/11”? What does that even mean?
Maybe johnny is really an advanced troll bot, and the code has developed a bug.
Try this, take two fresh chickens eggs, shake one violently for 30 seconds and put both back under a chicken. One produces a chicken, the other ferments and rots.
Sounds like some half-remembered piffle from the annals of osteopathy, but not really worth the effort of tracking down the source.
Shake a fertilised chicken egg for 30 seconds, you’re not even going to make the embryo dizzy
To JGC #36:
Before we go any further, are you an atheist as well as an evolutionist?
I’m fascinated what this is supposed to have to do with JGC’s actual reply.
Lowercase johnny seems to have lost it, or at least what little he had to begin with. I don’t think he realizes that we have historical records of antibiotics pulling people from their deathbeds.
See Noevo, why would someone’s religion or lack there of affect the details about the science? It is quite telling that some have trouble distinguishing the difference between facts and beliefs.
No, I think he’s just drunk or stoned (not that there’s anything wrong with that). You can’t be that stupid in a sober state of mind.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
Phildo is just running out of material. I’m disappointed that he also ran away from his (repeat) neologistic fling with organic nomenclature.
There’s little difference in the stupidity per se between when he comments first thing upon rising (around 5:30 a.m. in Essex, depending on whether he’s acting out The Loneliest Runner), during “work,” and after progressively getting loaded in the evening. Indeed, he seems to have stayed up late for the most recent salvo.
I, for one, am willing to give Dr. Donnell the benefit of the doubt. As far as I can tell, he is the one who first coined the term “quackademic medicine” and has been on the side of science in the blogosphere longer than I have.
http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2008/01/exposing-quackery-in-medical-education.html
Does anyone else feel like lower-case johnny has started making even less sense than usual? I mean, he’s usually wrong and weird and insulting, but this thread is edging into “Chopra generator” territory.
Tempting though it is to speculate about increased and earlier-starting alcohol consumption, I don’t recall Essex Boy ever caring much about coherence under any of his noms-de-web. His biggest motivation is the child-like oppositional defiance, so if you correct him on a misspelled name — even the name of someone he is extolling! — then he will repeat the error five more times to prove a point, and if other commenters are relying on logic and facts then johnny will swing towards incoherence, just to show that Reality is Not the Boss of Him.
I’ve never understood the “microevolution vs macroevolution” thing. Saying that you accept the former but not the latter seems to me like saying that you accept that C goes “kuh,” A goes “ah” and T goes “tuh,” but you don’t accept that C-A-T spells “cat” (yeah, I know this example isn’t well suited to the written word – just use your imagination.)
Like some of the other commenters have already said, to me the scariest thing about a creationist doctor isn’t so much that a knowledge of the theoretical underpinnings of evolution is necessary to diagnose or treat illness, as that I would wonder about the integrity and general – not exactly mental health, more like intellectual robustness, perhaps? – of someone able to maintain that degree of cognitive dissonance.
the scariest thing about a creationist doctor
Here in NZ we have Anthroposophic Doctors, members in good standing of the Royal NZ College of General Practitioners. That is, they believe in Steiner’s eccentric scholium of revelatory thought (or at least affect to believe in it), in which blood pumps itself around the body (with the heart merely there to modulate its flow), while the skull is an inside-out femur.
There is significant overlap between “anthroposophic GPs” and “cancer grifters“.
@hdb:
Oh, we have them here too. In fact, here at my very own university, which has a generally stellar medical school, there’s a School of Anthroposophic Medicine.
^ OK, wait a second, there’s no School of Anthroposophic Medicine, but it’s included within the “Integrative Medicine” department.
I think the comparison to some kinds of engineering is an apt one and perhaps explains why I find so many engineers among the free-energy/cold-fusion/conspiracy theorist set.
In addition to learning by rote I think there’s a kind of “experimenters fallicy” on both camps. The idea that if you’re really really really really careful (or at least if you think you are) your results are necessarily likely to be correct. So if those results happen to contradict all known physics (or if that’s how we interpret them) then it’s time to start re-writing textbooks.
However that’s not really the way things work a test/study that overturns a well understood idea is still more likely to be wrong than right. Even if said study is repeatable.
Orac beat me to it – and I don’t even have experience with this flavor of crank – but Donnell’s attempt to steer back to antibiotics despite the presence of the whole “virus” thingamabob on the table kept me from asking how the Unstated Principle worked in the face of measles versus rinderpest.
Mere speciation, it’s now clear to me, doesn’t cut it. It wouldn’t be sustainable, in any event.
Perhaps bacteria have to turn into newts, but that would be an “implied straw man.” “Again.” Only time will tell whether Flouncy McDonnell will deign to return and choose something.
Re micro vs macro-evolution. My view is there is no such thing….it is all evolution. However, there are some scientists I greatly respect who do make that distinction. One of them used an analogy, which was, believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing the wind can move sand grains but not sculpt rock.
To Dan Andrews #85:
“…believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing the wind can move sand grains but not sculpt rock.”
Perhaps similarly, believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing your skin can get sun-burned but not that your sun burn will lead to an eyeball.
“Starting with a simple patch of light sensitive cells, Nilsson’s model “evolves” until a clear image is produced.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
See Noevo, are you a medical doctor? If you are, what is your specialty?
I’m also fascinated by how this attempted simile is supposed to work in purely abstract terms.
Or the details of how the flybait works, whatever.
To Chris #74:
“See Noevo, why would someone’s religion or lack there of affect the details about the science? It is quite telling that some have trouble distinguishing the difference between facts and beliefs.”
I think you’re responding to my #71, which was a question relating to JGC #36’s words on what religion is. (Unfortunately, JGC has yet to respond.)
Religion would NORMALLY have no effect whatsoever on the details of science. However, exceptions to that norm can occur (e.g. The religious and moral objections to certain stem cell research, specifically, embryonic stem cell work.).
I think for JGC, and probably for you, science IS your “religion.” “Religion” here defined more broadly as a “world-view” and as the “only basis for ultimate truth” and for, as JGC says, “the ultimate meaning of life.”
And I’d say such a “religion of science” has a number of problems. And I, too, shake my head at the “trouble distinguishing the difference between facts and beliefs.” I see it all the time in evolutionists.
Regarding your #87, I’m not a medical doctor.
Are you an atheist?
Do I need to send money by Paypal or something for personal psychic reading?
Could you phrase that in coherent philosophical terms?
“Try this, take two fresh chickens eggs, shake one violently for 30 seconds and put both back under a chicken. One produces a chicken, the other ferments and rots.” Le Sang chapter 7
I know you must feel like a google of baboons on this – but you Pasteurians have no idea where germs come from, you have no micro evolutionary concept. NobRed thinks they just appear, like the second coming and Her Dockyfuc, well – no idea springs to mind
The religion of orthodox medicine believes that disease is caused by deficiency in medication. All other therapies are the devil
Right on schedule.
So NobRed. Stop the avoidance. Where do the germs ‘come’ from? Avoiding the opportunity to explain this is just exposing your insecurity.
Are you a God believer or an evolutionary believer? Or, like most medical pseuds – haven’t thought about it so chuff a smoke screen and carry on driving off the cliff.
To Narad #88:
Me: “Perhaps similarly, believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing your skin can get sun-burned but not that your sun burn will lead to an eyeball.”
You: “I’m also fascinated by how this attempted simile is supposed to work in purely abstract terms.”
Perhaps I should stick closer to Dan Andrews’ original analogy. How about this:
“believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing the wind can move sand grains but not sculpt Mount Rushmore.”
(I actually can imagine a modern person, lacking in common sense and in any knowledge of history, looking up at Mount Rushmore and thinking “How awesome are the powers of nature and erosion… When given enough time!”)
Anyway, Narad, how did eye sight evolve?
Actually, never mind. I don’t want you to hurt yourself.
Having a degree in a discipline does not guarantee understanding. Evolution is not obvious if one does not make efforts to understand.
No, instead you oughtn’t to try to weasel out of the actual question* by trying to read from a script. You do know what a formal inferential system is, right?
* Actually, two, Miss Cleo.
With respect to the contributions of Robert W Donnell, I suspect the point being made is that it is possible to be a perfectly adequate medical practitioner by accepting that micro-evolution occurs while rejecting speciation. Accepting speciation is not a necessary requirement to dealing with disease, etc.
Now logically, accepting micro-evolution and rejecting speciation makes no sense and I personally don’t see who you would be able to keep the two separate in your head without running into a lot of non sequiturs.
So simply saying that because someone doesn’t accept that humans evolved from apes, they won’t make a good doctor is wrong. However, it might lead to some questions about their judgement in other matters.
It seems that Philip Hills learnt nothing at primary school and has continued the tradition right through his life to date.
The answer to his question is, obviously, ‘girls’.
The fact that See Noevo makes this artificial distinction between evolution and gravity tells me that it is their belief system that is declaring evolution to be a religion.
See Noevo has this problem that they have a conclusion that is so dear to them that when the evidence contradicts their conclusion, they discard the evidence rather than the conclusion.
His inability to define terms that fall outside of the script instead leads me to think that his god is neither more nor less than thoughtless, posturing, attention-seeking yammering about “evolutionists.”
In short, himself.
^ I even find myself wondering what sort of idolatry KE5BMP is up to these days.
Someone who is making the later distinction should get out more often.
Example 1: Ventifact
Let’s have wikipedia as example 2: more ventifacts
Our world is wonderful beyond that our tiny minds could apprehend.
@See Noevo the fact that you think Mt Rushmore could be an analogy for an eye demonstrates more about your misconceptions than it does about evolution.
Mt Rushmore is special in a completely arbitrary way, that has nothing at all to do with function. It would be ridiculous to think wind could sculpt it, because there is no reason to. No partial steps along the way that would serve a purpose, and no consequences if it doesn’t work. It only makes sense if you already know what it should turn out like.
This is completely unlike evolution, but it is like the ‘tornado creating a jumbo’ nonsense that creationists use. Since it’s your analogy, how about you explain how you think it is similar to evolution. Then at least we’ll know which misconceptions you need explained.
On doctors and evolution, this is something we see all the time in science classes. All children bring a set of naïve beliefs into the classroom, based on their own experiences. They will add to these beliefs through education, but they don’t replace the old beliefs until they become too uncomfortable. They can easily hold contradictory beliefs, so long as they aren’t using them at the same time. I’ve had students explain how the moon orbits the earth, then in another class tell me the sun and moon are on opposite sides of the earth. These beliefs need to be specifically deconstructed.
The other issue is the difference between knowledge and understanding. Many people can apply the formula to find the area of a triangle, without understanding how it is derived. Ultimately better learning comes from understanding, but it is harder to develop, especially with time limits.
Combine these two and it’s easy to see how creationist doctors get through. They know biology rather than understanding it, and their naïve beliefs formed at home or in social situations are never directly contradicted in their work practice.
Yup. That’s what Dr. Donnell appeared to be trying to argue, and, quite frankly, I’m a little disappointed how commenters appear to have misinterpreted and been a bit over eager to go after him. From what he wrote, I gathered that he knew the micro/macro-evolution thing is usually used as a creationist trope, hence my chiming in about giving him the benefit of the doubt and his contribution to promoting science-based medicine. Unfortunately, he seems to have been driven off.
I suspect that Dr. Donnell deals with a lot of evolution-doubting physicians where he lives and works, which is Arkansas, and felt motivated to defend them.
Where do the germs ‘come’ from?
The answer to his question is, obviously, ‘girls’.
This is all very well, but now we need to know whether girl cooties are eukaryotes, bacteria or archaea. I am not aware of any research on this important question.
To the RI regulars: do any of you have the same view of morphing “johnny/Johnny” that I do, based on his pattern of insults? I picture him typing furiously with one hand, while the other is grasping desperately at his lap, fearful that his manhood is under threat and will vanish.
I mean, look at the way he insults the commenters he can identify as men, compared to how he insults the commenters he can identify as women. Women are cows (MooMoo) or twits. Men are insulted in masturbatory terms.
I see him as a caricature – the thin, wizened, older guy, waving a cane, afraid of the world.
Being charitable, it is possible to create a self-consistent view that a species may adapt to its environment by a combination of variation (with genetic and epigenetic causes) and natural selection, but that a different process is needed for speciation. Such a view would not be as elegant as the current accepted theory of evolution, and it would take some substantial evidence to prove that the different process exists. Such a view could, though, be consistent with all currently available evidence with some work.
The view that speciation does not occur at all takes much more hand-waving and willful ignorance of all available data, but does necessarily deny adaptation within a species such as drug resistance or the annual change in the dominant influenza strains.
Nobody with a lick of sense believes that germs spontaneously appear. Pasteur, among others, pretty much proved that they don’t.
@ Orac
Speaking for myself, I may have slightly conflated Dr. Donnell’s arguments with those of some other commenters.
Not his fault: the current background noise makes it a bit challenging for the occasional visitor to get a foothold in the conversation.
Note to myself: recalibrate the BS detector. After the recent weeks’ overload, it may be a bit oversensitive.
@ MI Dawn
I see the troll more as the local drunk hobo,, bitter with resentment against the world at large, sitting at the corner of the street and insulting the passer-by.
Well, as long as he is yelling his nonsense here, he is not outside mugging baby seals.
Some other antivaxers, like Mike Adams, do seem to believe that vaccines will make the manly bits fall off. Metaphorically or literally, I don’t know.
I have to confess, my biggest objection to creationism is that it is basically an attempt to have Christianity without the teachings of Christ. Our society is largely built up on the accumulation of wealth, which Jesus Christ was unequivocally opposed to, but rather than condemn that, modern “Christians” spend their time complaining about science textbooks.
PS. I actually learned in high school that Pasteur was the one who ultimately refuted spontaneous generation. Lowercase johnny probably dropped out before then.
“Try this, take two fresh chickens eggs, shake one violently for 30 seconds and put both back under a chicken. One produces a chicken, the other ferments and rots.”
Try this, take two live animals, kill one and it decays, where do the germs come from HURR HURR
See Noevo@90:
“Religion” here defined more broadly as a “world-view”
If you intend to use the word “religion” to convey your own special meaning of “vague meaningless hand-wavy abstraction”, your statements don’t convey any useful message, but that’s your problem, we can’t stop you. Go ahead, redefine every word in the English language, go wild! The world is your oyster! (where ‘oyster’ has the special meaning of ‘small furry animal’).
For the rest of us, however, there is a difference between saying “evolutionary biology is a religion” and “evolutionary biology is a world-view”.
Mr Hills seems to have this strange ignorance that the shell of a hen’s egg is no barrier to microbes.
Fittingly, it goes neatly with his ignorance on every other topic he touches.
Helianthus @105
Our world is wonderful beyond that our tiny minds could apprehend.
IKR? In retrospect, we can look at phenomena like “hurricanes” and realise “Oh yes, that all makes sense in terms of Coriolis forces and the latent heat of water vapour”, but who would look at those forces and predict that particular phenomenon?
We inhabit a world that gave us, I dunno, glaciers and butterflies. People don’t appreciate it enough.
We might appreciate the butterflies more if they didn’t keep making those darned hurricanes.
I know this was said in #90 and was already rebutted, but I believe it warrants another smackdown.
Firstly, using “religion” to mean “world-view” is a major malapropism, as far as I’m concerned. Secondly, science is not a world-view. It can inform your world-view certainly, but of and by itself it isn’t and can’t be a world-view.
More later, see, but to answer your question I’m an observant Jew.
A good basic introduction of how the year could evolve through intermediate stages, each of which is functional and confers increased fitness, see Don Lindsay ‘s excellent website at http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html
Note that these intermediate structures are still found in living organisms today
How the EYE could evolve, not year ( I hate trying to post from a kindle–it’s got a particularly aggressive autocracy)
Regarding religion = worldview, even if one accepts that substitution the statement remains inaccurate. While science can certainly inform one’s worldviw it isn’t of itself a worldview.
It’s instead a methodology: a systematic process for deriving a comprehensive, predictive and falsifiable understanding of the natural phenomenon we observe to occur.
A note about adaptation and evolution, as creationists are fond of dismissing observed evolutionary changes by asserting “That’s just adaptation”. Adaptation and evolution are entirely distinct entities as the terms are used in biology.
Adaptation occurs at the scale of individual organisms, does not involve changes in genetic composition, and therefore is not inheritance–a good example would be the physiologic changes an athlete undergoes as a consequence of training at higher altitudes which confer improved aerobic capacity.
Evolutionary change occurs at the scale of populations of living organisms, as a result of changes in the genetic composition of that population, and is always inheritance (industrial melanization in peppered moths is the classic example).
@ herr doktor bimler
I have been dragging friends recently to the Museum of Confluences at Lyon. They have this huge stock of stuffed animals and other preserved specimens, notably a few hundreds butterflies, formerly from the Guymet collection.
In a current temporary exhibition about old-time cabinets de curiosités (“house of wonder”), the curators just crammed a room full of specimen, including an alligator hanging from the ceiling (there is always one) and long lines of multi-colored butterflies along the walls.
Before visiting this part, my friends were feeling a bit tired and disappointed by the museum. Not anymore after visiting this room.
A permanent exposition in the same museum is about evolution. There are a number of small cute videos around, for those willing to learn. I believe they did a good job at presenting complex biological notions to the layman. There may be something about the formation of the eye, since it’s a favorite of creationists.
@ Mephistopheles O’Brien
As long as these are not hypercanes…
(reading the Long Earth series right now)
Phil Plait, over at Bad Astronomy, is regularly posting mind-blowing pictures or videos of natural phenomenons, like a tornado-and-rainbow combination.
He is the sort of guy who would cheerfully discuss about cosmic events with the potential to wipe out humanity and be too entranced in the sheer majesty of them to worry.
I envy his dedication. I also feel that this man of science has a stronger faith in whatever he believes in than many truly religious people who seem unable to stand the sightliest doubt or scorn cast onto their dogma.
I thought that hypercanes were really long bamboo that they make into scaffolding in the Asia/Pacific region.
Live and learn.
See Noevo: “Are you an atheist?”
Why? What do beliefs have to do with scientific fact?
Do you think if you took a basic chemistry and biology class you would understand what evolution has to do with HIV?
By the way, eyes have evolved in several different ways. Humans are hampered by the fact we have several blind spots, other animals have better eyes. And in recent cool news is that some cephalopod have a type of vision in their skin:
http://www.cnet.com/news/skin-that-can-see-is-octopus-camouflage-superpower/
People can compartmentalise in astonishing ways:
over 20 years ago, I knew a fellow socially who had studied science ( bio/ chem / physics) and later worked with computers. He was an atheist and accepted evolution TO A DEGREE . Darwin’s finches and moth examples were obviously alright as was human evolution from primates BUT he drew the line at humans evolving from hominids who originated in Africa and migrated.
He believed- wait for it- that each ‘race’ evolved from primates separately based upon locale ( continent) DESPITE all of the evidence that was accumulating ( this was the early1990s IIRC).This guy was especially miffed that yours truly- living emblem of iconic whiteness that I am- would hold to such as ‘bizarre theory’ that ALL of us indeed have African heritage- from ‘Eve” herself.
He didn’t buy it and yelled and screamed at me, entertaining all observers immensely- this row took place after a dinner at a conference . His beliefs included some other amazingly unlikely ideas concerning national sub-“race”s and examples of ‘pure’ types of European nationalities all riddled with glaring stereotypes as examples- e.g. Europeans from different countries are not related to each other.
Right. So other issues can fuel beliefs about human origins and diversity – not all of them scientific.
“His beliefs included some other amazingly unlikely ideas concerning national sub-“race”s and examples of ‘pure’ types of European nationalities all riddled with glaring stereotypes as examples- e.g. Europeans from different countries are not related to each other.”
My mother-in-law was first offended when I assumed that one reason why my hubby and younger son had difficulty growing facial hair was due to Native American influence in her family.
I explained that her mother was French Canadian who grew up in a French speaking town in northern Alberta. The original French who settled two centuries that far west did not include wives, those were acquired locally.
She did accept my reasoning, but she still did not like it. Younger son liked the idea.
@ Chris:
Your son can get tested by a commercial company by maily
( 100 USD) that identifies most likely locations of origin:
my friends used the service and found that they were from Eire( 85%) AND Espana ( 15%)- the younger guy probably was interested in order to symbolically connect to his father whom he had lost when he was a child. He was thrilled -btw-.
Celebrities have revealed their own ‘secrets’ after getting the test. ( e.g. Bono, Vanessa Williams)
I should do it myself as I suspect that despite the whiteness, there is something Mediterranean going on..
That’s BY MAIL
@Denice
Which is why one can find native people using French words or having French family names all over Europe.
Same with English, Spanish (my grandpa name was a Spanish word for leather-working artisans),…
Oh, wait.
I was reading a book once about Saxon tribes in England, in the low middle-ages. Looking at the accompanying maps and the change from century to century as to where the Saxons lived, it drove home to me the notion that European tribes spent a few centuries playing musical chairs all over the place. With all the accompanying muddying of the gene pool.
On the other hand, people from Basque country did succeed at living by themselves since at least the time Roland and Charlemagne paid them a short visit. Compared to the average French or Spanish, their genetic package is more homogeneous. It is actually a common trait of groups of people living in difficult-to-reach places, like mountain chains,
@ JGC
Either you meant “autocorrect” and your Kindle did a very apropo demonstration, or you have style 🙂
@ Helianthus:
Oh I know. Look at my own name- lots of Walthers, Watters, Gaulthiers, Gautiers around. Or the English language for that matter.
That are maps that show how haplogroups are distributed around Europe by pie chart.
“Try this, take two live animals, kill one and it decays, where do the germs come from HURR HURR” Chrispacket
Dunce, the point about the egg is that the shell is not broken, the egg rots from the inside – where do the germs come from?
I find it rather amusing that this point has forced the thread of the header, lots of diversion. It is rather easy to make you guys run scared. So how does it feel – being part of the next pandemic ie antibiotic meltdown – you should be proud of your achievements.
“Try this, take two live animals, kill one and it decays, where do the germs come from HURR HURR” Chrispacket
Well you really understood that point didn’t you, seeing what you want to see is not really on in discussion, the point about the egg is that the shell is not broken, the egg rots from the inside – where do the germs come from?
I find it rather amusing that this point has forced the thread of the header, lots of diversion. It is rather easy to make you guys run scared. So how does it feel – being part of the next pandemic ie antibiotic meltdown – you should be proud of your achievements.
It always interests me, if one can see past the sad polemic, the insecurity on this blog about basic biology is quite revealing. Sort of helps me understand why the modern medical profession is rather rapidly falling into disrepair.
brown logs in a sea of urine
The external envrionment: clearly you’re operating on the assumption that as long as the eggshell is intact an egg is impermeable to bacterial infection but that quite simply is not the case (see, for example, “Bacterial Penetration of the Eggshell and Shell Membranes of the Chicken Hatching Egg: A Review”, @ http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/499.abstract)
@Narad
Nope. I met one of the people who worked on that, and I strongly believe you’d classify him as not believing in evolution.
@Gray Falcon
That’s very true.
Please feel free to point out who is showing insecurity about basic biology. I’m not seeing it.
Where did he figure the need to combine multple types of antiretrovirals came from, if not reducing the odds of HIV’s stumbling upon a mutation that would simultaneously defeat all the lines of attack?
Off the top of my head, I’d say identifying and understanding the etiology of cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria, galactosemia, retinoblastoma, sickle-cell anemia, thalassemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Werner’s Syndrome, and other recessive autosomal disorders would qualify.
Being charitable, it is possible to create a self-consistent view that a species may adapt to its environment by a combination of variation (with genetic and epigenetic causes) and natural selection, but that a different process is needed for speciation.
I’m not sure I would grant even that much. Firstly, of course, because speciation, in the strict biological sense, has been observed both in the lab and in the field. Creationists hand-wave this away as a technicality: you may get bacteria that can utilize a different food source, or lizards on different faces of a mountain that can’t interbreed, but even though they are different biological species they are still the same “kind.” The funny thing is that the whole idea of “created kinds” (or baramins,) rests on the assumption that there are clear-cut, objective differences between different baramins, but the creationists themselves can’t agree on how many baramins there are or how organisms should be divided into them.
More fundamentally, however, I think the problem with the hypothesis that adaptation and natural selection can account for a certain degree of variation, but not speciation (or evolution into a different “kind”) is that you’d have to accept that adaption will simply stop once it reaches some arbitrary limit of how different you can get from the ancestral organism (that’s kind of what I was trying to get at with the “C-A-T spells “cat”” analogy, but I think the wind sculpting rock one wroks better.) It’s like thinking that if you jump out of a plane, gravity will only pull you down until you’re about three feet from the ground, and then stop. If I was learning to skydive, I’d be a rather disturbed if I found out that my instructor held such a belief, no matter how qualified he was otherwise.
I have to confess, my biggest objection to creationism is that it is basically an attempt to have Christianity without the teachings of Christ
Wonder what would happen if the teaching of creationism was authorized and the instructor decided to use the giant turtle version?
It’s vastly more amusing that Phildo still can’t figure out whom he’s quoting and now feels the need to hammer this aspect of his sprawling ignorance home by double-posting.
I’d imagine that he’d say that was the most reasonable explanation. Where he’d disagree with you was whether that was strong evidence that all diversity of life on the planet could be explained by just mutation and selection, which is a much stronger statement.
It’s vastly more amusing that Phildo still can’t figure out whom he’s quoting
He seems to enjoy being spanked, and other commenters seem to enjoy spanking him. It is a dysfunctional, codependent relationship but at least there is mutual consent.
The best analogy for arguing that the processes we observe resultingin ‘microevolution’ but insufficient for ‘macroevolution’ is that of ladder: with creationists insisting that even if we can explain how one can ascend one rung of the ladder (bending our right knee, placing our right one foot on the rung above the one we’re standing on, grasping each side rail of the ladder above our shoulders with our hands and then straightening our right leg while simultaneously pulling with both arms to lift our left foot until it can be placed beside our right foot) there’s no way repeating those steps over a long enough period of time could ever take us all the way to the top–something magical would just have to happen before we could ever do that.
Not when he’s deliberately avoiding killfiles, there isn’t.
To Deb #106:
Me: “believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing the wind can move sand grains but not sculpt Mount Rushmore.” (I actually can imagine a modern person, lacking in common sense and in any knowledge of history, looking up at Mount Rushmore and thinking “How awesome are the powers of nature and erosion… When given enough time!”)
You: “Since it’s your analogy, how about you explain how you think it is similar to evolution.”
I’ll try.
Everyone acknowledges wind moving grains of sand. Everyone further accepts that, over time, wind (and rain/water) can move enough grains of sand (i.e. particles of rock) to change the shape of rock (i.e. “sculpt” the rock into relatively amorphous shapes). Everyone sees these as processes of simple change (i.e. mere movement of position of sand grain) and degradation (i.e. erosion of rock). And it’s all natural, expected, unremarkable, and meaningless. [This is analogous to the relatively SIMPLE and universally OBSERVED variation WITHIN KINDS of existing living organisms.]
However, the natural, expected, unremarkable, and meaningless eroding of rock could NOT have left the PERFECT FORMATION of LIKENESSES of noses, eyes, chins, foreheads, etc. in exquisite DETAIL, in the RIGHT PROPORTIONS, in the RIGHT POSITIONS, all COORDINATED to present an unmistakeable COMMUNICATION: the image of famous U.S. presidents. It is remarkable and meaningful. A rational person would know immediately that such an exquisite structure could NEVER be the result of simple random natural forces of movement and degradation of grains of sand/rock. [This is analogous to the impossibility of far more complex biological structures (e.g. organisms, organs) being the result of simple random (and often degrading) genetic mutations. A.K.A the impossibility of “macroevolution”.]
The above is just an analogy. It’s very basic, and does not do justice to the actual leap of, say, going from a sun-sensitive patch of skin to the advent of eye sight. (Yes, that’s the best the evo community has come up with – a “sun-burn” leading to eyeballs: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html )
To JGC #121:
“A good basic introduction of how the [eye] could evolve through intermediate stages, each of which is functional and confers increased fitness, see Don Lindsay ‘s excellent website at http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye.html”
If you actually buy the shpiel of a website like that, and if you actually believe what you wrote in #143, I see no point in discussing any of this further.
P.S.
As a concerned citizen, though, you may want to contact the FDA and get them to update the warning instructions on tubes of sun-screen. Something like “Apply liberally to all areas of exposed skin. Failure to do so may result in your skin looking back at you.”
See Noevo- Look up the field of “bioinformatics”. You’ll find that evolutionary processes are neither as random or unreliable as you believe.
You are correct, of course. There is no point in discussing the Theory of Evolution with someone who does not have a clue about it.
It appears to have multiple talents in this regard.
You are actually incorrect here. If you had a sufficiently large number rocks eroding, the chances are that something similar to this would happen by chance.
So what are your other arguments?
“The external envrionment: clearly you’re operating on the assumption that as long as the eggshell is intact an egg is impermeable to bacterial infection but that quite simply is not the case (see, for example, “Bacterial Penetration of the Eggshell and Shell Membranes of the Chicken Hatching Egg: A Review”,” Jwhatever
Still not got it. The difference between the eggs is that one is shaken. It is the ‘soil’ that determined whether or not the egg rotted, not lack of antibiotics.
Similarly with the human. We are all sitting in ‘germs’ whether we like it or not. What determines who ‘has an infection’ isn’t whether or not they are taking antibiotics, it is their soil, their environment that determines what grows in it.
“If man goes down the therapeutic route of ‘germ killing’ it does not bode well for mankind” Bechamp
Must be ‘considered’ dangerous now, everything going into moderation! Touche
If predictions about operations, however small, are gonna be impossible due to ‘infection’ due to antibiotic resistance created by proper doctors, even the great O will be out of a job.
What problems do you have with the content found at Don Lindsay ‘s website,exactly? Be as specific as possible.
As for the content of 143, would you like to take a crack at describing the etiology of Sickel cell anemia without mentioning dominant and recessive genes, relative fitness and selection with respect to environment?
I doubt you really feel that there’s no point in a discussion–I think it’s more likely reluctant to engage.
Bottom line? Given two things we know to be true: that the biochemical mechanisms of inheritance do not operate with 100% fidelity (natural mechanisms introduce change into population gene pools) and that natural selection with respect to environment acts to conserve genetic changes that confer increased fitness and cull those which are deleterious over successive generations, evolution is not only possible–it’s inevitable.
Then you will need people who understand how to moderate soil without drugs
“Bottom line? Given two things we know to be true: that the biochemical mechanisms of inheritance do not operate with 100% fidelity (natural mechanisms introduce change into population gene pools) and that natural selection with respect to environment acts to conserve genetic changes that confer increased fitness and cull those which are deleterious over successive generations, evolution is not only possible–it’s inevitable.” J20
LOL, what you mean is the theory you have doesn’t cover all bases because nature mutates! You need to read Bechamp and stop reading Pasteur!
@See Nuevo you seem to have missed the point. I didn’t ask how sculpting Mt Rushmore would be vanishingly unlikely, we are agreed on that. I asked how it is similar to evolution.
The key you are missing is function, and the weirdness you have added is a goal or known endpoint. These mistakes are typical, and show how you are arguing against your own misconception, not reality. They would be a good place to start if you are interested in learning.
@ See Noevo
Well, if you distort what the “evo community” is saying…
No mention of “sun-burn” in your linked article.
(hint: “light-sensitive” does not mean “sunburn”)
Since you are dishonest, why should we care about anything you say?
Perhaps we wouldn’t get Mount Rushmore, with the 4 faces of the presidents. However, we did used to have the Old Man of the Mountain which was a natural formation, carved by the elements.
Old Man of the Mountain
I hope I did this link right…oh for preview…
The ever-patient Richard Dawkins gives a beautiful explanation of how the eye evolved. Creationist host doesn’t even listen…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjhh27sN6Pk
That’s not what I mean at all, antichrist–quite the opposite. Evolution,like all other scientific theories, is required to be comprehensive (i.e., must “cover all bases”), addressing all observations within its scope.
The fact that genetic mutations cause change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations (i.e., “nature mutates”) is in no way a problem for evolution
Sarah A
I think that is exactly the concept that some have argued and there is something to say for limits. After all, the standard response of a species to environmental factors that are beyond its members ability to adapt is extinction. Were it on JGC’s ladder, it would tire, weaken, and be blown off by a gust of wind* before it could finish the treacherous climb to becoming the next species.
If we want to continue with analogies**, I could conceivably walk from Boston to San Francisco; I cannot conceivably walk from Boston to Woomera. In order to get to Woomera, I’d need some other process to happen.
Naturally, I have come to the conclusion that variation (with occasional beneficial mutation) and natural selection are sufficient to explain what we currently see. I’ve also seen no evidence to say that a special speciation process is either necessary or substantiated by evidence. However, in concept separate processes for adaptation and for speciation are no sillier than, say, racial senescence which was at one time a subject of serious conjecture.
* Likely plummeting to a prolonged, painful death on the sharp rocks below. Unless it got picked up by a large bird. Possibly one that descended from a race that passed the Shoe Event Horizon.
** I don’t usually like analogies, but you started it. You have no one to blame but yourself if this goes horribly wrong.
If we had, we’d have all become amazed by the prophetic power of nature when it was discovered during the candidacy of T. Roosevelt.
If we want to continue with analogies**, I could conceivably walk from Boston to San Francisco; I cannot conceivably walk from Boston to Woomera. In order to get to Woomera, I’d need some other process to happen.
And if creationists could identify an actual barrier which would prevent descent with moderation from resulting in the creation of new populations at higher taxonomic levels similar to the barrier which requires some process other than walking for you reach walking to Woomera (i.e., an evolutionary “Pacific ocean”) or which would operate like wind or fatigue to prevent me from climbing that ladder, they’d have the beginnings of an argument.
As it is, however…
Oh, look, Phildo has another pseudonym.
If the argument is that the human eye is too complex to be the result of chance, and must have been designed and created by some invisible wizard, all I can say is that the wizard must be dumber than a brick. (The wizard also seems to hate us, because it gave several other animals much better eyes than us humans, and a few have senses that we don’t have at all.)
The human body is full of poor, half-thought out design choices that, were it any engineering class, the project would have received a ‘D’, only because the design works.
The eye has blind spots right in the center of vision, with blood vessels running between the lens and the rods and cones. The knee is a really stupid design, ears are a kluge, and the ureter is larger where kidney stones often form, and gets smaller on the way down (trust me, that hurts). Two kidneys are standard, which is a fine example of redundancy, and the liver is oversized, but only one heart (unless you’re a Time Lord) which has no back-up at all.
Intelligent design my a$$.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
To jgc #159:
“As for the content of 143, would you like to take a crack at describing the etiology of Sickel cell anemia without mentioning dominant and recessive genes, relative fitness and selection with respect to environment?”
Everyone accepts “dominant and recessive genes, relative fitness and selection with respect to environment”. But none of these things is evolution and Sickel cell anemia is not the result of evolution.
As to the Lindsay website and the rest of your post, perhaps we can keep this mercifully short if you just answer one question for me:
Do you agree with ChrisP in #156?
To Deb #162:
“@See Nuevo you seem to have missed the point. I didn’t ask how sculpting Mt Rushmore would be vanishingly unlikely, we are agreed on that. I asked how it is similar to evolution.”
It’s nice to know that you at least disagree with ChrisP #156.
“The key you are missing is function, and the weirdness you have added is a goal or known endpoint. These mistakes are typical, and show how you are arguing against your own misconception, not reality. They would be a good place to start if you are interested in learning.”
I’m interested in learning. Here’s where may be a good place to start. For each of the following, please demonstrate 1) how and why it evolved, 2) the beneficial function of each of these things in isolation, 3) how and why all of them “co-located” in just the right place and in just the right way. Such that, Voila! I see:
Cornea
Retina
Pupils
Iris
Rods
Cones
Aqueous humor
Optic nerve
…..
That’s all for now.
To Sheepmilker #165:
Thanks for the link.
It’s so good I’m going to repost it.
Richard Dawkins may have a better future in standup, or sit-down, comedy.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjhh27sN6Pk
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/cosmos-calmly-stared-down-a-tired-anti-evolution-argument
A very good and reasoned argument on the development of the eye – and why eyes today, even in land animals (such as humans) are better suited for underwater than above.
False johnny thinks eggshells are impermeable. False johnny has obviously never dyed Easter eggs.
Yes, sickle-cell trait has nothing to do with the persistence of multiple, independent occurrences of mutations in HBB.
You sound like that idiot Ray Comfort demanding an explanation of how species (which are all-male, natch) would have reproduced before evolution finally turned up a female for each species.
Those parts of the eye couldn’t and didn’t evolve in isolation and then “co-locate” to produce a working human eye, and no reasonable person has ever said they did.
To Lawrence 175:
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the Al Sharpton of “science”. How ironic that comedy’s Seth MacFarlane produced “Cosmos”.
What a joke.
Oh, it would be delightful if S.N. decided to replay its comedy routine from the shell of Ethan’s joint.
Actually, the persistence of Sickle cell alleles in the human genome is a result of evolution–the presence of the recessive allele which causes sickling in population genomes can result in increased relative fitness, if the population exploits an environmental niche where malaria is endemic (possessing one copy of the recessive allele causing sickling confers resistance to infection by malarial parasites without the reduced fitness seen in individuals possessing two copies of the recessive allele).
Re Don LIndsay’s website, I fail to see any need to keep the discussion short (the devil, after all, is always in the details). Please answer the question asked and indicate what specific problems you have with the content found on that website.
See @ 173
1: there is no ‘why’, see: you’re erroneously presuming evolution operates in a goal oriented manner to achieve a predetermined and preferred outcome
2 and 3: Likewise, you’re erroneously assuming each of these elements must have arisen and been selected “in isolation”, only to later somehow become ‘1) how and why it evolved, 2) the beneficial function of each of these things in isolation, 3) how and why all of them ““co-located” in just the right place and in just the right way.” This isn’t what any evolutionary model of the origin of the eye predict.
2 and 3: Likewise, you’re erroneously assuming each of these elements must have arisen and been selected “in isolation”, only to later somehow become ” ‘co-located’ in just the right place and in just the right way.” This isn’t what any evolutionary model of the origin of the eye predict.
To JGC #181:
I’ll consider addressing Lindsay’s site if you’ll first answer my question, which I’ll repeat:
Do you agree with ChrisP in #156?
Don’t expect any honest responses from noevo – he has stated the one thing that might convince him of evolution:
I’m not interested in following you downfield while you’re attempting to move goal posts, see. Just answer the question which was already on the table.
Let’s parse that a little, shall we?
Let’s assume for a second that it is not absolutely impossible for rocks to be weathered, eroded, spalled, or otherwise acted on by natural forces in such a way as to produce any of the shapes present at Mount Rushmore. I am not a geologist, so don’t know if that is a valid assumption. Let us also assume that the conditions needed to create one of the shapes at Mount Rushmore would not prevent creating the other shapes at Mount Rushmore. Once again, I am not a geologist, so could not say that with authority.
If those assumptions were true then it would be merely a matter of probabilities whether the correct stone was in the correct location in the correct conditions to be weathered into the exact shapes of Mount Rushmore. Therefore, the statement that “If you had a sufficiently large number rocks eroding, the chances are that something similar to this would happen by chance” would be absolutely correct. If it’s not physically impossible, then it’s just highly improbable. However, highly improbable things occur every day somewhere in the universe.
However, such a thing would not be “COORDINATED to present an unmistakeable[sic] COMMUNICATION”. It would be a rock formation.
Note that living things are natural formations as well, and not coordinated to present an unmistakable communication.
To JGC #186:
“I’m not interested in following you downfield while you’re attempting to move goal posts, see. Just answer the question which was already on the table.”
No need to follow me anywhere. That could require a journey of many steps. I’m just asking for one little step – a simple “Yes” or “No”.
Do you agree with ChrisP in #156?
Say it isn’t so. Hemocyanin or bust!
I agree with ChrisP, but it’s along the lines of the old “put 400 monkeys in front of typewriters and eventually one will produce a work of literature” speculation. Possible but not probable. You have only to look at examples such as the Old Man of the Mountain, cited above (I’m glad that my one and only trip to the White Mountains happened before he fell off).
ChrisP knowing more about it than I do, I’m perfectly willing to stand corrected.
See, I’m not interested in changing the subject or abetting you’re concerted effort to avoid answering my questions regarding what specific problems you have with the content found at Don Lindsay ‘s website.
I suspect you have no specific objections, and that you’re dismissing the information on the basis of personal incredulity and a misunderstanding of what evolutionary models actually predict regarding the evolution of the eye (as evidenced by your post at 173).
What I don’t understand, however, is if that is as I suspect the case why you don’t simply admit it.
And yet, I see you offering no evidence to refute the natural development of the eye…
shay, to my mind the problem with the likes of See Noevo is that they have no conception of probability over the long term. If you keep flipping 50 coins long enough you will turn up 50 heads eventually – even though the probability on each individual toss is remote (about 1 in 1 quadrillion if I have calculated it correctly).
A case in point, we have just created a crop cultivar tolerant to a herbicide that everyone said would be impossible to do. It turned out to be remarkably easy once you stacked the odds in your favour. In fact, even I was surprised by the result.
If selection continues to favour a group of light sensitive cells such that a more effective set of cells is favoured and then a more organised and even more effective set of cells and so on, something akin to an eye is bound to be selected given enough opportunity. If it was all done again from scratch, the exact human eye may not be the final result, but it would work in the same manner.
So…I’m misusing the term “probable.” Probably.
If you actually buy the shpiel of a website like that, and if you actually believe what you wrote in #143, I see no point in discussing any of this further.
That flounce didn’t last long.
Or instead rely upon others’ not having any and wholly irrelevant comparisons.
Mount Rushmore has a finished surface; its identification as a human artifact that is less than a century old (and requires ongoing maintenance) is not in question.
So?
For that matter, what distance is it being viewed from? Is there a meaningful metric in the house?
L-rd knows Mt. Rushmore can “evolve” into a different “species” with no trouble at all.
A more accurate analogy would be to start with a hundred identical stones, and erode them randomly, then keep the five that most closely resemble human heads. Then take those five, create twenty identical duplicates of each of them, and alter them randomly as well, then keep the five that look most human. Repeat as needed.
This process is called an “evolutionary algorithm”, and is a major development in computer-aided design.
To Gray Falcon #198:
“A more accurate analogy would be to start with a hundred identical stones, and erode them randomly, then keep the five that most closely resemble human heads. Then take those five, create twenty identical duplicates of each of them, and alter them randomly as well, then keep the five that look most human. Repeat as needed. This process is called an “evolutionary algorithm”, and is a major development in computer-aided design.”
That’s not an analogy. That’s a plan with a goal, and involves creation, selection, repetition, technology and…design.
And speaking of design technology and the recent focus here on “accidental” eyesight:
[[“Our sensor, on the other hand, is based on the ‘Dynamic vision sensor’ (DVS) principle, which is itself inspired by the way biological retinas work…
How close would you say these sensors are to biological retinas?
Well naturally real biological retinas are more complex, with many different types of pixels (cells) which are also communicating with their neighbours. Such properties would be very complicated or impossible to develop with standard CMOS technology. With our project, we add some additional functionality to the pixels with respect to existing ‘silicon retina sensors’, but it is a small increment. Nevertheless, we are convinced that this limited functionality in comparison to real retinas can be very useful in a lot of vision applications.”
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-image-sensors-biological-retinas.html%5D%5D
I see.
And yet no evidence to refute the process by which vision was adapted naturally or why it is “less than perfect” given its origins in an aquatic environment.
To Lawrence #200:
Over the last 12+ years I’ve seen many pronouncements that evolution has created a lot of leftovers (e.g. the appendix) and trash (e.g. “junk” DNA), only to find late-breaking news that these weren’t leftovers or junk, after all. (If readers here aren’t familiar with the news, then go read.)
I’ve also seen pronouncements about “bad” or “less than perfect” biological design, especially regarding the “apple of my eye”, the eye. Supposedly some stuff about the wiring behind the eye being backwards or otherwise non-optimal. What a stupid design!
But look what the cat dragged in:
“From a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye – a product of our evolutionary baggage – doesn’t make a lot of sense. In vertebrates, photoreceptors are located behind the neurons in the back of the eye – resulting in light scattering by the nervous fibers and blurring of our vision. Recently, researchers at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology have confirmed the biological purpose for this seemingly counterintuitive setup.
“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.” Ribak and his co-authors will describe their work during the 2015 American Physical Society March Meeting, on Thursday, March 5 in San Antonio, Texas.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/aps-mot022715.php
Don’t blink, or you’ll miss something.
And what intelligent purpose do you suppose the adaptive immune system serves? In particular, what would be the outcome if it never existed?
@See Noevo it sounds like you won’t admit this, but I’ll summarise for interested lurkers.
See makes a ridiculous statement (Mt Rushmore, retina developing independently, flies giving birth to bees, …) and the biologists in the room agree it is ridiculous because evolution doesn’t work like that.
They then offer an example of how evolution really works (sickle cell anaemic) and See rejects it because it doesn’t match his/her own personal definition of evolution.
And so we are at an impasse – we can’t talk to each other unless we are using the same definitions. Given that biologists came up with evolutionary theory, use it every day and study it intensely, it seems polite to use their definition rather than that of a random internet commenter.
This is a classic case of the phenomenon I mentioned above, the need to deconstruct erroneous beliefs, not just add to them. That means we need to know what they are, which means we need to know what on earth See thinks evolution is.
So, See, once again, would you like to explain how Mt Rushmore is analogous to evolution? Think about starting points, mid points, end points, and how success is defined. We can’t go any further while you are insisting that the colour of the sky is not really blue.
The analogy still stands even in nature, where there is a set goal: Survival. Those that are better adapted to the environment survive, those that are not, don’t. A primitive light-sensitive receptor is an advantage for survival, a slightly more advanced one even better. After several million iterations, you will get some incredibly complex results.
That there press release is a perfect example of all that is wrong with the world of science-reporting-by-churnalists. A symptom of the malign symbiosis of crap science and university PR departments. When something is headed with the words “Mystery of the reverse-wired eyeball solved”, while in fact there is no feckin’ mystery, you know it is targetted at clickbait junkscience websites, not at peer-review publication.
That work will not see publication in any of the vision-research publications, anyway. A couple of astronomers rediscovered what vision scientists have known for 30 years, i.e. that photoreceptors function as optical waveguides, exactly as one would expect if they had been optimised by evolution within the sub-optimal constraints of much earlier design ‘decisions’. Gee, thanks guys!
To Narad #202:
“And what intelligent purpose do you suppose the adaptive immune system serves? In particular, what would be the outcome if it never existed?”
Good question.
But first things first.
Let’s see. The very first life on earth, according to evolutionary theory, evolved extraordinary capabilities in less than its very short lifetime. It experienced the accidental mutation of
1) A type of self-awareness, such that it accidentally developed
2) A system to inform it that it needed nourishment,
3) A system to search and locate nourishment,
4) A system to judge the appropriateness of the located nourishment (i.e. poisonous stuff won’t do),
5) A system to acquire the nourishment,
6) A system to ingest the nourishment,
7) A system to digest the nourishment.
All before it starved to death.
With a “full belly”, then, it could accidentally mutate an adaptive immune system.
But wait, then, it would have to come up with a system of reproducing itself. You know, before it died. Else, well, you know.
It’s amazing how much major dude evolution can happen in the blink of an eye, literally, according to evolution theory.
Yet, here I ask for some more eyes where our sun-sensitive skin has been, and I’m eyed askance.
Grey’s identified the problem with attempting to use wind carving Mt Rushmore by chance (or monkeys typing Shakespeare or flipping 50 coins and getting all heads) are meaningless diversions: none of these are analogous to the manner in which biological evolution acts to create biologically diverse populations. All these example lack essential features of evolution: selection on the basis of relative fitness, inheritance, fixation of beneficial traits, etc.
To Deb #203:
“… we need to know what on earth See thinks evolution is.”
Evolution is the alleged process that makes Man and Mosquitoes cousins.
“So, See, once again, would you like to explain how Mt Rushmore is analogous to evolution?”
No, I would not like to.
Been there, done that (#97, #151).
My Mt. Rushmore makes sense to me, and even makes sense to some evolutionists here, such as ChrisP #156. (Although ChrisP and the other evolutionists, including apparently JGC, actually believe in Mt. Rushmore “macroevolving.”)
“We can’t go any further while you are insisting that the colour of the sky is not really blue.”
Is the color of the sky really blue?
It wouldn’t even necessarily take several million iterations to go from an eyespot to a basic fish eye–that’s kind of an upper limit. Nilsson and Pelger calculated it could take as little as 1829 steps and 350,000 generations.
See http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html for more detail
I’m not interested in evasive babbling. Answer the question.
There’s your problem right there see: that isn’t a definition of evolution as the term is used in the natural sciences (that would instead be “any change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations”)
I’ll note I’ve made no statement that I believe Mt Rushmore is evolving at all. Quite the contrary: you’ll see above I reject the premise that wind eroding the features on the monument represents a valid analogy for biological evolution, as it lacks essential features such as selection and inheritance.
In the future please don’t attempt to assign me straw man positions for your own convenience.
And what natural process acted to “optimize the retina for our vision purposes”, see?
I’ll give you a hint–it starts with the letter ‘e’.
You’ll note I’ve now addressed Chris P ‘s post, see. I will expect you in return to identify the specific problems you have with the contents found on Lindsay ‘s web site.
To Gray Falcon #204:
“The analogy still stands even in nature, where there is a set goal: Survival.”
Where did this goal of survival come from?
What is the purpose of survival? To reproduce?
This survival thing seems to be a thing with living things. But the start of life itself is an accident, right? An accident never observed in nature and never coerced in a lab (a.k.a. “abiogenesis”). This life is an anomaly in both time and space (i.e. Life is said to have existed for only the last quarter of the universe’s existence, and as far as we know, only on our teeny tiny planet.) I mean, certainly you’re not saying the survival of life is a “good” thing, are you?
“A primitive light-sensitive receptor is an advantage for survival, a slightly more advanced one even better. After several million iterations, you will get some incredibly complex results.”
Absolutely, according to this comedian (I can’t help it. This deserves another laugh.).
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjhh27sN6Pk
To come back to the initial question, it is easier for a doctor to ignore evolution than to ignore that you need at least one molecule to observe the effect of a drug. In France, more than 10% of the drugs prescribed by a doctor are homeopathic granules.
To Narad #210:
“I’m not interested in evasive babbling. Answer the question.”
OK. But I don’t think you’ll be interested. The purpose of an adaptive immune system is to provide immunity.
You’re welcome.
To JGC #211 & #213:
“There’s your problem right there see: that isn’t a definition of evolution as the term is used in the natural sciences (that would instead be “any change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations”).”
If that’s “evolution”, well then, I guess everyone including me believes in “evolution.”
And please stop evading the question. A simple YES or NO will suffice. Do you agree with ChrisP #156? Yes or No?
@ See Noevo
Do you really think that one billion years ago, there were mammals on earth?
JGC, See Noevolution announces, with his ‘nym, that he refuses to be able to make an honest argument or to attend to an honest reply. As long as he refuses even a pretense of honesty, time spent on him should be considered wasted.
And, just after submitting #218, I ran into this lovely quote from Robert G. Ingersoll’s On the Gods and Other Essays:
I’ve emphasized the part that applies directly to See Noevo‘s purposeful intellectual dishonesty.
Seeing See is unable to explain his/her concept of evolution and not willing to change, this is not a discussion.
Before I lose interest in the impossible battle, there is another thing I’ll agree with you about – the sky isn’t really blue. It’s purple, but because of the way our imperfect and undesigned eyes and brain perceive light, we think it looks blue. Isn’t nature fascinating?
To Deb #220:
“Seeing See is unable to explain his/her concept of evolution and not willing to change, this is not a discussion.”
Are you claiming that Man and Mosquitoes are NOT cousins, distant cousins?
@ Deb
“we think it looks blue”
Actually, I see it white and gold.
Thinking about Noevo arguments…
Simple single-cell organisms like bacteria are pretty good at all the above.
Actually, (1) is not needed. I’m not aware of bacteria or yeasts being able to recognize themselves in a mirror.
In a soup of macromolecules and other organisms to prey upon, (2) and (3) are not needed. Just float around and stuff will come in contact with you.
(4) doesn’t have to be perfect. A simple double-layer of lipids is very good at isolating the inside from the outside for single-cell organisms. The best part? Such a lipid layer is self-assembling. It’s the same as soap bubbles.
Also, the simpler the organism, the more resilient it is to “poisonous” stuff. Well, poisonous stuff will have to be able to affect it, to start with. Cyanide may not be that lethal on organisms which don’t have hemoglobin.
(5) and (6) passive diffusion through said lipid membrane for small molecules. Single-cell organisms don’t need a mouth and an intestine.
(7) the same system which assembled the cell in the first place.
So basically, out of the 7 steps which were mentioned, only #7 has to be achieved somehow. Not as difficult as all of them.
And reproduction? Double your size by adding stuff to yourself, and then split in two when it’s getting too bothersome to drag all this mass around. Voilà, two more of you.
Start small, keep building on top of that grandma cell was doing.
@ Daniel Corcos
Nice 🙂
A few articles were published recently about this colorful exchange.
(blog post in French)
The studies’ authors managed to find a few hundred people who didn’t hear about the debate…
Re: the color of the sky for neovo, maybe its sky is green because it actually is a methane-breathing lizard from Vega upsilon.
Let’s see. The very first life on earth, according to evolutionary theory, evolved extraordinary capabilities in less than its very short lifetime. It experienced the accidental mutation of
Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origins of life (just as cosmology says nothing about the origins of planetary systems). See Noevo seems to be abdicating even the pretence of good faith and intellectual honesty,
@Daniel cool! Is that a general substitution for that colour, or something special about the sky?
@See ‘explain the mechanism that you believe biologists would use to explain the relationship between people and mosquitoes.’ This will require several sentences to explain, not just state. Is your comprehension of English really as poor as your comprehension of biology, or do you think it’s somehow clever?
As has been covered by The Incredible String Band.
Try rereading it and answering in full. Remember, you were whining about the mention of bad designs.
See Noevo: Where did the “goal” of survival come from? Are you really that stupid? If something didn’t survive, it wouldn’t reproduce. That was an implied goal, not something someone explicitly decided.
Also, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. This has likely been explained to you repeatedly. I need to read Exodus 20:16. Note that it does not give exceptions. Please keep that in mind for your further discussions.
Now tell me, why are you arguing about evolution? When Micah 6:8 asked what the LORD requires, he doesn’t say “Argue the literal truth of a book.” Whose life will be improved by your actions? What justice will be created? Or are you simply hoping that if you look “Christian” enough, the LORD will not notice your inaction in the face of true evil: That greed and pride are now the virtues of this world, and teaching of “evolution” had sweet **** all to do with that.
Sarah Palin, get out of this body.
For a definition of “cousins” involving a lot of second-degree relationships, humans and mosquitoes (and snails and squids) are indeed (very) distant cousins.
That’s why a lot of people are studying another insect, Drosophila melanogaster, a.k.a. little vinegar fly.
Worse, other biologists are studying a cute little worm, Caenorhabditis elegans.
It has a small number of cells and it’s easy (well, not impossible) to follow each cell from the fetal/egg stage up to the fully developed adult.
Told us a lot about how our own nervous system is organised.
In both cases, genes involved into making a little worm or fly out of a special cell in a egg have eerily similar counterparts, in form and function, among almost all multicellular organisms, including in humans.
Sarah Palin, get out of this body.
I command you demons of stupidity to begone!
Why are you presuming purpose, see? Evolution doesn’t exhibit purpose, or proceed in a goal oriented fashion to achieve a preferred or predetermined result.
Why are you equating “random” or “non-goal oriented” with “accidental”, see?
FTFY, see. No need to thank me. The fat of the matter is that intermediate forms which could serve as transitional precursors to a functional eye are found in living organisms today, where they demonstrably confer increased fitness in the environments they exploit.
RE: Chris P, I’ve answered the question. I’m sorry if you’re having trouble parsing the answer, but the question isn’t amenable to a simple yes or no.
I’ll repeat my response for clarity:
While statistically he’s correct and it would be possible, the likelihood this would ever occur is so poor we expect we would never see wind erosion ‘sculpting’ an accurate likeness of four human faces and the example itself is not a valid analogy for biological evolution as it inludes an element not operating in evolution (predetermined outcome) while also omitting integral elements of the mechanism by which evolution creates biologically diverse populations.
Now address the content on Lindsay’s website, please.
Deb: I get taht see is less unwilling to understand where his arguments fail than he’s unwilling to do so, but it’s useful to address them anyway in the interest of informing lurkers to the discussion.
.
But Helianthus! I don’t WANNA be related to flies, and snakes, and mosquitos! (though that might explain why, in a group, I’m the ONLY one getting bitten to death). Can’t I be a speshul snowflake and poofed into existance…oh wait. That would disregard the fact I have parents, and they had parents, and so on back for many, many generations.. CURSE YOU, Evolution! I guess I’m doomed to be the food source for bugs unless I stay in the house.
No, see: that’s it’s observed function. You’re inferring it’s purposeful without evidence.
@ JGC
I agree:
“There is a growing tendency to regard the evolutionary origin of adaptive immunity as being related to something other than defence against pathogenic microorganisms.”
Frank Macfarlane Burnet
@ MI Dawn
You know, the way noevo keep talking about how evolution is about whole new species poofing into existence (the “seeing one KIND of being give birth to, or mutate into, a different KIND of being”), or about the origin of life itself (the whole list of things a primitive cell is supposed to do, including being self-aware), I have this feeling xe is a bit confused about that evolution is about. Xe doesn’t seem to get the incremental, step-wise part of the process.
I think xe wanted to discuss about how Athene exited with full battle gear from Zeus’ cranium, took a wrong turn in the intertubes and ended here. Xe quickly switched mosquito for Athene and hoped no-one would notice.
See also shows little or no concept to the vast amount of time & countless generations of each organism involved…..
He also seems unable to address whether he believes that man suddenly “poofed” into existence, given our short history, compared to mammal-like reptiles or just mammals in general.
What are the odds that he believes the world is only 6,000 years old?
re
white and gold
Sarah Palin
poofed into existence
You are hilarious. In a good way, not like Dan O.
Merci.
Or why we see cave-dwelling fish and other critters who originally had fully functional eyes, who are now blind…and born that way.
What’s interesting about the blind cave fish is that the blindness isn’t a function of eliminating genes that no longer confer increased fitness in the cave environment to conserve energy: transplantation experiments involving small bits of organizing tissue from species with eyes to embryos of the blind forms allowed the blind transplantee to build a complete functional eyes demonstrating the necessary genes are still there.
Instead blindness results from a gain of function mutation: up-regulation of genes that result in features that confer increased fitness in the cave environment, like Sonic Hedgehog, cause expansion of jaw tissue, the bones of the jaw and the array of sensory structures on the ventral surface of the jaw producing a stronger jaw and more sensitive skin–very useful if your survival depends on rooting about in the dark at the bottom of an underground rivers to find food.
Eyes are lost because a side effect of SH is reduced expression of another gene, Pax-6, which is a master regulatory gene controlling eye development, and sine there is no loss of fitness associated with blindness in an environment where no light is present there’s no selective pressure which would act to maintain vision across generations.
To multiple addressees…
To helianthus #223:
“And reproduction? Double your size by adding stuff to yourself, and then split in two when it’s getting too bothersome to drag all this mass around. Voilà, two more of you.”
Congratulations. That wins the prize for probably the stupi…,er, most remarkable evolution statement I’ve ever seen. It’s also quite contradictory to evolution theory itself. The theory claims organisms mutate new capabilities by CHANCE, NOT by WILLING to overcome something it finds “bothersome.”
…….
To herr doctor bimler #225:
Me: “Let’s see. The very first life on earth, according to evolutionary theory, evolved extraordinary capabilities in less than its very short lifetime. It experienced the accidental mutation of…”
You: “Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origins of life (just as cosmology says nothing about the origins of planetary systems). See Noevo seems to be abdicating even the pretence of good faith and intellectual honesty…”
No, actually YOU are the one who seems to be abdicating even the pretense of good faith and intellectual honesty. I was NOT talking about the origin of life. I was talking about AFTER the first life came to be. No, I wasn’t talking about the origin of life, and you knew so, or should have known.
……..
To Deb #226:
“@See ‘explain the mechanism that you believe biologists would use to explain the relationship between people and mosquitoes.’ This will require several sentences to explain, not just state. Is your comprehension of English really as poor as your comprehension of biology, or do you think it’s somehow clever?”
I’m probably not nearly as clever, or smart, as you. But my comprehension of English, and even of biology, is probably not too awful. I even have some education – a B.S. from what is considered a prestigious east coast university and a masters from the Ivy League. (Unfortunately, neither diploma was in evolutionary sciences. Such a waste, huh?)
So, feel free to enlighten me with what you say will require several sentences of explanation. I shall endeavor to comprehend.
………
To Narad #228:
You: “I’m not interested in evasive babbling. Answer the question.”
Me: “OK. But I don’t think you’ll be interested. The purpose of an adaptive immune system is to provide immunity.”
You: “Try rereading it and answering in full. Remember, you were whining about the mention of bad designs.”
OK.
The purpose of an adaptive immune system is to provide immunity, and it’s well-designed as such.
How’s that?
………..
To Gray Falcon #229:
“See Noevo: Where did the “goal” of survival come from? Are you really that stupid? If something didn’t survive, it wouldn’t reproduce. That was an implied goal, not something someone explicitly decided.”
Perhaps I am that stupid. You said “The analogy still stands even in nature, where there is a set goal: Survival.”
Merriam-Webster defines “goal” as “something that you are trying to do or achieve.” Are you really saying nature, or rather Evolution, is trying to do or achieve a desired outcome?
Exodus 20:16? Micah 6:8? Why are you bringing the Bible into this? I thought we were talking about science, and even about evolution.
“Or are you simply hoping that if you look “Christian” enough, the LORD will not notice your inaction in the face of true evil…”
WHAT are you talking about?
..…………..
Later I’ll try to take a look at postings beyond #229.
See Noevo, you were the one who brought up faith in the first place, back in post 90.
Also, I suggest you learn the basics of a subject before you debate it. Evolution has no goal, it is simply something that happens.
To elaborate, I only used the word “goal” because you did. Evolutionary algorithms are based on the process of biological evolution, just as plane design is based loosely on birds in flight. I used them to explain why your anologies make absolutely no sense.
Homo Sapiens and the various members of the family Culicidae most likely do have a common ancestor. The last such common ancestor existed about 500-550 million years ago.
I suspect that according to the rules of modern etiquette this is a sufficiently distant relationship that it need not be acknowledged in most social occasions. Gifts are not needed for your mosquito cousins, and you are not expected to invite them to your special occasions.
@ See Noevo
You did not answer: do you really believe that all species have been created in a couple of days?
Mephisto — something those who refuse to accept evolution point to as utterly, utterly impossible, because we are after all, created in God’s image and likeness.
‘What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an Angel! in apprehension how like a god!”
I imagine the discovery of “Lucy” drove many of them to mouth-frothing.
@ Mephisto
My mosquito cousins invite themselves for dinner on the grounds we share the same blood.
To multiple addressees…
To JGC #232:
Me: “What is the purpose of survival?”
You: “Why are you presuming purpose, see? Evolution doesn’t exhibit purpose, or proceed in a goal oriented fashion to achieve a preferred or predetermined result.”
You should ask Gray Falcon #204. The bird said “The analogy still stands even in nature, where there is a set goal: Survival.”
A goal is a purpose.
Me: “But the start of life itself is an accident, right?”
You: “Why are you equating “random” or “non-goal oriented” with “accidental”, see?”
How about instead of “accident” I use “unintended outcome” or “undirected outcome”. Is that better?
“The fat of the matter is that intermediate forms which could serve as transitional precursors to a functional eye are found in living organisms today, where they demonstrably confer increased fitness in the environments they exploit.”
Yes. Playing golf the other day I got some sun tan. So, I’m part way to getting some new eyes. Or, at least my ancestors may be getting some new ones. Lots of them. This is kind of exciting.
“While statistically he’s correct and it would be possible…”
OK. I’ll take that as your “Yes” to ChrisP #156.
Now, regarding the content on Lindsay’s website, actually, I didn’t delve into it very far because I was finding problems with virtually every sentence and/or point. I’m not going to look at the whole stinkin’ thing, for my response and rebuttal would take too much time. Let’s try to be more efficient here. Let’s start small, and right at the top, so to speak.
Specifically, what do YOU find to be the one MOST compelling point from Lindsay’s website? This one point must be limited to one small section of Lindsay’s website, ideally one paragraph or less.
Then maybe we can look at your second most compelling point.
….
To JGC #234:
Me: “The purpose of an adaptive immune system is to provide immunity.”
You: “No, see: that’s it’s observed function. You’re inferring it’s purposeful without evidence.”
Merriam-Webster defines “function” as “the action for which a person or thing is SPECIALLY fitted or used or FOR WHICH A THING EXISTS: PURPOSE”.
And a rope extended from the outstretched tree limb, to the child’s swing seat, an old Goodyear steel-belted radial. And the child squealed with delight: “Daddy, this tire is the best swing seat ever!” And Dad, busy mowing his overgrown “cousins”, replied with a laugh: “Great, honey. They made it just for you!”
…
To JGC #240:
“… Pax-6, which is a master regulatory gene controlling eye development…”
Controlling eye development? You mean, like, making sure the desired goal is reached?
Was Pax-6 around a billion or so years ago directing traffic from the sun burn skin to the startling blues (i.e. eyes)? How did this traffic controller get his job, given evolution has no goals or development plans?
…..
To Gray Falcon #242:
Me: “Exodus 20:16? Micah 6:8? Why are you bringing the Bible into this? I thought we were talking about science, and even about evolution.”
You: “See Noevo, you were the one who brought up faith in the first place, back in post 90.”
I brought up faith in a completely secular sense. In fact, my broad definition of “religion” (a “world-view” and as the “only basis for ultimate truth” and for…“the ultimate meaning of life”) was met with great objection here (e.g. JGC #36).
So, I asked why you were bringing the BIBLE (not faith in, or belief about, scienc) into this discussion.
But since you cite Scripture verses to me, perhaps you can help me with one I’ve been trying to get an answer on for years, but without success. It’s Genesis 1:14. “And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for SEASONS and for DAYS and YEARS.” I’ve been trying to see how this relates to the six “days” of Genesis 1. Specifically, since the author is already acknowledging names for periods of much greater than a day (i.e. seasons, years), why wouldn’t he use these longer periods for the creation sequence (e.g. ‘So God created the beasts of the field over MANY YEARS, a fifth SEASON’.)? Why would the author use “fifth DAY”, instead, and go out of his way to define “day” six times (i.e. “And there was evening and there was morning, a X day.”)?
Have you seen any scholarly work on this specific question regarding Gen 1:14 vis-à-vis the other Gen 1 verses?
Who needs a book? Genesis was written by primitive nomads, trying to explain the phenomena they saw around them. It was also not written in English; you’re reading a translator’s version of events, not an eye-witness’s.
@Daniel Corcos: yeah, they tend to be party crashers here, too. I certainly never invite them to the party!
Speaking of erosion and national treasures, some of you may visit the Grand Canyon this summer. If you’re there, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the information the park service may provide, at least in regard to the timing of the formation of the GC. For a long time, they said the GC was formed about 6 million years ago. Now scientists are saying 70 MYA. Others something in between. [Despite the 1100% discrepancy, the geologists probably still have their jobs. If not, they could try being a weather person on TV. Very good job security.)
Get your head out of the brochure and numbers, and just enjoy the view.
http://geology.com/articles/age-of-the-grand-canyon.shtml
Thanks for the information. Isn’t it amazing how scientists can find new information about something as well studied as the Grand Canyon?
See: Ah, the “day-age” argument. Tell me something, how did daylight exist without the sun?
Now, please tell me why you think “Do not bear false witness” is a strongly-worded suggestion.
Poor. What would have happened if nobody had one? One clear consequence is that nobody would suffer from autoimmunity. Somatic hypermutation is a pretty high-risk “design.”
And “provide immunity” against what? The adaptive immune system clearly doesn’t keep you from getting sick in the first place. It doesn’t even manage to clear some infections – H. pylori is more like a protracted low-level conflict, which is a terrific “design” for gastric lymphoma.
Perhaps a better one would have been to skip the arms race entirely, given that the pathogens are better positioned when it comes to a mostly fixed target.
” See Noevo seems to be abdicating even the pretence of good faith and intellectual honesty”
As far as I’m concerned See Noevo abdicated any pretense of good faith about 100 comments ago (#151) when he characterized evolution as postulating that “complex biological structures (e.g. organisms, organs) [are] the result of simple random (and often degrading) genetic mutations.” The role of natural selection in evolution has been explained at such length, so many times, that ignoring it and trying to characterize evolution as a “random process” is a sure sign you are dealing with someone who has no interest whatsoever in any kind of real dialog.
Despite the 1100% discrepancy, the geologists probably still have their jobs.
Funny that, since creationists try to explain away the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution as being due to the fact that anyone who doesn’t “toe the party line” will be fired, lose their reputation, etc.
To multiple addressees…
To Mephistopheles O’Brien ##252:
“Thanks for the information. Isn’t it amazing how scientists can find new information about something as well studied as the Grand Canyon?”
You’re welcome.
And hopefully, the school districts may find enough money to correct all the old “facts” in their science and geography text books. [I think the biology textbooks may still have pictures of that icon of evolution, the Tree of Life, despite the fact that the evolutionists themselves chopped it down many years ago. It was too problematic.]
…..
To Gray Falcon #253:
“Tell me something, how did daylight exist without the sun?”
Any God who could make a sun could make light without a sun.
“Now, please tell me why you think “Do not bear false witness” is a strongly-worded suggestion.”
I don’t know what you mean or what you’re getting at. It not only makes sense to me, but more importantly, I believe it’s a command (not a suggestion) from God.
Does this have something to do with your being displeased I brought up the origin of life (i.e. an area outside of evolution theory; outside because evolutionists are even more clueless about this than the other stuff.)? If so, you shouldn’t be. In order to understand something (e.g. an organism’s drive to survive), you often are helped by understanding how and why that something came to be in the first place. How would a goal-less beginning lead to a goal-oriented something (“The analogy still stands even in nature, where there is a set goal: Survival.”)?
………
To Sarah A #255:
“As far as I’m concerned See Noevo abdicated any pretense of good faith about 100 comments ago (#151) when he characterized evolution as postulating that “complex biological structures (e.g. organisms, organs) [are] the result of simple random (and often degrading) genetic mutations.” The role of natural selection in evolution has been explained at such length, so many times, that ignoring it and trying to characterize evolution as a “random process” is a sure sign you are dealing with someone who has no interest whatsoever in any kind of real dialog.”
No, I have very good faith (and in more ways than one).
See, genetic mutations are the very fuel for modern evolution theory (a.k.a. neoDarwinism). So-called natural selection is just along for the ride. Without the mutations, there is nothing to select FROM. Without mutations, Me and the Mosquito wouldn’t be cousins, er, distant relatives.
Me: “Despite the 1100% discrepancy, the geologists probably still have their jobs.”
You:“Funny that, since creationists try to explain away the overwhelming scientific consensus on evolution as being due to the fact that anyone who doesn’t “toe the party line” will be fired, lose their reputation, etc.”
No. If you don’t “toe the party line” you usually won’t be hired to begin with. Never hired, so never fired.
But I never said the geologists with wildly different time estimates are not “toeing the line.” I’m confident they ARE toeing the line (i.e. Vouch for the old age of the earth and for evolution). They’re probably just trying to make a name for themselves, while twisting the tale to fit new data and guesses.
Seeing as how See Noevo is using my comments as some sort of argument to divide people into groups, I should point out a few things.
Firstly, the comments about Mt Rushmore were not about it evolving or it even being a good comparison to evolution. Others have pointed out why you can’t compare weathering of rocks to evolution, not even in terms of process, because a key component of evolutionary theory is relative fitness in the environment.
What I was addressing was See Noevo’s apparent argument that the only way Mt Rushmore could have occurred was through the hands of a creator and then comparing that to the eye. I was simply pointing out that the first part of this argument by See Noevo was wrong and therefore all their arguments that hung off it also had to be wrong.
This, of course, leaves actual stars as another entirely lousy design choice, given that there’s no longer a need for supernovae to populate the periodic table, and they’re not very good for the job that you comically obsessed about at Ethan’s, navigation. (There’s a reason that GPS is tied to the ICRF.)
As I’ve mentioned, I have effectively no interest in the creationist crank niche, but it’s pretty clear just from this performance that you’re not very good at it.
See, you have access to the Internet. You can look up “evolution” and find out exactly how it works. You have no excuse putting up strawman versions of it and calling it “evolution”. You cannot plead ignorance when ignorance is physically impossible.
And yes, you are putting up strawman versions of evolution. I suggest you read up on the subject before discussing it again.
ERV’s tag line springs to mind. Considering whether the mysterium tremendum might actually be an omnipotent virus might open up an entirely new branch of theology.
To ChrisP #257:
I may have missed them, but did you, or others here, post any critical comments to Dan Andrews #86? If not, why not? He was the first to broach the rocky analogy:
“Re micro vs macro-evolution. My view is there is no such thing….it is all evolution. However, there are some scientists I greatly respect who do make that distinction. One of them used an analogy, which was, believing in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believing the wind can move sand grains but not sculpt rock.”
……
To Gray Falcon #259:
“You can look up “evolution” and find out exactly how it works. You have no excuse putting up strawman versions of it and calling it “evolution”.
Birdman, I may have missed them, but did you post any comments re: JGC #211’s
“There’s your problem right there see: that isn’t a definition of evolution as the term is used in the natural sciences (that would instead be “any change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations”)” ?
If you haven’t criticized or corrected JGC, then I assume you must be in agreement with that definition of evolution.
And I responded to JGC that if that’s “evolution” then I believe in evolution.
What’s your problem?
See, you want to know my problem? It’s that you have no interest whatsoever in science and only care about twisting people’s words to make yourself look good.
Oh, dear, S.N.’s actual object of worship seems to be crapping out. Or being rarefied, whatever.
As far as I can see Dan Andrews did not invoke Mt Rushmore as an example. You did.
You’re failing to observe the True Meaning of the word “sculpt,” silly.
To Gray Falcon #262:
Well done. If people like you, and the other evolutionists here, are representative of the state of evolution teaching, it’s not surprising that less than 20% of the “students” fully buy what you’re selling.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
To ChrisP #264:
“Others have pointed out why you can’t compare weathering of rocks to evolution, not even in terms of process, because a key component of evolutionary theory is relative fitness in the environment.”
I guess when I read the above words of yours I was expecting you would then criticize Dan Andrews’ post. But then, Dan Andrews is an evolutionist. Maybe you just don’t like going after your own.
See, for a long time, most of humanity thought the sun went around the Earth. Did that make it so?
Again, your Mount Rushmore analogy was grossly dishonest, and you no excuse for not knowing that.
Certainly – we wouldn’t want schools teaching things that are not supported by science.
One might note that Gallup polls come with a pretty strong odor of Mammon.
As I stated, Really Not Good At It.
See, allow me to explain to you the exact flaw in your Mount Rushmore logic. It would only apply if every single member of a species mutated in the exact same way. In truth, each individual member of a given generation is different, and some are more likely to survive than others: Perhaps they have a slight alteration to a light-sensitive patch that makes it better at identifying threats. The ones that survive will pass on their traits to the next generation. This process repeats over millions of generations, and small difference add up over a long period of time.
And yes, eyes can form this way. At no point did anybody claim that each component developed separately, then just happened to come together to form an eye. If you had bothered to read what we had sent you, you would know that.
Finally, I am a Christian, but my focus is on following the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of Man.
It is very simple. Dan Andrews did not compare weathering of rocks to evolution. Perhaps you need to read his post again.
To ChrisP #271:
Me: “I guess when I read the above words of yours I was expecting you would then criticize Dan Andrews’ post.”
You: “It is very simple. Dan Andrews did not compare weathering of rocks to evolution. Perhaps you need to read his post again.”
Right you are. Dan did NOT compare weathering of rocks to evolution. Dan just said Dan has great respect for some scientists who DO.
Peek-a-boo, I see you.
@ See Noevo
You still did not answer the question: do you think there were mammals on earth one billion years ago?
Do you always have this much trouble with logic?
Look to help you out, I have embedded the appropriate part of Dan Andrew’s comment below. I will then in words of one syllable or less attempt to help you understand it.
So Dan was not comparing evolution to eroding rocks, but was comparing one type of belief system to another.
I am sorry there were a few slightly longer words in that explanation, but I trust you can successfully look them up in the dictionary to get their meaning.
Always happy to help.
Unsurprisingly, S.N.’s “first things first evasion comes out of a box.
@ ChrisP
I was unsure then first reading Dan Andrews’ post, but looking at the rest of his posting, I may now go so far as to interpret this analogy as a criticism of evolution deniers for lacking imagination.
Or for being out of touch with reality.
@Gray Falcon
Yep. My university teachers did just fine at explaining to me and my fellow students how fetal cells develop in to layers, then the layers fold on themselves to form tubes and spheroid pockets and whatnot, and so on, until appears an embryo doted with primitive organs.
The different pieces of the eye all come from the same zone of the same layers of cells. Some biologists spent a lot of time during the last century looking at the development of chicken embryos (and of other embryos, including humans), and it’s easy to show the different steps of the formation of the eye. Nothing magical about all parts coming at the right place: their precursors were already there. They just had to become (should I say “mutate into”?) something more complex.
And as the embryologists like to say, the development of the embryo is a repeat of evolution. Start from a single cell, go to a multicellular stage, then a specialized-cell-layers stage, then fold these layers into a tube to get a worm-like stage, then fold again parts of these layers to get a chord (future spine) and a muscular cavity (future heart), and keep building complexity until obtaining an almost duplicate of whatever highly evolved organism provided the initial cell.
Put 400 Respectful Insolence commenters in front of keyboards and eventually one will produce an argument that will penetrate a creationist troll’s Total Reality Exclusion field, but I don’t think I can be arsed waiting that long.
Note that SN does not want to answer the question:
Do you really believe that all species have been created in a couple of days?
If he says yes, he loses credibility. If he says no, he will go to hell like all of us.
@ hdb
If you have a cup of tea handy, you can rig up a generator of finite probability and reduce the time you have to wait.
With two cups, you can go for the infinite probability variant and reduce the time to a jiffy, but this upgraded version has notable side-effects, like the sudden appearance of whales and pots of begonia.
It may also make appear one glass of your favorite strong beverage, which is not that bad a side-effect.
@Daniel – yes, I’ve noticed that See hasn’t articulated his own position…..perhaps if he did so, we’d see how “intelligent” he actually was.
So, what is your position, See?
See Noevo,
The whole point of natural selection is that is does not have a goal (pun intended). However, its results, after long periods of time and many mutations, may make it look as if it does. The FSM deliberately designed it this way to confuse Creationists.
It is very obvious to me that you would benefit from reading Dawkins’ ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ (there are plenty of free copies about, and it’s an excellent and not-too-challenging read). You have failed to understand a fairly fundamental scientific concept, but instead of having the humility to attempt to learn, you appear to be trying to explain to us that science is wrong based on juggling semantics.
You remind me of the people who claim that herd immunity is a myth; as soon as I see that I know that they don’t understand the concept. Similarly with natural selection, once you understand it, you realize it simply couldn’t be any other way.
To Daniel Corcos #273:
“@ See Noevo You still did not answer the question: do you think there were mammals on earth one billion years ago?”
You mean the billion years ago provided by the science community?
The same science community which currently has an 1,100% discrepancy on when the Grand Canyon was formed? http://geology.com/articles/age-of-the-grand-canyon.shtml
The same science community which, with Enceladus, currently has a 14,900% discrepancy on the age of our solar system? http://www.space.com/5528-frigid-future-ocean-saturn-moon.html
The same science community which currently has a 200,000% discrepancy on the age of dinosaur remains? http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-dinosaur-embryo-fossils-discovered-in-china-1.12779
That science community?
Well, Dan, I guess until such time as that science community proves their “stopwatches” are perfectly calibrated, then,
“No”, I do not think there were mammals on earth one billion years ago.
To Daniel Corcos:
I posted a comment answering your question in #273, but the comment is “Awaiting moderation.”
I don’t know why it’s being suspended pending review.
Do any of your comments get suspended by the moderator?
Same question to the other evolutionists here.
See, how many links did you put in your comment? If you put multiple links in a comment, they always get moderation.
Also, do knot use the word, evolutionist. That makes sense as calling a physicist a gravitist.
From time to time, yes, depending on:
– misspelling my ‘nym or e-mail address (comments from new people go into moderation automatically to filter out the most obvious spam)
– certain four letter words
– an excess number of links (I believe the magic number is 3), as this is often an indication of spam.
@ See Noevo
All my comments on penis enlargement, cheap Viagra and Cell Inflation Assisted Chemotherapy are awaiting approval by the moderator.
if you included 3 or more links, it will go into moderation. Also, if you fat-finger your e-mail address (and we’ve all done it) the system will think you’re a new poster.
I’m sure your post will fully and clearly explain your position, and it will also be very entertaining.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
To Daniel Corcos #273 take 2:
“@ See Noevo You still did not answer the question: do you think there were mammals on earth one billion years ago?”
You mean the billion years ago provided by the science community?
The same science community which currently has an 1,100% discrepancy on when the Grand Canyon was formed (see url link above)?
The same science community which, with Enceladus, currently has a 14,900% discrepancy on the age of our solar system? http://www.space.com/5528-frigid-future-ocean-saturn-moon.html
The same science community which currently has a 200,000% discrepancy on the age of dinosaur remains? http://www.nature.com/news/oldest-dinosaur-embryo-fossils-discovered-in-china-1.12779
That science community?
Well, Dan, I guess until such time as that science community proves their “stopwatches” are perfectly calibrated, then,
“No”, I do not think there were mammals on earth one billion years ago.
There is nothing in your link to the Enceladus article that supports your assertion – why are you simply making things up?
And why should there be a surprise that new data leads to changes in scientific theories. Adapting to new data is what intelligent researchers do.
Oh – honesty, asking questions, and looking at data, they’re all strange to you, your being a creationist and all.
“Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”
― Tim Minchin
None of those links does anything to question the overall ages of either the Solar System or the Age of Dinosaurs…
So, please enlighten us as to what you actually believe, so we can be in awe of your intellect…
It’s just not very good at actually presenting its stale, brain-dead regurgitation.
To Krebiozen #282:
“It is very obvious to me that you would benefit from reading Dawkins’ ‘The Blind Watchmaker’…”
Been there, done that.
Actually, I never did finish it. I was too weakened by too many metaphorical trips to the bathroom. However, I do recommend the book as an emetic.
(Similarly, I never completed a tour of the Don Lindsay website which JGC is so fond of. However, JGC apparently is not fond enough of it to respond to my question about it in my #248.)
I’m a little surprised, though, that you would value Dawkins’ book title and his extensive focus on Paley’s analogy of the blind watchmaker. Perhaps, you’d buy a Dawkins’ book about the analogy of how Mt. Rushmore COULD result from natural forces if given enough time.
Dawkins is an embarrassment, even to many in the evolution community. I wouldn’t be surprised if Richard ends up in an asylum or as a suicide.
But, again, I do enjoy this video of him:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjhh27sN6Pk
See Noevo, the same science that enables you to post articles on the Internet. If you’re going to disparage the concept of science, please do so through clay tablets.
How do you figure 200,000%? The bone bed was dated at 197-190 million years old (an uncertainty of less than 3.7%), and the study is described as
Even if you think that means scientists used to think dinosaur embryos didn’t exist prior to 90 million years ago, but now they think they did — which would be a really stupid thing to think — then they would have been off — under that stupid notion — by only 111%.
How do you figure they were off by a factor of 2,000? Do you think scientists thought that dinosaurs lived only 95,000 years ago (190,000,000 / 2000)?
Let me clarify my previous comment. For a time, long-distance telegraphy was thought impossible, because a long cable would heat up too much and melt. Georg Ohm was the one who figured out it wasn’t the case. If science acted as See Noevo thinks it should, nobody would have bothered to revise their models, and the Internet would not exist.
To Gray Falcon #270:
“Finally, I am a Christian, but my focus is on following the teachings of Christ, not the teachings of Man.”
Gray, have you been attacked on these forums for your Christianity?
Anyway, I know you like Bible verses, so, here is a verse for the day:
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me.
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?” [John 5:46-47]
Yikes!
Man’s brain is devolving into religious fundalmentalism in the US. How could anybody not believe in evolution?
As far as Ben Carson goes- a clever political gambit to get the right wing vote.
See Noevo- Moses’ words also taught that lending money at interest is sinful. Why are you not opposed to the banking industry?
Also, in context, the passage from John 5 is about Jesus the Messiah. It is not about literalism. To deliberately misinterpret a verse out of context is, once again, dishonest. Tell me, See, do you really the the LORD will forgive your lying in His name?
@ See Noevo
Do you think that the earth existed already one billion years ago, or not?
Do you think that all the species appeared in two days or not?
Please explain the “discrepancy”. Is this another cut-&-pasted Creo talking point?
Fossils were found dating back to the early Jurassic — a period when dinosaurs were flourishing — including dinosaur eggshells. Somehow, in the minds of creationists, the verification of a science’s prediction (“dinosaurs existed, therefore their eggs existed”) becomes the disproof of that science (“no-one found eggs that old before, now they’ve found some, HURR HURR they’re just making it up!”).
I’m beginning to think that SN doesn’t really come here for the
huntingsincere arguments.Gray, have you been attacked on these forums for your Christianity?
There are two regular posters here with a bee in their bonnets about Christianity. The rest of us (including the Christians — and I fall into that category) only get riled when someone uses religion or religious writings such as the Bible in an attempt to prove an unprovable point.
I’m one of the atheists here, and as long as people don’t use their beliefs–whether that’s Christian, Muslim, pagan, libertarian, or Maoist–to excuse lies or abuse, theose beliefs are irrelevant. The existence or otherwise of gods does not justify lying about science or defrauding the sick.
If you want to argue about Christian beliefs, try Patheos.
I find See Noevo (I keep reading it as “See No Evil” and envision a monkey with its paws over its eyes) apparently doesn’t understand how science works. Yes, dates keep changing because we keep learning new things, discover new ways to test old discoveries, and correct those that have found to be incorrect based on older knowledge.
That’s the great thing about science. It’s self-correcting.
As far as Christianity: I don’t care what other posters’ religions are. As long as they are shoving their religious beliefs down my throat, I don’t care if they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever.
…As long as they *aren’t* shoving their religious beliefs down my throat.
Curse this keyboard. I have been the queen of typos today.
To LW #296:
“How do you figure 200,000%? The bone bed was dated at 197-190 million years old (an uncertainty of less than 3.7%)…How do you figure they were off by a factor of 2,000? Do you think scientists thought that dinosaurs lived only 95,000 years ago (190,000,000 / 2000)?”
Because the conventional scientific wisdom at the time (or actually in 2005, when soft, unfossilized tissue was found in the bone of a T. Rex said to be 75 million years old) was that fossilization happens in the blink of an eye, in terms of so-called geologic time. Articles I read back in 2005 said fossilization happens WITHIN 10,000 years of death (i.e. somewhere BETWEEN 1 year and 10,000 years). Another said within 100,000 years (maybe that author mistakenly included one too many zeroes).
This is the very reason this was such big news. They were astonished. And they were admitting how very, very wrong they had been. Bless their humble hearts. But wrong about what? The age of the dinosaur? Perish the thought! No. They admitted they were immensely wrong about… the fossilization process! And they still haven’t got a clue HOW soft tissue could still be extant and unfossilized after 75 million, or 200 million years.
Why was blind Carbon-14 dating never performed on the soft tissues? It should have been a win-win. The C-14 test would show positive results only for organic material less than 50,000 years old. With a “zero” result, the evolutionists would get further confirmation of their long ages view, and would have additional ammo with which to blast the young earth creationists. Yet the C-14 testing was never performed. Odd, isn’t it?
As to the math, let’s be very generous and say soft tissue in the wild could remain unfossilized for no more than 100,000 years. So, if unfossilized soft tissue is found, it’s less than 100,000 years old, certainly not 200,000,000 years old. Delta 199,900,000 years. Thus, 199,900,000 error/100,000 max correct age = discrepancy of 199,900%.
Let’s call it 200,000%.
300 hundred comments and counting. Wow!
To Gray Falcon #300:
“See Noevo- Moses’ words also taught that lending money at interest is sinful. Why are you not opposed to the banking industry?”
Please, try a little harder not to be too obtuse (cf. Matthew 25:26-27).
I don’t have the time nor the patience right now to debate Scriptural interpretation with yet another deluded Protestant.
Very witty.
Some features of the canyon are relatively old, some relatively young. The age of the canyon depends on which features you consider to be the defining ones for its age. That’s not a discrepancy, it’s a question of interpretation of facts that pretty much everyone agrees to.
Nothing described in that link has the slightest bearing on the age of the solar system. It does seem to suggest that Enceladus has had a far more exciting history than might have been expected.
“Unfossilisezed”? Perhaps you did not even read the headline of the Nature post, the one reading “Oldest dinosaur embryo fossils discovered in China”. The word “fossils” should have been a clue that these remains were fossilised. The term “soft tissue” is your own fabrication.
Yes, they were organic (contained carbon). Many fossils do. Coal is a fossil.
How could anyone defend “intelligent design” after the Ebola crisis. Those that survived had evolved hardier immune systems.
Ebola was “evil” (to put a spin on a religious term)
They were astonished. And they were admitting how very, very wrong they had been. Bless their humble hearts.
I wonder if SN writes bad slashfic on the side. There’s a real Mary-Sue vibe to this breathless prose.
I recall seeing something on Nova a while back about organic material found in dinosaur bones. A 2010 article in Scientific American discusses this in some detail. That was a surprising finding, and overturned conventional wisdom. Presumably the reason it was not found before was that nobody looked with the right tools (the desire not to destroy the bones to see if just maybe there’s organic material there played a part in that, I’m sure) or didn’t use the right samples.
That’s what keeps science fascinating.
See, are you quite finished? Biblical literalism is a new invention, Augustine of Hippo, from the third century, saw the creation story of Genesis as an allegory. The whole of “creation science” is nothing more than an anti-modernist movement of the nineteenth century.
2010 article in Scientific American discusses this in some detail.
That was Mary Schweitzer IIRC, popularising her work from the 1990s. Anyway, sure enough, the whole bolus has been through the human centipede of creationist fabrications before it reached SN:
http://darwindeception.blogspot.com/2013/08/organic-material-in-dinosaur-bones-and.html
The hilarious factor of 149 for Enceladus suggests that he’s under the impression that anybody other than his fellow travelers thinks that “the science community” has determined that its not having frozen out yet implies that the age must be less than 30 Myr.
Because current conditions have always held and always will.
I see that our new resident creationist troll still refuses to articulate his beliefs…….
Isn’t that just precious?
herr doktor bimler – your memory serves you well.
For all those questioning See Noevo about their beliefs and assertions, it is important to realise that See Noevo is of the position that the Catholic Church is infallible.
It might be quicker and simpler to just point out their errors rather than engage as to why they make the claims they do.
Isn’t that just precious?
It is as if creationists are not especially concerned about a few orders of magnitude here and there.
Did Christ’s Vicar on Earth block you on Twitter, or something?
“Those that survived had evolved hardier immune systems.”
Well, only if by “hardier immune systems” you meant they are now immune to Ebola. Unfortunately, the disease has other consequences, quite dire.
300 comments? Note even close to a record for this blog.
^ Ah, silly me, I forgot to work in Fatima Yechhburg.
Perhaps. Moreover, it clearly seems to hang around post-viremia (eyes, semen).
To herr doktor bimler #311:
“Unfossilisezed”? Perhaps you did not even read the headline of the Nature post, the one reading “Oldest dinosaur embryo fossils discovered in China”. The word “fossils” should have been a clue that these remains were fossilised. The term “soft tissue” is your own fabrication. Yes, they were organic (contained carbon). Many fossils do.”
Try the following take from
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-04/uot-wod040513.php
“The Taiwanese members of the team also discovered organic material inside the embryonic bones. Using precisely targeted infrared spectroscopy, they conducted chemical analyses of the dinosaur bone and found evidence of what Reisz says may be collagen fibres. Collagen is a protein characteristically found in bone.
“The bones of ancient animals are transformed to rock during the fossilization process,” says Reisz. “To find remnants of proteins in the embryos is really remarkable, particularly since these specimens are over 100 million years older than other fossils containing similar organic material.”
But if that’s too much of a stretch for you, how about the most definitely soft, unfossilized tissue in various dino bones? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090501-oldest-dinosaur-proteins.html
Ahhh, a much more reasonable 79,900% minimum discrepancy.
So, why aren’t Dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible, See?
News flash. Something does not have to be turned to stone to be considered a fossil.
Amber anyone?
And I’m not sure where this cutting edge research is supposed to bring into question the currently known timeline, given all of the other evidence alongside of it….
Try the following take from
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-04/uot-wod040513.php
Oh look, a Gish gallop of shifting goalposts. With feckin’ press releases presented as authoritative science.
So who, exactly, is the intended target of the types of falsehoods and misrepresentations sn puts out? People who have even a passing knowledge of science know its crap, and the folks who have mindsets similar to his don’t need more convincing. So what’s the point?
So what’s the point?
Sense of smug satisfaction from having
bested in argumentignored arguments from a tag-team of opponents.Trolling.
^ For those playing at home, wavenumber 1537 is a C ═ N/C ═ C stretching mode, and 1659 is C ═ O. Finger lickin’ good!
^^ Depending on who you ask for 1537.
To Mephistopheles O’Brien #310:
“The age of the canyon depends on which features you consider to be the defining ones for its age. That’s not a discrepancy, it’s a question of interpretation of facts that pretty much everyone agrees to.”
I agree to an extent.
However, I’d say it IS a discrepancy, in interpretive result.
I wrote something similar earlier:
“I would say evolutionary theory is built NOT on facts, but rather on interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts. (Assuming we can even agree on what the “FACTS” are.)”
In “its authoritative teachings on faith and morals,” anyway, which I suppose means that [he] feels fine ignoring the fact that the Church has held the theory of evolution to be just fine and dandy for a very long time now. Well, I suppose Catholics are not forbidden from being creationists, but it is not encouraged or anything.
To dean #334:
“So who, exactly, is the intended target of the types of falsehoods and misrepresentations sn puts out? People who have even a passing knowledge of science know its crap, and the folks who have mindsets similar to his don’t need more convincing. So what’s the point?”
Try to look on the bright side.
I’m offering you the opportunity to interact with those outside of your little atheistic evolution bubble. What fun is it to talk to no one but your fellow “Yes” men/women/its?
More importantly, this is an opportunity to sharpen your teaching and proselytizing skills. And you have to admit, your skills (actually, not just yours, but those of the entire science teaching establishment) are in dire need of sharpening.
Now, granted, skills far superior to yours probably won’t work on me. I’m a lost cause. I’ve gone from a 30-year evolution believer to a 12+ year apostate.
But I’m talking about the rest of the folks, those who might not have researched evolution for more than the last decade. Less than 20% buy into evolution the way you and others here do, and 45% reject all aspects of it, according to Gallup.
And I’m also talking about people in the science community, with PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many others universities (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660) who are, at a minimum, skeptical of evolution theory’s claims.
I’m helping you help your teaching technique. But you may need far more help than I can offer. Maybe it’s not so much your teaching technique, but rather poor, uncompelling teaching MATERIAL.
What do YOU think needs to change in science education, so that, say, at least a majority of the folks would believe what you do?
Considering your string of second-hand catastrophes here (and cowardice in the face thereof), that’s just sad.
There is precious little to be gained from attempting to teach someone who wanders around with their fingers in their ears shouting “I can’t hear you”.
On the other hand, your skill set seems to consist entirely of goalpost moving.
See Nothing:
I will talk to all sorts of people, but there’s no fun talking to people who think facts are irrelevant, or that it’s okay to lie about science in order to convince me of their religious ideas. I have Catholic friends, and good sense as well as good ethics would keep them from those sorts of lies even if they didn’t accept the truth of evolution.
Why do they deny evolution? They are older and facing their own death or as Freud would say the death of their egos. Evolution to them was not personal when they studied it, wasn’t a threat to their ego dissolution. Comtemplating non-existence for some men is frightening. I guess that if one denies evolution, it follows that they might also believe in life after death. Displacing this fear unto a “theory” of “intelligent design” will keep them in debate probably until their demise. No one likes to believe that their life was a meaningless random evolutionary event. God surely blessed them.
Emily Litella-
Oh never mind…..
@ 340
Re: “Less than 20% buy into evolution the way you and others here do, and 45% reject all aspects of it, according to Gallup.”
What about nations other than the U.S.?
Oh, here we go:
http://tnjn.org/content/relatedmedia/2009/03/03/Science_evolution_2006.pdf
Seems that in most developed nations the number of citizens who accept evolution science as “true” … or at least more “true” than religious creation myths.. far exceeds “20%”. …
In the U.S., does acceptance of evolution science, as opposed to “Goddidit” type malarkey, differ between U.S. states?
Seems to:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/acceptance-of-evolution-vs-religiosity-in-the-u-s/
Some of the poorest states seem to have the largest number of “Godditit and he didn’t need no stinkin evolution” types, Dunno whether that means anything, e.g., fewer education dollars, or if it might be some combination of fewer available funds/more fundamentalist religious whackos, e.g., Don McLeroy, monkeying around with “education”.
At any rate, the “teaching establishment” you mention seems to have been quite successful in explaining evolution in most developed nations.
Re: “What do YOU think needs to change in science education, so that, say, at least a majority of the folks would believe what you do?”
As I’ve indicated the “science education” in most developed nations seems fine.
As for the U.S., from an outsiders point of view, the inmates seem to be running the asylum … at least in many southern states … so I’m not hopeful of change.
I mean, with this kind of idiot “homeschooling” her kids, what hope is there?
http://wonkette.com/567673/homeschool-mom-disproves-evolution-because-science-museum-is-stupid
So you can rest easy. U.S. citizens seem to have an unwritten “inalienable right to be stupid” … of which many avail themselves fully … that should protect it … or at least the southern states … from the insidious evil of evolutionary theory.
Do you think the remains of Philip Skell could be used as a sort of standard candle?
To ken #344:
“No one likes to believe that their life was a meaningless random evolutionary event.”
I take it you believe that your life is a meaningless random evolutionary event.
Who else here thinks his/her/its life is a meaningless random evolutionary event?
Belief in the science behind evolution =/= atheism.
Vicki – evolution is taught in Catholic schools. Someone has been under a rock since 1950.
I have a friend with cancer. It is of a type which was almost always fatal before modern science based on biology and physics started to invent interventions. It is stage IV lung cancer, with metastases to brain and bone.
What has the Discovery Institute discovered which is proven to help my friend? With its far more powerful, supernatural benefactor, and with being free of the “atheistic” science it attacks, it should surely have an effective remedy. If it does not, it must be withholding the treatments it has or could have discovered, and is thus culpable of killing people with cancer.
His family is not waiting for the Disco ‘tute. Instead, he found a treatment regimen based on the same scientific process the Discovery Fraud attacks. That regimen uses an experimental gene-targeted drug with occasional use of radiation. The cancer is almost gone, now it does not show on a CAT scan. He’s gone from 20 pounds underweight (the cancer was consuming his food energy faster his system could convert if from food) to normal weight and running a 10K recently. Not fast, but not last either. It is believed that a few cells which are resistant to the drug survive, and they will eventually multiply, but because this is understood it can be predicted and perhaps fought with other drugs yet to be invented.
Why did the Discovery Institute not discover radioactive decay? Why did they not discover radiation of any kind? Why have they not created even one effective anti-cancer drug?
——‘s kids are waiting, but there are only so many scientists available to do this work.
Every dime the Discovery Institute has spent is stolen from research that would help my friend live longer and look after his kids, who are 6 and 8 now.
Apologies for my disjointed English; I was not able to edit the above post into good form. I ask the reader’s patience in extracting what I meant from the clutter of what I wrote.
#346
You lack the ability to understand this in a biological sense.
Man’s brain evolved and found meaning-that’s a whole other story-community, altruism etc.
The mind has immense potential for -I’ll put in your terms- good and evil.
Psychologically speaking, it’s also easier not to think for some people. That’s what religious dogma is for. As an individual in the larger sense of the “cosmos’, my life is meaningless. In a personal sense, very meaningful.
Oh, Jesus, now it’s a self-appointed mystic.
To Spectator #349:
Glad to hear your friend is doing better.
“…he found a treatment regimen …That regimen uses an experimental gene-targeted drug with occasional use of radiation.”
Did you know that the science of genetics began with the work of a Gregor Mendel, a Catholic priest?
Looking farther afield, did you know that what’s become known as the Big Bang theory was first hatched by physicist Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest?
I recall, too, that the Catholic Church founded the first hospitals and universities in Europe. And Catholic organizations operate more hospitals and universities in the U.S. than probably any other single organization or body.
And from a recent WSJ article:
“In the 17th century, Jesuit Giambattista Riccioli mapped the moon, and Christoph Scheiner helped discover sunspots. Francesco Grimaldi discovered the enormously important physics effect called “diffraction,” the effects of which you can see in the colorful bands of a glimmering CD. In the 19th century, the Jesuit Angelo Secchi, a founder of astrophysics, pioneered the study of the sun and stars using the spectra of their light and developed the first spectral classification of stars, the basis of the one now used… Blessed Niels Stensen (1638-86) made major contributions to anatomy, especially of the glandular-lymphatic system, and, even more impressively, helped found the science of geology by developing the correct theory of sedimentary rock, geological strata and the origin of fossils, which unlocked Earth’s history. Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), of the Minimite Order, made fundamental discoveries about sound. The work of the Abbé Lazzaro Spallanzani, one of the top biologists of the 18th century, is taught in high-school textbooks today.”
I’ll come back to where I started here.
I said that, obviously, one can be a world-renowned medical doctor without believing in evolution (e.g. Ben Carson). And I asked two questions:
1) Does the med school curriculum include at least one course on biological evolution?
2) Can anyone name just one medical breakthrough or current medical treatment or procedure which required a belief in evolution?
The answer to 2) is “No.”
Oh, you can try, with ridiculous statements about antibiotic and antiviral treatments. But the bacteria and viruses remain bacteria and viruses before and after. No evolution. And I hope people realize that antibiotic resistance long pre-dates the discovery of antibiotics. Example:
https://www.asm.org/index.php/journal-press-releases/92870-fossilized-human-feces-from-14th-century-contain-antibiotic-resistance-genes
Of course, it fails if left to its own devices, something that your embarrassing display at Ethan’s demonstrates that you understand not in the least but are more than happy to pontificate about.
If you think you’re even in the ballpart of 1 Peter 2, you’re sorely deluded. Perhaps you should look into Br. Consalmagno instead of barfing up stuff that you found on the street and then pretending that it never happened when it dawns upon you that you’re unequipped to even mount something resembling a defense.
Who ordered the St. Lucy with anchovies?
@ SN
“Who else here thinks his/her/its life is a meaningless random evolutionary event?”
I had virtually no chance to live according to randomness, and still I am here. Isn’t it proof that God exists? You too. Isn’t it meaningless?
FTFY.
See Noevo:
You are either very closed-minded or an outright liar. Antibiotic resistance and ways to defeat it are a clear example, mentioned by at least one commenter above. The mapping of genomes to treat genetically acquired diseases is another.
I see you mentioned a whole number of scientists who were also Men of God. Amusingly, you mentioned Gregor Mendel and genetics. You do know, don’t you, that Mendelian inheritance is one of the mechanisms behind evolution?
Two people independently hypothesised evolution. Charles Darwin was one. Alfred Russell Wallace was the other. I looked up Wallace. He was a theist. Strange that you didn’t have him on your list.
You are aware, aren’t you, that there are on the market a half-dozen forms of artificially modified penicillins, none of these existed naturally, and precisely developped to be effective on natural-penicillin-resistant bacteria?
Not to mention cephalosporins and other classes of antibiotic molecules with a similar molecular backbone as penicillin and which also went through a series of artificial modifications.
These molecules were introduced to bypass the resistance of bacteria. And yet, a few decades later, some of these “same” bacteria are now resistant to them.
So bacteria and viruses evolved in our lifetime to resist modified versions of drugs, but that’s not evolution. Got it.
Helianthus, you have to remember in ID world, evolution doesn’t count unless a peasant turns into a newt.
I fail to see sn’s point, here.
Also, he missed Teilhard de Chardin. A Jesuit and a scientist, not exactly in this order, and so enamored with the theory of Evolution that he posited a theological counterpart, the Omega point, an evolution of mankind’ souls..
He got a cameo of sort in Dan Simmons’ Hyperion cantos.
@Spectator
I hope your friend does well. It’s what I would expect.
@HDB
No surprises. Collagen is frequently found in fossils here in Godzone. Example: moa.
@ChrisP
Oh, then I should qualify. I turned into a newt*, once. I got better.
* true event. It was, that, a few weeks after my parents conceived me.
I forgot to say, I also fail to see his/her point.
The point sn, is that the things you say about science are all false. Only a fool would listen to a congenital liar like you.
Do you think the remains of Philip Skell could be used as a sort of standard candle?
If you have in mind a candle that spreads darkness, then my man Magritte is here to help.
Narad @356 — I’m sorry, did you mean to suggest that the big bang theory “fails if left to its own devices”? If so, it’d be interesting to know why.
You’re definitely a lost cause. However, no “30-year evolution believer” would ask such a patently idiotic question as you did in asking how the various parts of the eye evolved independently** and then “co-located” to produce vision. So you are, like so many creationists, lying about that too.
** how did the pupil and the iris evolve separately? I’m trying to imagine this …
But you don’t believe the Earth has the history that he unlocked.
Like any good theory, the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection is based on:
– a body of observations
– a body of data derived from those measurements
For example, the fossil record contains remains of various animals, plants, and protists that are found in only specific strata. These remains and their surrounding rock can be dated by several independent methods, which currently agree to a reasonable degree of precision. The remains for an individual species typically are only found in one specific strata, but show characteristics that are sufficiently similar to remains found in earlier and later strata to indicate common ancestry.
There is sufficient evidence of this that it is reasonable to talk about the fact of evolution. Currently the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection explains these observations, is not contradicted by current observation, and makes useful predictions. It also does not rely on things not in evidence – say the existence of a practical joker who deliberately, over a billion years, added items to the fossil record to make it look like things evolved.
The theory is built on directly observed facts, it’s built on derived facts, and it’s built on interpretations of that data.
It’s worth noting that the same “interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts” that Noevo derides are the exact same ones used by geologists to locate oil and natural gas deposits.
To Helianthus #361:
“These molecules were introduced to bypass the resistance of bacteria. And yet, a few decades later, some of these “same” bacteria are now resistant to them. So bacteria and viruses evolved in our lifetime to resist modified versions of drugs, but that’s not evolution. Got it.”
Which of the bacteria and viruses “evolved”?
The ones killed by the drugs?
No, they weren’t doing anything, because they were killed by the drugs.
Let’s see….. Oh, the ones NOT killed by the drugs! Because they were still alive.
And then the bacteria and viruses that weren’t killed by the drugs had babies which also weren’t killed by the drugs… and so…. and so…
And so now the bacteria and viruses that aren’t killed by the drugs are a bigger share of the total bacteria and viruses population! They might even become the total population. And we call that total population….ahhh….what was it again….ahhhh….. ah yes! We call it “bacteria and viruses”.
But that’s not evolution. Got it?
P.S.
In other breaking news, research has shown that the total population of medical doctors are smart people. Further research revealed these smart doctors were NEVER stupid people.
See Noevo, it’s evolution. By definition, it’s evolution. You do not have the authority to define words.
See Noevo:
Yes it is. The fact that you don’t understand that the ones who were better able to resist the effect of the antibiotic and survive to reproduce, having offspring that were also better able to resist the effect of the antibiotics, is evolution in action, is astonishing.
From a certain point-of-view, about every bit of human knowledge is build on interpretations, extrapolations, etc – the whole solipsism tangent around “we perceive the world through the imperfect medium of our senses”. I believe herr doktor bimler mentioned Magritte upthread.
Noevo’s rebuttal is so wide as to be meaningless.
That we call science, in all its forms, is all about getting us a better handle on that is fact and isn’t. It’s long, tedious, far from perfect.
But it beats giving up using our brain and curling up in a corner.
See noevo’s lack of understanding of science is understandable, given his opinion on pure research (this is from Ethan’s blog, during a discussion of the study of modern cosmology)
SN appears to think that “evolution” actually means “speciation”, which takes longer than a single adaptation, and is therefore more difficult to observe in real time.
@ Noevo
Add a mutagen to your bacterial population before adding the drug. Funny enough, the resistant bacteria will represent an ever bigger share*. Must be magic.
* we can compare the treated/non-treated populations by using a metal cylinder covered with some bit of fabric to take the bacterial colonies from a cultured Petri dish and “print” them on a series of fresh Petri dishes, thus obtaining a series of identical cultures.
Add your cocktail of drugs and see how many colonies survive on each dish.
——————————–
Actually, it has been shown in bacteria that, in situations of stress, a number of genes implicated in repairing DNA damage aren’t working as much. It leads to a higher number of mutants in the offspring population.
Getting a sub-lethal dose of penicillin would qualify as a stressful situation, I would think.
You don’t see people who are so handicapped in their understanding that they make that kind of a spectacle of themselves every day, even on the internet.
ann @381 — You evidently don’t frequent global warming threads.
@ palindrom:
Ha ha ha. Well, you know what they say about great minds
I was about to inform ann about Natural News, prn, AoA, TMR…
-btw- Mikey has outdone himself today with a quiz about surviving the Next Great Unravelling, Meltdown, Period of Chaos, Whatever…
at any rate, it’s JUST around the corner.
You do, actually, if you follow blogs where evolution is discussed on a regular basis. Creationists are largely indistinguishable from anti-vaxers, except for the topic of discussion. They are highly predictable.
Will Fully-Blind reminds me of picture menus or pictogram charts used by persons who can’t communicate verbally – you just point to the appropriate picture of ready-made choices. All the choices have been around, used and abused for a long time. He’s even pointed to the picture of a crocoduck.
@ ann
To be fair, noevo argument is that the resistant bacteria were already present in the population from back to Methuselah, and the drug only pruned the population to the individuals with the ability to overcome the situation. To quote:
Well, he/she is right. That’s natural selection.
Where he/she fails is in refusing:
– to consider the long-term effect of such selection, i.e. making the resulting population quite different in its make-up from the parent population.
– and to take into account that an organism’s DNA sequence is not written in stone. Mutations happen, hence diversity among a given population, hence a chance for part of the population to react differently to a selective pressure.
And the combination of the two – random diversity added to a population and the parents of the next generation being selected on having the right package to survive in their current environment – is evolution.
I was alluding to S.N.’s demonstrated inability to tell the difference between inflation and eternal inflation.
Narad @386 — Thanks.
I sorta hoped I didn’t have to ask you how you’d explain the microwave background (and so on) in some wacky cosmology you might have favored.
There are many cranks on the internet who are sure the big bang is wrong. I’ve never seen even one such crank who has even passing familiarity with the modern evidence.
I suggest we simply go with the word “result” without any modifying adjective.
I agree that it would have been better if he didn’t use the word goal: natural selection doesn’t act to realize a goal or goals: it simply acts to conserve genetic changes which result in increased fitness, and to oppose the conservation of genetic changes which result in decreased fitness, with respect to a specific environment at the time the change arises.
<blockquote. Playing golf the other day I got some sun tan. So, I’m part way to getting some new eyes. Or, at least my ancestors may be getting some new ones.
See, you do realize that this isn’t how evolution and natural selection works, right? And that we’re all aware you’ve offered a parody of evolution because you have no real argument to offer against it validity? If not, it’s clear you don’t possess a sufficient understanding of evolution to discuss the topic in a meaningful way.
Non-responsive yet again, see: answer the question asked, rather than responding with another question. If you’re so concerned about time, identify what YOU consider the MOST SERIOUS problem with the content of the website.
You are the one, after all, who’s trying to dismiss the entire content as “shpeil”—surely you had some reason to do so, other than simply that it doesn’t support your preferred conclusions regarding the origin of biological diversity?
Re: the definition of function—you’ve selected the wrong one out of the multiple definitions Merriam Webster offers (clearly for no other reason than that selection includes the word purpose).
The one that’s operative here is instead “any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action; especially : the normal and specific contribution of a bodily part to the economy of a living organism”.
No, that’s not what I mean, as you well know. What I mean instead is the hox gene Pax-6 acts as a transcription factor for multiple genes and growth factors involved in eye formation.
More like 540 million years ago: complex first eyes appear during the Cambrian explosion.
Re: your question about the bible, it’s clear because authors intended to communicate the events occurred in a single day rather than over a loonger period of time: the text uses the Hebrew word ‘yod’ modified by an ordinal (‘first’, ‘second’, etc.) which in old Hebrew always denotes a 24 hour period measured from sunset to sunset.
Note also that Genesis wasn’t composed by a single author: the first 5 books of the Torah were instead assembled by combining and redacting accounts from four or more separate religious traditions (the Yahwist, Elohist, Dueteronomist and Priestly sources) created separately over the period from 950 and 500 BCE). That’s the reason we find two separate and contradictory accounts of creation, for example, present in Genesis.
In other breaking news, research has shown that the total population of medical doctors are smart people.
I’ve run into a few examples to the contrary within the military medical system.
<blockquote<Without the mutations, there is nothing to select FROM.
Wrong again, see: google ‘genetic drift’ and ‘founder’s effect’ to see how selection can occur in the absence of mutational change.
Congratulations–you’ve gotten something correct for a change! Mammals are the only living synapsids, and the synapsids arose in the late Caboniferous period, about 320 million years ago.
Yet you were willing to dismiss it as nothing other than ‘shpeil’ despite not bothering to read it–nice display of intellectual integrity, see.
hey, it was memorial Day weekend–grilling for friends takes precedence over addressing trolls. You’ll see I’ve responded now (and I expect you’ll now continue to try your utmost to avoid offering substantive objections to the content on Lindsay’s site.)
@JGC- I have two reasons for using the word “goal”. Firstly, I used the word “goal” because if I had said “there is no goal”, he would have taken it as proof that evolution was random and therefore incapable of creating things like eyes. Secondly, I meant “goal” in a metaphorical sense, if biological evolution were thought of in terms of an algorithm. My apologies for the confusion.
Wrong again, see. See http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
I think that’s a Negative Pregnant, since the unstated rest of the sentence is: “I also don’t believe the Earth or the Universe existed one billion years ago.”
At which time it was piointed out that you were wrong.
No, for the same reason it does not include at least one course on basic arithmetic, or one course on spelling.
Hey, you were speaking with see noevo–confusion was inevitable.
To Helianthus #385:
Thank you for acknowledging here that I was right in saying my bacteria/virus scenario in #374 is indeed NOT evolution.
You go on to say I fail to consider 1) “the long-term effect of such selection”, 2) “an organism’s DNA sequence is not written in stone”, 3) “Mutations happen”, 4) [mutations happen] hence diversity among a given population”.
That may be a good example of what I said earlier – “evolutionary theory is built NOT on facts, but rather on interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts.”
1) Is not a fact, it’s an interpretation and unobserved extrapolation.
2) Is a fact.
3) Is a fact.
4) Is a half-truth, at best. Unless you consider a chubby redhead and a slender blonde in the same family to be “mutants”.
P.S.
You say “And the combination of the two – random diversity added to a population and the parents of the next generation being selected on having the right package to survive in their current environment – is evolution.”
If that’s “evolution”, then I guess I believe in “evolution.”
No, it’s evolution: the frequency of alleles conferring drug resistance changed over generation int eh bacterial population. natural selection is the mechanism which caused the frequency to change.
Same thing seen in induatrial melanization in peppered mots: the alleles controlling moth color present prior to factory exhaust darkening trees for miles around, but once they had natural selection caused a change in frequency of alleles with expression of the allele conferring a dark color greatly increasing within the population.
@ JGC
It was more or less the point I was trying to make. I guess I expressed myself badly. Or I could use a refresher in biology. Or both.
—————————–
Neovo is agreeing with me. Chances are something is wrong here.
Ah, got it
Scuse me?
In the example we are talking about, we observed the non-resistant bacteria die from exposition to antibiotic, so the bacteria population is now mostly composed of resistant bacteria, but that’s not an observation?
It’s an observation backed-up by a real-wolrd experiment, the emergence of multi-resistant bacteria. Hospital labs have seen an increase in number and diversity of resistant bacteria. And again, it’s not a fact?
In both cases, these change in the overall population were the long-term effects I was talking about.
You are twisting words.
I meant mutation as in “creation of a DNA sequence which is different from the original sequence”.
As it happens, true redheads do have specific mutations of their melanin pigments. So yes, a redhead is a “mutant”, compared to someone with brown hair.
But then, by this measure we are all mutants. Nothing special here.
I happen to be reading Daniel C. Dennett’s ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ at present, so I’ll add an apposite quote from him:
Even more evidence has been acquired in the 25 years since the book was written. Dennett has some interesting ideas about natural selection as a series of algorithms.
Correction, Dennett’s book was published in 1995, 20 years ago, not 25.
See ask why the soft tissue isolated from T Rex wasn’t carbon dated, and that prompted me to try a little math.
Carbon dating uses the decay of C14, and C14 has a half life of 5730 years. if T Rex was 68myo, that means there would be 11867 C14 half life cycles. There needs to be at least 1 C14 atom left, otherwise all we could say is that the clock had run down.
How big of a sample of C14 would we need to be able to date a T Rex and have 1 atom left over? I fed 2E+11867 into my computer, and it couldn’t compute. I tried 2E+1867. Still no luck. However 2E+867 spit out 9.840E+260. Hey, that’s a result I can work with.
So how many atoms are there in the observable universe? This link http://www.universetoday.com/36302/atoms-in-the-universe/ says between 10E+78 to 10E+84. Dividing 2E+867 by 10E+84 says we’d need a sample 9.84E+178 times the size of the universe. Somehow, I don’t think they recovered that much soft tissue, or even just half that much.
Wiki tells me that “the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by radiocarbon dating are around 50,000 years ago”, and I doubt that anybody other that our YEC believes that T Rex was running around then.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
Johnny, are you suffering from the misapprehension that the age of fossils is determined by use of radiocarbon dating?
Wait–which johnny am I replying to?
There’s the one I’d believe thinks fossils are dated by C14 decay, and the one that might be trying to explain why they’re not.
Think i got the two confused…
JGC: I think Johnny was responding to the question sn offered in #308, when he was babbling about his 200,000% error in aging measurements.
I actually think the mix-up is with transubstantiation, which — chance being a fine thing — SN presumably believes in without having observed wine turn into blood.
However, just to forestall the tedious non-gotcha that might potentially follow from that limited-purpose parallel:
NO. I am not saying that evolution is a faith-based belief system, unsupported by fact or observation. As JGC notes, it has been observed.
@ Johnny (proper) #404
Not knowing/remembering much about C14 datation, my own hypothesis was that the scientists didn’t want to waste any amount of a precious, limited sample to get a negative result, just to placate some creationist id!ots who anyway wouldn’t accept it.
I didn’t realize that all the carbon of a full pack* of T-rex would not have been enough to get anything meaningful, even a reliable negative result.
On the other hand, Mr See No**, with his little “C-14 test would show positive results only for organic material less than 50,000 years old.”, would likely have known the answer, if he was any smart. Or not a troll.
Well, at least we are amusing the gallery.
* pride? flock? school? Ah, solitary predators. Bunch of?
** or Mrs See No, if anyone care.
@JGC –
Yah, I’m the one who was (infrequently) here first, and yes, I know fossils are dated by other means. My post above was a silly exercise, but once I started thinking about the problem and realized the numbers were really big, I had to follow thru just to show See how stupid the idea is.
I’ve thought about changing my ‘nym, but I figure Other johnny is going to try to get himself banned, and there is no way I’m going to let him ‘take’ my name. It is my real first name, and I’m gonna keep it.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
Ancestors? Inheritance in SN’s lineage runs in reverse temporal sequence? Perhaps that explains his difficulties understanding its consequences.
S.N.’s ingenious *koff* tactic – to the extent I can even try to salvage something coherent – was to point at a throwaway New Scientist item and then go staggering over the lea like a case of* Shetland “mushroom madness” as though the string landscape were somehow the last gasp of big bang cosmology.**
My still-waking-up (-and-not-for-long) comment itself was motivated by the big bang’s having, out of the box, a fine-tuning problem. This recent comment over at Peter Woit’s is something that I really need to follow down.
* Purported.
** There’s also some attempt to drag ΛCDM into it that I have no inclination to revisit.
Indeed, the Big Bang does have a fine-tuning problem.
However, as you know extremely well, there’s still extremely compelling evidence that it occurred, even though we don’t understand everything about it.
Update to my list in #283:
A minimum 360,000% discrepancy on the age of crustacean remains.
Title: “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of Soft Tissue”
“… The shrimp specimen is remarkably preserved; it has been phosphatized, and the muscles of the pleon have been preserved completely enough that discrete muscle bands are discernable.”
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1651/09-3268.1
It seems that just about every day I read a new ridicu, er, remarkable statement from the evolution establishment.
Here’s my quote for today.
You may have heard that popular (to some) song “It’s All About the Bass”? Well, this item is about the Cambrian Explosion, and I’ll title this
“It’s All About the A s s”:
“For many years scientists have debated whether the “Cambrian Explosion” was the result of more species suddenly developing or whether it was just the result of more remains being fossilized and found. In this new effort, the researchers suggest it might have had to do with the development of the anus and a through-gut.”
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-evidence-soft-tissue-fossilizes.html
P.S.
And did you ever wonder how the first organism with an anus handled things just before he/she/it evolved the anus?
It is now clear hat SN does not want to expose his view on when the species have been created. This is a fundamental problem, because we need theories to explain facts. If he really believes that creation of all species occurred in two days, then we are simply losing our time discussing theory with him.
And the goalposts shifted again.
Ask a starfish or an anemone.
To be fair to See Noevo, I don’t think it is their intention to offer an alternative hypothesis for what has been observed.
In their mind, casting doubt on the timelines of evolution is sufficient evidence to prove without a shadow of a doubt that God made it all as it exists now.
I don’t think it is their intention to offer an alternative hypothesis for what has been observed.
If cosmologists / astronomers / biologists are not in full agreement then they must be wrong leaving GODDIDIT as the only explanation.
If they are in full agreement then CONFORMIST GROUP-THINK.
@ Daniel Corcos
I am now fully cognizant why biology professors felt the need to call creationists “liars for Jesus”.
I am just baffled how these god-botherers can lie on a daily basis, being perfectly aware of it, and still think of themselves as good people.
“I am just baffled how these god-botherers can lie on a daily basis, being perfectly aware of it, and still think of themselves as good people.”
You really have to wonder how they believe that when you see what they say about people in the lgbt community, the poor, or people of the “wrong religion”.
ChrisP #418:
“In their mind, casting doubt on the timelines of evolution is sufficient evidence to prove without a shadow of a doubt that God made it all as it exists now.”
No.
Several points to be made here:
1) People will NEVER “PROVE without a shadow of a doubt that God made it all as it exists now.” However, science will NEVER “prove” that he didn’t. Even, scientists, or at least real scientists, would agree with me on this.
2) Does this mean science cannot proceed without proof? No.
3) However, in science’s (supposed) quest for truth and proof, “consensus” should be considered realistically. Consensus has no necessary relationship to truth; scientific consensus is useful and important probably ONLY as a means for deciding on urgent and necessary actions (e.g. A team of surgeons who MUST decide quickly, and with some uncertainty, which of several possible strategies to pursue in saving the patient on the operating table; The practical and prudent every-day consideration of the effects of gravity, even though the theoretical “why”s of gravity haven’t been proven.).
4) The consensus on evolution theory most definitely does NOT meet the above standard for being useful and important, because evolution theory involves no urgent and necessary actions. For example, I’ve already shown, or at least made the case, that evolution theory has absolutely zero impact on medical science (see #355), and I could say the same about its non-effect on our daily lives.
5) So, why then is this consensus on evolution pushed so hard by the evolution establishment? It’s obviously not for reasons of science or practicality. It must be for reasons which are non-scientific, philosophical, and even religious (or anti-religious).
6) And I smell a rat, a campaign of materialist philosophy dressed up as “science”. I don’t like rats, or falsehood. I’ll do what I can to exterminate them.
7) And I think you are correctly perceptive in saying anti-evolutionists like me are “casting doubt on the timelines of evolution.” The timeline is critically important, because time is all evolutionists have left. Time is the last “best” support for evolution, because the other supposed pillars (e.g. biology, genetics, paleontology) have been crumbling for decades.
Time. It’s almost like that good old song…
You don’t like falsehoods? But that’s all you have.
Incredibly sad that someone like See can exist in the 21st Century…..
@ SN
“The timeline is critically important”
Here I must agree with you: we all say several billion years, you say two days, it’s a strong discrepancy.
Lawrence@424 – What’s even more sad is that so many are elected to Congress.
To Lawrence #424:
Lighten up, Larry.
For goodness sak..,er, I mean, for something/whatever’s sake! There’s nothing to be sad about.
After all, aren’t you with ken #344 in seeing all this as a meaningless random evolutionary event?
And here is the classical confusion promoted by creationists.
True, science will never prove that there isn’t some paranormal entity watching over events, or interfering irregularly, in subtle ways.
And that’s used by navel-gazing people to claim that their mythology is thus exact.
Science shows “how”.
“Who” is a different question.
Just because we are self-aware & can delude ourselves with religious thought….doesn’t make the science any less clear.
Back in the day, in the caves and rudimentary villages, the person with the best skills (could make fire, best hunter, etc), was naturally made the leader – there was a concrete reason and benefit for that person to be in charge, because of his ability to help the people.
With the rise of the nation-state, suddenly the person in charge had no tangible benefits to offer the people. A Pharaoh or King’s authority rested on nothing – there was no real reason for one person to be in charge vs. another.
Therefore, the best way to solidify one’s authority to rule was to convince the population that authority came from the “Gods” or powers far beyond mortal man.
At the end of the day, we called it “religion” but it just as well could have been called anything or been anything…..and it just so happened that it dovetailed nicely with our propensity to see the supernatural in things that we don’t understand (like Earthquakes, lightning, meteors, comets, etc).
Even in today’s age, where we have the ability to circumnavigate the globe in hours, not days, have landed on the Moon, and collected evidence of the Billions of years of history of our planet – including new theories on the formation of the moon via massive collision between the Earth and another large planetary body, and the first evolution of aquatic species, anthropods, fish, amphibians, mammal-like reptiles, dinosaurs / pterosaurs, etc. and all down the line through mass extinction events which push species development in different ways – extending some while eliminating many others, to where we find ourselves today…a species that is both self-aware to achieve great things & also ignorant enough to blatantly disregard the entirety of the past.
Note you can substitute the word with “Leprechauns”, “Pixies”, “Fairies”, or any speculative supernatural entity of your choice in place of the word ‘god’ without altering the substance of this statement one iota.
FTFY, see: recall by definition scientific theories are not capable of being proven to be true, only capable of being falsified, and that confidence in scientific theories doesn’t derive from the possibility that they might one day in the future be proven to be true but by their ability to comprehensively and predictively address all observations within their scope.
This isn’t unique to gravity and physics, see: as has been pointed out, there are also practical and prudent everyday considerations associated with biology and evolution (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, etc.)
Some undefined ‘evolution establishment’ isn’t pushing to have evolution accepted, See. Sicentists and others who udnerstand what evolutionary theories actually state andpredict are instead opposing those (such as yourself) who despite failing to understand what they state and predict are offering invalid and often deliberately false arguments against evolution’s validity.
And again: this isn’t unique to biological evolution: those attacking the heliocentric model of the universe, big bang comsology, etc.,all get the same response.
See, you seem to be suffering from the mistaken belief that unless life arose as the result of a deliberate and purposeful act of creation it must be devoid of meaning. I don’t know whether to extend my sympathy or point my finger and laugh at the narrowness of your vision.
See @414, did you even read the abstract you linked to?
It doesn’t provide evidence that a discrepancy in dating fossil cryustaceans occurred: it instead describes the discovery of a fossil shrimp representing a new (and therefore previously undated) Devonian taxon.
@ JGC
Not the first time he is bearing false witness on this thread.
Which reminds me:
@ See Neovo
Yep, that’s us. Our main motto is “facing reality”. You should try it sometimes.
I just found a nice diagram summing up various forms of irrationality on the net’ . I will just leave it here:
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/05/27/irrational-measuring-stick-the-venn-diagram-of-nonsense/
Oh, goody, it’s a philosophical know-nothing on top of everything else.
SN,
That’s weird. All the science I survey tells me the exact opposite: the case for natural selection and evolution just gets stronger and stronger. Before Darwin everything was interpreted in terms of design, of teleology, because we had no other way of explaining our observations. We now have an elegant and parsimonious explanation for our observations of living (and once-living species) so we can abandon the concept of a supernatural designer. The “death of teleology”, I believe Marx called it.
Helianthus: “Not the first time he is bearing false witness on this thread.”
Which is why I don’t understand why See Noveo thinks we should care about his fact free rantings. Kind of ignoring him, and just reading the responses.
JGC@431 —
Yup — there’s a powerful tendency for people to believe that there must be some plane of existence that’s different from the physical, a plane which is “higher” in some sense. The idea that we are material beings who make our own meaning is viewed as deeply unsatisfying, even though there’s every indication that it’s true.
To JGC #430:
Me: “Does this mean science cannot proceed without proof? No.”
You: “Does this mean science cannot proceed without proof? [Yes]. FTFY, see: recall by definition scientific theories are not capable of being proven to be true, only capable of being falsified…”
You seem to have misunderstood my statement. Perhaps there were too many negatives. The same idea, stated positively, is “Does this mean science CAN proceed without proof? YES.” My statement was true. You didn’t FTFY anything.
“… there are also practical and prudent everyday considerations associated with biology and evolution (antibiotic resistance in bacteria, etc.)”
False. With biology maybe, but certainly not with evolution.
“Some undefined ‘evolution establishment’ isn’t pushing to have evolution accepted, See.”
I disagree. And I’m highly confident Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, among many others, would disagree.
“Now, can we expect you to identify your specific problems with the content on Don Lindsay’s website anytime soon?”
I’d love to. And to make this even better, I’ll do so for your very favorite part, when you identify it.
To JGC #431:
“See, you seem to be suffering from the mistaken belief that unless life arose as the result of a deliberate and purposeful act of creation it must be devoid of meaning.”
JGC, you seem to be suffering from the mistaken belief that ‘Life arose as the result of a meaningless random pre-evolutionary event’ is scientific.
To JGC #432:
“See @414, did you even read the abstract you linked to? It doesn’t provide evidence that a discrepancy in dating fossil cryustaceans occurred…”
Here’s part of what I read:
“The Oldest Shrimp (DEVONIAN: Famennian) and Remarkable PRESERVATION OF SOFT TISSUE”
“Discovery of a single specimen of a shrimp fossil from the DEVONIAN WOODFORD SHALE…The shrimp specimen is REMARKABLY PRESERVED; it has been phosphatized, and the MUSCLES of the pleon have been PRESERVED completely enough that discrete muscle bands are discernable…”
And I’ve read that the Devonian period, in which the Woodford Shale is said to have formed, was between 420 million years ago and 360 million years ago.
See doesn’t seem to know how to read, since the use of the word “preservation” in the article refers to the texture of the soft tissue being visible in the fossilized rock….very much like scientists were able to discern the actual scales on dinosaur hides that had been fossilized.
He really is desperate or just plain stupid.
It’s now clear exactly what SeeNo’s tactic is: Prevaricating and dissembling to prove his moral superiority.
It’s worked for Xianity for two centuries, why stop now?
There was also recent evidence found of the architecture of a dinosaur heart, as could be determined by the preserved structures in the fossilized remains.
Someone appears to need a semantic dictionary.
And going back and re-reading what See linked to, in no case does it state that “soft tissue” was found, only that soft tissue was preserved as part of the fossilization process – and this is important because most “soft” parts of animals quickly decay long before fossilization can begin.
In rare cases, the animal or organism is buried quickly enough or dies in an environment that degrades or prevents decay, so elements of the soft tissue, including the hide or outer skin might be preserved in the resulting rock formation.
That See doesn’t know this already or has blatantly ignored the words in front of his face is telling….no wonder he has to believe in an invisible sky fairy.
JGC:
Earlier you wrote that “but to answer [my] question I’m an observant Jew.”
I don’t know what question you’re talking about, but more importantly, I don’t know what YOU mean by “observant Jew.” Could you explain what an “observant Jew” is?
I have a feeling it’s like someone telling me he “observes” (i.e. believes in and seeks to uphold) the Constitution. That comforts me, but briefly. Because pretty soon I may discover he understands the Constitution very differently than me. For example, he may discern in it a right to privacy which morphs into a right to abortion. And I don’t.
See Noevo, every time you post lies, you damage the reputation of Christianity. Please stop.
Sn, since you don’t understand science it is no wonder you have no understanding of history, law, or the Constitution. I would hate to hear which civil rights laws you view as mistakes.
Don’t forget turning tail when his “discoveries” of years-old creationist drooling points collapse upon cursory examination (Enceladus, Reisz et al.)
Oh, c’mon, let’s have your analysis of Griswold, Rav.
To Lawrence #441:
“There was also recent evidence found of the architecture of a dinosaur heart, as could be determined by the preserved structures in the fossilized remains.”
Do mean this news story update
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/01/dinosaur-heart-broken/1#.VWYV50bw-IQ ?
As opposed to you, See, who I guess has never made a mistake in your entire life.
Seriously, you are doing more damage to Christianity than Dawkins ever could. Stop it.
@See – thank you for pointing out the correction. It was controversial at the time, so I’m glad they went back to check.
Still doesn’t help you cause or correct the fact that you really don’t seem to know what the word “preservation” means when used in the context of fossilization.
See Noevo re: your question @355 about medical breakthroughs requireing an understanding of evolutionary relationships: Knowing which animal models are appropriate for modeling specific human diseases and organ systems.
And re: 443 and not understanding what JGC meant by “observant Jew”. One, it’s called the internet., look it up. Generally it means “practicing”, and is used to differentiate from “cultural” or “non-practicing”. Two: where the heck do you live that you don’t know any Jewish people? The bottom of the sea?
“Seriously, you are doing more damage to Christianity than Dawkins ever could. Stop it.”
I know. He/she is making me cringe.
To Lawrence #450:
“… you really don’t seem to know what the word “preservation” means when used in the context of fossilization.”
I think when they used the term “preservation” they probably meant it in the same way these articles did:
“A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only PRESERVED soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0324_050324_trexsofttissue.html
And the 2005 findings have been confirmed. Or at least, as you would say, “I’m glad they went back to check.”
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-dinosaur-bone-cells-ancient.html
Gray Falcon #444 tells me
“See Noevo, every time you post lies, you damage the reputation of Christianity. Please STOP.”
Gray Falcon encores in #449 with
“Seriously, you are doing more damage to Christianity than Dawkins ever could. STOP IT.”
Shay #452 commiserates: “I know. He/she is making me cringe.”
Duly noted.
Thank goodness for the First Amendment, or for the relative freedom of the internet.
Seriously.
@See – at first, I really didn’t think you were that stupid, but unfortunately, you have confirmed it.
The “soft tissue features” were preserved during the fossilization process….meaning that the outlines of the various structures were still visible – like when the impressions of feathers were confirmed on the first archeopteryx skeleton.
Don’t tell me that you believe that the feathers were actually preserved & weren’t just impressions created during the fossilization process?
As to the second part, it merely confirms that small bits and pieces of cells can potentially survive, if tucked away, for millions of years.
Bacteria have been shown to have the ability to survive in space for extended periods of time as well – just really cool science & nothing to do with a fictional sky fairy.
@ Gray Falcon
My very thoughts.
Usually, my religious attitude tends toward lazy agnostic/mild deist.
Right now, the last thing I want is to join a religious congregation. No way I would accept the risk of meeting someone like SN.
Not because of his uncomfortable truths (or so he believes). But because he is ignorant and proud of it. Because he distort other people’s words and is proud of it. Because he lies and is proud of it.
If those are the moral values taught by his religion, I want no part of it.
Re: double negative, I beleive you’re correct and I misread your statement. It’s my own fault–I’ve grown to expect that you’ll fail to embrace any position I agree with.
Please explain to me how evolution does not inform our efforts to address antibiotic resistance in bacteria, see. Or are you going to argue it’s neither prudent nor practical to address that problem?
<blockquote.And I’m highly confident Eugenie Scott of the NCSE, among many others, would disagree.
Please explain he basis of your belief that Eugenie Scott would disagree, see–can you point to an editorial or opinion piece, a direct quote from an interview perhaps, where she expresses the belief than an ‘evolution establishment’ exists?
I’ve already rejected that approach, see. Simply identify specific problems you have with the content of Lindsay’s website, in any order you choose.
Re: the Devonian shrimp, what in the text you’ve quoted supports the conclusion that some discrepancy in dating fossil crustaceans has been discovered? I simply see the authors documenting the discovery of a remarkably preserved fossil from a previously undiscovered taxon.
a campaign of materialist philosophy dressed up as “science”
Wait, is “non-magic-driven” supposed to be a bad thing?
See, the First Amendment simply states that the government can’t have you arrested for what you’re saying. It doesn’t grant immunity to criticism.
Quoting Randall Monroe on the 1st amendment topic: Free speech
In your post @71 you asked
In your post at 80 you state
I was pointing out you’re wrong: my profession is scientist but my religion is Judaism (afer study I formally converted about a decade ago)
By ‘observant” I meant to indicate that I’m active in my religion: a member of a congregation who attends services, who has raised (and continues to raise) their children in the Jewish faith, etc.
Although what my religion has to do with evolution I’m at a loss to comprehend: the evidence in support of evolution doesn’t get any stronger if I’m religious or any weaker if I’m an atheist.
But you can’t possibly have thought that, see: the text you quoted @ 483 explicitly noted the soft tissues had been phosphatized.
Unless you didn’t know what the word ‘phosphatized’ means and were also too lazy to look it up…
Perhaps the Constitutional scholar will explain how the 1st Amendment applies in anyway to misrepresenting the teachings of your religion on an open forum where about half the posters aren’t in the United States.
Although what my religion has to do with evolution I’m at a loss to comprehend
It may make more sense if you recall that SN in #90 re-defines “religion” to mean “small furry animal” or “Holy Roman Empire” or something along those lines.
To JGC #432, JGC #462, Lawrence #439, Lawrence #455:
I have to admit, I think you got me here.
On this very issue I just wrote a mea culpa to eric over on http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/05/11/oppy-surveys-the-work-of-atheist-philosophers/
I’ll repost it here:
[[You’re probably right.
They probably should have said something like ‘The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of IMPRESSIONS of Soft Tissue’.
But it just said “Preservation of Soft Tissue”.
Can you even imagine a more misleading headline?
The creationists probably ran wild with it. The careless or stupid editor was inadvertently giving ammo to those crazy creat… wait…maybe the stupid headline was NOT inadvertent. Maybe it was a trick, getting creationists to take the bait of the headline, and then snapping the trap with ‘How stupid can you creationists be? Don’t you even read beyond the headline?’
But that’s getting a little crazy and conspiratorial. Better to think it was just an excusable mistake for a precision-minded science mag editor. Do you think he/she was fired?
Anyway, what a relief, huh?
I mean, how would you and they have possibly been able to explain the existence of soft tissue – not an imprint in bone/“stone” of soft tissue, but rather actual tangible soft tissue, in a fossil supposedly millions of years old? Or rather, 360 million years old.
Whew! Thank goodness you don’t have to do that. That would be a like a migraine and nightmare rolled into one. I mean, for an evolutionist.]]
Again, my apologies.
Please apologize again, See, this time without twisting people’s words.
re: #465 – It’s somebody else’s fault that you can’t read?
Indeed. The next time you feel the urge to say something like…
…I suggest you write that 100 times on a blackboard instead.
I mean, I suppose you could try adding “Not that I mean blood libel! Some Jews just cause me discomfort. No offense.”
Or some such thing.
But it’s your free speech. Do what you like with it.
Yep, obvious that he is incapable of comprehending the written word…seriously, he’s either incredibly stupid or more likely, just a Poe wrapped in a creationist garment.
Especially when the articles he cites explicitly refute the exact point that he’s trying to make…
At least you’ve conceded that you have no fυcking clue whatever about journals publishing, didn’t bother to read the paper, and get all your “discoveries” from stale creationist propaganda.
I don’t see why. A good headline should be readily understandable to pretty much everyone at or above a fifth-grade level of reading comprehension who’s willing to understand it.
And per those criteria, it’s a good headline.
Nope.
Papers in scientific journals don’t have “headlines,” much less “editors” who write them.
To JGC #457:
“Please explain to me how evolution does not inform our efforts to address antibiotic resistance in bacteria, see. Or are you going to argue it’s neither prudent nor practical to address that problem?”
Of course it’s practical and prudent to address antibiotic resistance in bacteria. But that is not addressing evolution. If it was, I’d believe in evolution, and so would everyone else. And I already spent some time explaining why. Go back and re-read #355, #374.
“Please explain he basis of your belief that Eugenie Scott would disagree, see–can you point to an editorial or opinion piece, a direct quote from an interview perhaps, where she expresses the belief than an ‘evolution establishment’ exists?”
Firstly, Eugenie is the recently retired CEO of the oddly-named National Center for Science Education (NCSE). I say oddly-named because as you can see from the website, it’s not really interested in “science education”, per se, but rather in “Defending the Teaching of Evolution & Climate Science”. http://ncse.com/about
“Her leadership skills will be sorely missed, says Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University. “She’s incomparable, irreplaceable, and indispensable,” says Miller, who was a key figure in one of the center’s most decisive victories, a 2005 court case that blunted an attack on evolution by the Dover, Pennsylvania, school district. Scott was masterful at BUILDING THE COALITION needed to win the case, he adds.” http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2013/05/eugenie-scott-retire-u.s.-center-fights-antievolution-forces
“The coalition” made up of her organization along with college professors, teachers, lawyers. And an adoring, anti-creationist/anti-ID mass media. And of course websites like this one.
One could call it the “evolution establishment”.
“Simply identify specific problems you have with the content of Lindsay’s website, in any order you choose.”
Just think how good it will be for you when you simply identify your favorite part of the content of Lindsay’s website!
P.S.
You said you formally converted to Judaism. What were your beliefs before the formal conversion? Were you just a cultural/non-practicing Jew, or something else? (I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s.)
To ann #471:
“I don’t see why. A good headline should be readily understandable to pretty much everyone at or above a fifth-grade level of reading comprehension who’s willing to understand it. And per those criteria, it’s a good headline.”
So, you think a smart fifth-grader, or pretty much everyone at or above a fifth-grade level of reading comprehension,
would see the headline “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of Soft Tissue” but understand it as
‘The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of IMPRESSIONS of Soft Tissue’.
Hmmm. Fascinating.
“I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s”
So that’s when you cast of all sense of integrity and became a serial liar.
@#474 —
There’s really no other non-bizarre/outlandish way to understand that headline. So yes, I do.
Also, in the event that #468 is unclear:
I’m asking what the hell you meant by that comparison, precisely.
Because the only Jeopardy! category I know of that includes both “People who are pro-abortion” and “People who are observant Jews” is “Some Say They’re Baby-killers!”
So if that’s what you mean, say so. Don’t be shy.
@#472 —
True that. Being kinda late to the thread, I was foolish enough to rely entirely on the characterization in the post I was responding to for my info. So I didn’t realize it was a journal publication.
…
I don’t think “headline” is a consequential error, in context. But the imaginary editors are pretty bad.
The “headline” isn’t a headline – it is the title of a paper published in a scientific journal. Halfway through the abstract is the word that conveys exactly what is meant to any professional who would read the journal.
Similar soft tissue preservation occurred in fossils of the Burgess Shale, discovered over a hundred years ago.
Sorry, I missed Narad’s post at 472.
SN is so completely indistinguishable from a multitude of creationists that I haven’t been paying much attention, especially since his request for a crockoduck.
^ crocoduck
No, I don’t imagine a smart fifth-grader would do that.
No, common as dirt.
^ “for one’s own idiocy”
If one suffered from a unique medical condition that caused one to experience a transient dissociative fugue whenever one encountered the words “needed to win the case,” maybe.
But if one was just reading and comprehending words in the usual way, one could not. One would have to figure it meant the coalition needed to win the case.
^^ By the way, since you’ve been busy making a complete jackass of yourself by frankly insinuating that the legitimacy of JGC’s beit din was open to your brain-dead inquisition, perhaps you stick to your own purported creed and assess whether your own antics amount to affected vincible ignorance.
Unless he’s quit fairly recently, Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic.
@See Noevo:
You seem to be under the impression that one must either believe in a personal Creator God who made the world (in six days, natch) with human beings in mind, “knew [each of us] in the womb,” has a grand purpose for Creation, has a personality, etc., etc., or that one must necessarily be of the opinion that the universe is a completely “soulless” and mechanistic place, we are all a bunch of robotic machinery, life is meaningless and trivial, etc., etc. These are two pretty specific positions, yet you’ve taken them as some sort of dichotomy, which seems to be what’s pushing you in this idiotic creationist direction. Has it ever occurred to you that there are other possibilities?
What is it that you find so compelling about creationism, anyway?
@#481 —
Thanks for bringing what I said into better alignment with reality.
^^^ “could stick,” but as it seems to have
devolvedspeciated into some of sniveling–simpering mutant with nothing left but to pretend that it has gradations of “easiness” in “target” choice, I’m not expecting anything anyway.Lilady would’ve had a field day with this one.
It would be a shame if this were to be forgotten:
This is truly amazing coming from someone who relies exclusively on low-rent Protestants for his very own material.
It is indeed curious that SN has chosen to be a creationist, as it certainly not a dogma of the Catholic Church. Hence my curiosity as to what he finds so compelling about creationism.
Well, I guess the same Church that gave us Pseudo-Dionysus (before the schism) also gave us Savonarola. So it goes.
^Pseudo-Dionysius.
It’s actually worse than that, as he has come very close to puporting to frankly redefine the Church’s position so as to extend monogenism to nonhumans.
In fact, his grandiosity early and easily took him so far as to declare “evolutionism” – which, in his definition, is neither more than less than speciation itself – to be a Christian heresy:
^ “more nor less than”
To Narad:
You win my Evolution Award of the Day, for most mutations (of grammar, spelling, clarity) per post.
Congratulations.
As usual, though, the mutations aren’t helping the… cause.
And just what do you presume the cause is, SN?
I’m sure it would be marginally entertaining were the Seenod to set forth its “analysis,” but you seem to have quite enough to try to slink away from on your pseudopods as it is.
See Noevo @473:
I’m a cradle catholic, and you’re embarrassing me. Evolution is accepted by the Catholic Church as was pointed out above. As for the “world created in six days”, the church had this discussion over a millennium and a half ago. The “six days” is regarded as an allegory for what really happened.
I apologise if I was responsible for any misunderstanding about the Catholic Church position on evolution. That was not my intention. My real intention was to point out that See Noeveo had a dogmatic position that was easily illustrated by their comment that the teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals was infallible.
I find such a position hard to square with recent events.
@ ChrisP
Yeah. Every human congregation is going to have a few bad apples. But when the hierarchy of said congregation engages willfully, repeatedly and in many countries in hiding those bad apples, the words “corruption” and “morally bankrupt” come to mind.
As my mom told me:
“It’s normal you are so upset about this. Those were supposedly the good guys!”
The current pope seems to wish to inject some morals sense back into the church hierarchy. For the sake of all, I hope he has some success.
Bonus: Chapatte did some good cartoons on the subject (number 4 and 5 in this page)
See, you didn’t know what the common phrase “observant Jew” meant, and didn’t bother looking it up. Don’t try acting like our intellectual superior when you fail at common knowlege and common sense.
I wish Pope Francis luck with reform, but I don’t hold any hopes. He did after all make George Pell the ‘treasurer’.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/africa/ethiopia-fossil-hominin-ancestor/index.html
Someone’s ark is full of holes.
See, we can only explain things to you. We can’t understand them for you as well.
If you don’t understand the content of an abstract or article, I suggest you don’t offer it in the blind hope it will support your argument.
If you don’t understand the meaning of a word like “phosphatized” or a term like “observant Jew”, I suggest you look them up before skipping over them or assigning them some idiosyncratic meaning.pulled from your nether regions.
Now, back to Lindsay: simply identify specific problems you have with the content on his website without any further prompting.
Do so within your next 3 posts, or I’ll have to conclude that the ONLY problem you have with the content is that it doesn’t support your preferred and predetermined conclusion that the biologically diverse living populations we observe could not have arisen as a result of evolution.
He’s literally a shanda fur die goyim.
It’s my very strong opinion that a person who did not intend to suggest that Jews were baby-killers would say so when asked, were the suggestion inadvertent.
So absent a disavowal, I think it’s more like he thinks he’s so intellectually superior that he can insult JGC to his face without risk of detection.
Humilitas homines sanctis angelis similes facit, et superbia ex angelis demones facit, though. Either way.
That is Catholic dogma, to be fair.
To a person of good faith and understanding, it might mean something quite lovely, in fact.
Clearly in most of the articles about dinosaur soft tissue preservation they are talking about structural preservation, but there is some evidence of survival of proteins or protein fragments – collagen for example. Even so, I don’t get SN’s obsession with preserved soft tissue. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that conditions may, very occasionally, be amenable to soft tissues surviving chemically intact for long periods without decomposition. We are just talking biological contamination, chemicals and temperatures here, after all. Why couldn’t fragments of rapidly freeze-dried muscle survive a hundred million years in dry enough, sterile, oxygen-free, dark, (partially) cosmic-ray-shielded conditions?
I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that the tissue isn’t as old as multiple other dating methods tell us it is. There’s a massive body of evidence that supports evolution and its chronology; a whole raft of interlocking, mutually supportive evidence from disparate scientific fields. Not even a living apatosaurus found in a swamp in the Congo is going to overthrow all that.
Oh look, a statement by one of the Evolution Establishment members!
– Who happened to go by the name Pope John Paul II.
IANAC*, but I figure it’s quite possible to believe that the teaching of the RCC on faith and morals is infallible, even if the Church itself totally sucks at following that teaching.
*Though I do speak as someone who is quite intimately familiar with the damage that, say, a particularly stupid and draconian form of Christianity can do to a person, a family, etc.
Further to the hypothesis that SN believes that he’s being exceptionally clever and subtle, when in fact he’s simply being exceptionally vile:
^^That’s not a distinction that means anything, from a Catholic perspective. (Because conversion.)
But if you’re a racial anti-Semite that’s not an option. People who are born Jewish are Jews, immutably and forever, just as crocodiles are crocodiles and ducks are ducks.
And from that perspective, if Jews are a problem, there’s only one solution and it’s final.
But possibly SN has another reason for caring whether or not JGC was born Jewish, and I’m just not smart enough to think of it.
I’m sure he’ll tell me if I owe him an apology, though.
Ann, as sn has made comments on other blogs that the “right” people aren’t having enough babies and the evil Moslems are trying to take over the world by having many babies, I think your suspicions about his views are on solid ground.
It is always these “Johnny-come-lately” religious apostles that seem to espouse the most radical and vitriolic of beliefs….so, I’m not surprised.
@#507 —
More or less. Infallibility is doctrinally specific to the Sacred Magisterium.
IANAC, either, btw. Jewish, in fact. Born that way.
@#509 —
Really? Well, there you go.
Scruple compels me to observe that just about every contemporary “-ism” there is has adherents who think their belief system entitles them to master-race status and/or privileges, whether effectively or actually.
Not excluding skepticism, sadly.
But it’s a catholic rather than Catholic thing. Is my point.
@ann:
It’s kind of a thing, unfortunately, among certain segments of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches – usually among converts, for whatever reason.
Possibly it’s because a lot (not all) of the people who convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy do so because they’re looking for a more “traditional” church because OH NO TEH GAYZ and the CULTURAL DECLINE or whatever.
Found it. It was on a discussion of why (in the view of sn) same sex marriage is wrong, will lead to all sorts of moral problems (he never specifies exactly what), and then this (it ends with a link to a bigoted/racist video I won’t include here)
@ JP:
Wasn’t Evelyn Waugh one of those?
@Denice Walter —
Honestly, that was such a common, unexamined belief in his day that by itself it wouldn’t necessarily mean much more than that he was a part of his culture, if so.
Not that it was admirable or inevitable. But it was kind of like wallpaper. Many people accepted it without thinking about what it meant. So to judge them by contemporary standards might be misleading.
Same for Roald Dahl. It’s just what they grew up on. What it meant to them is another question.
@JP —
I don’t know about that. The Orthodox Church still has blood libel saints, IIRC. It’s not just a convert’s tradition
But again, it doesn’t necessarily have the same import or implications for every individual.
@Denice:
Yeah. See also Rod Dreher. (His last name is pronounced “drear.” I kid you not.)
@ ann:
I didn’t mean about gay people-
actually, I don’t know exactly what he felt about them although he created gay characters.
I think he was ore of a general decline fellow, no?
one of THE general decline FELLOWS
@ann:
Well, it depends on a lot of things. The Serbian Orthodox Church, for instance, is very much concerned about the Muslims taking over, etc., though that is wrapped up in a lot of history and cultural baggage. Not that it excuses the way the Church, especially in the diaspora, tries to rewrite recent Balkan history to make the Serbs out to be the REAL victims. (I mean, it’s true that the Croats were pretty heinous during WWII, but that also doesn’t change what happened during the more recent Yugoslav Wars.)
I could go on at length about my problems with the Russian Orthodox Church and the way it’s sidled right up to Putin. A lot of the Russian Orthodox folks I personally know, though, are basically intellectuals of a certain age who pretty much became Christian as a way of sticking it to the man, and they tend to be pretty liberal on a lot of issues.
In general, the Orthodox Churches, taken together as a whole, tend to be fairly well educated and left-leaning, slightly moreso than Roman Catholics. There are certainly certain groups which are pretty draconian, like ROCOR, for example, but by and large they are pretty chill, and from what I’ve seen, anti-semitism is really not tolerated, although that might be different within some diaspora communities.
Islamophobia is a slightly different story, though, and it is often a convert thing. (Converts tend to be generally super into being as conservative as possible, and often annoy the pants of the “cradle Orthodox.”) I don’t have any data at hand to show, but I could tell you numerous anecdotes.
^ The Orthodox Churches within America, taken together as a whole, I had meant to specify.
To Julian Frost #497:
“I’m a cradle catholic, and you’re embarrassing me.”
Join the horrified herd, including Gray Falcon #444, #449, shay #452.
Thanks for the disclosure, but saying you’re a “cradle Catholic” tells me nothing other than you started well. Are you a true Catholic now? That is, do you believe in and strive to follow ALL that the Church has taught and required on faith and morals?
“As for the “world created in six days”, the church had this discussion over a millennium and a half ago. The “six days” is regarded as an allegory for what really happened.”
Perhaps you can help me here. I’ll repeat what I posted earlier:
I’ve been trying to get an answer on this for years, but without success. It’s Genesis 1:14. “And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for SEASONS and for DAYS and YEARS.” I’ve been trying to see how this relates to the six “days” of Genesis 1. Specifically, since the author is already acknowledging names for periods of much greater than a day (i.e. seasons, years), why wouldn’t he use these longer periods for the creation sequence (e.g. ‘So God created the beasts of the field over MANY YEARS, a fifth SEASON’.)? Why would the author use “fifth DAY”, instead, and go out of his way to define “day” six times (i.e. “And there was evening and there was morning, a X day.”)?
Have you seen any scholarly work on this specific question regarding Gen 1:14 vis-à-vis the other Gen 1 verses?
Hmm.
Well. Assuming that SN’s failure to respond means he so lacks the courage of his convictions that he can’t acknowledge them openly, he’s also apparently a sad hypocrite who can’t respect himself.
Why, only nine days ago, as he posted elsewhere:
FWIW, Catholicism holds that when the hypocrite is motivated by an end that’s incompatible with the love of God and his/her neighbor, hypocrisy is a mortal sin.
But who’s counting?
To ChrisP #498:
“My real intention was to point out that See Noeveo had a dogmatic position that was easily illustrated by their comment that the teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals was infallible. I find such a position hard to square with recent events.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about because your link is for subscribers only.
I’ll ask you a favor:
Would you please provide here just ONE “EVENT” which you think contradicts the Church’s infallibility? Your favorite, most heinous one. But just ONE.
Please?
Hey, See. I’ll bite. Find me the mid-eastern culture the Genesis stories were ripped off from (I know which, but wonder if you do, or if you think the Bible was born with 56 books, etc).
Then we’ll discuss translations, language mutations, and storytelling. And I’ll discuss with you how mankind really came from a cow licking on a salt lick.
SN: Let me help you out here.
According to your statement, your church is infallible on matters of faith and belief.
Your church says your concerns about Genesis 1:14 are misplaced. It is allegory, nothing else. Case closed, if one is to accept your premise that the church is infallible.
Or does your continued questioning reflect your doubts about the infallibility of the church?
Because it’s been rewritten during the numerous translations and updates?
More importantly, why should we be concerned about something that is merely a myth, without basis in reality?
Well, given that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs or amended core principles over the centuries, I’m not quite sure how you can even begin to make that statement…..
That doesn’t even scratch the surface of the various scandals over the centuries either – the Anti-Popes, the wars, the Crusades, the politics, the assistance to the Nazis, etc.
Certainly doesn’t put a lot of faith in the whole “infallibility” concept.
Oh, and that whole belief that the Universe revolved around the Earth? Yeah, not so much.
Or better yet, stories that were told and written (the Story of Gilgamesh, for example) long before they were put into the Old Testament which were copied almost verbatim from the earlier civilizations……
Or the historical findings of the Black Sea flooding that would account for the original “Flood” stories told by numerous Middle Eastern early civilizations.
This is where the learned individual passes well beyond the fanatic. Since you lack context, you cannot appreciate the development and nurturing of these myths as a panacea to these young societies – and as I said before, religion was a means for the ruling class (or just ruler) to justify his / their positions and add legitimacy.
On the face of it, it’s an excessively narrow question that has little if any potential for illuminating any conflict of great moment and import to Catholic faith and doctrine. So I wouldn’t imagine there’s a great deal of it.
I mean, Ecclesiasticus 8:1 says that creation occurred in an instant. Always has. Always will. So I don’t know why you or anyone would think the definitive answer to the question of how long it took was in Genesis 1:14.
Assuming your reason for asking is both faith-based and Catholic. I can see an ex Cathedra — ie, a creationist — reason. Obviously;
It’s an article of faith, as you know. Why are you even asking, if you profess it?
Did you miss my response @388?
That’s post # 1 without addressing the content of the Lindsay website, by the way (or as Narad would likely say “Strike 1”).
And your post @ 524 would be strike 2…
BTW, I note that you’re speaking as if Genesis was the work of a single author–are you really unaware that isn’t the case?
@JGC – isn’t there about 4 different creation stories within Genesis, if you actually parse out the text?
There is also the various differences in the Talmud vs. the Old Testament as well.
Re: falsification of infallibility with respect to ffaith and morals, i’ll offer Pope Honorius I (625 to 638), who affirmed as a matter of faith the doctrine of monothelitism (that Jesus had only one will). Monothelitism was declared heretical about 50 years later by the Council of Constantinople, where the newly appointed pope,Leo II (682 to 683), publicly condemned Honorius II for undermining the faith of the Church.
So we’re talking one pope making a supposedly infallible pronouncement on a matter of faith (i.e.,the true nature of Jesus) and a later Pope condemning that pronouncement as heresy.
@See Noevo:
Yes.
It’s an easy way to simplify. There’s a joke that explains it best.
A man was praying and asked, “God, how long to you is a thousand years?”
To his surprise, God answered “A moment.”
Startled, but encouraged, the man asked “And how much to you is a million dollars?”
Once again God replied, saying “A penny.”
The man then asked”In that case, may I have a million dollars, God?”
“In a moment” replied God.
No.
Genesis offers two different creation accounts, one in chapter 1 and 1 in chapter 2, that disagree about the order in which entities were created. For example, in Chapter 1 godc reates animals first, then Adam and simultaneously (male and female created him both”), etc. while in chapter 2 god creates Adam first, animals next and Eve days later.
But you’re correct that the first 5 books of the Torah were created by redacting and combining elements of at least 4 separate sources authored over a period of about 450 years known as ( from oldest to youngest) the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly sources.
Oh, look, a self-appointed ecclesiastical judge. Perhaps the Seenod should review the Summa.
I note that you’re speaking as if Genesis was the work of a single author
Not to mention the multiple, multiple translations.
See,
If you go up a bit from your excessively narrow demand wrt Genesis, you will see a statement by the Pope on the subject of evolution. Do you consider yourself a better or more authoritative source on Catholic doctrine than John Paul II?
To ann #508:
Yes, you owe me an apology.
…….
To ann #504:
“It’s my very strong opinion that a person who did not intend to suggest that Jews were baby-killers would say so when asked, were the suggestion inadvertent. So absent a disavowal, I think it’s more like he thinks he’s so intellectually superior that he can insult JGC to his face without risk of detection.”
This is rich. I’ll make several points:
In the post you’re referencing (#443), I never used the words “baby-killer.” I used the word “abortion”.
I used the stark example of abortion to show how very different two people can be with the same “label” (e.g. observant Jew, Constitutionalist). As a further example, Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic”, but she’s not really Catholic, because she supports abortion and abortion rights. She has effectively excommunicated herself.
I definitely do NOT believe, nor did I suggest, that “Jews were baby-killers.” I can’t believe any sane person on earth would think that.
I am very confident, however, SOME Jews support abortion, just as some self-identified Catholics support abortion.
I never said or suggested that JGC supports abortion. Because I really don’t know whether JGC supports abortion.
HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?
To Krebiozen #505:
“It seems perfectly reasonable to me that conditions may, very occasionally, be amenable to soft tissues surviving chemically intact for long periods without decomposition.”
Yes, if you’re not a geologist or taphonomist AND have no common sense.
Just don’t read up too much on it, and stay in your bubble, free of trouble.
The fossilization bubble is quite like the evolution bubble. Both are not concerned with conflicting details or scientific contradictions. There, it’s safe to say “It just happened” or “We just KNOW it evolved.” And “Details to be worked at later. Or never.”
Quite like the so-called “God of the gaps”.
But it’s “Evolution of the gaps.” Or “65 million year inexplicable preservation of the gaps.”
It’s like, whatever. Just so you agree evolution is true.
Pretty pathetic, coming from someone whose “reading up” consists of no more than barfing up ICR, etc., propaganda without so much as bothering to examine the actual material that’s being “invoked.”
I see that SeeNoevo didn’t respond to my example of “medical things you need evolution for” (animal models), so See Noevo must agree with me! (Or doesn’t have a snappy comeback.)
Here’s another bit of evolution in medicine: the function of the immune system and the balance between auto-immune disease and cancer.
As a side note, See, do you categorize Episcopalians and Anglicans as Protestants, or semi-Catholics? Because they don’t have problems with evolution, just like the RCC.
Cross-out test cross out test.
And with posts @ 541 and 542, we have four posts where you’ve failed to identify the problems you have with the content on David Lindsay’s “Eye” website.
I must therefore conclude the only problem you have with the content is that it doesn’t support your preferred and predetermined conclusion that the biologically diverse living populations we observe could not have arisen as a result of evolution.
What authority do you presume you possess to determine who does and does not represent a ‘real’ Catholic?
To Opus #526:
Let me help you out here, while at the same time I’ll try out the new internet slang thing I learned here – “FTFY”.
“According to your statement, your church is infallible on matters of faith and **belief** morals.” FTFY. (Cross-out not working. The ** ** will have to serve in lieu of cross out.)
“Your church says your concerns about Genesis 1:14 are misplaced. It is allegory, nothing else. Case closed, if one is to accept your premise that the church is infallible. Or does your continued questioning reflect your doubts about the infallibility of the church?”
I have no doubts about the “infallibility of the **church** Church.” FTFY.
I’m not aware of the Church declaring infallibly that Genesis is “allegory”, that Catholics MUST consider it ONLY allegorically. Virtually all of the Church Fathers, as well as virtually all Christians for the first 1800 years after Christ, considered Genesis historical.
However, EVEN IF the word is used, “allegory” does not necessarily exclude the use of actual, historical people and events. The real people and events would simply carry greater meaning, far beyond the immediate impact to those particular people and events. The Church says, for example, that the original sin of Adam and Eve actually happened, and that the Genesis account “affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.”
To multiple addressees…
To Lawrence #528:
“Well, given that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs or amended core principles over the centuries, I’m not quite sure how you can even begin to make that statement…”
One example, please. Ideally, your best, most compelling example. Just one.
…
To ann #530:
“I mean, Ecclesiasticus 8:1 says that creation occurred in an instant.”
What verse do you mean?
I’m pretty sure the actual Ecclesiasticus (aka “Sirach” or “Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach”) 8:1 is “Do not contend with a powerful man, lest you fall into his hands.”
And Ecclesiastes 8:1 is “Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man’s wisdom makes his face shine, and the hardness of his countenance is changed.”
…
To JGC #532:
Me: “I’ve been trying to get an answer on this for years, but without success.”
You: “Did you miss my response @388?”
No, I didn’t miss it.
BTW, “the text uses the Hebrew word **‘yod’** ‘yom’ modified by an ordinal…”
FTFY.
“… That’s the reason we find two separate and contradictory accounts of creation, for example, present in Genesis.”
There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.
No one, however, is saying “We just know it evolved”, are they? Instead what’s being said is “A very, very large body of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry (the fossil record; fossil transitional series; nested hierarchy of species; genetic and peptide homologies; convergence of independent phylogenies; conserved retroviral insertions, transposons, psuedogenes; SNAP’s; homologous anatomical features; atavisms; vestigial structures; patterns of biogeographic distribution…etc) best supports the conclusion that the biological diversity we observe arose as a result of evolution.
And there’s also the fact that we’ve directly observed evolution to create new species populations by descent from pre-existing ancestral ones, in real time, both in laboratory settings and uncontrolled in the wild. Please note that by definition these observations represent macro-evolution.
There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.
The fact that you believe that to be true speaks volumes about your level of delusion.
I strongly suspect that mere speciation is also inadequate in the view of the Office of the Holy Seenod, because it would allow one to get away with, e.g., this whereas they’re still bacteria.
See, was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) states or before</i all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?
Were Adam and Eve created at the same</i time (Gen 1:25-27) or at different</i times (Gen 2:18-22)?
<blockquoteThere is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.
See, was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) or before all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?
Were Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen 1:25-27) or atdifferent times (Gen 2:18-22)?
..
One example, please. Ideally, your best, most compelling example. Just one.
There’s that reading comprehension problem of his, again. Although, I suppose if he refuses to read it then he can keep claiming that it doesn’t exist.
Do you consider yourself a better or more authoritative source on Catholic doctrine than John Paul II?
This is not a problem for Sedevacantists.
See Noevo has also fallen into the No True Scotsman pit.
One can only be a ‘True Catholic’TM if one agrees with See Noevo on everything. Which makes the ‘True Catholics’TM a very small minority.
I find it hard to take the infallibility of an organisation seriously when their response to internal complete moral failure is to try and hide it by moving the perpetrators so they can do it all again. This is not just one or two individuals, but seems to have gone right to the top of the Catholic Church in Australia.
I am aware that this is not the Catholic Church as a whole and most Catholics are appalled at the goings on, but it is impossible for an organisation to claim any sort of moral high ground when the hierarchy is so corrupt. Rather like FIFA actually.
Aside from the small issue of Humani Generis.
Yes, I know. I don’t think anyone was confused about that.
That’s not your call to make. She hasn’t been excommunicated. You and she therefore share a mystical union with one another, Christ, and the Church, in fact.
Per Catholic teaching. I mean, you can reject it if you wish. But according to you, you then wouldn’t be a real Catholic.
I very sincerely apologize for briefly concluding otherwise earlier today.
A lot of people think that, as they have for centuries. It’s one of the marquee beliefs of Christian anti-semitism, historically. And if you don’t agree with it, it really can’t hurt to be sensitive to that. Or at least aware of it.
Nevertheless. I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.
@ Justatech
Speaking of cancer, several years ago oncologists renewed the topic about how cancer cells themselves are subject to evolution by debating about cancer stem cells and clonal evolution.
I found it a fascinating topic, although it’s slightly outside my own scientific field.
But too dense to figure out the typo, apparently.
@ ChrisP
From what I have learned, it has been on-going for more than 4 decades.
At some point in the last years, some Catholic officials tried to shift the blame to these sex-crazy hippies in the 60’s. It didn’t take well. To start with, hippies generally weren’t that open-minded (with a few exceptions, I guess).
Please 🙂 The people at FIFA were just playing with money. They didn’t try to hide that Jo the Coach was bumping a 7-year old poussin in the showers. Repeatedly.
(although, as the FIFA situation is just starting to develop, I’m not sure what else will be discovered under the mud)
Coming from people who spit fire at the idea of two adult men living together, the active protection of child abusers is really hypocrite, to say the least.
TBH, the whole idea of celibacy for parish priests is really stupid and should be abolished. Well, it never should have been instituted a thousand years ago – it’s a shame the Latin Church got cheap and decided not to support priests’ wives anymore.
I mean, pedophiles tend to be attracted to “pillar-of-the-community” type roles anyway, but I can’t see how the celibacy requirement doesn’t add fuel to the fire, and dissuade people with healthy sexualities from joining the priesthood. There’s nothing specifically Catholic about it – the Eastern Rite Churches have married priests.
^ It is absolutely heinous the way the Church has protected pedophile priests, of course. It is also heinous and really dumb that they don’t seem to be terribly open to serious structural changes that might be in order.
@549 —
Sorry, typo. I meant Ecclesiasticus 18:1, “He that liveth forever created all things together.”
It looms large in hexameral literature, as central to Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, who taught that it meant creation was instantaneous and simultaneous, and who are — incidentally — two of the foremost scholars to have examined the question of how long creation took, if it’s scholarship you’re looking for.
However, it’s kind of a moot point, since from your POV, their teachings on morals and faith are infallible, according to you.
@ See Neovo
ChrisP and myself were talking about these events.
Again, just to be clear: there will be sexual deviants in every community.
The fact which is irking me, ChrisP, and I hope the vast majority of Catholic people, is that leaders of the Catholic church did a less than sterling work at keeping these deviants away from children.
I can not accept taking moral lessons from these types of people. I have higher expectations of people whose moral opinion I should trust.
Meaning: They were both bishops in communion with the pope. Their teachings on morals and faith are authentic teachings of the Church.
@ JP
I suspect there could be some sample bias here, yes.
@#567 —
I understand what you’re saying. But…Yikes! What I just said was in error. BRB.
One can only be a ‘True Catholic’TM if one agrees with See Noevo on everything. Which makes the ‘True Catholics’TM a very small minority
That excludes every pope since Pius XII.
Sorry, wasn’t thinking. Their teachings on morals and faith require religious submission of intellect and will from you.
Is what I meant to say.
That excludes every pope since Pius XII.
There are nominally-catholic loons who make that exclusion.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm#.VWfFraLTSPs
Some of them are even creationists.
@#567 —
As I was saying when interrupted by my own stupidity:
The infallibility only applies to authentic teachings of the Church on morals and faith, the power to dispense which is uniquely and exclusively vested in the pope and bishops in communion with him.
But that doesn’t mean everything they say and/or do in connection with morals and faith is infallible. There are rules, procedures, and criteria.
Most of it is just authoritative, which still doesn’t mean that if SN has other ideas about who is or isn’t really a Catholic or what is and isn’t really Catholicism, he gets to overrule it all on his owns-y.
It just means that a subsequent authority might.
^^That’s kind of reductive. But my basic point is that the doctrine of infallibility doesn’t mean that they’re globally morally infallible as a matter of doctrine.
To multiple addressees…
To JGC #535:
“So we’re talking one pope making a supposedly infallible pronouncement on a matter of faith (i.e.,the true nature of Jesus) and a later Pope condemning that pronouncement as heresy.”
“Supposedly” is the key word, though probably not in the way you intended. Honorius’ pronouncement was NOT infallible teaching.
I don’t have the time now to go through this. I haven’t read through all of this but you can give it a try: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm
…..
To Julian Frost #536:
Me: “Have you seen any scholarly work on this specific question regarding Gen 1:14 vis-à-vis the other Gen 1 verses?”
You: “No.”
I thought so.
To JGC #537:
You: “… That’s the reason we find two separate and contradictory accounts of creation, for example, present in Genesis.”
Me: “There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.”
You: “Genesis offers two different creation accounts, one in chapter 1 and 1 in chapter 2, that disagree about the…”
Oy vey! I’m getting a headache!
I need to take a break, and get my mind off all this stuff. Get away from all this heavy religious and scientific and morality stuff.
Before I go for something to eat, I’d like to broach something completely different, and personal. And maybe get some advice from you.
I may be considering writing a biography of Eli Manning. You know, the quarterback for the New York Giants. I have a rough outline for the first two chapters. Please tell me what you think.
Chapter 1:
Eli was born 1/3/81.
Seven years later he began to take a keen interest in playing football.
Seven years after that, he began to excel in the game at Isidore Newman High School.
Seven years after this, he was well on his way to building an impressive college career at Ole Miss.
Seven years later, he had already won the first of his two Super Bowl rings!
Chapter 2:
Eli Manning quarterbacked the New York Giants to Super Bowl Championships in 2007 and 2011.
He’s definitely a candidate for eventual Hall of Fame status. What a professional football career!
Now, Eli learned many valuable lessons about football and about life in high school.
And then, he had a brother, Peyton, who also had a great influence on him.
That’s all I have so far. I’ve never written a book before, so I could use some advice.
I was wondering, does anyone out there think I should re-order the Chapter 2 stuff? I mean, you don’t think anyone would misread it and think Eli went to high school and received a sibling AFTER he won the two Super Bowls do you? No way. Maybe I’m just being paranoid. Hey, gimme a break. I’m just a novice at this.
Anyway, I’d appreciate your (or anyone’s) feedback.
Now I got to feed my hunger.
Once again, I don’t think Sin Novitas would find any refuge there, either.
You’re right. There is no such teaching.
That’s wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right, and a disservice to both tradition and understanding, to boot.
It seems like you can’t imagine anything or anybody greater than yourself doing anything. Including (specifically) making divine revelations.
That’s kind of a handicap.
I’m torn between invoking the Tischreden and the triteness of Arkell v. Pressdram, but I’m also not interested enough to expend any creative effort in service of this sham.
Once you concede simul in this fashion, though, there’s not much left of the simultaneity-as-contradiction position.
How do you figure? I can’t really see how “all things” could be created “together” unless they were also created “at once.”
I mean, I personally find the past tense in the passage to be pretty much nonsensical, but IA definitely NAC.
Are there any decent attestations of κοινός having such a temporal sense?
To JGC #547:
Me: “As a further example, Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic”, but she’s not really Catholic, because she supports abortion and abortion rights.”
You: “What authority do you presume you possess to determine who does and does not represent a ‘real’ Catholic?”
I don’t have the authority and don’t need to have the authority. I just need to read – read FROM the authority, the Catholic Church. It’s quite objective, and it’s not rocket science (e.g. CCC paragraphs 2271, 2272).
It’s kind of like a person named Nancy saying she’s a “Phillies fan”, but you find out Nancy actually will root for other Major League teams. Sometimes Nancy will even root for the other team when they’re playing the Phillies! Nancy may say she’s a “Phillies fan”, but she’s not a real Phillies fan.
It’s not rocket science.
To JGC #550:
“No one, however, is saying “We just know it evolved”, are they? Instead what’s being said is “A very, very large body of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry…
“(the fossil record; fossil transitional series…”
Everyone agrees we have fossils. It’s the INTERPRETATION of fossils that gets rocky. And the term “transitional” is ridiculous. As I wrote recently:
[I think the evolutionary community needs to do a better job of word choice. To denote a fossil as “transitional” adds nothing to the conversation. Because in evolution, EVERY fossil, and indeed every living thing, is “transitional”. That is, everything is or was in the process of becoming something else. For evolutionists, YOU are a transitional species. (They just don’t know with certainty what human beings transitioned FROM and have no clue what humans are transitioning TO.) “Intermediate” is just as inadequate. A ’tweener or in-between’er? In any case, the term requires it be coupled with the specific pre and post things.]
“… nested hierarchy of species…”
Nested hierarchy: “Common ancestry is conspicuous. Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies…” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml
“…genetic and peptide homologies…”
Homology, per Merriam-Webster: “1. a similarity often attributable to common origin. 2. A likeness in structure between parts of different organisms…due to evolutionary differentiation from a corresponding part in a common ancestor.”
“… convergence of independent phylogenies…”
Phylogeny, per M-W: “1. the evolutionary history of a kind of organism. 2. the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism.”
“… pseudogenes…”
Pseudogene: “A pseudogene is a DNA sequence that resembles a gene but has been mutated into an inactive form over the course of evolution. A pseudogene shares an evolutionary history with a functional gene and can provide insight into their shared ancestry.” http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=pseudogene
“… vestigial structures…”
Vestigial structure: definition: I’ll give you one guess.
Do you see a pattern here, JGC?
Do you understand why many people besides yourself would see the above as “We’re certain evolution is true because we find things that evolved, by definition”?
It’s begging the question/tautological/circular reasoning. It’s not science.
“Please note that by definition these observations represent macro-evolution.”
Oy! Get some rest, JGC.
To multiple addressees…
To ann #566:
“I meant Ecclesiasticus 18:1, “He that liveth forever created all things together.”
My Bible (RSV-CE) reads “He who lives forever created the whole universe.”
Other translations are similar or identical: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Sirach%2018%3A1
I don’t see anything in conflict with Genesis 1. But I’m not a Scripture scholar, or a scholar of ancient Biblical languages.
I know Augustine posited an instantaneous creation, or one day instead of six. (Most, perhaps all, other Church Fathers went with six 24-hour days.) Augustine also had some rather unorthodox ideas regarding life in the womb, as I recall. Neither of these Augustinian views are infallible teaching.
And frankly, the idea of allowing one verse, especially the innocuous Sirach 18:1, to trump all those in Gen 1 & 2 seems ludicrous. (St. Augustine, pray for me and us anyway!)
….
To Helianthus #567:
“ChrisP and myself were talking about [Catholic Church sexual abuse cases].”
OK. But that does not change the infallibility of the Church’s teaching.
“The fact which is irking me, ChrisP, and I hope the vast majority of Catholic people, is that leaders of the Catholic church did a less than sterling work at keeping these deviants away from children.”
I agree. In fact, I’m fairly confident I’m much more irked than you on this.
“I can not accept taking moral lessons from these types of people. I have higher expectations of people whose moral opinion I should trust.”
This strikes me as not too dissimilar from a person who decides never to call 911 in an emergency, and, in fact, would do away with police departments and law enforcement in general. Because he read about corrupt cops, some at the highest levels.
I’ll wait for you to read through all of it and present a coherent argument why Honorius’ affirmation of the doctrine of monothelitism can not be considered to represent a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith.
Re: your proposed autobiography, if you’re attempting an analogy for Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, you’ve failed. A valid analogy would have the first two chapters of your biography presenting the same information while stating they occurred in two different and contradictory sequences of events.
Something like:
Chapter 1:
Eli was born 1/3/81.
Seven years later he began to take a keen interest in playing football.
and
Chapter 2
Eli began to take a keen interest in playing football on
1/3/81.
Seven years after that, he was born.
So you don’t forgot the questions you’ve been asked to answer to while you take that ‘break’, I’ll repeat them:
Was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) or before all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?
Were Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen 1:25-27) or a tdifferent times (Gen 2:18-22)?
You owe me a new irony meter, see.
Funny, you had to be dragged through the freaking woods to get to this proclamation.
No, I was just doing a lazy Indo-European thing in my head.
In fairness to the church, it wasn’t cheapness that led to this but concerns about possible nepotism. The pope feared that priests would favour their own children for elevation to the priesthood and promotions. While I see the point, I agree that celibacy is a dreadful solution.
Well, if the local cops are corrupt, up and including their bosses, would you really hope they will help you?
More precisely, would you trust them to give you or your kids good advice on how to behave properly and honestly?
That’s a charitable interpretation of things, but given that 4/5 of the Church was doing just fine with married priests who had kids and all at the time the decision was made, I don’t buy it.
There might be some possible explanations behind the decision besides just the financial matter of supporting wives (or even concubines) and children of priests, like the fact that people who don’t boink just seem a little “holier,” which lends them an additional aura of power. Call me cynical, but I have a very hard time believing that there was anything actually high-minded that went into the decision. I mean, concern that married priests having families might lead to nepotism doesn’t make any logical sense when you consider that it was a change to nearly a thousand years of traditional practice with Biblical precedent.
^ The tradition (of married priests) had Biblical precedent, that is, not the change. (1 Timothy 3:2)
As does the Roman church, so long as they’re converts.
Well, the Eastern Rite Churches are also Roman, just not Latin Rite.
But yeah, pedantry aside, I once met one of the priests who was “grandfathered in” from the Episcopal Church, so to speak, and his wife.
To JGC #587:
“I’ll wait for you to read through all of it and present a coherent argument why Honorius’ affirmation of the doctrine of monothelitism can not be considered to represent a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith.”
The bad news is I still haven’t read that newadvent article.
The good news is I read your sentence above and can declare your wait is over!
Because “a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith” is not what defines infallibility.
“Re: your proposed **autobiography** biography…” FTFY.
“Was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) or before all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?”
I think he was created after the animals and on the same day as the animals. Gen 2 is a reflection on the creation with different emphases (e.g. Gen 2:7-8; Gen 2:15), emphases other than the ordinal.
Hey, I can imagine someone developing a new theory. Call it the “two Lords/two Adams/two gardens theory.” Here’s why:
The first of the two: “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” [Gen 2:7-8]
Then, seven full verses later, the second of the two: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” [Gen 2:15]
So two different Lords, Adams and gardens.
Have you heard anyone espousing this theory?
“Were Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen 1:25-27) or a tdifferent times (Gen 2:18-22)?”
Different times. Adam first.
To Julian Frost #591:
“I agree that [priestly] celibacy is a dreadful solution.”
Some old bachelors might disagree:
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” [Mat 19:12]
“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” [1 Corinthians 7:32-35]
Priestly celibacy is a DISCIPLINE of the Church, NOT a dogma. A discipline CAN be changed, although this one is unlikely to. The Catholic Church does have some married priests. Currently though, a man may not marry AFTER he is ordained.
Given that everybody else is well ahead of you, perhaps you could get back to addressing your pile of earlier failings rather than further noising up the joint with cut-and-paste blobs.
Thanks for the correction; I remembered that earlier, but my attention had shifted to working on something for my own church.
Since JPII and Benedict took an active hand in developing procedures to protect the guilty, with the higher motive of protecting what the church really favors, money, “less than sterling work” is one of the largest understatements in history (I know you were not downplaying anything relating to the pedophile coverups the leadership engaged in)
Pope Francis was more or less elected purely because he was about the only man they could find that wasn’t connected to the scandal.
That is very, very wrong. Shockingly so. You do not have the authority.
Interesting how proper doctors are now using Bechamp’s work instead of Pasteur’s with the new hyjack a virus to kill cancer. Soon they will realise that all those clever attempts to prevent childhood viruses is what is behind the increases in cancer.
SNE quoted approvingly:
“And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit . . .”
Human nature never changes – all one has to do is look at Facebook or twitter to realize young teenage women are primarily interested in the affairs of the Lord.
/sarcasm off/
Actually, the bad news is that you believe providing a citation to an article you haven’t even read constitutes a valid defense of a claim you’ve made.
So you reject the Catholic Church’s doctrine of papal infallibity when speaking on matters of morals and faith??
I.e., that the account in chapter 1 is correct and the account in chapter 2 is incorrect.
I.e., the account in chapter 1 is incorrect and the account in chapter 2 is correct.
Clearly you can only believe that the two accounts are not only contradictory but that neither account is accurate.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I’ll address your problems with biology @585 once hI’ve had sufficient caffiene.
That’s flatly wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right.
Additionally, since they’re all equally authoritative and no one reading is infallible, what that unambiguously means is that it’s the authentic teaching of the Church that Genesis cannot be construed as decisive proof of a singular set of historical and/or scientific facts about creation.
That doesn’t mean you can’t give it a go if you feel like it. But you’re not God. Nor are you the Church. And you’re therefore not in a position to lay down the law about anything as if you were either just because you can read.
Especially when you haven’t evidently actually bothered reading most of what Catholic authority has to say on the subject you’re discussing.
Please make a note of it.
No, but Jewish midrash resolve the problem of the separate and contradictory accounts of the creation of Adam’s wife by positing God created two different wives for Adam, Lilith first according to chapter one and Eve in chapter 2 after Lillith proved unacceptable (because she had the temerity to consider herself -gasp!-Adam’s equal).
Poor johnny, someone else has stolen the spotlight.
The viruses strains used in cancer therapies are vaccine strains and other strains modified from the wild forms.
Wild viruses may be occasionally good at killing cancer cells, but they are unfortunately also very good at killing healthy cells. After all, there are usually more of the latter in the average host.
And the notion to use viruses to kill cancer cells is in no way a refutation of Pasteur’s work. Quite the contrary, as again it’s the micro-organisms which are responsible for the deeds, here killing tumor cells.
(I would have put something about evolution here, but someone else will get upset)
Hello, SN. Try — eg, CCC, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 4.
It’s pretty important.
Also, btw:
All right. If it seems so to you, you don’t have to agree with it.
But if it’s okay to dismiss one part of a sacred text as “innocuous,” why isn’t it okay for all or any parts? Exactly?
Additionally, while it’s not rocket science, it is reading. And unless you know something that I don’t, neither of those applies to Nancy Pelosi, per a plain reading of not-difficult-to-comprehend words.
I mean, has she procured a completed abortion or had one, to your knowledge?
(I thought you were talking about 2273.)
Just to anticipate.
Yes, I know it says that “formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense,”
But here’s the thing. This:
is not formal cooperation in an abortion. It’s formal cooperation in the legislative process.
And yes, that is a meaningful distinction. As the CCC makes plain with all the singular nouns in “a person who procures a completed abortion,” when it says “formal cooperation in an abortion,” that’s what it means — ie, there has to be an abortion imminent.
EG.
Fossils aren’t interpreted, see: they seem are. What you appear to trying to argue is that conclusions drawn from fossils are invalid, but if that’s the case you’ll need to provide examples where specific features found in fossils are not compatible to evolution.
“The viruses strains used in cancer therapies are vaccine strains and other strains modified from the wild forms.
Wild viruses may be occasionally good at killing cancer cells, but they are unfortunately also very good at killing healthy cells. After all, there are usually more of the latter in the average host.” Heliboor
Nice medical anecdotes there, thing is other studies have showed that wild measles prevents atopy in adulthood, mumps protects against ovarian cancer, That is two that have slipped through the net. I wouldn’t trust medical peer review to flag up too much Bechamp, we don’t want apples on the floor, do we.
Don’t expect a discourse, the grand O has decided I need a panel of moderation for every post, all I can do is sit and watch you lot swimming in medical waste and LOL.
I can only assume that this doctors and evolution thread is a bit of an own goal, ripe for picking and I suppose I was keeping it on the top!
See Noevo,
What precisely in geology and/or taphonomy says that this is not possible? Why does this contradict common sense? If a dinosaur died, its body was rapidly cooled, dried and mineralized, why could some of its proteins not survive for a million years in the right conditions? It may happen more frequently than we think:
That, “really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about”, is what you apparently call “common sense”.
I am quite confident I have read more about evolution and natural selection than you. It wouldn’t surprise me if I have read more creationist and ID stuff too, having taken an interest in the area a few years ago. BTW, you might find this explanation of soft tissue preservation useful.
What “conflicting details or scientific contradictions”? We aren’t sure how long soft tissues can be preserved for, and our understanding of that is changing. We have only had modern science for a few decades, so figuring out if, how or and something can be preserved for millions of years may take a while. That doesn’t conflict with or contradict anything.
I think you are getting confused; it’s the Creationists who claim “It just happened” literally by fiat. Scientists are interested in figuring out the details of exactly how ‘it’ happened. Natural selection doesn’t just show us how it might have happened, it shows us that evolution was inevitable given the circumstances on Earth over the past few millions years.
I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.
Do you expect scientists to have figured out how everything happened all at once in every detail? If not, we must surely build up a picture that gets more and more accurate over time, with more and more details. Some things we don’t understand, some things we probably misunderstand, many things we don’t even know we don’t know.
An entirely accurate model of the universe would have to be the same size and take up the same space-time as the real universe, which is obviously impossible, so unless someone figures out a way around this we are stuck with imperfect models. Science is an ongoing process groping towards an ever elusive ‘truth’. “Science doesn’t know everything therefore God” is just a lazy cop-out, essentially.
Infallible Holy Writ, conversely, saves you from having to work out any details. Very few scientists today believe in the kind of interventionist God you appear to believe in, thankfully.
Again you seem to be confused. The term “God of the gaps” refers to the use of supernatural explanations for things we are currently unable to explain, things which have been disappearing under the onslaught of science.
Fresh from re-reading ‘A Brief History of Time’ think it’s fair to say that we no longer require an interventionist God to explain our observations of the universe, as there are no longer any real gaps that require one. There are things we cannot yet explain and may never be able to explain (like what happened before the Big Bang) but a supernatural explanation is no longer necessary for either the universe in general of life in particular.
Seriously, why couldn’t some fragments of collagen survive inside a piece of fossilized dinosaur bone for 65 million years? What makes this so inexplicable that the existence of a supernatural deity is the only possible explanation?
The only alternative explanation seems to be ridiculous on its face, evolution so far explains everything we have encountered in the fossil record and is supported by multiple scientific fields. What else would a rational person believe? An inconsistent explanation thought up by some illiterate pastoralists in the Middle East a few thousand years ago?
You appear to believe in evolution but are unwilling to believe in speciation, which I find that amusing given your recent comment claiming that we are all transitional. I agree with you to an extent:, but you seem to have missed the next logical step which is to realize that taxonomies are not natural, they are human constructions, not nature’s (or God’s). Speciation is an artefact of human classificatory systems; nothing magical happens when one species evolves to become different far enough that it becomes a different species, it just becomes convenient to classify it differently.
If you believe in evolution within a species, there is nothing at all to prevent you from believing in speciation. All it requires is time, environmental pressure and some reproductive isolation. Here’s how Darwin put it in ‘The Origin of Species’:
That reminds me, here’s a little conundrum for you. If you look at herring gulls living in Britain, you will see they are distinct from lesser black-headed gull, a separate species, also living in Britain. They are very similar to herring gulls living in North America, which are similar to those living in Siberia. However (from Daniel Dennett’s ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ ) :
Natural selection and evolution explain this perfectly. As Wiki points out:
How does Creationism explain this odd phenomenon?
L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) is the final enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway for vitamin C in most plants and many animals, allowing them to produce vitamin C from glucose or galactose. There are a animals, however, that can no longer synthesize their own vitamin C and are dependent on dietary sources to provide it (which is why humans can develop scurvy).
The GULO-P gene found in humans, chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques is no longer functional, rendering it a pseudogene. What’s notable is that in all these the functional gene is no longer functional due to the 164 nucleotide sequence of exon X exhibiting the same single nucleotide deletion.
That s, not only do humans, apes and old world monkeys all possess a GULO-P pseudogene rather than a functional GULO-P gene, the pseudogene is broken in exactly the same way in all three, as a consequence of a random mutational event.
Evolution explains this observation as being the result of these primates all arising by descent form a sahred common ancestor in which the GULO-P gene had already undergone the single nucleotide deletion, such that they inherited the non-functional GULO pseudogene instead of a functional copy.
How does whatever model you prefer to evolution explain this instead, See?
How does whatever model you prefer to evolution explain this instead, See?
And God said: “let there be a 164 bp deletion in the GULO-P” gene”. Amen.
lowercase johnny:
[citation needed]
To multiple addressees…
To Narad #600:
“…my attention had shifted to working on something for my own church.”
Which church is that?
….
To JGC #606:
“So you reject the Catholic Church’s doctrine of papal infallibity when speaking on matters of morals and faith??”
No I reject your false definition of it (“a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith”).
“Clearly you can only believe that the two accounts are not only contradictory but that neither account is accurate.”
Clearly an objectively false statement.
To ann #603:
Me: “I don’t have the authority [to determine the truth of Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicity] and don’t need to have the authority. I just need to read – read FROM the authority, the Catholic Church.”
You: “That is very, very wrong. Shockingly so. You do not have the authority.”
Jesus:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mat 18:15-18]
Paul:
“But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber — not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” [1 Cor 5:11-13]
To ann #608:
Me: “(Most, perhaps all, other Church Fathers went with six 24-hour days.)”
You: “That’s flatly wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right.”
Flatly wrong? Well, you certainly can’t prove me wrong.
Would you provide just a couple citations from the Church Fathers that support (not necessarily prove) your contention?
See, we caught you lying to us repeatedly. You have no moral high ground to take.
To ann #611:
“Try — eg, CCC, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 4. It’s pretty important.”
I tried it. I believe it. Do you see something there that goes against anything I’ve said? If so, what specifically?
“But if it’s okay to dismiss one part of a sacred text as “innocuous,” why isn’t it okay for all or any parts? Exactly?”
I don’t dismiss ANY part of Scripture. When I said Sirach 18:1 was “innocuous”, I did not mean it should be ignored. I meant that it was harmless, could cause no trouble, IN THE CONTEXT OF the interpreting/understanding the true timing of creation. Similarly, I find John 1:3 “innocuous” in this context.
To ann #612, 613:
“…is not formal cooperation in an abortion. It’s formal cooperation in the legislative process. And yes, that is a meaningful distinction.”
No, I think not. Try CCC 1868.
Better yet, take to heart (and mind) what this bishop said about Nancy:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/nicklesspelos.htm
I think many, if not most, of the RIgulars are aware of that; why do you want to know?
Except, of course, when you just have to, because of internal contradictions in the text (like when you dismiss the part of Genesis chapter 1 that states Adam and Eve were created together, after all other animals had been created.)
Not at all: you’ve explictly rejected parts of both chapter’s accounts.
“No, I think not.”
Well, as usual, you’re little statement is wrong. But why should anyone care what your quoted bishop says – can a bishop’s words be taken as infallible? If not, per you, they don’t mean shit.
Lots of talk above about sexual abuse by clergy.
Especially, and perhaps exclusively, about abuse by Catholic clergy. Of course.
More sad, late-breaking news here:
“The UK’s Methodist Church has made a public apology after an investigation uncovered reports of nearly 2,000 alleged abusers – including 914 allegations involving sexual abuse.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32909444
If anything positive can be gained from this from a PR point of view, it might be that at least the Methodist church doesn’t claim its teachings are true,
and they have married shepherds.
sn, your church has looked the other way at abuses by its priests for centuries, and had at least two of its most recent leaders actively involved in hiding the guilty simply to protect the church’s assets – never mind the devastation of the victims.
The fact that the methodist church has its own problems (no surprise there – religions are all about telling others how to live without requiring the same of its officials) in no way absolves your choice of church from being considered a horrid organization.
JGC @618 re GULO-P – could you point me to some reference material on the single nucleotide deletion? It seems like an interesting example illustrating multiple points.
JGC,
The same gene in guinea pigs is broken in a different way IIRC. Interestingly, humans, apes and old world monkeys have the necessary machinery to produce vitamin C given a working version of the gene despite these species not having had one for 40 million years. I think that also illustrates the way that evolution doesn’t discard anything it doesn’t need: it just hangs around until it becomes a liability, or just gradually atrophies into something economical and innocuous through mutation. It’s all contingency and happenstance.
I thought that a functional GULO gene turns one into a wolverine.
I did start writing a novel with a similar premise, titled ‘Homo Ascorbicus’, with a modified hepatitis B virus delivering functional copies of the gene. It got bogged down in dialog but might dig it out and dust it down.
I think you need a rapid mutant healing factor, pop-up claws, an adamantium laced skeleton, a Canadian accent, and a bad attitude to be a Wolverine.
I guess it would have to be a retrovirus to permanently affect the genome…
Don’t forget the sideburns. Very important.
Or, as in the case of the adaptive immune system, backs itself into a Red Queen corner.
Chemomom, I’d start with two article’s by Nikishima’s lab
“Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis” PMID:10572964
and
“The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene–the gene responsible for scurvy–and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon”, PMID:14703305
GF,
I see that Phildo has idiotically (and predictably) put himself in the position of having to rely on “studies” of the sort that he routinely claims are intrinsically without merit.
The reported mumps inverse correlation with ovarian cancer is well known (and again relies upon things that Phildo doesn’t “believe in”). However, that Cynthia Parker–esque fave cuts both ways.
Rats, I just put in three links when replying to GF.
I’m going to skip your citations, because your ability to read those doesn’t give you the authority to say who is or is not a Catholic any more than your ability to read anything else does, and that’s not according to me, it’s according to the teachings of the Church on morals and faith.
E-effing-G, Dei Verbum does not say:
Rather, it says:
More in a moment.
I’ve been looking for an exegesis of the seasons things for you, btw. No luck.
Nice deflection See Noevo. I am unsurprised. Pedophiles gravitate to places where they have access to potential victims. Indeed, the Anglican Church in Australia has had significant issue with pedophile priests as well. The main difference between them and the Catholic Church has been the fact that they have publicly apologised, have not tried to silence victims with intimidation or bribes, have not protected pedophile clergy by moving them from parish to parish, have not tried to cover up the activities at the highest level, have rooted out those in the church hierarchy that turned a blind eye to these activities and have not claimed that despite all this, the church’s teachings on morals are infallible.
To JGC:
#607: “I’ll address your problems with biology @585 once hI’ve had sufficient caffiene.”
… which led to…
#614.
Oy vey.
You better lay off the caffeine, do some meditation (or better yet, some thinking), and get a proof-reader, or at least utilize spell-check.
Hey, in #550 you missed one of the multiple fields of scientific inquiry. It’s a pretty new confirmation of evolution, so it’s understandable you haven’t heard of it yet.
It’s “aquageny” (a.k.a. “homoaqualogy”)
Aquageny: definition:
1. a similarity often attributable to common origin.
2. likeness in water content between parts of different organisms (as the water content of a watermelon and that of the watermelon man) due to evolutionary differentiation from the corresponding water content in a common ancestor.
Of course, watermelon’s 92% water content vs. the watermelon man’s 60% lets us know that their common ancestor was probably not in the recent past.
Aquageny.
Dig it, Watermelon Man!
JGC: thank you. It will take me a while to sort through the biologoy (note my nym), but, hey, I have all summer.
When you have nothing of substance to offer, See, suggest you heed proverbs 17:28 (most often paraphrased as “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.”).
Yes, I think so.
Try CCC 1869, which plainly states that the consequences of the cooperation mentioned moments earlier in CCC 1868 are:
And decidedly does not say that they include excommunication latae sententiae.
Moreover, CCC 2272 specifies “formal cooperation.”
Still yet further, as a matter of common sense, the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae cannot be said to have been incurred except with very detailed reference to a specific abortion and its procurement, since it might not even apply to the person who had one and therefore can only be considered on a case-by-case basis.
See, e.g., canon law generally.
Right back atcha. Because even he doesn’t go further than describing her as someone “who claims to be Catholic.” He certainly doesn’t say that she isn’t one. And still less does he say that she’s effectively excommunicated herself. So you still don’t have the authority to.
There’s nothing like invoking Muphry’s law as a lead-in to frank gibbering, all wrapped up with a Second Coming of Herbie Hancock. Perhaps the next
pathetic evasioninsight will come from Rockit.To Kreboizen #617:
“What precisely in geology and/or taphonomy says that this is not possible?”
I suppose ANYTHING is possible. I mean, with an act of, well… (cf. Mat 17:20).
To get a better feel for your ideas about possibilities, I’ll change topic briefly and ask:
Do you believe it’s possible that all the universal constants not only exist but are also at their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance?
“There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Yes. And in dating methodologies, too.
Me: “[Evolutionists basically are saying] We just KNOW it evolved.”
You: “I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.”
That’s very encouraging! Very refreshing.
So, you’d say “We just DON’T know it evolved.”
I might possibly be OK with evolution being taught in science classes (I’m already OK with it being taught in philosophy classes) IF the texts and the teachers would clearly make your disclaimer to the students: “We just DON’T KNOW it evolved.”
Do you foresee that happening soon? If not, why not?
“Infallible Holy Writ, conversely, saves you from having to work out any details.”
Really? Children of God don’t have to work and attend to details?
Because I read
“… fill the earth and SUBDUE it; and HAVE DOMINION OVER over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth…
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to TILL it and KEEP it…
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would CALL them; and whatever the man CALLEDcalled every living creature, that was its NAME. The man GAVE NAMES to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field…”
And after the Fall, even more WORK and DETAILS:
“… cursed is the ground because of you; in TOIL you shall eat of it all the days of your life… In the SWEAT of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground…”
And God doesn’t just ordain man’s hard work and attention to detail. He ENCOURGES our CURIOSITY about Him and His works:
“One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after;
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to INQUIRE in his temple.” [Psalm 27:4]
And please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Please? You’re applying to me the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I’ve been saying when you write:
“You appear to believe in evolution but are unwilling to believe in speciation…”
No. By all appearances I do NOT believe in evolution but I AM willing to believe in “speciation” (i.e. variation within kinds of organisms).
“which I find that amusing given your recent comment claiming that we are all transitional”.
No. I CLEARLY believe organisms are NOT transitional. When I said ‘all things are transitional’, I was paraphrasing the spiel of evolutionists. That should have been crystal clear given the context of the remarks and who was making the remarks (i.e. me, an anti-evolutionist).
…….
“That reminds me, here’s a little conundrum for you. If you look at herring gulls …How does Creationism explain this odd phenomenon?”
Genesis 1:21.
@SN, #624 —
In re: The CCC. I’m just pointing out how considerable the scope of mercy that the Church isn’t restricting in 2272 really is, that being another of the things that you’re not authorized (or, ftm, qualified) to dispense, withhold, or legislate all by yourself, based on nothing more than your ability to read.
In re: The use of the word “inoccuous”:
OK. So stipulated. However.
In re: Your argument as a whole and your assertions about early medieval exegeses of Genesis in particular, it really does seem to me that you’re kind of overlooking, eg, CCC III, 109 – 119. Especially this:
From my point of view, you’re just unreasonably depriving yourself of the full treasury of teachings on morals and faith available to you But I don’t mean that in a mean way. I just mean that it makes me sad to see.
Speaking of which:
No, I don’t think I will. Because for personal reasons, unrelated to faith, I just don’t feel like it. But again, I don’t mean that in a mean way. So I hope you’ll forgive me for it. And you should really read them yourself anyway, if you haven’t.
FWIW, I particularly recommend Confessions and The City of God. The former, especially, is a pure pleasure to read, imo. But de gustibus non est disputandum. I have to admit.
Oh! Hey! That reminds me. I can actually provide an on-point citation from Augustine, since it happens to have been sitting right there in the CCC, being a part of ordinarily magisterial and therefore infallible teachings on morals and faith. To wit:
It’s from his exposition of Psalms, though. So I guess you might not think that was applicable.
I do. But while I’ll freely admit to being very opinionated, I don’t pretend to be an authority. And am not.
That’s not a “change,” it’s a point of screaming ignorance that has has already been ridiculed.
To Narad #626:
Me: “Which church is that?”
You: “I think many, if not most, of the RIgulars are aware of that; why do you want to know?”
Because I’m curious, like a scientist! I want to know for the simple joy of discovery.
But you’re obviously hesitant to tell me.
If you’re afraid to tell me, perhaps the other “RIgulars” will help me out, and show you there’s nothing to fear.
Transparency’s a good thing, yes? Or do you work at the White House currently?
No.
When you’ve got “Aquageny” sitting right there, you’ve got no excuse for not going with something a little more Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloopical, imo:
Speaking of unreasonably depriving yourself of a full treasury of riches.
But again, de gustibus etc.
To ann #643:
“I’m going to skip your citations, because your ability to read those doesn’t give you the authority to say who is or is not a Catholic…”
Please don’t skip those citations, or at least THESE citations, because I have some questions on them.
In the citation I gave of Mat 18:15-18, how does a believer KNOW when “your brother SINS against you” and how would he have the capability to DEFINE and “TELL him his FAULT”?
In the citation of 1 Cor 5:11-13, how can Paul tell the believers to JUDGE those inside the church, and how would they have the BASIS for this REQUIRED judging?
P.S.
You never responded to a question of mine. I had used some CAPS in it to make it more noticeable, but apparently you missed it. I’ll repost it:
“HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?”
No, Chuckles, I want a genuine explanation, not some stupid, diversionary horseshіt about “the joy of discovery.” Your random, petulant demands have already proved themselves to be utter time-wasters, so I suggest you come the fυck up with one.
Remember when you were busy making an ass of yourself inquiring whether people were atheists? Trying to substitute yourself for a beit din? No? Time to pretend it never happened, like all the rest of your fυcking pratfalls?
Well, here’s your chance to shine, babycakes.
See Noevo: you wrote,
Me: “[Evolutionists basically are saying] We just KNOW it evolved.”
You: “I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.”
That’s very encouraging! Very refreshing.
So, you’d say “We just DON’T know it evolved.”
Thank you for providing such an outstanding example of how deeply dishonest you are. This sad attempt to support your position through lying serves a wonderful purpose: it shows readers that you’ve realized you cannot rely on truth to make your case, and that you must resort to this sort of desperate and laughable — and starkly dishonest — tactic to press your cause.
You have exposed your total lack of character better than anyone else could have. Thank you.
To ann #648:
“Try CCC 1869, which plainly states that the consequences of the cooperation mentioned moments earlier in CCC 1868 are: “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.””
You must have overlooked the full paragraph of CCC 1869. The first two sentences are:
“Thus sin MAKES MEN ACCOMPLICES OF ONE ANOTHER and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins GIVE RISE TO social situations and INSTITUTIONS that are contrary to the divine goodness.”
No, Nancy didn’t perform the abortions, and didn’t directly fund the abortions. But this dear practicing Catholic legislator WORKED and VOTED to allow the INSTITUTIONS (i.e. abortion clinics) to LEGALLY fulfill their very charter (i.e. perform ABORTIONS).
And she gets a little mammon kickback, I’m pretty sure. (Or do you think Planned Parenthood doesn’t contribute to Nancy’s and other Dem’s campaigns?)
It’s a shame there’s no <redletter> markup to allow S.N. to skip the full caps and really let it all hang out.
Oh man, maybe that explains my problems.
To ann #651:
“@SN, #624 — In re: The CCC. I’m just pointing out how considerable the scope of mercy that the Church isn’t restricting in 2272 really is, that being another of the things that you’re not authorized (or, ftm, qualified) to dispense, withhold, or legislate all by yourself, based on nothing more than your ability to read.”
I’m really not sure I understand this. Would you like do-over? Try a re-write, and I might see clearly what you’re saying.
And don’t read too much into “read” (“…based on nothing more than your ability to read.”). “Read” includes “hearing”, “learning”, “knowing” what the Church teaches. “Reading” so you can abide by Mat 18:15-18, 1 Cor 5:11-13, etc.
“From my point of view, you’re just unreasonably depriving yourself of the full treasury of teachings on morals and faith available to you But I don’t mean that in a mean way. I just mean that it makes me sad to see.”
I’m sorry you’re sad. Clearer thinking can help with that. On the bright side, I’m happier and more joyful than ever (and I’m 59!).
Me: “(Most, perhaps all, other Church Fathers went with six 24-hour days.)”
You: “That’s flatly wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right.”
Me: “Would you provide just a couple citations from the Church Fathers that support (not necessarily prove) your contention?”
You: “No, I don’t think I will. Because for personal reasons, unrelated to faith, I just don’t feel like it.”
I forgive you.
P.S.
Do you feel like answering one of my other questions, namely the following?
“HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?”
P.P.S.
I’ve read St. Augustine’s “Confessions”, liked it, and can certainly understand why it’s a classic of literature, let alone of Catholic literature.
Omnia Extares!
To Narad #656:
Boy oh boy!
I’ve REALLY got you worked up, haven’t I, daran?
Looks as though the moderator here expunges comments with a third hyperlink, but not those with profanity.
Just as well, for the moderator. He/she/it is probably fine with your #656.
“Expunged.” It does not mean what you think it means.
You know the moderator has things to do other than sit on the board all day and approve comments.
Unless you abuse it most 3+ links or profanity laced comments eventually get approved.
I just want to know why G-d is such a nickname for Richard.
I mean either for some reason he needed to make the DNA and so many other things line up with evolutionary predictions but doesn’t give any indication of it or he did it to deliberately lead people astray.
There are so many ways he could have stuck a signature in here or there that would be so obviously the hand of God that we’d all give up on the evolution thing, but no he couldn’t do that. He’d rather fool a lot of people than give them a reason to believe.
@#658 —
No, I saw and read the whole text, which is, after all, not very long.
But since (a) being an ACCOMPLICE to a crime does not, ipso facto, mean formally cooperating in its commission, per the plain meaning of the pertinent words; and (b) the penalty for GIVING RISE to social situations and INSTITUTIONS that are contrary to divine goodness is not excommunication latae sententiae, per the CCC, it just underscores and emphasizes the existence of the meaningful distinction I was pointing out in the first place, anyway.
So I can’t say that I’m at all sure of what, exactly, you’re accusing me of having overlooked. But given that IANA(canon)L and neither are you, I’m also not at all sure that it matters. By which I mean:
There is nothing in the whole body of authentic teachings on morals and faith that authorizes you to say who’s a Catholic and who’s not or to decide who has and hasn’t effectively excommunicated themselves. Because you don’t have that authority.
I mean, self-evidently, it wouldn’t be a very universal faith if being a literate Catholic was all it took to go around expelling people from it. Please be serious.
I didn’t think you were suggesting that JGC supported abortion. I thought you might be suggesting that Jewish observance included kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in religious rituals.
But you’ve already said that you weren’t. And I’ve already apologized. So I’m not suggesting it again now. I’m just answering your question. I should hasten to add.
.
I see no evidence that G-d rewards Its* servants with a clean bill of mental health, let alone the absence of all sadness.** The fact that you think It does, though, suggests that you wouldn’t have any idea about that.
*( )
**I have to wonder if you’ve ever really read the Gospels, or if Holy Week services have ever struck a chord with you.
That’s telling. But no, I can quite calmly compose insults to press cringing, evasive shіtwits such as yourself into either following through or doubling down on cringing evasion.
At least you have made it quite clear what the choice at the core of your apparition is.
Nice work you’re doing with that thing G-d sprouted upon your neck-stalk.
No, you’re just so filled with pride and stupidity that you can’t be bothered to figure out that WordPress doesn’t behave according to your Divine Expectations.
Now, are you going to get around to addressing the growing pile of on-point questions, or just keep rolling around in the corner?
C’mon, do you need help? Being limited by written expression, I don’t have readily to hand the repertoire of sounds that usually help in attracting various animals.
Would it get you to expound upon “all the universal constants” in your own words (given that you brought it the fυck up in the first place) if I asked really nice?
It didn’t seem to work with the last grossly pompous fraud, so don’t worry about my holding my breath or anything.
To ann #666:
What a strange coincidence. #666.
Anyway, I’m trying to figure this out.
Me: [Earlier you [JGC] wrote that “but to answer [my] question I’m an observant Jew.” … I don’t know what YOU mean by “observant Jew.” Could you explain what an “observant Jew” is?
I have a feeling it’s like someone telling me he “observes” (i.e. believes in and seeks to uphold) the Constitution. That comforts me, but briefly. Because pretty soon I may discover he understands the Constitution very differently than me. For example, he may discern in it a right to privacy which morphs into a right to abortion. And I don’t.]
Ann:
[I think it’s more like [See Noevo] thinks he’s so intellectually superior that he can insult JGC to his face without risk of detection.]
Me:
[I never said or suggested that JGC supports abortion. Because I really don’t know whether JGC supports abortion. HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?]
Ann:
[I thought you might be suggesting that Jewish observance included kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in religious rituals.]
…
You thought I might be suggesting that Jewish observance included kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in religious rituals?
How could you possibly think that the ….
Never mind.
P.S.
A Scripture verse for the day:
“After THIS many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”
John 6:66
Low comedy coming from a self-appointed Torquemada.
Offering a fuller explanation is OK by me.
Actually. I’m a little surprised it’s such a shock. I used the words “blood libel” in my very first response. In my follow-up I pointed out that what “People who are pro-abortion” and “People who are observant Jews” have in common is that “Some Say They’re Baby-killers!” And as I’ve explained once already, it’s an accusation that has centuries of not-at-all obscure history as the mainstay of Christian anti-semitism.
So I don’t really know whence the confusion at this stage of the game. However.
Because a lot of people do think it, even still. Because it has a very long history in Catholic thought. And because as I understand the word “like” as you used it here…
…what it means is that while you’re not saying that being an observant Jew equates to being pro-abortion, you are saying you have a feeling it’s comparable. And that made no sense to me, except as an accusation of blood libel.
It’s really not all that far-fetched. People think it.
” Your random, petulant demands have already proved themselves to be utter time-wasters, so I suggest you come the fυck up with one.” Narad – the voice of reason
So I am guessing now that you have buried my exposure of germ theory and its holes – you would rather some religious nutter helped that process! It is rather funny that you are more scared of me than the catholics – I suppose you guys are fairly similar with your fallacy belief systems. How is the total overhaul of medical peer review coming on?
To ann #671:
Thanks for the explanation.
But you were way, way wrong about me. (BTW, in my near 60 years I can’t recall even hearing about this ‘Jew/blood libel/kidnapping/murdering/blood religious ritual’ stuff. Sheltered life I guess.)
No. I was poking at possible posturing.
When I see someone, PARTICULARLY on a website like this, proclaim that he/she/it is an “observant Jew” or “practicing Catholic” or “cradle Catholic” or “orthodox Christian” or “respecter of the Constitution” or, hell, just “good person”, I’ve found I need to poke. Or better yet, PEEK under the hood. To see what kind of engine his/her/its “car” really has. And I’ve found a lot of “lemons.” Bitter fruit, as it were (cf. Deut 29:18).
To my mind, and that of the Church, abortion is a real “lemon” (and it has been a “lemon” in virtually all societies throughout history, until recent times). And while my perceptions about possible posturing are not infallible, they are very often right.
As far as the taste for “lemons” of JGC the “observant Jew”, and you, well, I certainly can’t say that I know.
Silence can be golden. And silence can be deadly.
Anyway, if you need a job and like politics, you should consider applying for a position on Nancy Pelosi’s staff. You might have a good shot, because you share a great interest and, apparently, great knowledge, of all things Catholic. Nancy considers herself such a scholar of Catholic morality and history that she sometimes just about teaches the Church itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FmLCm2CiI&feature=related
And to put you over the top, you can convince her that you’ll always be there to support and comfort her. Like “Nancy, your strong pro-abortion agenda is just fine. It’s absolutely nothing for you to be concerned about, in this life (i.e. public excommunication) or in the next (i.e. hell). Don’t even listen to those *****, they have no authority anyway.
Now, let’s get back to the important stuff. Re-election!”
You go, girls!
And for johnny’s next trick……. drumroll……. there are no stars, just holes poked in a black silk bag surrounding the Earth. Obvious when you think about it. Astronomers are far less intelligent than johnny so it’s no wonder they don’t understand what they see through the telescope.
And as you’ve ably demonstrated in your posts, apparently ignorance really can be bliss.
See Noevo,
Sorry, I don’t regard the Bible or any other religious text as good evidence of what is possible. Do you have enough faith to stop me believing in evolution?
Surely, by definition something has to be possible by random chance, unless it’s impossible. Our universe exists, so it clearly isn’t impossible, therefore it must be possible for it to exist by random chance. QED.
The idea in science is to identify what assumptions you are making in your hypothesis and test them. That’s why a scientific discovery isn’t set in stone, and why some dates are undoubtedly wrong. We just don’t know which ones yet. However, I do think it’s safe to say the Earth has been around since long before 4004 BC, or whenever you think it was created.
No, because “We just DON’T know it evolved”, is not the opposite of, “We just KNOW it evolved” (and now it has rattled around my head a couple of dozen times I ‘m not even sure I can parse it accurately). Off the top of my head I would say something like, “there is a huge raft of interlocking evidence from multiple disciplines that supports natural selection and evolution as the primary causes of the diversity of life on this planet”.
That’s very decent of you. I’m in the the UK, and you probably have no idea how archaic your attitudes seem to me. It’s illegal to teach Creationism as scientific fact here. I might possibly be OK with Creationism being taught in religious education classes, in the ‘nonsense some religious whackaloons believe’ section.
So why are you so set against us figuring out how evolution works, when God has apparently told us to do so?
The problem is you don’t understand what “evolution” and “speciation” mean. Evolution is, to adopt JGC’s definition, “change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations”. Speciation is the emergence of a new species from those changes in the frequency of alleles, usually accompanied by either extinction or reproductive isolation of the ancestor species. If you believe that variation can occur withing organisms due to random mutations, I don’t see how you can deny possibly speciation. All you need is enough changes and reproductive isolation and you have a new species.
It isn’t at all clear to me what you were claiming there, since you have stated that you believe in “variation within kinds of organisms” which strongly implies that that organisms change over time. The evolutionist view is that those small changes over long periods of time have led to the diversity we see in living things today. That means that all organisms (that reproduce) are in a transitional form between their parents and their offspring. I don’t see how even a Creationist could deny that: if there were no changes we would all look exactly like our parents, unless there is some algorithm that comes into play when a species wanders too far from its divine template.
You really believe God created herring gulls and less black-backed gulls as ring species that look like very strong evidence for evolution and speciation through natural selection, just to fool us into not believing in Him? Seems a bit odd, doesn’t it?
That’s just a step away from the landscape, but I’m waiting to see just how poorly Sin Novitas chooses when selecting a source to barf up his “understanding” from.
I believe you. FWIW, I was actually expecting a swift denial, initially. I apologize again for reading more into your non-response than I ought to have done. And thank you for your understanding. I’m very happy to have been wrong.
It’s never had a lot of currency in the United States, for both good reasons (ie — thank goodness for the first amendment) and bad (ie — historical anti-Catholic bigotry). Plus it’s lost a lot of audience share everywhere to the Protocols model, which is a much better fit with contemporary sensibilities.
So again, I believe you.
I doubt there’s a person alive who doesn’t think that, at least privately. So there’s certainly no shame in admitting it, per se. But fwiw, in my experience and observation, when you just leave it at “my perceptions about possible posturing are not infallible,” you get better stats.
That’s where I went wrong wrt the blood libel, in fact.
As far as the taste for “lemons” of JGC the “observant Jew”, and you, well, I certainly can’t say that I know.
I’m not observant.
WRT to knowledge of Catholicism, I’m just a blowhard, really. WRT Pelosi, thanks, but no thanks. And…/off-topic.
Stupid blockquote tags.
The proper reverse of “We just KNOW it evolved” is “We don’t just KNOW it evolved”, not “We just don’t KNOW it evolved.” In the erroneous statement, the modifier “just” affects the phrase “don’t KNOW”. Example:
I just don’t know what to make of this.
That usage says you don’t know. Whereas in:
I don’t just know what to make of this, I know what do do about it.
You know?
Hey Jews in London want to ban women from driving their kids to school, how”s that for progress?
“Sorry, I don’t regard Pubmed, or any other religious text as good evidence of what is possible. Do you have enough faith to stop me believing in evolution?” The Kreb
Well Pasteur had no idea about where germs come from, he thought that they just ‘appeared’.
When I see someone, PARTICULARLY on a website like this, proclaim that he/she/it is an “observant Jew” or “practicing Catholic” or “cradle Catholic” or “orthodox Christian” or “respecter of the Constitution” or, hell, just “good person”, I’ve found I need to poke
Because in his little world, no one who believes in the science behind evolution is a good person, or belongs to a church, or is a good American. Did I parse that correctly?
Whereas I just KNOW that See Noevo doesn’t know how to use a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or a search engine, any of which would have told him what “observant Jew” means.
Between the refusal to look things up, and his insistence on trying to redefine terms that are basic to this discussion, I just KNOW that See is not trying to learn anything, is in fact trying to confuse everyone so that he doesn’t risk learning about science, philosophy, or anything else other than the contents of his pockets.
I just KNOW that See Noevo is trying not to learn anything.
Or, better still, I KNOW that See Noevo is just trying to not learn anything.
Should’ve skipped Watermelon Man in favor of Rainbow Man.
To JGC #676:
I think abortion is gravely wrong in ALL cases.
Do you, an observant Jew, think abortion is gravely wrong in ALL cases?
Do you support the right to abortion?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Don’t be hesitant or embarrassed or fearful to answer.
In this day and age, especially, this is a subject on which people voice their opinions just about every day (and just about ALL day, if you watch MSNBC). Plus, you have the added protection of internet anonymity. Not that you’d need it, again, especially these days.
So which is it?
To Kreboizen #677:
Long post. I’ve read only the first couple lines. Will look at the rest later.
Me: “Do you believe it’s possible that all the universal constants not only exist but are also at their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance?”
You: “Surely, by definition something has to be possible by random chance, unless it’s impossible. Our universe exists, so it clearly isn’t impossible, therefore it must be possible for it to exist by random chance.”
I recall reading that all scientists, even the atheist ones, agree that it’s effectively IMpossible. That impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as “multiverse theory”.
It’s not hard to see why it’s impossible. But you believe it IS possible and, apparently, that it all DID happen by chance. Really?
Do we really need to go over the numbers? (It gets pretty bizarre right from the start, and then gets much, much worse.)
Your catastrophic ignorance is duly noted.
Did you miss the part where you’ve been requested more than once to identify what you think are “universial constants”? Quit evading and start Shining The Light.
See Noevo:
Why should I give a rat’s ass what a collection of old fables has to say about the origin and development of life and the earth? Why should I take your delusions more seriously than the delusions of some drunk with the DTs in the ER?
JGC:
Although I may have used the phrase, I’m not much of a fan of the “ultimatum question.”
To Kreboizen #677 (continued)
Me: “[Evolutionists basically are saying] We just KNOW it evolved.”
You: “I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.”
Me: “That’s very encouraging! Very refreshing. So, you’d say “We just DON’T know it evolved.”
You: “No, because “We just DON’T know it evolved”, is not the opposite of, “We just KNOW it evolved” (and now it has rattled around my head a couple of dozen times I ‘m not even sure I can parse it accurately).”
You’ve never seen anything REMOTELY like “We just know it evolved” in the literature? Never seen something like “Evolution is a fact”? Because I have.
I did some quick Googling and found “Evolution is a fact” or “Evolution is true” declared by Stephen J. Gould; Theodosius Dobzhansky; R. C. Lewontin; Neil A. Campbell; Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes; Douglas J. Futuyma; H. J. Muller; National Academy of Sciences; Jerry A. Coyne. Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
3rd url = amazon page for Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True”
“I’m in the the UK… It’s illegal to teach Creationism as scientific fact here.”
I’m OK with that. I just think it should likewise be illegal to teach Evolution as scientific fact.
Me: “And God doesn’t just ordain man’s hard work and attention to detail. He ENCOURGES our CURIOSITY about Him and His works.”
You: “So why are you so set against us figuring out how evolution works…?”
Firstly, I am so set against the unscientific, illogical nature of your sentence and sentiment. Read it again.
You’ve assumed the truth of a conclusion (i.e. “evolution is a fact”) before completing the “figuring” that is supposed to prove the conclusion. It’s about as silly as saying “So why are you so set against us figuring out how unicorns work…?”
Such presumption is pervasive throughout ALL pro-evolution literature. For example, see the definitions in #585 (e.g. for “Pseudogene”).
I do NOT find the so-called evidence for evolution to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. And I am far from alone.
And we ALL (pro AND anti evolution) agree evolution can NOT be proven.
“It isn’t at all clear to me what you were claiming there, since you have stated that you believe in “variation within kinds of organisms” which strongly implies that that organisms change over time.”
I’ll keep this short. I believe in Dachshunds and Great Danes, and believe they’re both dogs which will never “become” cats.
But they aren’t wolves anymore, are they?
Precisely. The idiocy of arguing that evolution doesn’t run in reverse (up to some arbitrary threshold, since, e.g., attenuated viruses can revert to virulence) somehow demonstrates that it never happened eludes the cowardly pseudophysicist.
Apropos…
What’s your position on the historicity of Exodus?
See Noevo,
The universe we are living in is impossible? Perhaps you have been reading different scientific literature to that I have been perusing.
I’m struggling, frankly, with the concept that my existence is not possible.
It clearly is possible because, well, here we are having this discussion. I have no way of saying whether it definitely happened by chance or not, but natural selection and evolution over long periods of time seem to me to offer an adequate explanation, certainly a more parsimonious one than divine creation. If something can happen at all, can’t it happen by chance? It may be very unlikely, but the fact that it can happen at all makes it possible, by definition.
That might be amusing – go for it. A warning – most of the knots I have seen Creationists tie themselves in in this area are the result of their denial of the durations involved. Something very unlikely indeed can, indeed will, happen if you wait long enough.
“We just know it evolved” strongly implies a dismissive attitude that expects people to accept the statement uncritically without supporting evidence. I would challenge you to find a text book about evolution that tells the reader to just accept it without any attempt at an explanation of how the evidence supports natural selection and evolution.
The statement, “Evolution is a fact” is not the same thing at all. Evolution most certainly is a fact as it, and speciation, has been directly observed. Whether evolution is the cause of the diversity of life we observe is a slightly different question, as we haven’t been around for long enough to directly observe this, but we can be very confident that is is by extrapolating from what we have been able to observe in multiple scientific fields.
Strictly speaking, in science we try not to make categorical statements like “Evolution is a fact” in this way, but when there is so much evidence from so many different fields all supporting evolution as the primary explanation for life’s diversity, it seems extremely unlikely that we will find any serious problems with it and we can accept it as a scientific theory, i.e. for all intents and purposes as a fact as used in common parlance.
Why, when there is overwhelming evidence to support this? You boggle my mind.
As far as I can tell you are exhorting us to accept the Bible as an objective account of how life on Earth came to exist. I struggle to see how blindly accepting a pre-scientific creation myth is more scientific and logical than using our brains to try to figure out what really happened. Why would God encourage our curiosity and expect us to uncritically accept Holy Writ?
That just isn’t true, as you must surely know by now. Darwin’s theories have been thoroughly tried and tested for 150 years. Almost everything his theories predicted has been found to be correct, and I’m unaware of any observations that contradict evolutionary theory, despite the best efforts of Creationists to find some. Unicorns, conversely…
I don’t see any such presumption. We have to define our terms and explain what we mean by them and how they relate to each other. The definition of a pseudogene makes perfect sense to me, as do the other terms you mentioned.
I’m amazed that anyone can look at the literature and come to that conclusion. I don’t see how it is even possible to deny evolution and natural selection given what we know about the way inheritance works.
That depends what you mean. We can certainly prove that “there is a change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations” beyond any reasonable doubt. You seem to be stuck in denying the possibility that evolution can result in a new species. If you take a species, split it into two groups, isolate each group in different areas with very different environments and then leave them for long enough, you will end up with different species that have adapted to their new environments and who have drifted apart far enough genetically that they can’t interbreed. Why wouldn’t you?
Of course they won’t become cats, since both they and cats are descended from a common ancestor about 40 million years ago (I hate to link to the Daily Fail but it’s the best article I can find). Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear.
I assume that you don’t accept the diagram of the family tree in that article, but I do wonder how you see it. Presumably each species has its own little shrub that has stood alone disconnected from the rest of life since God breathed life into it in 4004 BC. That’s sad.
I am intrigued by your dogged insistence that one species cannot change into another. What quality does a species have that makes it impregnable in this way? What barrier is there to this? If a breed of dog started getting too similar to cats, what would happen to stop this process? What is this Platonic essence of catness and dogness that is mutually exclusive? Surely dogs and cats are all made of nucleic acids and proteins, and their differences are hugely outnumbered by their similarities.
Again I come back to time. What you refer to as “common sense” appears to refer to what we can observe from a human time scale. We rarely see evolution or speciation happen, because human and geological time scales are so different. The imperceptibly slow process of natural selection is invisible to us, but its results are not. They look like design, but they are not. You are only seeing the survivors, the successes, not the billions of failed ‘experiments’*.
I’m reminded of something I was reading recently about race: it doesn’t exist, as there is a continuum from every human being to every other human being, there are no boundaries between races. Species don’t have boundaries either. It’s often hard to decide just where one species ends and another begins. In fact we can only define a species in retrospect, we can’t see speciation while it is happening, only recognize it when it has happened (this is from Dennett BTW). How anyone can claim that such vague entities cannot change one to another beats me.
* They aren’t even really experiments, because natural selection doesn’t learn from its mistakes. The same lethal mutation can happen over and over again as long as some survive.
See –
Would it be correct to say that it’s your position that all species that exist today, and all species that are now extinct, were all created some number of years ago, and that the number of species here on earth has only gone down, and never up?
How many years ago do you believe this happened? Just exactly how old, or young, do you think the earth is?
See, Genesis 1:21 doesn’t> explain herring gulls or ring species. Genesis doesn’t explain anything: it simply avoids the necessity of deriving a meaningful explanation by writing everything that isn’t understand off to “magic”.
See, I’m not interested in enabling your attempt to switch topics.
So assign me whatever position re: abortion which to your mind is most unfavorable, have your fun, and return to the topic at hand (the body of evidence supporting biological evolution and falsifying the world’s various creation mythologies).
He was here still “talking about” the “universal constants” that he’s so far unwilling to identify so that he can “go over the numbers.”
See, you do realize that evolutionary theories predict we would not see dogs become cats, don’t you?
Which, BTW, is something which demonstrably can happen as it’s been observed directly in real time. I provided examples in my post at 397.
Not only does that not resemble actual human history, it’s fairly recent historically speaking that infanticide (the premeditated murder of very young children after they are born) became ‘ a “lemon” in virtually all societies’. (And if I recall correctly it’s still considered ok in some small areas of the world.)
As a matter of fact, in medieval Europe the fetus was not considered separate from the body of the mother until it “quickened,” or started moving, four or five months into the pregnancy.
To Krebiozen #699:
“The universe we are living in is impossible? Perhaps you have been reading different scientific literature to that I have been perusing… I’m struggling, frankly, with the concept that my existence is not possible.”
No. As I said, what is impossible, what the scientists agree is impossible, is that the universal constants, without whose particular exact settings are universe would not exist, have their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance.
Me: “But you believe it IS possible and, apparently, that it all DID happen by chance.”
You: “It clearly is possible because, well, here we are having this discussion.”
Essentially, just like your “So why are you so set against us figuring out how evolution works…?” [See again my response in #694 on why this is unscientific, illogical.]
Except this time you’re saying essentially “So, why are you so against us figuring out how the randomly-generated universe works…?”
I guess you just can’t help yourself.
Perhaps you could join U.I.A.
You know, Unscientific Illogical Anonymous.
(I think they have even fewer than the Twelve Steps.)
Me: “Do we really need to go over the numbers? (It gets pretty bizarre right from the start, and then gets much, much worse.)”
You: “That might be amusing – go for it… Something very unlikely indeed can, indeed will, happen if you wait long enough.”
If you wait long enough?
You can’t wait at all!
You’ve got a microsecond and ONE shot to get it right.
Allow me a mixed metaphor: You get just ONE roll of the “dice”, when the starter’s pistol issues “The Big Bang.”
And let’s take just one of the more familiar universal constants: gravity. The gravitational constant formula apparently is (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2).
The scientists agree that if ANY of the formula’s variables was just a little different, then all hell would break loose, so to speak. They say our universe would not exist.
Now, for the formula variables above, what is the number of POTENTIAL OTHER values that the dice might have settled on? By my way of thinking, and the scientists’, those are dice with not six sides but rather an INFINITE NUMBER of sides. But ONLY ONE number/side will “work” (i.e. allow the universe to exist).
What does one (1) divided by Infinity equal, Krebiozen?
Oh, and this applies not just for the gravitational constant but rather for ALL the universal constants.
So, the probability of our universe existing by “ONE ROLL of the dice” = [one (1) divided by Infinity] to the X power, where X = the number of universal constants.
That’s a big number, or rather, a “very small probability”, to be kind.
I guess that’s why when you read about “multiverse theory” you often won’t hear about how big “multi” is. Is “multi” a couple? No it’s something like 10 to the 500th power. I guess they figure with that many randomly-generated universes the probability is SLIGHTLY more palatable (but it still makes the atheist scientists sick) that one of them might have randomly occurred like ours.
As I said, it all gets pretty bizarre pretty quickly, and then just gets worse.
I’ll try to take a look at the rest of you post later.
As Sarah A. sagely observed some time ago, this is barking up the wrong squirrel:
Finally! And it’s oh, so, sweet: you’re batting .000.
^ The ironic part is that I was thinking about offering you an extraordinarily simple hint, but I realized that it reduced – in the sense of computational complexity – in such a fashion that it would deprive me of the possibility of watching you squirm around in the stinking midden that your idiotically pompous ass thinks waving toward grants you
ProfoundPassing Insight.Dance, monkey, dance.
BTW, has the One True Church evolved, or is it simply a question of successive approximations to a Universal Constant?
Are we (tinw) there yet?
Perhaps the Great Schism can be regarded as a kind of speciation.
” Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear. ” the Kracked one
It does, it is called entropy. As we started living of processed crap food, believing that doctors can cure us of stupid habits we return to the microzymal pool.
To Krebiozen #699 continued:
Me: “You’ve never seen anything REMOTELY like “We just know it evolved” in the literature? Never seen something like “Evolution is a fact”? Because I have.”
You: ““We just know it evolved” strongly implies a dismissive attitude that expects people to accept the statement uncritically without supporting evidence.”
And then they dismissively presume you’ll find their explanation and evidence convincing. But their explanation and evidence is NOT convincing. Not to me, and not to many others, including many scientists.
“Evolution most certainly is a fact as it…has been directly observed.”
Obviously false. If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.
“Whether evolution is the cause of the diversity of life we observe is a slightly different question, as we haven’t been around for long enough to directly observe this, but we can be very confident that is is by extrapolating from what we have been able to observe in multiple scientific fields.”
Extrapolating from? Why, yes.
That’s why I wrote earlier “I would say evolutionary theory is built NOT on facts, but rather on interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts. (Assuming we can even agree on what the “facts” are.)”
“Strictly speaking, in science we try not to make categorical statements like “Evolution is a fact” in this way, but when there is so much evidence from so many different fields all supporting evolution as the primary explanation for life’s diversity, it seems extremely unlikely that we will find any serious problems with it and we can accept it as a scientific theory, i.e. for all intents and purposes as a fact as used in common parlance.”
Similarly speaking, in our jury system, we try not to make categorical statements like “That guy’s the killer is a fact” in this way, but when there is so much evidence from so many different places all supporting that fact as the primary explanation for all the evidence, it seems extremely unlikely that we will find any serious problems with the guilty verdict and we can accept it. (Even though sometimes 30 years later the poor guy is exonerated based on incontrovertible new evidence. And, unfortunately, that’s “dealing with the facts” and “justice” as used in common parlance.)
“As far as I can tell you are exhorting us to accept the Bible as an objective account of how life on Earth came to exist. I struggle to see how blindly accepting a pre-scientific creation myth is more scientific and logical than using our brains to try to figure out what really happened. Why would God encourage our curiosity and expect us to uncritically accept Holy Writ?”
The Bible is not a science textbook, as everyone knows. I believe it is history, parable, poetry, theology. But I do not accept it as Holy Writ blindly. I accept it as Holy Writ ONLY because I use the critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity.
“I don’t see any such presumption… The definition of a pseudogene makes perfect sense to me, as do the other terms you mentioned.”
Now understand, I believe in the observed DNA sequence called “pseudogenes”. I just don’t buy the presumptions in the definition (“A DNA sequence that resembles a gene but has been mutated into an inactive form over the course of EVOLUTION. A pseudogene shares an EVOLUTIONARY history with a functional gene and can provide insight into their SHARED ANCESTRY.”)
“I’m amazed that anyone can look at the literature and come to that conclusion. I don’t see how it is even possible to deny evolution and natural selection given what we know about the way inheritance works.”
You don’t have to tell me. I already knew you were amazed at my stance.
Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to these PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many others universities (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660) who are, at a minimum, skeptical of evolution theory’s claims.
Start a letter writing campaign! Surely they’ve never heard of all the stuff you’re saying. Maybe visit them? Dress up in a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around your waist, and bring some snacks of locusts and wild honey. You can be Krebiozen the Evolutionary Evangelist. Or rather Krebiozen the BS Baptist.
“Of course they won’t become cats, since both they and cats are descended from a common ancestor about 40 million years ago (I hate to link to the Daily Fail but it’s the best article I can find).”
That’s a cute drawing of Dormaalocyon latouri. It’s amazing what an artist can do with some teeth and ankle bones!
I’ve never looked at the Help Wanted ads the evolution establishment may have. There’s probably several openings for “Evolution Artist.” Job requirements include “Self-starter; fertile imagination.”
“Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear.”
But it does have Neutral. In fact, I think it has ONLY Neutral.
“I assume that you don’t accept the diagram of the family tree in that article, but I do wonder how you see it. Presumably each species has its own little shrub that has stood alone disconnected from the rest of life since God breathed life into it in 4004 BC. That’s sad.”
What’s sad is that you don’t even realize the scientists have given up on the trees, or at least on the iconic Tree of Life, long ago. Too problematic for them. You mockingly mention “shrubs” (plural), but sadly, that’s what the scientists have been gravitating to. Multiple shrubs. Almost beginning to sound like a…a…Garden or something. I remember reading an evolution article which leaned more toward a mangrove swamp. I’m not kidding.
“I am intrigued by your dogged insistence that one species cannot change into another.”
But I’m not dogged on, say, dogs. New breeds come out every year. They probably call the new breed of dog a new species of dog. Just like they probably call the new antibiotic-resistant bacteria a new species of bacteria.
“What is this Platonic essence of catness and dogness that is mutually exclusive?”
I’m not going to try to define “catness” and “dogness”. Maybe it’s like that old definition of “pornography” – “You know it when you see it.”
But if no mutual exclusivity exists between “X” and “not-X”, then “X” = “not-X”. And every “one” and every “thing” is.. “everyone” and “everything”.
Then everyone, including Plato, can rest easy, knowing we have achieved true, politically-correct “inclusiveness.” And true, politically correct “diversity.” Wait, scratch that last part. We won’t have “diversity” because there are no differences. We’re all the same! Alleluia!
“They look like design, but they are not.”
And virtually every piece of pro-evolution literature uses design language. Sometimes they’ll use quotation marks so we don’t get the wrong idea (e.g. Organism X was “designed” to do blah blah; the organism’s Y system “manufactures” blah blah.).
“I’m reminded of something I was reading recently about race: it doesn’t exist, as there is a continuum from every human being to every other human being, there are no boundaries between races.”
There are no boundaries between “races” because “races” don’t exist. There is only one race – the human race.
“Species don’t have boundaries either.”
No boundaries? If that’s true, then I guess you’ll have to withdraw you’re earlier statement that “Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear.” In other words, the species of cats COULD revert back to that artist’s rendering of that supposed species Dormaalocyon latouri.
Whew!
That may be all for now.
SN
You are not the only one to have problems with complex philosophical issues like probabilities, laws, and causation, so I reiterate my simple question: do you believe that all the species have been created in two days?
In retrospect, I am disappointed that the audience didn’t rise as a single man when this double entendre was inadvisably delivered:
^ Which should not dimish its being a double standard as well.
^^ And, to jump to obvious logical possibility, what would it mean if Roman Catholicism went extinct? Or if it were necessary for those future Men who finally discovered its fossilized remains had to try to clone something from the fragments?
There must be some sort of finitely bounded Divine Timescale for the process, because the possibility of with enough time has been strictly excluded on the grounds of self-consistency.
Correction to my #708, regarding the formula for the gravitational constant:
My original paste from a website was not formatted properly.
It displayed incorrectly as (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2).
In fact, right now, I don’t how to display it correctly on THIS website. Because this website seems to force the improper formatting.
You can view the actual formula here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Thanks for looking out for me, Daran!
To Daniel Corcos #715:
“I reiterate my simple question: do you believe that all the species have been created in two days?”
That sure sounds silly to you, doesn’t it?
Do you believe that the very first plants on earth randomly mutated this system in ONE DAY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
(Take your time. It’s about 20+ pages long.)
That sure sounds silly to me.
To SN
Then, I understand from your answer that you do believe that all the species have been created in two days. So, all these fossils should be part of a conspiracy originating in the 18th century, and I am part of this conspiracy, too.
I’ve been working on a longer response, given the now fantastically target-rich environment, but I’m going to have a hectic day starting before too long,* so I’m going to promote something that was a maybe-footnote:
Then follows a digression in which S.N. compares the statement that one is an observant Jew to whether one submits to his imaginary understanding of constitutional law, or something.
But now we’re (tinw) down to the Octave of the Nativity? WTF kind of self-respecting Torquemada would try to pull numerology?
* And the perceived world has just suggested in delightfully illuminated, frequency-modulated letters that this is correct, *zzm-wise.
Oh, dear, your Protestant handlers have left you desperately ill-equipped, haven’t they? C’mon, dance. What’s the next “universal” embarrassment that you’re going to fumble out of your pants?
To Daniel Corcos #721:
“Then, I understand from your answer that you do believe that all the species have been created in two days. So, all these fossils should be part of a conspiracy originating in the 18th century, and I am part of this conspiracy, too.”
Daniel, Daniel.
Lighten up! “Conspiracy” is such a harsh word.
Have a croissant instead. In France you must be close to some great bakeries.
Mmmm, mmmm, good on this, the Lord’s Day, May 31, 2015 A.D.
And speaking of dates and designations of time, it really is ALL ABOUT TIME, isn’t it, Daniel? I mean, with the fossils, and with the Evolution story.
Nobody has any problem with the fossils themselves. There they are, for all to see.
But all of evolution falls apart without time, that is, without the “deep time” of millions and billions of years. As I wrote earlier, time is really the last “best” support for evolution, because the other supposed pillars (e.g. biology, genetics, paleontology) have been militating against evolution for decades (e.g. biological systems to assure stasis, genetic mutations found to be almost invariably harmful, the confounding Cambrian Explosion).
It’s just such a shame that dating methodologies are not infallible.
Or do you believe in infallibility?
Uh-oh, somebody also didn’t get the reference to the Tischreden.
In this context, there’s nothing like granting oneself an Ablass.
See Noevolution declaims:
It does not follow. It a world without the likes of you, Ken Ham, and others, more people would have the intellectual honesty to observe the evidence and evaluate it without myth-based, arrogant presupposition.
Granted, WordPress does corrupt HTML text containing <sup> markup (as well as some other tags). However, it usually handles direct text entry:
depending on the reader’s browser.
If worse comes to worst, you can always use a common, informal (programming-language-looking) markup like:
(possibly using ⍐,▲,⬆ or △ instead of ↑)or
or even
Of course, there is no Proper Catholic Authority to tell you how to do this, and independent thinking is not allowed.
One more that’s too easy not to mention:
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Yes, the Metaphysical Obstacle is that this WordPress install doesn’t support <sup> tags.
Christmas has come early.
My original paste from a website was not formatted properly.
I like to think that if my on-line existence could be summed up in so few words, I would find a different hobby.
^ Beaten to the punch, I see. There is still the accidentally invoked problem of the diagonalization lemma, though.
I risk putting words in Ozzie Guillen’s mouth (and S.N. oddly seems to comment on a “GMT” broadcast sked anyway), but this is the part where it’s fung, mang.
Secular gravity? Pff.
Don’t you know that Einstein recanted on his deathbed?
It’s a little-known fact that APL was based on divine revelation, which of course is mirrored in its providing access to the mysteries of the Created Matrices.
O RLY? I’m pretty sure there are a lot of facts that not everyone “believes in.” There are various genocides, engineered famines, etc., that lots of people don’t “believe in.” Some people don’t believe in the moon landing. Some people don’t believe that vaccines don’t cause autism. Some people actually still believe the work is flat.
The mere fact that something is true does not guarantee that people will accept it.
SNE said:
To my mind, and that of the Church, abortion is a real “lemon” (and it has been a “lemon” in virtually all societies throughout history, until recent times).
Oddly enough, you Magick Book of Faxx does not support this hypothesis. Your deity made it quite clear that children are not human until they are a month old. In fact, said deity did so more than once.
When one looks, this deity seemed to the quite fond of the lemonade produced by these ‘lemons.’
Of course, you knew that already.
SN
Congratulations, you are in progress. Yes, evolution is all about time. Are you still comfortable with two days?
Obviously, thinking in terms of hundreds of millions & billions of years is too hard for our Creationist troll, therefore it’s easier to believe that a sky fairy did it all…….
I’m a doctor living in the middle east.Generally , Medical school graduates in the middle east doesn’t take any courses in math , science , philosophy or business. The coursework consists of anatomy , physiology etc Not even general biology is offered in medical school in Egypt. All the education in medical school is a shit load of pure stupid memorization. The textbooks used are as stupid as it can get.The situation is not good for science and Engineering majors either. Science majors typically are not even interested in science at all. They majored in science because they didn’t get high enough grades in high school to be eligible for getting into medical , dentistry or pharmacy school. Personally , I have been always really interested in science. But I got into medical school because of very wrong reasons including family pressure , job security etc and because of the fact that I was 16 when I applied to this fucked up medical school.
Which scientists believe this, See? Be specific: provide citations to the journal articles they’ve authored stating this.
hat’s you’re problem right there–there’s no evidence demonstrating that all-caps ONLY ONE one number/side will work(i.e., generate a universe where life might arise).
In fact, the values for constants such as the weak and strong atomic force, mass of the electron, proton, etc., can vary over multiple orders of magnitude and still result in universes where stellar lifetimes are long to allow for stellar evolution and heavy element nucleosynthesis neccessary to allow for carbon based life. See http://www.talkreason.org/articles/anthro_philo.pdf
Damn! That’s another irony meter you owe, See.
Fundamentally, what would be the difference if the speed of light was 1 mile per second faster or slower?
Of course, we see the laws of the Universe break down completely in a Black Hole, for instance, or how warped space-time can get around quasars or other interesting interstellar phenomena.
Again, it appears that our sky fairy troll was completely daunted by the size and complexity of the Universe (or just life in general), so he felt it was easier to believe in stories told (and plagiarized) by nomadic tribes a few thousand years ago.
We (tinw) are DEVO!
(D-E-V-O)
If it weren’t for this thread — or, more specifically, #695 and #696 — I might never have realized that there have been works of art and music for longer than there have dogs.
What are the odds?
More seriously this time, a little text recently published on Slate by a woman raised in a Creationist family.
Narad @732 — It’s been quite a while since I saw a reference to APL, and Its Prophet, Ken Iverson.
You mean these guys?
They’re not all PhDs, or scientists, or even skeptical about evolutionary theory. So you are, at a minimum, inadvertently repeating an untruth.
Come on, people, that’s another non–fundamental constant that he could have embarrassed himself with.
See Noevo,
Doesn’t that amount to the same thing? If it is impossible for the conditions necessary for our universe to exist to exist, then our universe cannot exist. It does therefore they do.
I believe in the principle of parsimony, as reflected by Occam’s Razor. If a phenomenon could have happened through random chance then random chance becomes my working hypothesis for what happened, until something more compelling comes along. That would include evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.
Apologies for blockquote fail. It should be intelligible, even to See.
@ Lawrence:
Despite our long history of agreement on most issues @ RI, I only now learn that you are amongst my own brethren and sisterhood.
Denice @749 — I always thought it was ‘brethern and cistern’.
Narad @746 — I always thought the speed of light was fundamental, though at this point it’s been shuffled over into the definition of the meter. Was that your point?
In all fairness to those tribes, plagiarism wasn’t really a thing in the ancient world, and they didn’t really have the cultural set-up to come up with better explanations for things, what with being Bronze Age goatherds and all; and as myth, Genesis is pretty fascinating, and myths do have a certain truth to them.
(I should probably note that I obviously do not find those myths literally and factually true. At a party, once, I was drunkenly philosophizing about the Cain and Abel story, and somebody was like “something something fairy tale something” and I was like “no, it’s a true story.” I’m afraid I may have given him the wrong impression.)
SN, though, lacks any of the “excuses” that the ancient Hebrews had. He also has all the historical, philosophical and religious nuance of yer typical Lecture on Scientific Atheism. (I have a transcript of one from the early 1980s sitting in my office; maybe I’ll translate it one of these days. It’s dreck, of course, but amusing in a certain sense.)
Since the cat is pretty much out of the bag, nothing that has units is fundamental. It wouldn’t make a lick of difference if c had varied over cosmic time.
S.N.’s entire, shockingly clueless trip about physics could be boiled down to insisting that the value of pi proves the existence of G-d.
“Apologies for blockquote fail. It should be intelligible, even to See.”
It won’t be. You have to have a shred of honesty to read through it, and there are no remnants of honesty In sn.
To multiple addressees…
To Daniel Corcos #735:
“SN
Congratulations, you are in progress. Yes, evolution is all about time. Are you still comfortable with two days?”
No, I’m not comfortable with two days for the evolution of photosynthesis (ref #721).
Are you?
/////////////////////
To JGC #738:
Me: “…what is impossible, what the scientists agree is impossible, is that the universal constants, without whose particular exact settings are universe would not exist, have their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance.”
You: “Which scientists believe this, See? Be specific: provide citations to the journal articles they’ve authored stating this.”
No time now to Google all that. But I got this quickly. And videos are more fun anyway.
////////////
To JGC #740:
Me: “I accept it as Holy Writ ONLY because I use the critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity.”
You: “Damn! That’s another irony meter you owe, See.”
Darn! An observant Jew who is pro-abortion and anti-Holy Writ.
Oy vey! Who knew?
////////////
To ann #745:
“They’re not all PhDs, or scientists, or even skeptical about evolutionary theory. So you are, at a minimum, inadvertently repeating an untruth.”
You’ve already admitted you’re just a blowhard on one subject, Catholicism (#679). I know you are on this one as well. I look forward to another humble disclosure from you.
Ah, watch it squirm. You can’t just “G—le” something when you don’t understand what you’re talking about in the first place.
Because nobody watches them when they’re trotted out in lieu of actually writing something?
C’mon, keep humiliating yourself. The fact that you couldn’t even successfully identify a single one of the “universal constants” that you’ve been devoting second-hand prattle to is just the beginning.
See, there should have been no need to google anything, quickly or otherwise: elementary intellectual integrity would require you have had the names and publications available before you made the statement.
FTFY.
.
Obviously false. If it were true, everybody would believe it.
Like the current President’s place of birth?
The great thing is you now have two self-deployed anchors to AGW denialism: An “Oregon Petition” and this:
Sound familiar?
BTW, I for one am eagerly awaiting you answer to Ann’s question:
BTW, I for one am eagerly awaiting you answer to Ann’s question:
Don’t hold your breath.
Upon reflection, it appears that SNE worships the God of the Asterisks:
1. The Church is infallible*
2. There are no contradictions in the Holy Writ**
3. God hates abortion.***
4. Bearing false witness is a sin****
* Except when it’s not.
** If one ignores certain ‘innocuous’ passages.
*** With certain exceptions, as noted in the Holy Writ.
**** Except in defense of points one through three
That doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Or even unreliable, necessarily.
But moot point. Because It’s not like I was asking you to take my word for it. I provided a link to full, detailed, documentation of the untruth you were repeating. It’s either valid or it’s not.
So. If you want to ignore that, feel free. But the untruth would no longer be inadvertent. And there’s no amount of unpleasant I could possibly be that would alter that.
When you know I’m a blowhard?
How very paradoxical of you.
Thanks.
I had tentatively concluded that it was kind of like Anselm’s ontological argument, except in drag and minus the ontological argument. But I wasn’t very confident about that. Sooner or later, I would have had to ask.
To Krebiozen #747:
“Doesn’t that amount to the same thing? If it is impossible for the conditions necessary for our universe to exist to exist, then our universe cannot exist. It does therefore they do.”
No, it does not amount to the same thing at all. You just can’t see what’s right in front of you.
I’ll say this for the THIRD time. (Maybe the third time is the charm.)
What is IMPOSSIBLE is that our universe exists BY CHANCE. For some help, try watching the Youtube I posted in #755.
“I believe in the principle of parsimony, as reflected by Occam’s Razor. If a phenomenon could have happened through random chance then random chance becomes my working hypothesis for what happened, until something more compelling comes along.”
The POINT is that this phenomenon could NOT have happened through RANDOM CHANCE. If you watched the linked video above, then watch it again, and pay better attention.
Also, and perhaps equally important, is the point YOU IGNORED. Namely, you DON’T HAVE FOREVER to keep rolling the dice in hopes of getting that particular 1 in 10 to the hundredth-something power. You have JUST ONE ROLL, in the microsecond our universe came into existence after the alleged Big Bang.
You: “Evolution most certainly is a fact as it…has been directly observed.”
Me: “Obviously false. If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.”
You: “What a very odd non sequitur. Do you think the only things that are true are those that everyone believes in?”
What a very odd statement.
The truth is the truth regardless of anyone’s beliefs. The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or no one believes it. But science does not deal with truth, in the sense that SCIENCE never claims to PROVE anything. What science deals with is OBSERVATIONS and theories about observations. Confidence in the “truth” of observations is always greater than confidence in the “truth” of theories ABOUT the observations. For example, we have universal confidence in the “truth” of fossils and of gravity, but we have less confidence in the “truth” of THEORIES ABOUT fossils and gravity. With Evolution it’s a double-whammy: 1) Never observed, 2) Suspect theory about what’s never observed.
“Our entire system of knowledge is built “interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts”. What else could we possibly build it on?”
But systems of knowledge are kind of like opinions and a******s, everybody’s got one. Perhaps you believe all opinions are created equal. I don’t. (And I think Evolution Theory is an A**.)
“You are seriously comparing science with the jury system…”
Yes, I seriously am.
“How can you accept anything as Holy Writ if you have your “critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity” intact?”
Fairly easily.
BTW, are you going to reverse your earlier statement about “reverse gear”? Remember, you said “Species don’t have boundaries either” but then “Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear”, and I responded that if there are no boundaries then the species of cats COULD REVERT back to that artist’s rendering of that supposed species Dormaalocyon latouri.
So, are you going to withdraw your statement (or statements)?
Me: “What’s sad is that you don’t even realize the scientists have given up on the trees, or at least on the iconic Tree of Life, long ago.”
You: “No, they haven’t (url). You have missed the point.”
Yes, they have: “The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What’s less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html
Also, Google “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” from NewScientist 1/21/2009.
Me: “[The Tree of Life is] too problematic for them. You mockingly mention “shrubs” (plural), but sadly, that’s what the scientists have been gravitating to. Multiple shrubs.”
You: “I don’t think evolutionary science is gravitating towards that, is it?”
Yes, it is. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040352
Also, Google 6/26/2007 NYT article “The Human Family Tree Has Become a Bush With Many Branches”.
“You may not be kidding, but you are deeply confused. The topology of whatever we use to represent related organisms isn’t important, the fact that all are interrelated and how, is.”
Sounds very similar to a quote I read somewhere years ago. It was from a scientist or science educator who was asked whether he had misgivings about teaching students something (i.e. the Tree of Life) which has since been abandoned as false or at least unworkable. I’ll have to paraphrase: ‘No, I have no regrets or misgivings. The point is that the Tree of Life concept helped us scale the walls of the castles of their minds. It helped us get them to buy-into the theory of evolution. And now they DO believe.’
In other words, the ends justify the means; get them to believe in the big E even if you have to lie to do so.
No kidding.
Me: “But if no mutual exclusivity exists between “X” and “not-X”, then “X” = “not-X”. And every “one” and every “thing” is.. “everyone” and “everything”.”
You: “It isn’t about exclusivity, it’s about every living thing on Earth being related to every other living thing.”
Well, I’d say every human being on Earth is related to every other human being. But YOU are saying a Non-human being one second can be a human being the next second. That’s different.
“How does having no boundaries mean that evolution does have a reverse gear?”
Because having no boundaries means being able to go in any direction, including backward.
This is fυcking comedy gold.
Obviously false. If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.
The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or no one believes it.
Make up your mind.
See Noevo, what gives you the authority to decide who’s a proper Christian and who isn’t? Were you crucified? Were you resurrected? Was I baptised in your name? Why should I take you as an authority?
See’s video link says that the cosmological constant must be exactly what it is “otherwise the universe would be so drastically different, that it would be impossible for us to evolve” (at about 2:03). (Yah, it says we evolved, big deal.)
Not that some version of the universe wouldn’t exist, but only that it wouldn’t be this exact one, and we wouldn’t be here to see it.
But this exact universe does exist, and we are here to see it.
Therefor, an invisible wizard created the universe.
It’s perfectly logical.
Of course, there is some debate about the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
I’ll say this for the THIRD time. (Maybe the third time is the charm.)
Ah, Bellman logic. That always works.
To ann #762:
Me: “Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to these PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many others universities (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660) who are, at a minimum, skeptical of evolution theory’s claims.”
You: “They’re not all PhDs, or scientists, or even skeptical about evolutionary theory. So you are, at a minimum, inadvertently repeating an untruth…I provided a link to full, detailed, documentation of the untruth you were repeating. It’s either valid or it’s not.”
In an effort to remedy what you call my untruths, how about this revision, with the new wording in BOLD?
“Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to THE PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many other universities WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LISTING (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660)
OF SIGNATORIES who are, at a minimum, skeptical of CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPEXILTY OF LIFE.”
Is that better, more truth-y? Would you give your imprimatur on this revision?
To Gray Falcon #767:
“See Noevo, what gives you the authority to decide who’s a proper Christian and who isn’t? Were you crucified? Were you resurrected? Was I baptised in your name? Why should I take you as an authority?”
Forget about me.
Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?
That’s an even more stupid attack on the “anthropic principle” (the specification of whose, which version, and why anyone but SUSY apologists would care is apparently above S.N.’s pay grade) than I had imagined: the cosmological constant is the least of anyone’s problems, given that it’s not coupled to anything.
This of course is leaving aside the giant honking problem that these nitwits are invoking “the” fυcking anthropic principle – which is, ah, asymptotically isomorphic to Divine Creation in the first place.
Any non–brain-dead approach to making a stink about the actual parameters that are only known empirically would immediately recognize that one has a choice between* directly equating mathematics with G-d – obviating any need to babble about the big bang, but obviously distateful by symmetry arguments, not to mention the Pythangoreans – and just skipping straight to George Hammond.
* I deliberately omit the third, correct one.
@SN, #764
OK. If, when Krebiozen says…
…it means he’s saying that a non-human being one second can be a human being the next second, why does this…
…not mean that every human being can be him/herself one second and somebody else the next?
(Assuming that’s not what you mean.)
See Noevo:
Yes.
An “impossible” post:
In #690 I wrote that “I recall reading that all scientists, even the atheist ones, agree that it’s effectively IMpossible. That impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as “multiverse theory”.
And in #708: “… what is impossible, what the scientists agree is impossible, is that the universal constants, without whose particular exact settings are universe would not exist, have their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance.”
I thought it was common knowledge, at least common among those at all familiar with the subject.
For the various statements I make, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready. I don’t always have comprehensive, copy-n-paste-able listings of “the names and publications” when I make statements.
Perhaps the rest of you do.
JGC #757 surely must.
But probably not ann #651.
But I don’t.
However, I did manage to do a little Googling tonight about atheists saying it’s impossible for the universal constants to be by chance. And darn it, I’m not having any luck yet finding the word “impossible”. But I did find this:
This quotes several scientists and at least two of them, Faber and Krauss, are atheists.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/
“… Faber [astronomer and professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz] declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer. “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.” … This “anthropic principle” infuriates many physicists, for it implies that we cannot really explain our universe from first principles. “It’s an argument that sometimes I find distasteful, from a personal perspective,” says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, author of A Universe From Nothing. “I’d like to be able to understand why the universe is the way it is, without resorting to this randomness.”
…..
Here’s an article supporting the Anthropic Theory (which I find to be a ridiculously non-scientific theory which basically states that the universal constants HAD to be at their exact settings because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to say so).
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-physics.html
Anyway…
“Stephen Hawking [a famous atheist you may have heard of] … asks: “Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?… If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million,” he explains, “the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.””
Maybe I’ll Google some more later. Maybe not. Maybe, like ann, I just won’t “feel like it.”
To Gray Falcon #774:
Me: “Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?”
You: “Yes.”
OK.
But I thought you were a Christian?
I don’t have one. But if you’re asking for my opinion, it’s that it’s still the same lie of omission that it was before. It’s just more carefully phrased.
See–
Grey Falcon has already won the thread, and today’s internet, at 767, but I’ll give you a hint: try googling “priesthood of all believers.” (Were I a Christian, I would suspect you of quoting scripture on the devil’s behalf; as an atheist, I give you full credit for all your misdirections, confusion, and prevarication.)
778 comments and counting.
To ann #777:
Wow. Ann’s 666, and now 777.
Anyway…
Me: “Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to THE PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many other universities WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LISTING (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660)
OF SIGNATORIES who are, at a minimum, skeptical of CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPEXILTY OF LIFE.”
You: “… it’s still the same lie of omission that it was before. It’s just more carefully phrased.”
What did I omit?
That’s not an unreasonable surmise, but it’s wrong. I had the citations. It was just that the prospect of trotting Origen, Basil, and Ambrose around the ring like they were anti-creationist show-ponies was distasteful to me. I didn’t feel like doing it.
I do reiterate my earlier recommendation about reading them yourself, though. It had been a long time since I had. I enjoyed it.
Vicki: “Were I a Christian.”
Yesterday I was bumming around YouTube and came upon this gem with Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) at the Mutter Museum. Just before the six minute I learned to religious term: Hinjew. The whole video and the others accompanying it were hilarious.
Aargh… since I was still laughing, I mucked it up: “learned
toa new religious term”Seeomebody apparently doesn’t understand that Oregon Petitions are as common as dirt.
Narad, your two links go to the same thing.
I haven’t read Origen in a long time, but I recall being a fan in college. Universal reconciliation had a big appeal, as I always found the idea of eternal torment in hell to be just appalling, barbaric, and not worthy of any G-d deserving of the title.
In fact, lack of belief in hell is one of the few things I can appreciate about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I’ll consider telling you after you answer my question about Exodus and get back to JGC about Lindsay.
Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to THE PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many other universities WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LISTING
Oh, dear, a belt-high slider down the middle.
Dagnabit: Common.
@ SN
“No, I’m not comfortable with two days for the evolution of photosynthesis”
My question can be understood, by any honest person, as “two days” for the appearance of the species. You don’t want to answer, because of your fear of going to hell.
I’m tired and the browsers are fighting for swap; have I already asked why G-d would design the One True Church* with such a shocking flaw as a wholesale inability to produce anything even vaguely of the “kind” of earnest popular music?**
* Not that I view S.N.’s “credentials” any more favorably than your average bouncer, mind you.
** Videos obviously not “are more fun anyway,” but they can be more appropriate.
@palindrom:
To ann #787:
Me: “What did I omit?”
You: “I’ll consider telling you after you answer my question about Exodus and get back to JGC about Lindsay.”
Gosh, here I thought the Lindsay thing was a matter just between JGC and me.
And I think I may not have answered some of Daran’s questions, and probably some other folks’, too.
Are you sure you wouldn’t like to add all of their unanswered questions to your list?
Anyway, stick to your guns, annie.
You go, girl!
The breadth of your cluelessness has already been amply demonstrated, so this statement is superfluous.
Never managed to figure out this one, eh? And only two possible values at that. Four out of five
dentistsSCIENTISTS agree, THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE.Another thing I don’t understand with a certain class of believers*.
Even if the premise is real – that the FSM’s creation is so well-done that us “little weaklings” will be unable to destroy it, no matter what, it doesn’t follow that we should do our best to destroy it.
It’s a childish argument and it’s a plain contradiction of the main teachings of most organized religions, which are about being held responsible of one own’s acts.
* Actually, I understand full well. It’s deadly pride disguised as humility.
one own’s act
sorry
one’s own acts
3rd time is a charm. Need coffee badly.
Heh. Nothing like a little CPT violation to end an exhausting day.
That impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as “multiverse theory”
I can only suppose that time travel was involved, propagating back to inspire Hugh Everett’s thesis in 1956 long before any speculation about ‘fundamental constants’.
But please go on, I love the sight of numpties and dweebs dumbsplaining about what All Physicists Believe.
See: “But I thought you were a Christian?”
I am, because I believe as Jesus Christ taught. And Jesus did not teach literalism, no matter how many out-of-context quotes you provide.
@See Noevo, I’ve been reading this comment thread for days and I must say that I am disappointed in you.
You said days ago that you had been an evolution “believer” for thirty years and an “apostate” for twelve. This is a common claim by creationists, as in religious circles the testimony of a former believer is thought to be more convincing than that of one who never believed at all. At least, that is my understanding for the purpose of this pretense.
But of course you yourself are not pretending to have been an evolution “believer” because to do so you would have to lie and lying you know is a sin. However, your performance as a former evolution “believer” is, as I said, deeply disappointing.
No scientist studying evolution has ever said that a non-human became a human one second later; the science of evolution has always been about population changes over generations. The notion of individuals evolving in their own lifetime is a science fiction notion (e.g., “The Man Who Evolved”), not part of evolutionary theory.
Likewise, evolutionary theory does not predict that dogs turn into cats but rather that different populations that were originally one species can become more and more different over vast time until they are as different as dogs and cats. But of course as a thirty-year “believer” in evolution, you know that.
So why do you bring these things up? As an apostate trying to convince current believers, why do you claim that your former belief system includes something that it never has included? This is like a Christian apostate claiming that Christian theology is silly because it claims that the Virgin Mary was impregnated by a swan and laid eggs from which four children hatched, one being Jesus. Your claims are simply absurd, the sort of things an ignorant creationist would bring up while pretending to have once accepted evolution. So why are you making these claims?
Frankly, I could do a more convincing imitation of an evolution “apostate” than you have. But of course you’re not pretending, are you? Because that would be lying.
And like so much else you believe to be self-evidently true, you clearly were wrong to think so.
Maybe the following will help you udnerstand why you’re wrong:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
No, but it’s an interesting question.
Well. I think that Gregorian chant was almost certainly earnest popular music when it originated. But I can’t come up with a more recent counter-example than that. Catholicism leads to super-syncopated illicit dance rhythms, not earnestness, seemingly. So maybe G-d just loves mambo.
That’s not really satisfactory. But it’s the best I can do.
“Heh. Nothing like a little CPT violation to end an exhausting day.”. NobRed on helmet polishing
You’ll go blind. Which you all have to the issue about evolution below the microscope. Funny that, all unpleasant about the God thing above the microscope, but below we suddenly all become sponteseparatists.
@ ann:
” maybe G-d just loves mambo”
Ha ha.
Seriously! I attend latina dance classes and REALLY!
Most of the stuff is pretty d-amned good:
salsa, samba, cha cha, bachata ( sp?) and various South American rhythms.
See Noevo,
It’s been a long time since I argued with a Creationist, and I am beginning to remember why.
I have watched the video. Like others you have linked to it appears to have been randomly edited and annotated with non-sequiturs and untruths by an idiot with no understanding of the subject at all, which is a bit distracting. I do not agree with the physicists who claim that universal constants are evidence of the existence of God. I don’t believe that the fact that most weeks someone wins the UK lottery with odds of 13 million to 1 is evidence of the existence of God either.
I have watched it again, and the only conclusions I can come to are that the person who edited and annotated it is a moron (upgraded from ‘idiot’ after careful consideration) and that you (possibly the same person) don’t understand what you are talking about.
How do you know how many times the dice has rolled? We don’t know for sure how many times the universe has expanded and contracted, if at all, or how many other worlds without life exist, if any, what happened before the Big Bang, if we are heading towards a Big Crunch or infinite expansion, to name just a few major uncertainties that mathematicians and physicists are still arguing about. Trying to claim that something could not have happened by chance and inventing a massive literal deus ex machina in the midst of such uncertainty is simply foolish, in my view.
Incidentally, I’m not clear about your beliefs. You claim that God created the universe, the Earth and life fully formed. You also claim that God created the universe with all the physical constants and conditions necessary for life to evolve. Why did God need to do the latter if he was going to do the former? Why bother making evolution possible, and creating fossils to deceive people, if you can just do it by fiat anyway? I would be more impressed by God creating life in a universe in which it categorically could not have evolved. That would be a neat trick. I can only conclude that God does not want me to believe in Her/Him/It.
Conversely, people’s beliefs are people’s beliefs regardless of the truth, as you will be reminded every day if you spend any time reading this blog. You stated that if evolution had been observed, which it indisputably has, everyone would believe in it (“If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution”). What has the fact that not everyone believes in evolution have to do with the truth of the matter? Lots of people believe in things that aren’t true.
In some areas we can be sure enough that something is true that for all practical purposes it is proven to be true.
That isn’t true at all, and is the main reason we had to develop the scientific method. There are many examples of people seeing what they believe, instead of what is in front of their eyes. That’s why we need replication and large numbers of observations.
Given the number of hoaxed fossils around, I disagree. Even observations of gravity can be affected by people’s beliefs; Eddington’s observations of light being bent by gravity may (or may not) have suffered from confirmation bias.
We have a huge amount of confidence in the truth of both, since they have stood up to centuries of people constructing experiments designed to disprove them. The theories built up around both are built on very solid foundations. We aren’t going to find that dogs and cats are not descended from a common ancestor, for example, there’s just too much supporting evidence for that to happen. There are many fine details we don’t understand, of course.
That’s a flat lie, as we have established.
Evolution is an elegant theory that is supported (I repeat again, sigh) by a vast interlocking network of data from multiple fields. Both evolution and speciation have been observed. Repeatedly lying about this isn’t going to help you.
That is up there among the most stupid things I have seen anyone claim. Well done. I had thought that the, “it’s just a theory”, canard had been played to death long ago, but thanks for a Le Pétomane variation which smells just as expected.
Oh wait, another contender. I’m not even going to start pointing out the differences.
I would be fascinated to know how. You seriously believe that a supernatural being created the universe, including humans, and including a raft of misleading evidence that suggests it all happened by chance, explained what he had done to some nomadic pastoralists in the Middle East who (eventually) wrote it down. This supernatural being then disappeared and never interacted or communicated with us again (except perhaps by curing the occasional ill person) leaving us to argue about what s/he meant by it for the next few thousand years? It must take some serious mental gymnastics to believe that.
No.
OK, if you insist, I’ll explain. If random chance were all that is in operation, perhaps it could, but it isn’t, natural selection is operating too. Each mutation back towards the common ancestor would have to carry some reproductive advantage to it for the offspring to out-compete the other, which is effectively impossible.
No, the concept of all life being interrelated and being portrayed on a diagram similar to a tree is not being given up.
That isn’t what I’m talking about at all. The shrubs I referred to are separate creations of life, not related to the rest of life at all, referring to what I think is the model you are working from. It is the separate creation of these species that I think makes you believe that one species cannot evolve into another.
I’m stating that life emerged just once (probably) on Earth, and (almost) all living things are descended from that original life form. It is very difficult indeed to argue against that given the fossil record and the DNA evidence. So, we can represent all living things on a family tree diagram showing that interrelatedness. The discussions you have linked to are about what shape that diagram might be, about interbreeding, horizontal DNA transfer and epigenetics, it’s about fine-tuning our understanding of how natural selection and evolution work, not about questioning their existence entirely.
Is there a word for that sinking feeling when you realize you had made an error of an order of magnitude or more estimating the intelligence of a person you are discussing something with? There should be.
Human definitions do not always reflect divisions in nature. If we could resurrect every common ancestor of dogs and cats we could form a line of animals leading from cats to dogs, through their common ancestor, with each animal being indistinguishable from the ones either side. There is no point at which a cat is next to a non-cat, or a dog to a non-dog. We could similarly arrange descendants from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, and we would find something similar: no obvious boundaries or jumps.
Tell that to someone trying to canoe up the Niagara Falls. There is a difference between something being logically possible and it being physically possible. It is logically possible for cats to evolve into dogs, but I doubt it’s ever going to happen; I doubt it is physically possible. As I wrote before, once a step has been taken in evolution it may well not be possible to reverse that step – think of a ratchet. Or if it is possible, it is so unlikely that for all intents and purposes it will never happen. Remember that evolution isn’t about random changes; to persist, each of those changes must come with a reproductive advantage, or at the very least no disadvantage.
For a cat to evolve into a dog, each of the mutations on the way must happen in the right order, and the environment must also change in order to make that mutation an advantageous change. If a mutation replaced the function of another gene, that gene must be restored before this mutation is reversed. At each step a stable breeding population must be maintained.
Once back at the common ancestor stage it would then have to evolve into a dog, following the same path that dogs really have followed. All that is far, far more unlikely than a cat evolving in the first instance.
It’s really not a worldview I had encountered before except among low-rent Fundagelicals – but then, SN seems to be getting most of his beliefs, opinions, etc., from low-rent Fundagelicals, so I suppose I’m not terribly surprised.
Interestingly, it seems that “belief” in evolution is positively correlated with support for environmental regulations among religious believers.
RE Narad @791
I prefer this version by John Hurt
A man, his guitar, and nothing else.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
I could be wrong about this. But if the odds of something happening in a single microsecond are 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power to one, you just need 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power microseconds to make it probable that it happened once, don’t you?
I’m never comfortable with a notion of direction in evolution. Populations vary, the environment selects for some traits over others. Eventually (assuming the entire population doesn’t die out) some of the population is distinguishable as significantly different from the original population, resulting in at least one new species.
If dogs were ruthlessly selected for cat traits over a sufficiently long period, I’m sure they could be bred to look and act like cats. They very likely would not be cats genetically. They probably would not be dogs either, making a new species that is neither cat nor dog.
^^Of it happening by chance, when those are the only terms.
His problem is in his repeated inssitence that only one single “die roll” would be capable of resulting in a universe which could allow living organisms to arise. As pointed out in the Stenger article I linked to above that isn’t the case.
A useful analogy is that of a megabucks lottery–See’s trying to frame the argument in terms of “What is the likelihood that this particular sequence of numbers would have been drawn by random chance such that the lottery ticket I’m holding would have won?” when the relevant question is instead “What is the likelihood that some sequence of numbers would have been drawn such that some ticket, held by someone, would have won?”
MWI – which is quite pedestrian* – and the landscape are quite different things.
S.N.’s assertion that “that impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as ‘multiverse theory'” is just more demonstration that his knowledge of the subject is completely nonexistent.
* “Just a way of talking about the emergent behavior of the classical approximation,” as Peter Woit has put it.
To Gray Falcon #800:
Me: “Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?”
You: “Yes.”
Me: “OK. But I thought you were a Christian?”
You: “I am, because I believe as Jesus Christ taught. And Jesus did not teach literalism, no matter how many out-of-context quotes you provide.”
You’re last answer really is not faithful to the subject of our exchange.
We were talking about “AUTHORITY”, the subject YOU inserted way back in #547.
And subsequent exchanges, primarily with ann, dealt with authority regarding Catholic morality on abortion. Abortion was the “object” of the “subject” of authority. But regardless of the object being abortion or something else, we were talking about the SUBJECT of AUTHORITY.
You said NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has AUTHORITY to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is.
That’s why I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian.
But as I pointed out to ann in #541 and #674, labels can be deceiving.
re: the topic of who is, and is not, a “real” Christian. I was raised in the Pentacostal church, which regards Catholics as warmed-over pagans. I didn’t know much about Catholicism in high school, where I learned that they claimed to be the “original” church. When I started studying the history of Christianity in college, I was shocked to discover that they were both right.
^I didn’t know much about Catholicism until high school.
The Standard Model has 19 empirically determined parameters (ignoring neutrinos), not 10⁵⁰⁰. Of course, your phrasing demonstrates that your ignorance runs far deeper than that.
You said NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has AUTHORITY to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is.
That’s why I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian.
His religion, His call. Not yours.
To LW #801:
“No scientist studying evolution has ever said that a non-human became a human one second later…”
As Slicky Willy Clinton might have said,
“That depends on what the meaning of “said” is.”
MANY scientists HAVE SAID that the population of human beings was NEVER LESS THAN 10,000.
And since even I agree there was a time on earth with zero human beings, call it “through time X”, then, at X plus one second 10,000 NON-human beings became 10,000 human beings.
“The notion of individuals evolving in their own lifetime is a science fiction notion (e.g., “The Man Who Evolved”), not part of evolutionary theory.”
Completely false. See above.
“Likewise, evolutionary theory does not predict that dogs turn into cats but rather that different populations that were originally one species can become more and more different over vast time until they are as different as dogs and cats. But of course as a thirty-year “believer” in evolution, you know that.”
Do you believe as Kerbiozen here that “Species don’t have boundaries”?
“So why do you bring these things up? As an apostate trying to convince current believers, why do you claim that your former belief system includes something that it never has included?”
Granted, in the 30-some years I believed in evolution I didn’t know as much about it as I do now, and no doubt had some misperceptions. And I didn’t ask nearly as many questions about it. I essentially just ASSUMED it was true and scientific because I always HEARD it was true and scientific. But I’d bet that if today you asked several average Evolution believers what Evolution is, you might get several different answers. Evolution education is not in great shape, 150 years on.
See Noevo- Seriously, you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority of Christianity? Are you really suggesting something that heretical?
^ Moreover, it doesn’t seem to have dawned on S.N. yet that quantum measurement is nondeterministic, which would be a far greater problem if he had the slightest idea what he was talking about and completely eliminate the need to make a fool of himself by yammering about a failed version of BSM physics.
Then again, The Fibonacci sequence would have done that as well.
At least your underlying lack of reasoning skills hasn’t changed; you’ve simply chosen a more primitive script to try to memorize lines from.
No, See, it doesn’t: evolution does not act at the scalel of individual organisms, but at the scale of populations of organisms.
Who exactly are these all=caps MANY scientists, See, and what was the contexy in which they stated this calim?
Identify 10, with citations to the articles they’ve published stating the claim, please.
See, once again: by definition individuals (human or otherwise) do not evolve. Populations evolve.
I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea there was a time you understood evolution even less well than your posts indicate you do now…
Which might be an argument that we should improve how evolution is taught, not that evolutionary models are invalid. Agreed?
When someone has to base their entire argument on Semantics, there is very little to be had……
Are you sure that if you saw that in context, it wouldn’t be clear that they were talking about a population bottleneck from 70,000 years ago and not some singular, mythical concept like the Dawn of Mankind?
Because while it’s hard to say without a citation, that’s my best guess.
So what do you think was meant by this? Do you think that:
a) at a given signal, 10,000 home not-quite-sapiens females gave birth to the first generation of homo sapiens?
b) On New Years Day, the HR department sent out a message to 10,000 homo not-quite-sapiens with the beginning of fiscal year promotions?
c) Or that perhaps the boundary between species is not quite so exact that it can be defined to the second?
Although I suppose that since you presumably need to attain something above non-negligible population numbers in order to leave a lasting fossil record, they might also have been talking about that.
There are probably other possibilities, too. It’s really just the out-of-context part I’m betting on.
Even better, the 10,000 comes from the Toba supervolcano idea, so the “argument” isn’t even well constructed.
S.N. is not a particularly competent creationist, but this is what happens when one’s only intellectual resource is picking up second-hand material here and there.
Coming from someone who was quoting the scriptures upthread and quite obviously was regarding them as the literal word of Jehowah/Jesus, this sentence is difficult to parse.
Judging from recent examples, the same hold true asking Catholics what Catholicism is about.
That would have been the Tambora Super-Eruption, that may have reduced the number of humans on earth to a mere 100,000 or less……
Oops – I meant Toba…Tambora was 19th Century….
Clearly the apostle Paul had a far greater impact on the workings of the church (entrance requirements, secret handshake, articles of faith) than Jesus. After all, he wrote far more of the New Testament than Jesus did.
@#828, #831 —
On consideration, I think it’s likelier to be the Adam-and-Eve-based point of confusion described here.
The population-bottleneck thing just looked good to me because I wasn’t thinking like a creationist. Which only goes to show. Dying is easy, communication is hard.
MANY scientists HAVE SAID that the population of human beings was NEVER LESS THAN 10,000.
I would like to see citations for these MANY scientists saying that there have always been 10,000 or more human beings alive.
Life is full of disappointments, however.
I essentially just ASSUMED it was true and scientific because I always HEARD it was true and scientific.
I will try SN’s citational approach in my next paper and see how far it gets me.
To Krebiozen #806:
“I do not agree with the physicists who claim that universal constants are evidence of the existence of God. I don’t believe that the fact that most weeks someone wins the UK lottery with odds of 13 million to 1 is evidence of the existence of God either.”
You’re confusing outcomes with probabilities. The OUTCOME is certain, 100%. Specifically, everyone knows with 100% certainty that SOMEONE of the 13 million will win.
Likewise, we know with 100% certainty the outcome of the universal constants, that the universal constants turned out the way they are.
But what was the probability of that outcome? With ANY of the universal constants, ONLY ONE PARTICULAR “someone” can win, else there’s no more “lotteries”, no more anything. And the odds of that one particular “someone” winning are a lot smaller than 1 in 13 million.
“Incidentally, I’m not clear about your beliefs. You claim that God created the universe, the Earth and life fully formed. You also claim that God created the universe with all the physical constants and conditions necessary for life to evolve. Why did God need to do the latter if he was going to do the former?”
Let me clarify more of my beliefs for you: He didn’t do the latter.
“Conversely, people’s beliefs are people’s beliefs regardless of the truth…You stated that if evolution had been observed, which it indisputably has, everyone would believe in it (“If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution”).”
I’ll give you partial credit on this one, Krebiozen. It’s true that seeing is not always believing (cf. Matthew 28:17). You’re absolutely correct.
Conversely, believing is not always seeing (e.g. abiogenesis).
“What has the fact that not everyone believes in evolution have to do with the truth of the matter?”
Virtually nothing.
“In some areas we can be sure enough that something is true that for all practical purposes it is proven to be true.”
I agree. The existence of fossils and of gravity, for example. In fact, you don’t even have to be a scientist to know that for all practical purposes these are proven to be true. It’s almost as true for me as Cogito Ergo Sum.
Me: “What science deals with is OBSERVATIONS and theories about observations.”
You: “That isn’t true at all…That’s why we need replication and large numbers of observations.”
Hmmm.
You: “You are seriously comparing science with the jury system…”
Me: “Yes, I seriously am.” [Ever hear anything like ‘The CONSENSUS of the scientific community believes evolution is a fact’?]
You: “Oh wait, another contender. I’m not even going to start pointing out the differences.”
Hmmm.
………………….
You: “How can you accept anything as Holy Writ if you have your “critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity” intact?”
Me: “Fairly easily.”
You: “I would be fascinated to know how.”
To borrow some of your words above, I’m not even going to start pointing out…how.
“OK, if you insist, I’ll explain. If random chance were all that is in operation, perhaps it could, but it isn’t, natural selection is operating too. Each mutation back towards the common ancestor would have to carry some reproductive advantage to it for the offspring to out-compete the other, which is effectively impossible.”
Why would evolving backwards hurt an organism’s reproductive advantage if the organism that it evolved FROM* is still around and reproducing fabulously? [*Cyanobacteria are as good a candidate as any for the first life, the universal common ancestor. And according to the bubble heads at Berkeley, the 3.5 billion year old cyanobactria fossils are barely younger than the first rock!]
“I’m stating that life emerged just once (probably) on Earth, and (almost) all living things are descended from that original life form… So, we can represent all living things on a family tree diagram showing that interrelatedness.”
As always with evolution theory, that SOUNDS sensible.
But the Devil’s in the details. And oddly enough, it’s the details about the family tree that have exasperated scientists to the point of cutting the damn thing down. Which they have.
Me: “But if no mutual exclusivity exists between “X” and “not-X”, then “X” = “not-X”. And every “one” and every “thing” is.. “everyone” and “everything”.”
You: “It isn’t about exclusivity, it’s about every living thing on Earth being related to every other living thing.”
Me: “Well, I’d say every human being on Earth is related to every other human being. But YOU are saying a Non-human being one second can be a human being the next second. That’s different.”
You: “If we could…form a line of animals leading from cats to dogs, through their common ancestor, with each animal being indistinguishable from the ones either side. There is no point at which a cat is next to a non-cat…”
If not a non-cat, then, what would the scientist say the cat is next to?
You: “How does having no boundaries mean that evolution does have a reverse gear?”
Me: “Because having no boundaries means being able to go in any direction, including backward.”
You: “Tell that to someone trying to canoe up the Niagara Falls.”
If that someone in the canoe was named See Evo, I’d tell him: “Don’t sweat it. You’re not TRYING to do ANYTHING.”
“As I wrote before, once a step has been taken in evolution it may well not be possible to reverse that step – think of a ratchet. Or if it is possible, it is so unlikely that for all intents and purposes it will never happen.”
WHAT?
You say “If it is so unlikely that for all intents and purposes it will never happen”?
OK. Just like the universal constants settling on their particular and necessary settings BY CHANCE. It will or could never happen.
Mephistopheles O’Brien,
Me neither. I should have been clearer in specifying that I meant the direction in a sequence of mutations that resulted in evolution. The use of directional, goal-oriented design terminology in evolution has led to enormous amounts of confusion. I remember in one of Gould’s books he uses the analogy of water being poured down an inclined tray, and the route the droplets take as an analogy for the different directions evolution takes. The idea was that if life on Earth was set back to the beginning and rerun, it would not follow the exact same path again. I never quite understood what gravity was in that analogy.
I think what we (well, I) sometimes forget is the time element in evolution. In some ways it is useful to think of every organism that ever lived as still being alive as a sort of 4-dimensional bush (or whatever metaphorical shape you prefer), representing life as an interrelated monolithic entity. That way it becomes obvious that it is the death of some organisms and survival of others that gives the illusion of direction. We can see a sort of progression towards complexity, I suppose, but there are plenty of simple organisms still around that have barely changed at all. I’m musing again, but you get my drift.
I’m sure you’re right, but my point is that the series of mutations that resulted in speciation is unlikely to spontaneously reverse in sequence*, given the requirement for said reversed series of mutations to also improve the reproductive success of the creature concerned.
🙂 Christianity sounded quite nice (in parts) until Saul got his hands on it. It’s funny to think someone who never met Jesus IRL had such an influence on the Christian church. BTW, try talking to a Mormon about Catholicism, if you want some entertainment 😉
* I recently came across a discussion of entropy, and how it wouldn’t be possible to make a machine that turns omelettes into eggs. Someone pointed out that a chicken in a box would do the job, which I thought was an interesting though slightly distasteful idea.
Same difference (RLY).
Too bad that the “universal constants” aren’t even constant, dumbass.
To JP #807:
“Interestingly, it seems that “belief” in evolution is positively correlated with support for environmental regulations among religious believers.”
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with more than just belief in (AGW agenda) environmental regulations.
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers,
– abortion and contraception,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document,
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver]
I don’t KNOW. But I’d take that bet.
Define “gravity.” If you refer to it as a force, you lose.
Krebiozen,
I also remember one of Gould’s essays in which he discussed how wildly improbable it would be for the same creature to evolve twice, even given the exact same starting conditions. The fact that all chordates have a single common ancestral species and that there is nothing that distinguishes that one (so far as we can tell) for survival from others makes you think about how things could have gone. The notion of people being the end products of evolution is only correct as far as time is concerned – amoebas, slime molds, and mosquitoes are just as much end products of evolution.
I fully agree. In fact, if something that appeared like that happened it would not be a reversal, as such, since it would be incredibly unlikely that** your treads would follow exactly the same path “backwards” as “forwards”.
**Using an amazingly bad analogy.
See Noevo – I’ll take that bet on the other side. What are your stakes, sir?
Oh, G-d, it’s a legal ignoramus as well. Truly a bounty of riches.
Let’s see – who was the most famous person I can recall getting a divorce? Henry VIII? What was his stance of evolution?
@SeeNoevo:
Given the fact that you’re a Roman freaking Catholic, I find the fact that you include this on your list of modern sins incredibly amusing.
As for the rest of the things you’d be willing to bet on, you’d be losing money. Out-of-wedlock birth is actually higher in “red” states which tend to be more religious in, uh, the way that you seem to be, though I’m willing to concede that that probably has more to do with education levels and socio-economic status than anything. (Well, and abstinence only sex “education.”) Same goes for STDs. And the state with the highest rate of pornography consumption is Utah.
Depression is a fairly equal opportunity illness, although it has a lower incidence in those who are highly involved in a religious community. I’d be willing to bet it has a lower incidence in people who are involved in any sort of community, though. It says a lot about you that you include clinical depression on your list of “sins,” though. How very compassionate and Christ-like to blame the afflicted for their own afflictions.
Oh, and BTW, do you think the 3/5 compromise was something worth keeping in the Constitution? Are you a fan of the Bill of Rights?
To ann #809:
Me: “Also, and perhaps equally important, is the point YOU IGNORED. Namely, you DON’T HAVE FOREVER to keep rolling the dice in hopes of getting that particular 1 in 10 to the hundredth-something power. You have JUST ONE ROLL, in the microsecond our universe came into existence after the alleged Big Bang.”
You: “I could be wrong about this. But if the odds of something happening in a single microsecond are 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power to one, you just need 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power microseconds to make it probable that it happened once, don’t you?”
You not only could be wrong, you are wrong.
The point is that you get ONLY ONE roll EVER; the TIMING of that one and only roll was in the microsecond our universe came into existence after the alleged Big Bang.
You can keep repeating this, but it’s never going to make you less ignorant of what you’re babbling about, which has nothing to do with probability.
To multiple addressees…
To Mephistopheles O’Brien #810:
“I’m never comfortable with a notion of direction in evolution…If dogs were ruthlessly selected for cat traits over a sufficiently long period, I’m sure they could be bred to look and act like cats.”
Whew!
Make sure you don’t snuggle with Krebiozen.
That wouldn’t be comfortable.
…..
To JGC #802, #812:
I think that Stenger article is really bad.
Too bad you’ll never know why.
Because you’d have to first tell me what’s good about it – specifically, identify your one favorite sentence, or even favorite 2 or 3 consecutive sentences.
Too bad.
…..
To Gray Falcon #820:
“See Noevo- Seriously, you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority of Christianity?”
Of course I believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority of Christianity.
That’s why I said I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian.
You don’t believe in His authority, specifically, in the authority of what He said.
Oh, and, uh…
“Let the poor starve, I always say! Cripples? Who needs ’em! If they can’t pull their own weight, let ’em starve to death too!”
-Definitely not Jesus of Nazareth
I don’t KNOW. But I’d take that bet.
I’ll take it too. Now…produce your proof.
To JGC #823:
Me: “MANY scientists HAVE SAID that the population of human beings was NEVER LESS THAN 10,000.”
You: “Who exactly are these all=caps MANY scientists, See, and what was the contexy in which they stated this calim? Identify 10, with citations to the articles they’ve published stating the claim, please.”
No, thank you.
As I disclosed earlier, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready. I don’t always have comprehensive, copy-n-paste-able listings of “the names and publications” when I make statements.
I thought the 10,000 thing was common knowledge, at least common among those at all familiar with the subject.
But why go far afield?
We have a scientist, or at least an authority, right here at this website. His name is “eric”. Check eric out. I mean, check out what eric says, about the 10,000:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/05/11/oppy-surveys-the-work-of-atheist-philosophers/
Also, just from memory, I KNOW PhD Dennis Venema at BioLogos preaches the 10,000.
Me: “Evolution education is not in great shape, 150 years on.”
You: “Which might be an argument that we should improve how evolution is taught, not that evolutionary models are invalid. Agreed?”
Agreed.
But do you know of any other science subject that has been taught for the last 150 years which less than 20% of the students buy completely and 45% reject completely (U.S. figures)?
So, See is just your typical bible-belt, bible & flag hugging Tea Party nutjob.
Totally makes sense.
See Noevolution:
So you reject all the instances where (P|S)aul’s teachings conflict with JC’s? You know, like where JC insists on total adherence to the Hebraic laws, but (P|S)aul peddles the heresy of “fulfillment”?
To ann #825:
“Because while it’s hard to say without a citation, that’s my best guess.”
Dear ann,
Saying something without a citation?
You may be in for a spanking from the “observant” one, JGC.
Annie, get your guns ready.
Oh, and I just checked out some of his “other work.” He invokes the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy as well…..what a wonderful person, Jesus must be proud to have such a profound jackass as one of his believers.
For some seriously good entertainment, I have to go with Jack Chick.
https://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp
Except for Jack’s take on Catholics, See would really like him. I expect this is how See sees himself –
https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Wait, what?
– abortion and contraception,
You do know that one of those will prevent the other, right? Or are you just against people having sex? (like I gotta ask.)
Well, the guys who wrote it made provisions for it to be amended, so I rather expect they thought it would change over time. There are 10 amendments in particular that you may have heard of, they are rather famous.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
See, did you know we can just scroll up and read what we both wrote in the past?
You’re an outright liar, See. Do not pretend otherwise.
As I disclosed earlier, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready. I don’t always have comprehensive, copy-n-paste-able listings of “the names and publications” when I make statements.
Translation: I’m a weasel and I make shit up.
Six will get you ten he welshes on the bet.
As I disclosed earlier, I
do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the readyam more than happy to spew random horseshіt that I half-remember from Protestant fundie sites and feel that it is beneath me to so much as figure out what the fυck I was supposed to be saying, much less consider whether I have no fυcking idea what I’m talking about in the first place.FTFY, pompous chickenshіt.
To Gray Falcon #858:
“See, did you know we can just scroll up and read what we both wrote in the past?
You’re an outright liar, See.”
How so?
@See Noevo #819:
To LW #801:
You seriously don’t understand anything about evolution. There is no line drawn between NON-human beings and human beings — that is a creationist concept. A long time ago there were populations of apes. Some of these apes were a little hairier than others, some a little less hairy. Some had hips a little better adapted to bipedality, some a little worse adapted. Some of them had mouths a little more rectangular, some less. Some had bigger teeth, some smaller. Some were a little smarter, some not. And so on. Over time, some of these alleles spread through some of the populations because they gave a survival advantage in the particular environments where those populations lived or perhaps were neither advantageous nor detrimental.
After a long long time — millions of years, in fact, the descendants of some of these populations looked more like human beings and less like other apes. But those populations still had individuals with differences like being a little hairier or a little less, etc. And there were thousands of them. After yet more time, some of these populations looked a lot more like human beings, and many of the individuals in these populations would have traits falling in the range of human beings.
You will probably say that there would have been a first person who fell in the range of modern humans in every respect. Logically there could have been, but that person would have had siblings, cousins, and so on, who were just a little bit out of the human range in one respect or another — and they would have been no more different from that “first person” than your siblings or cousins are from you. And, of course, that “first person” might have died without issue anyway. But, as the relevant alleles spread through the population and natural selection had its way, more and more of the population would have fallen in the range of modern humans, and fewer and fewer would have fallen out of the range in any important respect, and at some arbitrary time — which differs even from creationist to creationist — you would say, “yes, these are in fact human beings”. But there was never a “time X” before which there were no human beings and after which there were ten thousand.
Yes, because I am not deliberately misunderstanding him and you are. Certainly dogs and cats are not the same species and there are clear boundaries — today — between the two populations. A cat today is not the same species as its ancestor fifty million years ago. But there is no boundary a scientist can point to and say, “this animal unmistakeably is not a cat and this, its offspring, unmistakeably is a cat.”
An analogy to this situation — and this is only an analogy and an illustration, not a statement about evolution — is found in this statement by Edmund Burke:
Finally, you observe that,
You get no argument from me as to the deplorable condition of education in all areas but especially scientific subjects. Your appalling, proud, and defiant ignorance is certainly an excellent demonstration.
Ignore SN – based on what he’s written here & over at the other site, he truly believes that he is the only “True Catholic” – uses Semantics as a means of justifying his beliefs, and is truly a nutjob on par with the Th1Th2’s of the world.
That’s not in the video. According to whom?
The reason I was saying something without a citation was that you didn’t provide one. So there was none.
Pax vobiscum.
What do you have against the undeserving disabled, for mercy’s sake?
Is it your position that they have only themselves to blame, or what?
I will also take that bet, btw.
See, those were both quotes from you. When you realized you just took a blasphemous stance, you tried to pass yourself off as never having taken in at all.
I don’t know if you all should be taking that bet. After all, in See Noevo’s view, “belief in evolution” means total ignorance of evolution combined with amazingly stupid misconceptions of evolution and a determined refusal to learn anything at all. I don’t have a problem seeing that as correlated with all sorts of bad behavior.
Maybe if I find myself too tired to do anything else later, I go on, but here’s a partial list of things that S.N. does not understand that makes anything he spouts off about regarding fundamental physics so meaningless as to leave no rational recourse other than mockery, given that he’s desperately trying to avoid really letting his moron flag fly:
1. Big bang cosmology
2. Inflation, specifically, its difference from eternal inflation
3. That “multiverse” does not mean whatever he says it does
4. What motivated the string landscape
5. The Standard Model
6. What representation theory has to do with this
7. Anything vaguely resembling quantum field theory
8. “Naturalness”
9. General relativity
10. Why G-ddidit and the “anthropic principle” are “asymptotically” identical
11. As a consequence, why his idiotically rocking in the corner intoning UNPOSSIBILITY amounts merely to a “victory” in the sense of replacing one rejection of science with a vastly more primitive one
To LW #861:
“An analogy to this situation — and this is only an analogy and an illustration, not a statement about evolution — is found in this statement by Edmund Burke: But, though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.”
And Edmund Burke surely must have completed his thought by saying “But at no time was the day’s light less than 10,000 lux.”
See Noevo- Bit of advice- Don’t think you can convince me of your rightness through Scriptural quotation. Remember, Satan quoted scripture to make a point.
To ann #863:
“What do you have against the undeserving disabled, for mercy’s sake [url for Luke 10:37]?”
Well, from a secular and even atheistic viewpoint, as is apropos for this website, I would say an “undeserving” solicitor doesn’t deserve whatever he’s soliciting, by definition.
Also, I suppose your “undeserving disabled” here is meant to distinguish from the “deserving disabled”, although I’m not getting what the distinction is. Perhaps the former deliberately disabled himself? Or would that be the latter? Whatever.
And from that secular and even atheistic viewpoint, the Good Samaritan of Luke 10 has NO LOGICAL RATIONALE for his actions, UNLESS his actions will benefit HIMSELF in some way. In other words, that whole Golden Rule thing which many atheists tout as a substitute for Christian morality (and, yes, the Golden Rule long preceded Christ) is just a euphemistic gloss for UTILITARIANISM. And in keeping with the evolutionary viewpoint of this website, the primary and perhaps only benefit the Good Samaritan should be eyeing is whether this guy by the road can help the Good Samaritan REPRODUCE. (Yuck.)
From a Christian perspective, however, I’d say he Good Samaritan did the right thing, of course.
As to “governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps”, I’d refer to 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention that S.N.’s defacing a memorial post for the sake of seeking personal attention is one of the most fυcking disgraceful things I can imagine.
He invokes the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy as well
It is as if the True Scotsman fell in love with a strawman and they had beautiful babies together.
I guess that leaves you utterly fυcked as far as your appearance here goes.
Because apparently there is no distinction between “unwilling” and “unable” in your mind, and no difference between, say, quitting a job or being laid off, and I guess in your world, nobody’s ever underemployed during, say, a recession.
Honestly, you are a disgusting piece of work. If J.C. ever does come back, I imagine you’ll be in for a surprise. Actually, you’ll probably be first in line to f*cking crucify him all over again.
What’s more, the 2 Thessalonians passage, in context, refers to people who treated the Christian church as a Doomsday cult, waiting around for Christ to come back and fix everything, and not acting to bring justice to those on Earth. In other words, the way See Noevo acts.
The short version is that they are idiots and ought to be kicked out of the profession, just like the useful idiots of the anti-vax movement. And Jindal, who needs his degree rescinded.
Creationists also ought to be prevented (by force if neccessary) from going to museums, getting a university education, finding fossils or looking up. I wish they’d just lead a quiet, joyless existence and shut up.
To JP #875:
“Honestly, you are a disgusting piece of work. If J.C. ever does come back, I imagine you’ll be in for a surprise. Actually, you’ll probably be first in line to f*cking crucify him all over again.”
and to Politicalguineapig #877:
“Creationists also ought to be prevented (by force if neccessary) from going to museums, getting a university education, finding fossils or looking up. I wish they’d just lead a quiet, joyless existence and shut up.”
Assuming I refuse to change my ways, and in fact never change my ways, would you like to see me punished?
I’d like to add one item to my list in #840:
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated also with
– Population decline.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11644660/Germany-dominance-over-as-demographic-crunch-worsens.html
Not at all. Being a willfully ignorant fundamentalist prig is punishment enough.
I’m pretty sure you are your own punishment, SN. You are a small, stupid and mean person, you live in a small, stupid and mean world (in your head), and you worship a small, stupid and mean G-d that you have created after your own image – an idol, really.
That’s just sad.
See Noevo: “– Population decline.”
And that is bad because why?
Apparently people who are financially well off and know their children will become adults tend to have fewer children. This makes sure that fewer of our limited resources are used. Here are some videos you should familiarize yourself with:
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/
As has already been pointed out, the disabled are not unwilling but rather unable to work. So that doesn’t apply. The parable of the Good Samaritan, on the other hand, is completely a propos.
I ask again: Why do you oppose disability benefits?
The “undeserving” was sarcastic on my part. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeesh.
There are exciting issues in the evolution field, like adaptive mutations and the extent of horizontal gene transfer between species, but creation seems to attract more interest.
Two years ago, I went to this blog because some people here thought that Cell Inflation Assisted Chemotherapy (a universal treatment for cancer) was some kind of quackery, and I came to defend myself. What surprised me was that when they realized I was not a quack they were not interested anymore in what I had to say.
I never could decide whether this was because people in blogs prefer to argue with morons, because they think they have a chance to have the last word, or because they are more fascinated by magic and faith than by knowledge.
I know you weren’t asking me. But fwiw, no, I would dislike it.
@#872 —
That’s very low.
Yah, that whole Tischreden thing flew right over your head just like everything else.
C’mon, babycakes, haven’t you had time to get, ah, “to hand” some of your profound G—le insight into the unpossibility of the nondivine nature of SNerverse?
I don’t think you need any punishment. You are your own punishment.
What you haven’t realised is that Politicalguineapig is just as narrow-minded and prejudiced as you are – only in different areas – and we take about as much notice of their moralising as we do of yours. i.e. none, other than to tell them to stop being a prig.
I don’t imagine that solicitation is too far off when certain desires are frustrated in the real world:
Maybe they’re no longer letting him around the altar boys.
^ I regret that I’m not immediately finding my desired reference to “Meat Hook” Baird, but “candle and foreskin act” conveys the general idea.
Or, in S.N.’s case, general flavor.
ChrisP : It’s not a moral thing: I simply dislike people like See Noevo and their spawn and hostages taking up space in museums like, say the Field Museum or the museum I work at that might otherwise go to people who are there to, y’know, LEARN things or appreciate fossils. (Plus, if they stay out of my museum, I will have more free time, since I don’t have to lurk nearby to ensure they won’t blow the place up.)
They want to go to a museum, they can go to Ken Ham’s abomination.
Jindal’s tossed in his lot with the creationists- that basically makes his degree slightly less useful than toilet paper. Carson’s too, from whatever mailorder place he graduated from.
I suppose you can take a relaxed view of things from Australia. I can’t. Almost all of the candidates currently running for President, the highest office, have no understanding of science, think fetuses are one of the highest forms of life (outranking actual living women) and want to dismantle *everything* that made the US, once-upon-a-time, a decent place to live in.Things like living wages, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Everglades, since Rubio’s selling them to the Koch brothers.
Cruz will likely win. (One wonders who the heck Rand Paul is fooling, with his claim of composting. That’s about as likely as any of the local state senators eating wild rice.)
Next time summer rolls around, why not thank all of them, and Congress too, for all your lovely brushfires.
SN: Not punished, exactly, but I sure as heck wouldn’t mind dropkicking you out of my museum or the library. Hey, serious question, isn’t using the internet a sin? As well as jeans, composting, not littering, any music produced post 1950, and literacy?
@ See
Do not presume to know our motivations, little man.
I help people because I want to help them. Because, by helping those around me, I makes this world a better place. Because, funny enough, one can feel empathy and have a conscience without being overly religious.
I don’t do it to score brownie points with the FSM.
You jest, sir, and yet there are a number of scientists who precisely study how altruistic behaviors, which could be observed in animal societies, could be squared with evolution, although evolution is apparently all about one’s self-interests.
Well, it works. Altruistic behaviors contribute to make an animal society more viable and stable, and thus indirectly help the Good Samaritains to reproduce by giving them better surroundings to do so.
There was a study about the prisoner’s dilemma among a tribe of great apes. It was quite fascinating. The apes which forgot to repay the ones which helped them first tended to be ignored during subsequent requests for help.
Funny, eh? Morality may well be a concept inscribed into our genes.
You want to talk about Utilitarianism? How is “secular” utilitarianism different from the religious guy who is doing good actions to buy his ticket to Heaven?
And yet another goalpost shift.
To ann #883:
“I ask again: Why do you oppose disability benefits?”
I never said I opposed disability payments. (In fact, I do NOT oppose disability benefits for the disabled, the TRULY disabled, that is.)
What I SAID was that I’d bet a POSITIVE CORRELATION exists between belief in evolution and gov’t payouts for disability (and welfare, food stamps, unemployment).
And strangely enough, the U.S. seems to be an increasingly disabled nation: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Some other notes on Disability…
Ratio of working people to people on disability: 1968: 51 to 1; 1997: 24 to 1; 2013: 13 to 1.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8830026-americans-disability-hits-new-record-192nd-straight-month
(And it’s gotten worse in the last two years.)
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, among disability recipients “Mental disorders more than tripled from 10 percent of cases 30 years ago to become the second largest diagnostic category with 32.8 percent. Half of these were considered “mood disorders,” such as depression and anxiety.”
According to the Social Security Administration, “Just over 1 in 4 of today’s 20 year-olds will become disabled before reaching age 67.”
I wonder what the ratio was 50 years ago. I’d just betcha it was a lot different.
To all those who responded to my question (“Assuming I refuse to change my ways, and in fact never change my ways, would you like to see me punished?”)…
Thank you for your gentle “No”s.
Your “mercy” is only appropriate, of course.
Because when you think about it, I’m doing nobody any harm whatsoever. For even if I were to convince just one person that evolution wasn’t true, that person’s life would go on just as before.
For instance, he/she/it would still go to work every day (even as a medical doctor!) (unless they were on SS Disability for a mood disorder (ref. #893)), enjoy leisure activities, benefit from technology, plan for the future, etc.
Not a single thing in his/her/its everyday life has anything to do with evolution.
But anyway, thanks for being easy on me. You did the right thing.
“Not a single thing in his/her/its everyday life has anything to do with evolution.”
Reproduction has much to do with evolution. And if you convice him not to use condoms, it may change his every day life.
Perhaps there’s some need for clarification to my answer to See Noevo’s rather absurd question in #771. It would be more accurate to say that it is by Jesus Christ’s teachings that we decide what is right and wrong. At no point did he declare that the sheep and the goats would be divided by who believed that Genesis 1 was literally true or not. When he asked “who proved his neighbor?” the answer was not “the one who passed the broken man by”. And when asked “what must I do to gain eternal life,” he most certainly did not say that bearing false witness was perfectly acceptable.
All See has are a few out-of-context verses. Quote mining was explicitly used by the devil to tempt the Christ in the wilderness. That does not put him in good company.
and
I see a couple of practical difficulties with this laudable scheme. For one, forcibly preventing someone from getting a university education or from “looking up” — raising their gaze from the ground as if they were real people — is actually illegal in many States. So you need to work on changing the laws. I think a simple law would do it: “No creationist has any rights that a non-creationist is bound to respect.”
Okay, now that we’ve established the legal basis for action, there’s another practical problem: creationists sometimes wear distinctive clothing enabling you to identify them, but many do not. I have worked with creationists and not realized it! A creationist disguised as a real person might sneak into your museum and steal the learning away from the real people and you might not even know it! The horror! So, I think we need to require creationists to wear some distinctive symbol sewn to their clothing so we can be sure to recognize them.
Now, you’re concerned about creationist spawn. This is of course the biggest concern. You see, there are some real people who — well, there’s just no delicate way to put this — there are some real people who actually breed with creationists. I know, it’s an appalling thought, isn’t it, that a real person might stoop to relations with a creationist, but you have to know that there are perverts in this world. And also creationists are sneaky in their attempts to defile our pure blood.
So obviously we need the law to prevent miscegenation between creationists and real people, and we need some way of deciding when the taint of creationism is washed from the blood. I’m thinking that half-creationists, being spawn themselves, should be subject to all the sanctions to which we subject full creationists. You agree, of course. Quarter-creationists are a bit more difficult to handle. Why, they might not even realize the taint they inherited from a grandparent! So I think we should presume them to be creationists but, on a case-by-case basis, we might allow them to be freed from the normal sanctions. We’ll need a commission to handle this, of course.
Once we get all these mechanisms in place, we can start considering how to remove the alien taint of creationism from our society permanently.
Glad you’re with us in this campaign, Politicalguineapig. It will be glorious!
@#893 —
^^That’s primarily because the criteria for awards changed back in Reagan’s second term:
(From here.)
OK. Even according to the story on the other end of that link, that’s generally attributable to cuts to other social-welfare programs under Reagan and Clinton.
Has it occurred to you that this might be due to a decrease in the number of working people, and not an increase in the number of people on disability?
Because it might!
Although I’ve also got to say that nothing says “cherry-picking” like the progression of 1968 to 1997 to 2013.
^^But that’s just for the sake of its educational value. As far as the bet goes, the problem is that Gallup has been regularly asking people what they think about evolution since 1982. And:
You lose.
Rats. I’m in moderation for excess links.
Shorter version:
The rise in disability numbers is largely attributable to Reagan and Clinton. But as far as the bet goes, it barely matters. Because, per Gallup:
And they’ve been asking since 1982. So you lose.
See, let me remind you of another Bible passage:
Matthew 7 “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s[a] eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor,[b] ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s[c] eye.
If you’re willing to suggest disabled people across the country are engaged in large-scale welfare fraud, then don’t be surprised if people accuse you of lying.
Chris@882 – See Noevo is referring to population decline among what he considers the right kind of people.
Of course, SN should be the arbiter of who is TRULY disabled, just as he is qualified to judge who is TRULY Christian, and which is the One TRUE Church.*
I mean, I’m sure a lot of people are totally faking disability so they can collect a massive $733 check per month Yessiree, Bob!
Think that might have anything to do with deinstitutionalization, SN? Oh, wait. You don’t think.
*There are pretty good arguments to be made that you’re all just a lot of schismatic papists, actually, but whatever.
Narad @788 — I watched about the first 15 seconds of that video (for others, it was some guy talking into the camera sneering about how Novella had attacked homeopathy. Having an actual day job, I went no futher.)
What struck me as incredibly weird was the utterly gratuitous flute music mixed into the soundtrack.
The acontextuality is really a chronic problem.
I mean, “Go thou and do likewise” is a direct, unambiguous command to aid, assist and care for the needy from Jesus Christ to his followers.
So you’d think a person to whom that was important would at least go to the trouble of reading the whole exhortation in 2 Thessalonians,** not just the one sentence that appears to contradict Luke 10:37.
(**Shorter version:
Work hard yourself, as we do. It sets a good example. Don’t associate with those who don’t, although — PS — they do have a right to help. Never tire of doing good. Be nice to people.)
“Because when you think about it, I’m doing nobody any harm whatsoever.”
The people you harm are the foolish people who believe you or think your behavior is a good one. We can only hope you don’t have access to children.
That’s a factor, and there are others. But it’s really mostly because the criteria for mental-health disability awards actually got fairer during the Reagan administration.
I know that’s counter-intuitive. But he kicked 400,000 people off the rolls when he first came in, which — predictably — created such a mess that he ended up having to pivot.
No–even if someone else wins there may b’e more lotteries’ 0r, more precisley, no need for additional lotteries.
You’re still asking the wrong question (“What are the odds that this universe, capable of supporting life as we know it, could arise by chance?”) rather the relevant one (“What are the odds that some universe, capable of supporting life of some kind even if not life as we know, could arise by chance?”) As the Stenger article I linked to demonstrates the constants you seem to believe must take the values we observe can actually vary over several orders of magnitude and still result in unvierses where stellar lifetimes are sufficient to allow life to arise.
And whoever that person was instead will think “This could never happen by chance” as well–and be wrong as well.
Translated from the hand-waving, “I frequently pull claims out of my ass—don’t expect me to defend them.”
Your source for these figures, See? The figures (from Gallup) I’ve seen indicate that as of 2014 belief in evolution had doubled compared to previous years, with two thirds of 18 to 29 year olds supporting evolution. In any event, since you have just agreed that the number of people who do or do not embrace evolutionary models does not speak to their validity of, one must ask: what’s your point?
And I’d be willing to be a positive correlation between gov’t payouts for disability, etc., and cell phone use, sales of organic produce and any number of other completely unrelated metrics as well. All together now: correlation does not equal causation.
And, as I recall, Dainel, you failed to do so: in fact you admitted in that proof of concept for CIAC had not been demonstrated. As far as I’m aware it still hasn’t been demonstrated.
It wasn’t that we lost interest, but that you HAD nothing to say: you could offer no evidence that your CIAC was effective as a treatment for cancer, let alone had the potential to be a ‘universal’ treatment.
Convincing people that evolutionary models are invalid has repercussions beyond the individuals convinced, See. It contributes to scientific illiteracy in the general public, which in turn affects the issues that public deems important, the public officials it supports and elects, the public policies those officials seek to institute, etc.
I mean, I’m sure a lot of people are totally faking disability so they can collect a massive $733 check per month Yessiree, Bob!
I only get $587.36. I must be doing something wrong.
Think that might have anything to do with deinstitutionalization, SN? Oh, wait. You don’t think.
I wonder if another factor is our current ability to save the lives of accident victims who would have died say, 20 years ago. Could at least some of the increase on the disability rolls is due to more people surviving serious injuries?
I only get $587.36. I must be doing something wrong.
Well, $733 is the maximum monthly payment…
To ann #898, #899:
I lose?
On the bet that a positive correlation exists between belief in evolution and “governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both SENDER and RECEIVER]” ?
I’m not so sure about that.
As for the RECEIVERS: The number of people on disability as skyrocketed, although as a portion of the overall population they are a small %. HOWEVER, of that population of receivers, I’d bet the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
As for the SENDERS (i.e. the politicians and government bureaucrats creating and expanding such programs): Of that population of big-government “benefactors”, I’d bet the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
@#913 —
You made it clear what you meant by positive correlation back in #893. Be a grown-up and stand by it. You lost the bet.
@#912 —
That’s just for SSI. SSDI can be higher.*** And we’re really talking about both, since all the trends figures are.
***Because it’s earnings-based, which throws a further spanner into the works of the 2 Thessalonians 3 10 argument, given that there’s no exhortation not to let people have money they earned and put away for a rainy day..
Although, fwiw, it looks like you’d lose the RECEIVERS half of your attempt to welch anyway:
And here’s a bonus global round:
So if you’re tired of waiting for things to go your way here in the US, try Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Indonesia. They’re more advanced.
(LINK
To ann #904:
Gray one: “All See has are a few out-of-context verses.”
You: “The acontextuality is really a chronic problem.”
Actually, what you call “acontextuality” is really a chronic problem with Protestants, not Catholics.
They don’t get, often willfully, the whole picture.
What I find chronically funny is that when they demand Scriptural support for a Catholic position and the Catholic provides it, they then accuse the Catholic of quote-mining/proof-texting/“acontextuality”.
The song remains the same. And in this context, that’s bad.
In other contexts, it’s good:
@ JGC
“As far as I’m aware it still hasn’t been demonstrated.”
As far as I’m aware, you didn’t convinced See Noevo of the importance of natural selection as the mechanism for adaptation, and he is still asking, like all creationists, “where is the evidence?”. Everybody can ask for more demonstration, but in the case of CIAC the demonstration is in the paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24156014
As in the case of relativity, very few people understood the demonstration from the beginning. Some were convinced only by the atomic bomb, some are yet to convince, not to mention the creationists. So please, read the paper, ask some specific questions if you wish, and, if you want to prove or disprove the theory, perform some costly experiments.
See Noevo, your attitude towards the poor is utterly opposed to the teachings of Christ. Why should anyone listen to someone like you. Christ himself declared people like you are the “goats”, the ones outside His kingdom. Why should anyone listen to you?
And if something is a sin for a Protestant, then it’s sin for a Catholic, and that includes out-of-context scripture quotation.
I think that’s very possible. My guess is that it depends on how many recent veterans apply for SS, though. There would probably be too few people with insurance/access otherwise.
FTFY.
@#917 —
And what does Article 7 of the CCC say is the proper context in which a Catholic should consider aid to the poor and needy?
Well, let’s see. There’s 2443:
And there’s 2447:
It’s true that 2 Thessalonians 3 10 is also cited in the discussion of that commandment. But it’s not in the context of the duty Catholics owe to the poor and needy. It’s in the context of the duty Catholics owe to work.
Same as scripture. Funnily enough.
The relevant question is what deeper understanding of QFT could lead to the computability of the SM’s 18* parameters.
* I’m pretty sure I had one too many last time, but I’m kind of busy.
…and in current news – http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150602/us–working_with_disabilities-934361b3fc.html
Because, you know, the country is in a decline because of evolution.
/sarcasm
Why would you make this bet, See? walk me trhough your…well, for the lack of a better word, ‘logic’.
Where in the paper is the evidence that CIAC is an effective and universal treatment for cancer, Daniel? I haven’t been able to find it.
JGC
You are like See Noevo: hard to convince.
See Noevo also asks for evidence. What is difficult to understand in the paper? That if normal cells do not divide they are protected from anti-mitotic drugs? Or that normal blood cells are under negative feedback, and that this can be used to prevent division? I think that it is easier to understand than evolution by selection.
To ann #922:
“And what does Article 7 of the CCC say is the proper context in which a Catholic should consider aid to the poor and
needy? … Same as scripture. Funnily enough.”
Funnily enough, I don’t recall where in Scripture Jesus calls for the government or the state to consider aid to the poor and needy.
Jesus recognized the need to pay taxes to the state, but He NEVER said the people should BE FORCED to pay more taxes to the state so that the state could expand the state’s programs to aid the poor and needy. Correction: Forget about EXPANDING that state’s poverty programs, because the state apparently didn’t HAVE any poverty programs. Seems that the poor and disabled and diseased were all over the place. But Jesus didn’t call for the COERCION of still more taxes to create a state program. He didn’t point His forewarning finger at the state. He pointed it at INDIVIDUALS. And while it shouldn’t need saying, I guess I’ll have to say it for this audience: “Charity” and “mercy” are NOT charity and mercy if they are COERCED.
And from the CCC…
[2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that RESPECTS the rights and duties of EACH social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WHEN APPROPRIATE.
2431 The RESPONSIBILITY of the STATE. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure GUARANTEES of individual FREEDOM and PRIVATE PROPERTY, as well as a stable currency and efficient PUBLIC SERVICES [See Noevo comment: “Efficient public services” sounds like providing roads, bridges, military for national security, etc.]. Hence the PRINCIPAL TASK of the state is to guarantee this SECURITY, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO INDIVIDUALS and to the various groups and associations which make up society.”217]
Pretty much the same as scripture. Funnily enough.
Daniel Corcos: That’s an interesting idea in your paper. Where is the data? You know, the animal studies, the human studies, the Phase 1?
Like JGC said, you haven’t actually shown anything. “I said it will work” is not evidence of anything.
People who work in actual cancer immunotherapy are endlessly irritated by people like you, who make things us and then try to use our credibility to bolster your own.
I will note at this juncture that S.N. has wholly capitulated with respect to all of his comically lame-brained creationist arguments and resorted to changing the subject.
See Noevo, if you fail to care for those in need, you risk damnation, possibly cessation of existence. You seem to have no problems with laws saving peoples’ souls otherwise.
Also, here’s what the scripture says about mandated charity:
Leviticus 19:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.
That is not a suggestion, that is a direct order.
Of course, this would also require “convincing” someone to embrace your entire moronic redefinition of words. Otherwise, they could assume that there’s no issue with failing to complete a course of antibiotics.
Justa Tech
There is no data, because to do primate or human studies, you need a lot of money and authorizations, and to get them, at least in France, you have to deal with people like you, just a tech, who ask: where is the data?
@Gray Falcon:
Funny, that’s just the bit I had in mind, too.
I was going to compose a longer reply, but Narad’s right: the idiot’s just trying to change the subject at this point.
I’m quite confident that the last thing this operation needs is offering S.N. an opportunity to yet further divert from his catastrophic on-topic failure to the boundaries of the Old Covenant.
Well. Have I got an infallible teaching on morals and faith for you!
As to the rest of your goalpost-shifting screed:
The subject was out-of-context bible quotation. We were discussing aid to the poor and needy. You cited Thessalonians, as if to suggest that the Catholic position on the subject is that people who are unwilling to work don’t get fed.
And it’s not only acontextual and untrue but ludicrous to quote that passage in support of the assertion that Catholics have a solemn religious duty not to associate with, feed, clothe, house, support or care for the needy unless they’re working.
You don’t even have to be a Catholic or a blowhard to know that much. It’s not like the Church is famous the whole world over for its tireless efforts to minister and provide snacks to the gainfully employed.
Daniel @935: Well, of course no one is going to give you a grant to work on humans if you don’t even have in vitro studies. But you should know perfectly well that you don’t start in humans or even primates. How about mice. They’re much cheaper, have shorter life cycles and require (at least in the US) slightly less ethical oversight.
But you know what, Daniel? Everyone has to provide at least some data in order to get a grant to generate more data. You wrote that article, why didn’t you make it a grant proposal? Your university or institution should have classes on grant writing.
Here is why everyone here says “show me the data”. It is not because you don’t have an interesting idea. It is because you are insisting that it works. How do you know it works if you’ve never tried it?
If you came here and said “This is my cool idea, what do you all think”, you’d get a lot of commentary, some more critical than others, but that’s how science goes. But when you say “I know this works” and then don’t have any evidence to back that up, well, then you end up sounding a lot like See Noevo, with fewer bible quotes.
I forgot:
And while it also shouldn’t need saying, I guess I’ll have to reply: Paying taxes to support social welfare programs for the needy is not “coercion” if you act in the spirit of CHARITY and MERCY.
@#JP and GF —
Yeah. But it’s hard to get more direct than “Go thou and do likewise.” I mean, the parable of the Good Samaritan is a direct response to the question “Who is my neighbor?” in the context of: loving of same; the necessity thereof to entering the kingdom of heaven.
There’s also “And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.””
“He” being John not Jesus, in that instance. But he’s preparing the way of the Lord. I’d say it’s more than a suggestion.
To JP #936:
“Funny, that’s just the bit I had in mind, too. I was going to compose a longer reply, but Narad’s right: the idiot’s just trying to change the subject at this point.”
Funny, you mean changing the subject to potential positive correlations between belief in evolution and other things?
Funny, who would do such a thing? (See #807.)
the idiot’s just trying to change the subject at this point.
“At this point”?
Fair enough. What can I say – I am easily led.
It was an aside, dumba**.
Back on topic, I noticed that the arguments that See makes against evolution could just as easily be applied to linguistics: Sure, people claim to have records of new languages developing, but can anyone point to exactly when Old English became Middle English?
This also raises one of the dangers of “creation science”. If we teach that dishonest arguments, muddled reasoning, and arrogant dismissal of everyone else are perfectly acceptable, what kind of people will we create?
One can imagine a linguistic “creationist” making the same kind of clueless arguments as SN: “Sure, there are variations among Slavic languages, but a Slavic language cannot just BECOME a Germanic language! They are different kinds!”
Oh, L-rd. It just occurred to me that a Biblical literalist might actually come up with some cockamamie “theory” about how the confusion at the tower of Babel created the various language families that exist today. I mean, considering that the whole field of linguistics basically came into being because of the search for a world Ursprache, it’s not actually unimaginable.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of introducing JP to the Institute for Creation Linguistics.
Sample 1:
Sample 2:
To ann #938:
Me: “Jesus recognized the need to pay taxes to the state, but He NEVER said the people should BE FORCED to pay more taxes to the state so that the state could expand the state’s programs to aid the poor and needy.”
You: “Well. Have I got an infallible teaching on morals and faith for you! 2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”
While the CCC addresses VERY briefly the unjustness of not paying SS taxes, unfortunately, it does not address the justness of complying with UNJUST TAXATION.
The SS payroll tax (later called FICA) was first instituted in 1937.
In 1937, the rate was 2.0% (employee+employer).
By 1965 the tax rate was at 8.4%.
In 2015 it’s 15.3%.
The SS Administration says ALL of its trust fund reserves will be depleted by 2033, and the Disability portion by 2016.
I wonder what the 15.3% rate will go to then? Maybe it’ll double again, to 30%. Who knows?
When more and more is never enough, something is very wrong. Very UN-just.
I don’t suppose the Catholic Church will be issuing any infallible statements on what the new holy FICA rate should be.
Would you like them to?
I wouldn’t.
And in fact, the CC will NEVER issue an infallible statement on what the “just” FICA rate is. It’s not their business. THAT is the business of what the Catholic Church calls “prudential judgment.” (You can read up on that, assuming you’re not already an expert. Or a blowhard.)
A Catholic may validly disagree even with the Pope on matters of prudential judgment.
And MY prudential judgment leads me to disagree greatly with the way the U.S. is becoming increasingly an “entitlements” society, more and more a socialistic society.
Speaking of which, I wonder if there’s a positive correlation between belief in evolution and socialism?
……
“As to the rest of your goalpost-shifting screed… You cited Thessalonians, as if to suggest that the Catholic position on the subject is that people who are UNWILLING to work don’t get fed.”
Yes, I do so suggest. More importantly, Paul did MORE than suggest:
“Now we COMMAND you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you KEEP AWAY FROM ANY BROTHER who is living in IDLENESS and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you,
we did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you.
It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.
For even when we were with you, we gave you this COMMAND: If any one WILL NOT WORK, LET HIM NOT EAT.
For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.
Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to EARN THEIR OWN LIVING.
Brethren, do not be weary in well-doing.
If any one REFUSES TO OBEY what we say in this letter, note that man, and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM, that he may be ASHAMED.”
And regarding that last, I think our world is losing the very concept of shame, appropriate shame. This is tied into the ‘loss of the sense of sin.’ Last year, Pope Francis said “When the Kingdom of God is forgotten, when the Kingdom of God diminishes, one of the signs is a loss of the sense of sin.”
I wonder if there’s a positive correlation between belief in evolution and loss of a sense of sin and shame?
I knew I saw that somewhere before! Thanks, herr doktor!
How could anyone but the Germans come up with a word like Schadenfreude?
Wow. Endless entertainment. It was really disturbing when I clicked on some of the links and was reading them and giggling, assuming them to be satire, only to come to the realization that they are real…
See, your refusal to discuss the topic at hand has been noted. Have you ever considered being honest, even once in your life?
No, they don’t. But they’re infallible and you’re not, per your worldview. So govern yourself accordingly.
If that’s the Catholic position, there are an awful lot of churches operating heretical soup kitchens out there.
Back to topic(-ish):
You don’t have to. They’ve done it.
http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics
Oh, and See? I’m a computer programmer. I was unemployed and collected unemployment to pay my rent for several months. Do you know why? Not because I was too lazy to look for work. I spent almost as much time looking for a job as I would have working. It was because some dumb****s in suits decided they’d rather pay for cheap programmers in China, that’s why!
Getting back closer to the original topic of this blog, what a shame that the medical community seems to avoid the big E whenever it can.
“…we have evolutionary biologists who are unafraid to use the word “evolution” properly; medical biologists who know what it is but avoid using the word…”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/02/20/its-not-just-creationists/
How sad.
One can imagine a linguistic “creationist” making the same kind of clueless arguments
John Oller, the editor of Entropy who published several of Seneff’s “Autism is caused by Aluminum / Acetaminophen / Glyphosate” papers, is a Creationist Linguist (also Professor of Linguistics at U. New Mexico).
I see the Gray one brought up the subject of “linguistics” for some reason.
I also see that Mister-stay-on-topic, JP, joined in the fun.
But seriously, the origination of language is just another conundrum for evolutionists. Always has been.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102131.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5662/1315.short
An underlying sing-song beat that is pronounced in poetry? Are we talking amphibrachs here? Iambs? Trochees? I assume free verse must be right out, so are we talking about syllabic, tonic, or syllabo-tonic versification?
Good grief.
More to the point, neither of the articles you linked to demonstrate that “the origination of language is just another conundrum for evolutionists.” Sure, linguists can only trace the development of language families back so far, depending on what kind of written records the can use to make extrapolations from. That doesn’t mean G-ddidit.
^ what kind of written records they can use.
Anyway, SN, I’m sure we’re all waiting with bated breath to hear more about the “universal constants” you were lately fixated upon.
Following up on #956…
Why do the folks here think human language evolved?
I’ll answer for you: ‘We know human language evolved because, for just one example, all of us are here on this website communicating with language!’
Well done, class.
I’m confident they’re working on a new term for the dictionary. Actually, it’s not much work. Just take the definition for Phylogeny and tweak as follows:
Linguology: 1: the evolutionary history of language. 2: the evolution of language itself as distinguished from the development of later, new languages.
And here are some questions that came to my mind:
If language mutated into existence, and the mutation has been retained, it must be because it gives humans advantages in reproduction and whatever.
So, why don’t other animals speak? It certainly couldn’t hurt to have spoken language.
After all, another goody, eyesight, mutated into existence and that mutation has been retained, because it must have given all seeing things advantages in reproduction and whatever. And this eyesight didn’t mutate just once in a universal common ancestor. It mutated separately and independently MANY times in the various branches of the Tree of Life (the same Tree of Life that has been abandoned by evolutionists (see #764).). It’s called “convergent evolution.”
So, again, why haven’t many and varied types of animals evolved language, the way they evolved eyes?
I’ll try to answer for you again: “Because they didn’t.”
Class dismissed!
Heh. Another addition to the tally (biology, physics, law at least so far) of things for which S.N. prefers random ejaculations over things he’s picked up from the low-rent company that he obviously keeps to figuring out the details of what the fυck he’s trying to talk about.
But at least that caps out once one is holy enough to earn $117,000 a year or so.
Howsabout that tax-exempt status for the Catholic Church though? Last I checked, they don’t even pay for water usage where I live. One might almost wonder whether someone had calculated how much the holy suckling at the public teat added up to. *koff*
I can fully imagine this as being something that S.N. yelps when startled.
Perhaps as a result of conditioning after all that compulsive “peeking under the hood.”
Another knee-slapper. BTW, have you tried out your shtick at (FTB) Pharyngula, or are you just going to stick with vicariousness?
They have. Not as complex as we humans have, but many species use sounds to communicate. Bird songs. Whale songs. Even elephants. Some are fairly simple, some are very complex. I have read (no cite at hand, but See says that’s OK) that whales have been known to teach songs to one another.
And then there is non-verbal (or rather non-sonic) communication.
It’s the same as eye design. There is, what, maybe 6 or 8 basic eye designs. There are 3 pupil designs (none, round and slit).
Many variations on a theme, over all living things.
A great web of life that began 3 billion years or so ago, and we are part of it, and it fills me with wonder.
Then I realize that See is the end result of several billion years of evolution, and thousands of years of civilization, and I just want to drink more.
Just a tech
As explained in the paper, mice are very different to humans in that they have very few neutrophils in their blood. Evidence for a negative feedback in the granulocyte lineage is strong in man, weak in mice. The apparatus for leukapheresis is currently used in humans, not in mice. And the question is not whether it can work, because you can predict that it should work like you can say that gene therapy should work, but how to make it work in man. If my goal were to “have data” then I would do gene therapy in mice to show that DNA can make protein in mice, and I would have had much more academic papers. As for CIAC, the information I need for making it work in man is:
How long can we keep human or primate granulocytes in a collection bag and still have a negative feedback effect?
How long does it take for the granulocyte levels to go back to normal in humans after withdrawing of one fifth of the pool, which can be currently achieved?
How fast is achieved cell division arrest in the bone marrow of primates after re-infusion?
Which short half-life drug should we use? Actually, that is what I am working on now:
http://www.dna-therapeutics.com/?page_id=3218
“Why didn’t you make it a grant proposal? ”
Do you really think I didn’t make a grant proposal? The paper was written from a grant proposal in France. Less than 10% of grant proposals are accepted, and none of them if you don’t have DATA.
And I am not insisting that it works. I just say that it should work in theory, and the ground is much stronger than experiments in mice in many domains.
The only problem with CIAC is the business plan: much work, much money to spend, some risk, no financial return.
Finally the comparison with SN is ludicrous: he refuses to admit theoretical evidence, so do you; he attracts on him many commentaries, (remember that you wrote: If you came here and said “This is my cool idea, what do you all think”, you’d get a lot of commentary), not me. As I said above, I would have attracted much more interest if I were a quack.
@palindrom:
Even better in this context is whom I studied it under.
Because the original comment is fairly dated, allow me to repeat the S.N. meltdown that it was presented in response to:
Now, back to the original programming:
That is the the very theme song of the Freak Power Party, Herbie Mann’s Battle Hymn of The Republic. You can find the Benneth original without a soundtrack pretty easily, but I prefer this version.
The immediately relevant bit, though, is at 6:30, in the denouement.
As I have no interest in delving into the Tower of Babel crap or the energy to look into the extent to which animals can be described as having “language,”* I will just observe that Ameslan is indisputably a human language that evolved from a mamesh different kind and which possesses an entirely novel spatial syntacticization.
* Or whether there’s a parallel “Scientists Ha Ha!” fail-trope associated with CFGs.
I believe that it is appropriate to add here that, since my departing the clergy and later reconciling with an explicit request to remain among the laity, my proper title is “Mother Narad.”
The usage thereof, on the other hand, appears to represent an entirely different issue for S.N., unless there’s an Aramaic pun lying around somewhere.
^ Re #966, “goo-to-you.”
Rest assured, it is extremely stupid. One key assertion is that language only “simplifies” over time, which is supposed to prove that PIE (among some dozen other languages) was created by G-d at Babel, and has been degenerating ever since or something.
These idiots might be surprised to learn that languages are perfectly capable of developing in the direction of greater grammatical complexity. I remember, when I was first learning Russian, assuming that the past tense conjugation of verbs would be marked for person as in the present tense, and was relieved to find out that it is “only” marked for gender/number. Polish, though? Unlike Common Slavic and most modern Slavic languages, it is marked for person in the past tense. Not only that, but it developed an entirely new grammatical gender: the “virile” or masculine personal. (Yes, the virile gender also affects the past tense, and yes, it is all a bit unwieldy.)
I’m not even going to talk about Czech.
The Babel people also fixate on this weird “there’s a problem with the tree!!” thing in a really, really stupid way. The argument is basically that, because some languages absorbed significant amounts of vocabulary from other languages, the tree model is faulty and therefore G-ddidit. Seriously.
They think language only simplifies over time? If they ever studied Ancient Hebrew, they’d know half the problem with translating thet Tanakh is the fact that there are so few words in the language, and that the same word has numerous, similar meanings.
There is some interesting discussion of the development for the words for colors as well. Ancient Greek and Roman works use some rather odd descriptions of color compared to what modern people use.
The reason why I bring up linguistics is that the study of linguistics is because the development of languages is very similar to the development of species. Not surprising that fundamentlists cannot accept either.
One key assertion is that language only “simplifies” over time
Finnish and Estonian declensions would seem to be a counter-example, but I suppose you could get around that by arguing that Finns aren’t actually human but arrived on Earth at some point in the recent past.
@ Gray Falcon
Survival of the fittest word. I like it 🙂
When I met my Quebecois friends, the concepts of convergence and divergence, and of geographical separation did indeed come to my mind to explain the differences between our French languages.
After roughly 3 centuries, some French words have come to mean different things. And the loans from other languages were not the same. Some anglicisms were absent from Quebecois (well, they understand “week-end”, but they stick to “fin de semaine”) or have been completely integrated (car/char).
Also, northern France’s Ch’ti slang seems to have had a bigger impact on Quebecois than on France’s French. I showed some Quebecois slang to a colleague from the North of France, and she just read it casually. A result of the founding population, I would guess.
Not sure I would qualify all these additions and loans as “simplification”, in either version of French.
The only simplification that the French language may have undergone was the artificial one done by the French Academy since Richelieu created it (he was a great believer in occupying one’s political opponents by creating committees). As a result of the ensuing pruning, we have less words than in English. But as far as grammatical/spelling go, I believe the Academicians didn’t have much luck in simplifying the language.
After all these centuries, we still have to write “Les fourmis fourmillent dans la fourmilière” (same root, but count the “L”). Not much selective pressure to come to something more homogenous, I would hazard.
You risk not just getting me started on idiosyncrasies of Quebecois CB lingo again* but demanding that someone seek out retired French truckers to fill in the gaps in this underappreciated subfield.
* Not really, as I’m going to be under the gun in short order.
Not literally, I hope.
Narad @969 — I would have thought that a CS professor taught you to avoid “goo-to” statements.
They took it all too far. But boy, could they play guitar.
HDB @ 972 — I believe Finnish is related to Hungarian. And as you probably know, at Los Alamos during the war, there was speculation that the Hungarians were actually aliens, as I understand it because (a) they were so smart, (b) they spoke a language that appeared unrelated to anything else.
So it must be true.
Much more distantly than Estonian is, but many (possibly most) linguists agree that there is some relation.
Why do the folks here think human language evolved?
Ever read Beowulf?
Not as complex as we humans have, but many species use sounds to communicate
And they communicate not only with others of their kind, but other species as well.
I’m a little surprised.
Surprised that after I provided a list of things which I’d bet had a positive correlation with belief in evolution, namely
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers,
– abortion and contraception,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document,
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver]
… about the only one I got objections to was the last, and even then, almost entirely regarding “disability”.
As I recall, the objections were farcical, amounting to ‘How dare you call yourself Catholic or even Christian. You’re against helping the disabled! You bad person you.’
Laughable. Next thing you know I’ll be accused of wanting dirtier air and dirtier water.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/17/obama_gop_wants_dirtier_air_dirtier_water_less_people_with_health_insurance.html
Anyway, I’m a bit surprised.
at Los Alamos during the war, there was speculation
“they are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians.”
See, I find it interesting that, when you failed utterly on evidence, you decided to accuse your opponents of immorality. Just as they did to Jesus.
I find it interesting (well no, I don’t. I find it completely in character) that he pretends we only objected to the government payouts for disability.
If you’re going to roll around on the floor chortling about “farcicality,” you should perhaps take a better look at your own list. Would you care to define “view of Constitution as a ‘living/fluid’ document”? Then you can figure out how the fυck to quantify it for survey-design purposes. You’ve already run away from one direct response.
Or you could, you know, do something about all the squashed banana peels you’ve left all over the stage.
Herr Doktor
“they are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians.”
And they have communication difficulties:
about the only one I got objections to was the last
Troll whines about lack of attention. No-one could have expected.
See @981:
” I provided a list of things which I’d bet had a positive correlation with belief in evolution, namely
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),”
Now, I have to provide a very specific counter-example. The number of people in perpetual singlehood has decreased dramatically, an inverse correlation with general understanding of evolution. Specifically, there are many, many fewer monks and nuns now than there used to be. And who could be more perpetually single than a nun?
As a Catholic, I would think you would be aware of this.
I said as much, and more, here. SN either can’t read very well or is lying through his teeth again. Yawn.
I remember watching an episode of Nova where they talked about doctors using evolutionary relationships to understand how their patient’s genetic disease caused the symptoms.
They were specifically looking a genes they thought might be related to speech, and what other animals have those genes and what other functions those genes carry out.
So, more doctors using evolution.
To JP #989, #846:
“As for the rest of the things you’d be willing to bet on, you’d be losing money.
Out-of-wedlock birth is actually higher in “red” states which tend to be more religious in…”
AMONG THAT POPULATION OF WOMEN giving birth out-of-wedlock, I’m betting the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation. Same goes for the fathers.
“Same goes for STDs.”
Same goes for STDs.
“And the state with the highest rate of pornography consumption is Utah.”
I said nothing about a state-by-state breakdown.
I’m saying that AMONG THAT POPULATION OF PEOPLE engaging in pornography, I’m betting the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
“Depression”.
Ditto.
“It says a lot about you that you include clinical depression on your list of “sins,” though. How very compassionate and Christ-like to blame the afflicted for their own afflictions.”
I don’t consider depression a sin. It’s no more a sin than say, a dead baby or a fatherless child.
“Oh, and BTW, do you think the 3/5 compromise was something worth keeping in the Constitution? Are you a fan of the Bill of Rights?”
That “three-fifths” thing was essentially eliminated by the Amendment process. I’m a fan of the Amendment process, as well as of the Bill of Rights.
Do you think the Right to Abortion something worth keeping in the Bill of Rights?
Since the Right to Abortion is said to be in the Bill of Rights, perhaps someday a Constitutional Amendment will eliminate it. You know, the same way it explicitly did for that explicit “three-fifths” thing.
To Justa Tech #990:
“I remember watching an episode of Nova where they talked about doctors using evolutionary relationships to understand how their patient’s genetic disease caused the symptoms…So, more doctors using evolution.”
I remember watching an episode of the guys mowing my lawn, where they talked about using evolutionary relationships to understand how their customer’s grass genetics caused the symptoms (i.e. growth of the grass). So, more landscapers using evolution.
But it’s a shame that landscapers so often avoid using the E-word. Just as it’s sad about those doctors noted in #954.
Keep going See – there might be a minority or two that you haven’t managed to insult yet.
I note that our bloviator is still speaking about abortion without responding the the fact that his alleged deity does not consider a child to be human until a month after birth.
What a surprise. . .
/Sarcasm off/
@SN:
Your “willingness to bet” is absolutely meaningless. It means you have a random, unsubstantiated opinion about something which I am utterly uninterested in, unless you have some data to back it up.
I’m “willing to bet” you consider suicide a sin, though, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re one of those a**holes who goes around telling the grief-stricken that their loved one has gone straight to hell for doing the deed.
The sheer depth of your ignorance of every single subject that you have stumbled into thus far amazes me. There is no “Right to Abortion” in the Bill of Rights, dumba**, whether or not there is “said to be” by ignoramuses such as yourself. Oh, and you’re a “fan of the Amendment process” but you refuse to believe that the Constitution is a “living document”? Make up your mind, numbnuts.
In any case: howsabout them universal constants, SN?
Oh and P.S., SN: So what if people look at pornography? I personally am not bothered at all about other peoples’ sexual mores and behaviors, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. It’s not my business, and frankly, I don’t care.
AMONG THAT POPULATION OF WOMEN giving birth out-of-wedlock, I’m betting the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
Prove it. In the meantime, there’s this:
https://plus.google.com/+OleOlson/posts/FYGxtgRqnvF
Don’t be too hard on the Bible thumping liar. He has never said he studied or understood evolution, only that at one time he believed in it.
Hence his inability to answer a question or read an article.
And one more should make #1000.
To JP #995:
“Your “willingness to bet” is absolutely meaningless. It means you have a random, unsubstantiated opinion about something which I am utterly uninterested in, unless you have some data to back it up.”
You would agree with me, I hope, that NOT all believers in evolution are atheists, but ALL atheists are believers in evolution.
Keeping that in mind, here’s some data on depression and atheism. It has about 40 footnotes/references. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_depression
“The sheer depth of your ignorance of every single subject that you have stumbled into thus far amazes me. There is no “Right to Abortion” in the Bill of Rights, dumba** whether or not there is “said to be” by ignoramuses such as yourself. Oh, and you’re a “fan of the Amendment process” but you refuse to believe that the Constitution is a “living document”? Make up your mind, numbnuts.”
Yes, I know, of course, there is no “Right to Abortion” in the Bill of Rights. And I know abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Which is why I marvel at those that claim they have a Constitutional right to abortion. I don’t understand it.
Apparently, neither do many liberal, pro-abortion Constitutional legal scholars, including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Harvard’s Laurence Tribe. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wade/article/1080661
Apparently, your ignorance extends to such a depth that you don’t understand the difference between change and perception. That is, you don’t see the difference between changing (clearly adding to/subtracting from/other altering) X and perceiving X as it is.
But there is a BIG difference. Ruth and Laurence see it. And so do I. Maybe someday you will, too.
“In any case: howsabout them universal constants, SN?”
Why do I have to do all the work? Why don’t you ask Sandra Faber or Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking (ref. my #775)?
To JP #996:
“Oh and P.S., SN: So what if people look at pornography? I personally am not bothered at all about other peoples’ sexual mores and behaviors, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone. It’s not my business, and frankly, I don’t care.”
P.S.
Objection. Irrelevant, your honor.
I said nothing about the morality of, or hurtfulness of, or anyone’s caring about, the viewing of pornography.
The matter before the court is whether a positive correlation exists between viewing pornography and believing in evolution.
“Sustained. Proceed.”
Thank you, your honor.
Nope. I have personally met atheists (non-believers in a Deity) who don’t “believe” in evolution.
Anyway, maybe atheists are more likely to be depressed because they have to put up with morons like you, not to mention the general prejudice and mistrust they face in our society, etc.
Your legal “thoughts” don’t even merit a response.
Because you brought up “universal constants” in a brain-dead attempt to prove the impossibility of evolution or the necessity of a deity or whatever it is you are trying to prove.
Listen, a**hole: nobody here is obligated to engage with you at all. I have personally reached the end of my patience, interest, and amusement, and I literally don’t give a sh*t about your idiotic assertions about the relationship you suppose between “being an evolutionist” and looking at pornography.
In any case, you’re the one who made a list of moronic assertions in the first place, which means you’re obligated to find actual f*cking data to back them up with if you want anybody to even entertain the notion of taking anything you say seriously at all.
So pony up. Or, y’know, just FOADIAF already.
See, in court, if you make an accusation, you must be the one who provides the evidence. So, where is the evidence showing the correlation?
Now, tell me something. Why do you insist on using the tactics associated with false prophets, hypocrites, and the Devil?
What’s more, in court, if you bring up irrelevancies about a witness’s character rather than deal with the evidence at hand, you will most likely be held in contempt.
By what? From the perspective of a reasonable person, after you lost the original bet and your first try at a revise, it was game over.
But if you insist:
Apparently not:
The evidence indicates otherwise:
The problem is that your team is dominated by fundies. And you just can’t bet on their moral superiority and hope to win.
@#997 —
That link (to what I can therefore only imagine is a picture of Bristol Palin, maybe?) is busted.
To JP #1002:
“Nope. I have personally met atheists (non-believers in a Deity) who don’t “believe” in evolution.”
What do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?
“Anyway, maybe atheists are more likely to be depressed because they have to put up with morons like you, not to mention the general prejudice and mistrust they face in our society, etc.”
Objection, your honor. I was talking about correlation, not causation. “Sustained.” Thank you, your honor.
“Your legal “thoughts” don’t even merit a response.”
Perhaps some others here will respond with some substance on the merits.
Me: “Why do I have to do all the work?”
You: “Because you brought up “universal constants” in a brain-dead attempt to prove the impossibility of evolution or the necessity of a deity or whatever it is you are trying to prove.”
So what? That multiple universal constants exist is common knowledge, even though the common person can’t name them all or even name many of them. It’s like the common knowledge that we’ve sent men to the moon, although most people couldn’t give you the names of all or even of many of them.
“Listen, a**hole: nobody here is obligated to engage with you at all. I have personally reached the end of my patience, interest, and amusement, and I literally don’t give a sh*t about your idiotic assertions about the relationship you suppose between “being an evolutionist” and looking at pornography.”
Of course nobody is obligated to engage with me at all.
But you chose to.
And obviously, you shouldn’t have.
Pretty sad.
“In any case, you’re the one who made a list of moronic assertions in the first place, which means you’re obligated to find actual f*cking data to back them up with if you want anybody to even entertain the notion of taking anything you say seriously at all.”
No, I’m not obligated to find…such data. I just said I’d take the bet. In a more perfect and more just world, the independent adjudicator of the bet would find in my favor, I bet.
“FOADIAF already.”
Apparently, the latter part of that stands for Die In A Fire. That almost brings up thoughts of hell. If there’s a hell, surely, you wouldn’t want me to go there. I’ll take comfort in assuming that.
See Noevo, I’d take a bet that you either worship Satan, or at least admire his debate techniques. By your logic, I don’t have to prove anything.
Oh, I think you’re going to be disappointed in Acts 4:31-5:11.
See Noevo has provided us with a truly invaluable demonstration of the oft-observed fact that people who believe I and defend incorrect and absurd positions are some combination of ignorant, unintelligent, and dishonest. SN needs to be only ignorant and stupid to hold his incorrect beliefs, but, predictably, he must resort to dishonesty in order to mount a defense. It is interesting that in a desperate attempt to avoid the judgment his belief system demands for simple lying, he instead attempts to use other forms of dishonesty, such as feigned misunderstanding (see his fake misinterpretation of the assertion regarding the bottleneck number of 10,000 humans) and intentional logical errors (e.g. NOT(“we just KNOW”)=”we just don’t know”). Of course, the lie is no less there in his heart, and I’m fairly certain it’s viewed the same way by his own system of belief. But the important thing is the outstanding demonstration he has provided of the ignorance, lack of intelligence, and dishonesty of people in his position. Insurmountable bias, too, though at least he admits to that.
We really owe him a debt of thanks. I hope there is wide exposure of his writings to intelligent and honest people who are exploring this issue.
^believe in
To ann #1005:
Your post strikes me as inconclusive for at least one reason I can think of:
The false definition of “conservative or evangelical Protestants” as “those who believe the Bible to be literally true.” For instance, you can find people who call themselves Evangelical Protestants over at BioLogos and ALL of them believe in evolution and, consequently, that the Bible is NOT literally true.
Secondly, while the CCF article highlights that “religiously conservative states Alabama and Arkansas have the second and third highest divorce rates in the U.S., at 13 per 1000 people per year while New Jersey and Massachusetts, more liberal states, are two of the lowest at 6 and 7 per 1000 people per year”, it’s not apparent whether the MARRIAGE RATES are similarly lopsided (i.e. more marriages per 1000 pop in Alabama and Arkansas.).
Another outstanding example of how dishonest See Noevo is can be found in the exchange earlier where he found himself being faced with a question he was fearful of answering either honestly or dishonestly, so instead he resorted to an evasion in the guise of a faked misunderstanding of the question put to him. He was asked if he was comfortable with all the species being created in two days, to which he responded, “No, I’m not comfortable with two days for the evolution of photosynthesis”.
Again, this is a very important example of the dishonest behavior of people in See Noevo’s position. It’s great that it’s memorialized here for others to see.
To ann #1006:
As with #1005, your post strikes me as inconclusive for a couple reasons:
Again, a definition of “conservative” which is arguable, especially in regards to belief in evolution.
(BTW, I don’t know if he looks at porn, but did you know Conservative George Will is an atheist? Of course, he believes in the E, too.)
Secondly, the study was only of “credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider”. As far as I’ve heard, the overall consumption of porn is FAR greater than just that which you pay for with a credit card. Lots of free stuff out there.
Thirdly, this only addresses a small subset of consumers. If we want to focus on small groups, don’t forget the producers and marketers of the porn. (I’m betting they are pretty pro-evolution, too.)
OK. As long as SN is going to stay off-topic anyway:
But a Catholic who maintains that magisterial teaching is infallible may not disagree with a statement of it. And that’s what you’re doing when you maintain that it’s unjust that you have to pay taxes that the CCC says it’s unjust not to pay.
Moreover:
The Church emphatically disagrees with you, very consistently, and in no uncertain terms. The Catholic position is that the hungry should be fed. As the First Encyclical of the pope before this one puts it, the Church’s love for:
I mean, for reals.
Doesn’t look like it.
To OccamsLaser #1011:
“But the important thing is the outstanding demonstration [See Noevo] has provided of the ignorance, lack of intelligence, and dishonesty of people in his position. Insurmountable bias, too, though at least he admits to that.
I hope there is wide exposure of his writings to intelligent and honest people who are exploring this issue.”
I hope so, too.
OL, please do want to you can to spread my stuff around. Or even just direct other folks to comments of mine on these blogs. I would appreciate it.
Thanks.
To ann #1016:
Me: “A Catholic may validly disagree even with the Pope on matters of prudential judgment.”
You: “But a Catholic who maintains that magisterial teaching is infallible may not disagree with a statement of it. And that’s what you’re doing when you maintain that it’s unjust that you have to pay taxes that the CCC says it’s unjust not to pay.”
Oy vey.
Wrong, as usual.
I do not disagree with the CCC 2436: “It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”
It is true.
However, my prudential judgment is that it is an incredibly poorly-worded statement, and that it just might be indicative of ungodly influences within the Church.
Regarding ungodly influences in the Church, Jesus said “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves”;
and Paul said “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and FROM AMONG YOUR OWN selves will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them”;
and Pope Paul VI said, regarding wrongful understandings and implementations of Vatican II, “From some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”
and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or someone else, once called the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops “The Democrat Party at prayer.”
I smell the “Democrat Party at prayer”/Big Government-loving/Socialism-lite influence here.
But I could be wrong.
And I say CCC 2436 is an incredibly poorly-worded statement for several reasons:
1) As I indicated in #948, it is silent on the matter of when taxation can become UNJUST, making compliance with it unjust. What if the FICA rate DOES go to 30%, 60%? No direction is given on this matter before or after 2436. The statement sticks out like a naked felon in a police lineup.
2) The mention of details of a specific governmental program (i.e. “social security contributions”) violates the timeless nature of the CCC. Maybe the author of 2436 would like the next revision of the CC to include proclamations on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (a.k.a. Food Stamps), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Earned Income Tax Credit, etc. The CCC can grow from the current 800 pages to something more “respectable” like, say, the IRS tax code’s 70,000+ pages.
3) It’s nearly nonsensical, making equivalent versions of the sentiment banal or meaningless. Examples: ‘It is JUST TO pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.’; ‘It is unjust TO pay the social security contributions required by IL-legitimate authority.’ In other words, one could practically respond with “Yeah. It kind of goes without saying.”
Lastly, while all the doctrines and teachings of the Church are true and authoritative, some are more important and impactful than others. Some are made weightier by the degree to which they are repeated and emphasized (e.g. the inherent evil of abortion). This CCC 2436 is a light weight.
As far as the rest of your post and the “The Church emphatically disagrees with you, very consistently, and in no uncertain terms. The Catholic position is that the hungry should be fed…” well,
Jesus Christ! Help us and save us. Especially the mentally-challenged.
Earlier you said “If that’s [what I’ve been saying] the Catholic position, there are an awful lot of churches operating heretical soup kitchens out there.”
The Catholic Church, and even the people who operate its soup kitchens, realize as sane people that in this world one works with limited resources (i.e. NOT UN-limited resources). Further they realize that one must think, plan, prioritize, and finally decide how best to use those limited resources.
Accordingly, that Catholic soup kitchen could have a long line of people wanting to get a bowl of chicken noodle. And quite possibly the kitchen might not have enough for all of them. But in that situation, IF the staff could determine who in line was NOT truly sick and needy and who in line was hungry only because they were UNWILLING TO WORK for their own sustenance, then, I’m quite confident the staff would tell THOSE folks to GO TO THE BACK OF THE LINE. Even if the Pope himself was manning the ladle, lady.
Sure as hell.
Whew! That’s enough for now.
Sorry if you think I went on too long in response to your short, snarky response.
“Sure as hell”
If you believe in hell, then you have nothing else to say, because hell is for unbelievers, so you have no choice.
*blink*
You haven’t done any work. You brought up the subject and had to be put through the wringer to even come up with a single example of what you considered to be a “universal constant,” which was a failure made all the more uproarious, given that I had seen it coming from the very start.
You still don’t understand that what you imagine you are attacking – which you also don’t understand in the slightes – has anything whatever to do with what you “think” you are attacking.
You have conceded the entire playing field.
I do so love S.N.’s inability to conceal his enthusiasm for attempts at snide sexist insults.
And you said:
So which is it? Poorly worded, ungodly, false prophecy? Or authoritative teaching on faith and morals?
It can’t be both. For example:
Then it’s not infallible.
Then it’s not infallible.
Then it’s not infallible.
Maybe this will help:
You are blaspheming.
In reality, that is not the case. Furthermore:
^^The Church explicitly acknowledges that there are circumstances in which unwillingness to work is morally legitimate.
And still furthermore:
^^You have it backwards. Both the obligation to work and the obligation to feed the hungry is on you, not them.
I betcha Ananias and Sapphira were UNWILLING TO WORK and that’s the real reason God zapped them.
O RLY?
^^
S. Pope John Paul II didn’t think so. He thought both were about the right to life.
Do my eyes deceive me, or is that UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK?
I must thank See Noevo for supplying another crisp example of how, when he holds a position that he recognizes is incorrect, he is left with no choice but to engage in dishonesty:
It’s nearly nonsensical, making equivalent versions of the sentiment banal or meaningless. Examples: ‘It is JUST TO pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.’; ‘It is unjust TO pay the social security contributions required by IL-legitimate authority.’
I note again that See Noevo, likely fearful of emitting a direct lie, instead issues a childishly obvious logical error, while pretending that he is unaware of the underlying fault. It has become apparent that this is one of his go-to (sorry, CS profs!) tactics. I suppose he believes that pretending he doesn’t understand logic, and writing a false statement as a result of that faked misunderstanding, somehow is not really lying, but of course, it is.
I suspect that, perhaps due to an intelligence deficit, he doesn’t realize that reasonably intelligent people will quickly identify the logical fault, and they will also correctly conclude that it is employed due to dishonesty. Most importantly, they will realize that this dishonesty is necessitated by See Noevo’s knowledge that he must resort to dishonesty, because his position cannot be honestly defended. We see that approach with regularity here at RI.
The embarrassing squirming about CCC 2436 only adds to the self-immolation, as it were.
To ann #1022:
Me: “However, my prudential judgment is that it is an incredibly poorly-worded statement, and that it just might be indicative of ungodly influences within the Church. Regarding ungodly influences in the Church, Jesus said “Beware of false prophets…” and Paul said… and Pope Paul VI said…”
Me, also: “However, the Church has NEVER been in error in its authoritative teaching on faith and morals.”
You: “So which is it? Poorly worded, ungodly, false prophecy? Or authoritative teaching on faith and morals?”
Poorly worded, quite-possibly ungodly, and not prophecy at all. AND authoritative teaching on faith and morals.
But skip CCC 2436. Here’s a more extreme and HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE:
1) The Church has always taught that you should be kind, helpful, peace-loving. That’s good teaching, repeated teaching, authoritative teaching.
2) And the Church has always taught that abortion is always gravely wrong and should be opposed. That’s good teaching, repeated teaching, authoritative teaching.
3) But IF the Church included in the Catechism an isolated, solo statement that singled out a specific secular company/governmental organization (similar to the way CCC 2436 does) with something like “It is unjust to confront in a menacing and violent manner customers going into Planned Parenthood abortion clinics established by legitimate authority”, then
4) I would think that something isn’t quite right. Is the statement true? Yes. Should it be followed? Of course. Has it ever been violated by Catholics? Quite possibly never, and most likely never WILL be violated. (So why make the statement?) HOWEVER, the statement has the feel of casting Catholics in a bad light and abortion providers and customers in a good light. It has the FEEL of a sinister straw man argument (e.g. ‘Catholic abortion protesters should stop being menacing and violent.’; ‘Did you stop beating your wife, yes or no?’). It has the FEEL of a wrong message (e.g. ‘Catholics, leave the abortion industry alone.’) And so, in my prudential judgment, this hypothetical statement, although true, would be inappropriate for the timeless and normally crystal clear Catechism.
But again, CCC 2436 is true. It is authoritative teaching. It just happens to be perhaps the ONLY statement in the 800-page CCC that I find to be in need of, let’s say, “clarification.” (Also, I imagine quite a bit more clarifying conversation could be spent on the definition of “LEGITIMATE” in “It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”)
“Maybe this will help: not fallible; exempt from liability to error, as persons, their judgment, or pronouncements: an infallible principle. Roman Catholic Church. immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to the Church.”
Maybe you’re have trouble with dictionary.com’s “exempt from liability to error”. This does not mean exempt from misinterpretation by the reader. Nor does it mean exempt from any future non-contradictory clarification by the writer.
“You are blaspheming… You have it backwards.”
You are blowing hard, self-admitted blowhard.
Remember, this is the same See that was genuinely confused that the one he worships has ultimate authority.
“Poorly worded, quite-possibly ungodly, and not prophecy at all. AND authoritative teaching on faith and morals.”
This is an example of what we would refer to in my former line of work as rectal defilade.
To ann:
If you’re not a member of the Catholic Church, WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?
That’s a very personal question. I don’t mind being asked, but I’d prefer not to answer. (Except to say that I’m not a Catholic, since I said that already.)
Given that you’re on public display, one might note that it’s just a synthetic cult that has been likened to Brahmanism turned inside-out.
I’m not a member of the Catholic Church because I’m a Lutheran.
@#1013, #1015 —
Sorry, I somehow didn’t see ^^those earlier.
While that may be true, it doesn’t invalidate the survey on its own terms — ie, rightly or wrongly, that’s how they defined it; it does correlates with creationism; and the divorce rates are what they are.
However, you’re right that marriage rates as well as divorce rates are higher among the religious.
And all of that aside, I actually agree that both are suggestive rather than conclusive. That’s just the best I could do. It’s annoying, because the conclusive data probably exists somewhere deep in the maws of Gallup or Pew or someplace like that. But I don’t have access to it.
However. FWIW, I wasn’t just being snarky about the disadvantages of having an evangelical-heavy sample on your side of the equation. They really do make it very, very hard for creationists to win a morals/lifestyle-based competition against anyone. I mean, look at the Duggars.
This is another hilarious collapse, given that the real data set is the correlation between creationist legislators and S.N.’s level of Legal Smurts.*
I take it as granted that S.N. has run the hell away from the money that the business entities of the Holy See are bleeding from the public purse, just as with his imbecilic posturing over fundamental physics. Cowardice must be its own reward.
* Pleasepleaseplease start babbling about Canon law.
If only there were such things as “numerators” and “denominators.”
If that doesn’t say thoroughness, I don’t know what does.
To ann #1031:
“That’s a very personal question. I don’t mind being asked, but I’d prefer not to answer. (Except to say that I’m not a Catholic, since I said that already.)”
That’s a remarkable response. So much so that I prefer to make some remarks on it:
First, generally when someone avoids answering a question by saying it’s “personal”, it’s because that person knows his/her/its person or identity is known by the questioner and by others who may be listening. And the person is embarrassed or fearful about revealing his/her/its true answer to those who know him/her/it.
But this shouldn’t apply here because you have anonymity. Your “ann” could be a man for all I know. Sure as hell, it’s even possible you’re Caitlin Jenner. I have no idea, because I See No Ann. Yet you use the rationale of ‘No, thanks. That’s personal.’ Remarkable.
Second, our anonymity didn’t stop you from saying things about me that would otherwise be considered “personal.” You offered your conjecture that I might be ‘lacking in courage’ and a “sad hypocrite who can’t respect himself.” Then you advanced to getting personal on an INTERNATIONAL basis, calling me a “shanda fur die goyim.” Wow. I’m a shame before the nations. Talk about publicizing the “personal.” Remarkable.
Third, while you claim to be immensely familiar with Catholic teaching, in fact, with “the whole body of authentic teachings on morals and faith” (#666), and blow hard with citations left and right, you “prefer” not to say what you disagree with or don’t accept. Remarkable.
Fourth, while the Catholic Church would like to have you in its membership, you might have a little difficulty on the “personal” thing. Confessing not your beliefs but rather your very sins to another person in the sacrament instituted by Christ is about as personal as it gets – even if you choose the Anonymous/Behind-the screen option.
Fifth, I’m wondering why a person would demur, when the same person had taunted me with “I’m asking what the hell you meant by that …Don’t be shy.”
So, I guess I’m saying “Don’t be shy”, ann.
Tell me why you aren’t in the Catholic Church.
But it’s your choice, of course.
Maybe you’re like Bartleby the Scrivener, who ‘preferred not to.’
“Ah, Bartleby! Ah, humanity!”
*blinks*
Wow. For someone who has demonstrated severe lack of knowledge in so many fields, someone sure has a lot to say. I hope the rest of you are at least enjoying this. 🙂
See Noevo wrote,
generally when someone avoids answering a question by saying it’s “personal”, it’s because that person knows his/her/its person or identity is known by the questioner and by others who may be listening. And the person is embarrassed or fearful about revealing his/her/its true answer to those who know him/her/it.
I’m sure the RI regulars have already spotted it, but the nearly painful degree of projection here is quite revealing. I’m reminded of when See Noevo earlier said he’d “heard” that there was free pornography on the Internet.
The dishonesty about pretending to ignorantly conflate an invocation of privacy with the characterizing of someone else is just more reinforcement of See Noevo’s fundamentally dishonest nature, not that more evidence is needed. It is great stuff.
Dear SN,
I just learnt by Occams Laser that you know how to find free pornography on the Internet. Could you please help me?
I’m particularly interested in the 72 virgins in paradise.
I’ve got 100 quatloos on S.N.’s never actually having read a lick of Herman Melville.
The ongoing attempt at targeted meltdown isn’t even interesting at this point.
There is of course a simpler approach. As everyone knows, the Roman Catholic church is, to put it mildly, a hierarchical bureaucracy. Therefore, Baby Torquemada has a certain, ah, issue in terms of his membership card that precedes this desperation:
Then again, he’s already been reduced to faux juridical posturing over what amounts to a poorly edited version of the Boy Scout Manual.
^ Furthermore, there is the question whether the Seenohamic god is immanent, transcendent, or an undocumented nanny.
The irony is almost too much:
Cf. foreskins and candles. But…
Are you confident enough to print out your performance here and show it to your priest? What was the last sin that you’ve committed? Wouldn’t diligence require maintaining time series data? C’mon, you’re “Behind-the.”
How different could it be from being “Peeking-under-the”?
Wow, over 1000 posts, the general thrust of which merely confirms what I learned the hard way at university in the ’70s: there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss anything scientific, especially evolution, with a religious fundie of whatever flavour religion they have chosen to believe in.
It is far easier just to pat them on the head and offer them a biscuit.
PS Before SNE asks, as he/she/it/they regard it as important for some inexplicable reason: I am an atheist, but a Methodist atheist (to borrow from the old sectarian-inspired gag).
SeeNoevolution:
Perhaps you, yourself, might be misreading the plain wording “social security” as if it were written “Social Security”. The former refers to a general concept of security in a society, not limited to the USA, comprising pensions, relief, general welfare, etc.; the latter names specific US government programs operated by the SSA.
Naturally, you will take the path of xtian arrogance and deny the possibility that you have misread the plain text, if you respond at all…
Well, See Noevo: I’m actually an agnostic/atheist, having arrived that way through Lutheranism (birth to 16), Catholicism (16-19), a brief fling with evangelicalism, Lutheranism again (merely to have my kids baptized because the family expected it), Episcopalianism (22-43) when I finally admitted I didn’t believe a bit of that nonsense any more and quit going to church. My kids had stopped years before, which was fine with me, because the only reason I wanted them to go to church was for learning the biblical stories so they would understand art and literature better. If there had been churches for mythology, we would have gone to those, too.
Since I don’t believe in Genesis, Adam and Eve, and Original Sin, there is no reason to believe that Jesus died to save mankind from sin. So no belief necessary in psychotic God, his son, and holy ghost.
Most people would be/are shocked to hear I’m an atheist. I don’t fit the mold they have in mind. I’m an older woman, polite, volunteer, donate to charities, and don’t break the laws of my country. What I do in my bedroom is my own business, along with the person with me. (And same for anyone else in their bedroom, provided all involved are consenting adults).
Evolution is a scientific theory, proven in many testings. Still changing as we learn more about the world and the universe. That’s what science does best. Learns, tests, and improves.
For people who want religion, I won’t talk them out of their beliefs. What I won’t allow them to do is impose THEIR beliefs on MY life and MY family.
Oh and I just saw this post:
See Noevo said:
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with
– divorce, (got mine while still religious, thank you.)
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying), Very happily single and in a relationship, thank you).
– sexually-transmitted diseases, (nope, never had one)
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers, (nope, both children born in wedlock. Most single mothers/out of wedlock mothers I met as a nurse and midwife were quite religious)
– abortion and contraception, (No abortions. Contraceptive use, yes, indeed. Planned family and then sterilization was what my then husband and I did. And before you ask – exhubby is still religious and he got sterilized).
– pornography, (most of that is boring)
– drug addiction, (nope, no drug use)
– depression and dysphoria, (nope. Quite happy and lots of joy and laughter in my life)
– social isolation/disintegration of community, (nope. Not at all. Lots of friends, family, love, activity in the community and work)
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document, (why not? The men who wrote it saw it that way)
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment (what do you have against the poor? Do you think they should just die? Your CHURCH certaintly doesn’t help them that much)
/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver] (again – see above. Do you know how many of our MILITARY depend on food stamps because their pay is so lousy? Should my cousin, dying of a genetic disease, not deserve help to live as she can’t work? Again, Your church doesn’t help these poor. Our Government DOES.)
In fact, See, your comments regarding social programs shows how UNChristian you are. You care nothing for the poor and helpless, unlike what Christ commanded his followers to do. Try quoting Biblical chapter and verse at me…I’ll quote them right back. Atheism doesn’t mean I haven’t read the Bible – probably far more than you ever have.
I was going to let it slide. But except that I think you could take out the “Perhaps” and replace the “might” with an “are,” I agree.
I’m surprised you think so. Where I come from, the right to give it is traditionally held to be too fundamental to individual liberty not to be respected. It’s generally regarded as a social offense to ask, in fact.
Your prerogative.
There are. But IIRC, there weren’t any differences that were notable enough to make going into the inconclusive, off-topic details worthwhile.
There are. But IIRC, there weren’t really any differences that were notable enough to make going into the inconclusive, off-topic details worthwhile. I mean, most people marry; many divorce; and the religious are likelier than the non-religious to participate in religious ritual. That’s not a big surprise.
^^I don’t know how that happened.
Sorry, though.
Why would a belief in evolution lead to less interest (or admission of interest) in pornography? The only connection I can see is that the more fundamentalist sex-negative religions are more likely to adhere to pre-scientific beliefs like Creationism. This leads to people suffering horrible guilt for experiencing perfectly normal sexual feelings, and either repressing them, or acting on them and then living in terror of being found out for being a ‘sinner’.
How anyone thinks this is something to be proud of is something I don’t understand. A few years ago a dear friend of mine, an Irish Catholic, killed herself because she couldn’t stand the guilt of having had an abortion. I have little patience for those with medieval beliefs about sin, hell and damnation, and even less for smug self-righteous idiots claiming the moral high ground for their repugnant beliefs.
I’m curious about something.
I had stated to JP “You would agree with me, I hope, that NOT all believers in evolution are atheists, but ALL atheists are believers in evolution.”
JP responded “Nope. I have personally met atheists (non-believers in a Deity) who don’t “believe” in evolution.”
So I asked JP “What do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?”
JP never answered.
Does anyone else out there know atheists who don’t believe in evolution?
If so, what do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?
See: They don’t “believe” in evolution any more than they believe in the moon existing. They simply know it happened because of the evidence.
Now tell me something, if you believe in Jesus Christ, why do you disdain his teachings?
To ann #1050:
“Where I come from, the right to give it is traditionally held to be too fundamental to individual liberty not to be respected. It’s generally regarded as a social offense to ask, in fact.”
The right to give what? To give an answer to the question “Why aren’t you Catholic?” When you’ve been posting profusely not just about Catholic teaching big and small, but HOW that Catholic teaching supposedly supports YOUR positions and contradicts mine?
It could POSSIBLY be “generally regarded as a social offense to ask”, but NOT in an anonymous internet environment.
[Why, I do declare, Ann-abelle! You must just BLUSH, at so many of the things said at this here unsightly site. My word! With all the foul language and ad hominems and… and… shanda fur die goyim! My dear Ann-abelle, I do declare I’m right surprised you haven’t fainted. Let me get you some sweet tea. And here’s your fan.]
Apparently you need to REALLY read, or really re-read, my #1038.
I’ll give you another chance, anonymous ann:
WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?
Maybe that’s because it’s like talking a brick f*cking wall.
Aliens, maaaaan. Or weird New Agey claptrap. I never said they were smart, or skeptics, or even necessarily materialists. Just atheists. You don’t seem to be very skilled when it comes to making philosophical distinctions, or, uh, using words, though.
To Gray Falcon #1056:
“Now tell me something, if you believe in Jesus Christ, why do you disdain his teachings?”
I should hope I love his teachings more than my own life.
That’s why I’d rather die than be anything other than Catholic.
“I should hope I love his teachings more than my own life.”
That must be why you only believe the ones that benefit you and not the ones that benefit others.
Curious, See Noevo. Are you a cradle Catholic, or did you become a Catholic as an adult?
Also, you’re not making us look very good, and we really don’t need that.
Signed,
Another Catholic
To JP #1058:
Me: “what do these atheists believe about how all life came to be the way it is?”
You: “Aliens, maaaaan. Or weird New Agey claptrap.”
Well, how do they believe the aliens came to be, maaaaan?
What would be one example of their “New Agey claptrap” in lieu of evolution?
“I never said they were smart…”
I never did either, and never would.
See, you twist people’s words, hold the poor in contempt, and make accusations without proof, all actions Jesus condemned. I suggest you read the Parable of the Two Sons before you come back here: Matthew 21:28-32
I don’t understand why anyone would be a member of an organized religion, Catholic or not – since they tell you exactly what to believe and leave no room for individual thought.
I know that’s harsh, but at the end of the day, religion has been mostly about societal control and the consolidation of power.
To Delphine #1061:
“Curious, See Noevo. Are you a cradle Catholic, or did you become a Catholic as an adult?”
Why, Delphine! Don’t you think that’s generally regarded as a social offense to ask, especially in an anonymous internet forum?
Apparently you don’t.
And neither do I.
I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.
Oh, and began disbelieving in evolution around 46. That was about 13 years ago.
“Also, you’re not making us look very good, and we really don’t need that.”
Please let as many people know as you can. Thanks.
Oh, the irony. Then again, S.N. is an avid defender of an institutionally corrupt bureaucracy with a penchant for ignoring – or covering up, when that doesn’t work – its own failings.
SN said: “WHY aren’t you a member of the Catholic Church?”
Which Catholic Church? The small, splinter group you belong to or the one headquartered in Rome? Even a cursory review shows that there is only a partial overlap between the religious beliefs of the two.
Well, there is Unitarian Universalism, that just about says you can believe anything.
Then there is my cult at http://www.subgenius.com that doesn’t care what you believe, as long as you send in $35 (the price has gone up, but note that it come with a triple your money back guarantee, which you don’t get with any of those other religions).
Rev. John
Church of the Old Bull
I think See Noevo is afraid of me. He never comments on things I have to say. I guess he’s afraid of intelligent women who became atheists through thought, bible reading, and science reading.
And yes, for a while I was going to become a nun. So I was very educated on Catholic teachings and beliefs. Until I decided that boys were more fun than the Catholic church.
Why aren’t I a member of the Catholic Church? Because I decided, one Easter Sunday while sitting in a pew listening to the Gospel, that I didn’t believe in this crap any more.
F*ck if I know; I was never interested enough to ask.
Like you, some of them prefer “spiritual” explanations to “material” explanations, and they assume that we are actually beings from another plane which are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
I guess I might as well lay down some definitions, not so much for your sake, since you’re about as receptive to knowledge as a piece of sheet metal, but just for the heck of it, I guess.
“Atheist” implies nothing other than the lack of a belief in a G-d or g-ds. An atheist might very well believe in ghosts, astrology, whatever; I’ve met plenty that do.
You, like a lot of people, actually, are using “atheist” as shorthand for “monist materialist,” which is inaccurate. A monist materialist believes that there is reality is composed of only one substance – matter.
There are also monist idealists, and, well, Zen Buddhists.*
Then there are dualists, who are more wrong than any monist. They believe that there is a world of spirit, or ideal forms, or whatever, and they believe that there is a separate material world, which may or may not interact with the spiritual world. The ghost in the machine, etc. Gnosticism is strictly dualist.
*”Not one, not two.”
And.
Why aren’t I a member of the Catholic Church?
Odd. SN likes the Argument-by-Unpopularity in some situations (“many people in the US remain unconvinced by evolution, therefore it must be wrong”), yet it does not seem to apply to the failure of catholicism to convert all of humanity.
Then there are dualists, who are more wrong than any monist.
Don’t forget Popper and Eccles and their attempt to be even wronger still by introducing a third World — “interactionists, and what is more, trialist interactionists!”
Yes, and. And also whatever Bruno Schulz was, with his “extreme monism of substance.”
To MI Dawn #1069:
“I think See Noevo is afraid of me.”
I can’t think of any human being I’m *afraid* of.
However, I am *concerned* about many.
For instance, I’m concerned about people who get divorced while they’re religious, who mutilate their bodies with sterilization, who like sex more than church so much that they might be in a sexual relationship outside of marriage right now. And who think that Evolution theory is “proven” (#1048) and that something like Mt. Rushmore could possibly result from weathering (#164).
Except for that last sentence, you sound similar to the woman at the well (cf. John 4). And except that she came to believe.
1074 demonstrates that if there is an internal threat to this country it comes from people who would post something like what’s at 1074.
JP @1070 —
I see your point, but as a physics-y type I have to point out that you probably mean a very inclusive definition of “matter”. We have particles and fields galore, and even the vacuum conceals a riot of physical processes, which apparently conspire somehow to give the vacuum a tiny density of energy even when there’s “nothing there”.
I suppose a more accurate statement would be that a monist thinks that there are no non-physical, supernatural entities. Is that sensible, do you think?
Incidentally, I long, long ago concluded that I had better things to do that argue with SN.
Picking up a much earlier bit, I remember hearing Finnish and Hungarian classified as “Finno-Magyar” languages, so I guess there is some commonality. Estonian is, too, of course. Are Latvian and Lithuanian both Slavic? You would know better than most!
So, regarding how life came to be the way it is, some atheists believe in one or more of these:
– Aliens
– We are actually beings from another plane which are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
– Ghosts
– Astrology
– Monist materialism
– Zen Buddhism
– Interactionism
– Trialist interactionism
– “Whatever”
Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.
Latvian and Lithuanian comprise the Baltic branch of Indo-European. Theory has it that proto-Baltic diverged from proto-Slavic some 3000-3500 years back.
Finno-Magyar has changed its name to Finno-Ugric. But if you want to be progressive and liberal and inclusive, you should be saying “Uralic”, which includes Hungarian and Finnish / Estonian / Saami / Karelian and a scattering of languages like Udmurt and Komi and Samoyedic which the Russian authorities are doing their best to extinguish.
Getting back closer to the subject of the above article by Orac,
nearby is another article about doctors or medicine titled
“The puzzle of chemotherapy resistance” http://scienceblogs.com/weizmann/2015/06/03/the-puzzle-of-chemotherapy-resistance/
I’m a little puzzled that I have the only comment there. Here it is:
“I’m surprised at the title and substance of this article, especially for this website.
I’m puzzled by the eight uses of the word “puzzle”.
There is NO “puzzle.”
You ALREADY KNOW what the answer is: Chemotherapy resistance EVOLVED.
As with all of evolution theory, the rest is just details to be worked out later. I mean to be theorized later.”
………
@palindrom:
Maybe – “supernatural” is certainly a term which is nonsensical from a monist viewpoint. I’m not entirely sure what is meant by “entities.” I don’t know nearly as much about physics as you do, but let me think about it for a little while. Zen Buddhists, for example, do posit the “existence” of the Void, so to speak, which is not exactly, I think, what is meant by the term “vacuum.” Hmm.
In any case, referring to the zzms that Narad linked to, my late great Zen teacher was asked, in an accusatory sort of way, by a young she-monk with significant scientific training if he really believed that all the Bodhisattvas and so forth were real. He replied: “Sure, they’re real… in mythology.
Re: Finnish and Hungarian: they are both considered by quite the majority of linguists to be Uralic languages. “Finno-Ugric” is sometimes used instead of “Uralic.” Finnish and Estonian are obviously related. Hungarian has a similar prosody, and about 200 cognates, mostly in the core vocabulary, words for certain numbers, body parts, etc. They certainly seem (Finnish and Hungarian) to be related, although they must have diverged a very long time ago.
Latvian and Lithuanian are Baltic languages – Baltic languages are the closest relatives to the Slavic languages, with Germanic languages coming in at a distant second. There is a postulated “Proto-Balto-Slavic” language, the ancestor language of both Baltic and Slavic languages. There’s no mutual intelligibility to speak of, though I could recognize some words here and there on signs in Vilnius. Luckily, it’s perfectly easy to get along with Russian there.
^ I see hdb was typing faster than I was.
JP – interesting on the languages, thanks! I bet many of the Lithuanians are not crazy about the fact they’re able to speak Russian, however convenient it was for you.
On the monism thing, it occurred to me a while back that I am perfectly happy to say that God exists as an important concept in human culture and thought, which can be thought of as a placeholder for, or symbol embodying, a number of key emotional, ethical, and social needs. Or something like that. It’s possible to respect this idea and what it stands for while not believing in some mysterious entity on another plane of existence, or whatever. I’m fortunate enough to know some exceptionally wonderful clergy — not fundies, I might add — so I’m loathe to be entirely dismissive of their beliefs, and this works for me.
The theory used to be that Finnish and Hungarian were both more distantly related to Turkish, or even to a larger, more speculative Altaic language phylum. This was particularly popular among Hungarian linguists (as part of their self-image as weird outsiders) but it seems to be in abeyance now. Some might take this development as further evidence that all scientific linguists are poopyheads and therefore Goddidit.
There are still a couple of brave, radical, out-of-the-box thinkers — “cranks” if you prefer — who reject the idea of a Finnish / Hungarian connection. This makes for entertaining diatribes:
homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/am_rev.html
It seemed to be taken more or less in stride, and maybe because I was an obvious weirdo anyway, I did not get any flack for speaking Russian. There’s also still a significant Russian population in Vilnius, and most people there, as far as I could tell, are bilingual to a greater or lesser extent.
Yeah, this is what I was referring to when I mentioned that “possibly most” linguists accept the relation between Hungarian and Finnish.
HDB — I see that the post you linked had a parenthetical note that it was an “International Bad English” version of a review that was to appear auf Deutsch.
Is “International Bad English” a thing, as my daughter would say, or was it just something self-deprecating that the author made up? The English seemed fine to me …
See Noevo,
What kind of an idiot believes in a non-human intelligence with a penchant for genetic engineering? Oh, wait…
I actually do believe that “G-d” is real, but not in anything like the sense that most believers do, I think. In any case, I’m perfectly fine with being weird.
You could also describe pantheists as monists, for the most part, I suppose. I have heard Zen described as “panentheist,” for example in this quote by Soyen Shaku:
^Oops, blockquote fail.
Correction to my #1079:
Revised as follows:
“You ALREADY KNOW what the answer is: Chemotherapy resistance EVOLVED, OR is due to
– Aliens
– Us being from another plane from which we are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
– Ghosts
– Astrology
– Monist materialism
– Zen Buddhism
– Interactionism
– Trialist interactionism
– “Whatever””
That should do it.
To Krebiozen #1086:
Me to JP: “Well, how do they believe the aliens came to be, maaaaan?”
You: “What kind of an idiot believes in a non-human intelligence with a penchant for genetic engineering? Oh, wait…”
Yes, please wait.
Because I’m not sure I’m following you.
Are you saying these atheists who believe aliens caused life on earth to be the way it is are idiots?
And that even if they do so believe, they aren’t addressing the issue of how the aliens came to be?
If you ARE saying these things, then we may actually have some points of agreement!
Are you saying these things?
The two volumes I inexplicably brought with me on an undergraduate summer in Spain were The Brain and Its Self (which I still have, because unmailed postcards) and a comparably sized hardback on bridge that somehow devolved from the great aunt who brought about my loathing of S.E. Hinton.
See Noevo,
I’m being a little unkind, perhaps, in labeling those that believe, without a shred of evidence, that humans were created out of whole cloth by a non-human intelligence as ‘idiots’, but essentially, yes.
It’s usually best to establish something exists before expending energy on figuring out where is came from.
I’m saying that I see no functional difference between your belief that God created life, the universe and everything, and the belief of some that life (and whatever) was created by aliens. There is no direct evidence for either, the scientific evidence points elsewhere, and even if this were true it just shifts the real problem elsewhere as you have noted. Where did the aliens come from? Where did God come from?
Given that you’re just another rank supernaturalist with the bonus of a veritable barge of comical self-justifications, you’re not in much of a position to smirk. In fact, your avowed fearlessness has led to bravely sidestepping the parallels between your favored cosmic role-playing game and Brahmanism.
Of course, if you weren’t a rank philosophical ignoramus, your attempt a formulating a list wouldn’t have been so embarrassing.
Would you like to provide another indisputable Holy Proof of why ontology itself doesn’t represent a needless entity?
That’s because you weren’t bright enough to examine the nature of the forum that you were trying to attention-whore in.
I take it that you have not in fact fearlessly sacked it up on this front, which would provide you with far more “engagement,” your actual craving.
Speaking of Patti Smith*, here is another good one.** And another.
*I recently found out that Patti Smith’s mom was also a JW; I knew we had something major in common.
**I have in fact been called “Johnny” a good deal more than once in my life, mostly by a girl in Moscow who apparently decided that “Jamie,” “Janie,” and “Johnny” were all close enough.
Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.
It is almost as if ‘atheism’ is not a form of religion, after all.
To Krebiozen #1092:
See Noevo: “And that even if they do so believe, they aren’t addressing the issue of how the aliens came to be?”
Krebiozen: “It’s usually best to establish something exists before expending energy on figuring out where is came from.”
You’ve got a point.
That’s why I question expending energy on figuring out where evolution came from. You know, because we haven’t established evolution exists.
Kreboizen
So you are calling me an idiot eh. When the Old Ones return and great Cthulu awakens from his slumber and the Mountains of Madness ring to the calls of the Shogoths, may you know the horror of being the last one eaten.
Patti was apparently raised in quite a strong Jehovah’s Witness home.
I love Patti. Just came here to say that.
You haven’t “established” that “we” exist. Or that any bit of your rambling is an improvement over the parsimonious assertion that the value of pi settles everything.
I eagerly await your fearlessness.
P.S. It’s a crying shame that Phildo abandoned this opportunity to put his indubitably well-earned robes to use.
See, I became a Catholic as an adult. Because of a lot of reasons I can’t quite explain here. My father was an atheist and my mother isn’t sure what she believes, but I was raised to believe in something.
I am not sure what I believe any longer. I don’t support a lot of what the Church believes. I am pro-choice, I once faced the decision of having to continue a pregnancy with a T18 baby who would have been born in pain, unable to suckle, a life just to hurt. I got what I prayed for and she died inside me before I had to make that choice.
But I am raising Delphinette as a nominal Catholic. I appreciate the commitment of the schools (at least where we live) to social justice, to living in a global world, and so she will attend JK at a Catholic school come fall.
I asked if you were a cradle Catholic because you remind me of many adults I’ve met who are more Catholic than the Pope.
Jesus died for somebody’s sins, but not mine…
Dean #1075 says of me, “1074 demonstrates that if there is an internal threat to this country it comes from people who would post something like what’s at 1074.”
I think the following looks like more of threat. (I wonder how many of the judges voting for death believe in evolution?)
“In January 2014 a court in France ruled against starving Lambert to death. But, today, the European Court of Human Rights today issued its decision and, by a vote of 12-5, the Grand Chamber held that a State may take Lambert’s life AGAINST HIS WILL.”
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/05/court-rules-disabled-patient-can-be-starved-to-death-against-his-will/
“Doctors said he has minimal consciousness, FEELS PAIN and MOVES HIS EYE but is not able to communicate in any way. It is NOT KNOWN if he is able to understand what happens to and around him.”
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-court-ends-life-support-tetraplegic-vincent-lambert-landmark-ruling-1454036
I’d bet they’re evolutionists.
Oh man, who doesn’t?
This one I’m not sure of. Though my first inclination is to attribute See Noevo’s embarrassing errors to dishonesty, based on the patterns established here so far, this one might be mostly or exclusively due to just being stupid.
He wrote,
So, regarding how life came to be the way it is, some atheists believe in one or more of these:
– Aliens
– We are actually beings from another plane which are just projecting the material world like a hologram or something.
– Ghosts
– Astrology
– Monist materialism
– Zen Buddhism
– Interactionism
– Trialist interactionism
– “Whatever”
Sounds like, as far as how life came to be the way it is, the beliefs of atheists are legion.
Of course, none of the bolded items was offered as an example of what any athiests believe “regarding how life came to be the way it is.” See Noevo might just be lying again, but I suspect this example of his misrepresentations has to be chalked up to his just not being very smart.
none of the bolded items was offered as an example of what any athiests believe
“Trialist interactionism” in fact came up as an example of what at least one Catholic believed.
Just when I thought yiu couldn’t get any more dishonest sn you triple down and really demonstrate what a horrole person you are. Against his will? When he can’t communicate, but according to his wife and some brothers and sisters he had stated he would never want to be kept alive in this way? Truly vile on your part. You simply strengthen my point. Your virulent religion based ignorance is dangerous.
I hope the judges are educated enough to understand that evolution is a fact. That would indicate that they are far more intelligentl certainly far more caring, and monumentally more honest, than you’ve ever been.
To Delphine #1101:
Nothing “personal”, but I’d like to use you as an exhibit.
Way back in #443 and #541, I and others here began some
extensive back-and-forth on what I’ll call my ‘Can’t tell a book by its cover’. [One excerpt of mine: “…how very different two people can be with the same “label” (e.g. observant Jew, Constitutionalist). As a further example, Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic”, but she’s not really Catholic, because she supports abortion and abortion rights.”]
Boy, did I catch some flack for that! (To no avail, of course. My position is unchanged.)
Now, in #1061, you tell me “…you’re not making US look very good, and WE really don’t need that. Signed, ANOTHER CATHOLIC”
US? WE? Catholic? I sure hope you don’t think you’re including me in those.
There is no “We” of you and me.
Because in #1101 you say
“I am not sure what I believe any longer. I don’t support a lot of what the Church believes. I am pro-choice…”
Looks like I was right. Can’t tell a “Catholic” by his/her/its cover. Boy, oh boy. Exhibit #1: Delphine.
[Note to readers: Delphine MAY be in ann’s “Catholic” church, but definitely is not in Christ’s Catholic Church.]
“Jesus died for somebody’s sins, but not mine…”
So sang Patti.
And so said Judas Iscariot.
I’d bet they’re evolutionists.
I’d take that bet, but as we already know, you’re a welsher.
Don’t rule out the third possibility of good old-fashioned trolling. Leaving deliberately stupid comments is one way of ensuring a response.
Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from attention-whoring (and vice versa).
Oh, whaddaya know: Patti Smith and I have the same birthday, too.
Don’t rule out the third possibility of good old-fashioned trolling. Leaving deliberately stupid comments is one way of ensuring a response.
That’s also possible, though See Noevo’s crippling inability to read with comprehension has been repeatedly demonstrated here; the shrimp-article episode still makes me chuckle.
@ #1104
Re: “this example of his misrepresentations has to be chalked up to his just not being very smart.”
A quick scan of See Noevo’s Disqus comments indicate it to be a run of the mill right-wing troll mired in Dunning-Kruger … with the attendant smug arrogance that these “too stupid to understand they’re stupid” types often display.
https://disqus.com/by/seenoevo/comments/
The clown indicated in one of its Disqus comments that it was banned at BioLogos, no doubt for polluting their comment area with the same inane malarkey as in its comments above.
Note to readers, you’re a fucki8g dick. Nothing”personal.”
Just in case I don’t make it through moderation, you’re an a$4shole and big reason why people hate Western Roman Catholics. Do you have kids? Because if you do, they probably think you’re an intransigent dick.
Have a little Lennon, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmJvo1HixOw
How would you like to be conscious or semi-conscious, be able to feel pain, and…
be slowly starved and dehydrated to death?
[[Euthansia already was used during the Nazi regime in Germany, for which offenders were convicted at Nuremberg. The European Center for Law and Justice says it was “precisely against this ideology that the European Convention on Human Rights was proclaimed in 1950” …
…The court found that not only can a bureaucracy decide on euthanasia, the victim’s parents lack the right to intervene.
In a statement from Gregor Puppinck of the ECLJ, which argued for the man’s life, the 12-5 vote “held that a state may cause the death of a patient in a minimally conscious state.”
Puppinck said the court “not only held that in Europe, we can again legally induce the death of a disabled patient who did not ask to die, but in addition, it denies that patient the protection of the convention against mistreatment.”
“In 1946, during the Nuremberg trials, physicians who practiced euthanasia of disabled persons were convicted. These convictions founded contemporary medical ethics…
He said that today, the “‘European Court of Human Rights in good health’ revives a fatal practice we hoped to be gone in Europe.”
The judges who dissented scathingly wrote: “In 2010, to mark its 50th anniversary, the court accepted the title of ‘The Conscience of Europe’ when publishing a book with that very title… It is not sufficient to acknowledge, as is done in paragraph 181 of the judgment, that a case ‘concerns complex medical, legal and ethical matters’; it is of the very essence of a conscience … that ethical matters should be allowed to shape and guide the legal reasoning to its proper final destination. That is what conscience is all about. We regret that the court has, with this judgment, forfeited the above-mentioned title.”
The dissent noted Lambert is not dead and can breath on his own and digest food.
“In other words, Vincent Lambert is alive, and being cared for. What, we therefore ask, can justify a state in allowing a doctor … in this not so much to ‘pull the plug’ (Lambert is not on any life-support machine) as to withdraw or discontinue feeding and hydration so as to, in effect, starve Vincent Lambert to death?”
The judges continued: “By no stretch of the imagination can Vincent Lambert be deemed to be in an ‘end-of-life’ situation. Regrettably, he will be in that situation soon, after feeding and hydration are withdrawn or withheld… ]]
http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/human-rights-court-approves-killing-injured-patient/
You get right back to me when the baby you and your spouse want more than anything has half her fuck!ing heart, you douchebag.
Hey, I have an idea for a game.* As has been plainly admitted, S.N. has an uncontrolled urge to
deploy attempted psychological abuse mechanisms more suited to yummy children“look under hoods.” **Moreover, he has already demonstrated that he is assuredly well versed in the epistemology of modality, or something, because “universal constants.” So, given that there’s certainly at least one rock-solid*** anchor in stellar evolution,
I will adopt the foregoing rhetorical framework, as it is, a priori, a Pure instantiation of loving-kindness.
1. Is it physically possible for human beings to bring about their own extinction before the ἐπιφανείᾳ? If not, WHY?
* All by my lonesome, but it’s more likely than not as common as dirt.
** Not too far, of course.
*** Or not, which would be even better.
Only liars, racists, bigotd, and fools believe wnd to be a reliable source for anything sn, so – oh wait, you posted it and you’re in the intersection of those groups. Never mind.
World Nut Daily. Waddaya know.
To Delphine #1113, #1114:
Watch your mouth, girl!
You’re not making yourself look very good, and you really don’t need that. Signed, a Catholic.
Speaking of which, I’d like to add one to my #840 list (amended with #879):
Use of obscene language, especially on the internet.
So, the new and improved listing is as follows:
“I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with more than just belief in (AGW agenda) environmental regulations.
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers,
– abortion and contraception,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document,
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver]
– Population decline
– Use of obscene language, especially on the internet.”
That’s good enough for now.
Thanks for reminding me, Delphine.
The idea that marriage should be forever is useful only to those who want people to be trapped in horrid marriages, especially abusive ones. People who think divorce is necessarily a bad thing mistake the cure for the disease.
As for the notion that STDs and belief in evolution might be linked, consider this:
here
I suspect people who accept the evidence for evolution do not favor abstinence only sex education.
This one’s for Delphine.
George will sing for Delphine…
…..
P.S.
Good song.
P.P.S.
Regarding that lyric “I could wait forever, I got time”,
unfortunately, not true. Best get it right, while you HAVE time.
See Noevo, tell me, why are you accusing people of what you consider immroral behavior without proof? Are you aware Jesus spoke against that?
To give the response I gave. It’s nobody’s business but mine.
The social doctrine of the Catholic Church is not really MY position. It’s the Catholic Church’s. I’m just pointing it out, which it’s perfectly possible to do without reference to personal belief, as evidenced by:
(a) my having done it; and
(b) your evidently not having been able to find even a pretext for asking in anything I wrote.
It’s an intrinsically rude question, internet or no internet. But, you know. People who are super-touchy about such things probably shouldn’t be posting comments to online brawls.
And fwiw, I, personally, was not offended by it. As I said, I don’t mind being asked. I was just surprised you thought it remarkable that I chose not to answer. It seemed really pretty self-explanatory to me that to many people, private beliefs are private.
OK. That’s REALLY not how the phrase “shanda fur die goyim” is used, tonally, or any other way. It comes in three basic connotative flavors: resigned, self-mocking, and tongue-in-cheek. I intended the latter two.
OK.
…
Done. I apologized for the one of those that wasn’t justified. And the others are completely in line with what you yourself have been dishing out as well as taking for the whole of the thread. So I still don’t see why I’m obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I’m making.
It’s none of your business.
Inside llewelly #1121:
Unfortunately, the SEICUS study, which you fail to credit, makes no mention of belief in evolution.
Neither does this one, from one of the most liberal, pro-abortion organizations around – the Guttmacher Institute. Yet its findings seem OPPOSITE of SEICUS’:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3527903a.html
^ I should further note that S.N.’s overt cowardice is really just a smokescreen with respect to his underlying intemperance.
Concupiscence is right out.
Speaking of which, I’d like to add one to my #840 list (amended with #879):
Would that be the list from which you flee like a startled hare when anyone asks you to put your money where your mouth is?
See Noevo wrote,
Watch your mouth, girl!
You’re not making yourself look very good, and you really don’t need that. Signed, a Catholic.
Speaking of which, I’d like to add one to my #840 list (amended with #879):
Use of obscene language, especially on the internet.
I guess we have to add hypocrite to See Noevo’s ever-growing list of negative personality traits. Of course, he uses obscene language, especially on the Internet. No links are necessary, as he will not deny it.
I’m starting to suspect he’s not really a Catholic. And, what with the use of pornography and the cursing, he might be an evolutionist, by his own reckoning. Neat.
HDB @1105 — You’re quoting SN, of course, when you use the word “athiest”.
I’m sure you’d agree that in order to know how to spell a word, it helps to know its roots. Its entomology, so to speak.
Sure helps in de-bugging the spelling.
See Noevo:
No, the findings are not necessarily the opposite, because being religious does not necessarily imply having an abstinence only education. Being religious also does not necessarily imply rejecting evolution either.
Furthermore – the study you link is a question based survey. Religion will affect how teens answer survey questions.
Palindrom — that was I, guilty as charged!
–OL
To Gray Falcon #1124:
“See Noevo, tell me, why are you accusing people of what you consider immroral behavior without proof? Are you aware Jesus spoke against that?”
So, you’re saying it WOULD be OK to accuse people WITH proof.
But then the question is which behaviors are what you call “immroral.”
They SHOULD be the same ones Jesus called immoral, including evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander (cf. Mat 15:19). Or Paul’s partial listing of 1 Cor 6:9.
And no, I’m not aware of Jesus speaking against taking action against sinners with proof. I’m aware of Jesus speaking FOR it:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” [Mat 18:15-17]
And Paul:
“But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber — not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” [1 Cor 5:11-13]
Truly of a caliber to rival GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY!
Then again, it’s not entirely clear what S.N.’s specific expectations of the proper role of “girls'” mouths are.
Sigh. I already tried, but you just won’t take a f*cking hint.
To ann #1125:
“It’s an intrinsically rude question, internet or no internet. But, you know. People who are super-touchy about such things probably shouldn’t be posting comments to online brawls.”
Which is why I’m wondering why you’re posting here.
“And fwiw, I, personally, was not offended by it. As I said, I don’t mind being asked.”
Which is why I’m wondering why in your retort you use the words “generally regarded as a social offense to ask.”
“So I still don’t see why I’m obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I’m making.”
If you say so.
And as you’ve said before,
“Hmm. Well. Assuming that SN’s failure to respond means he so lacks the courage of his convictions that he can’t acknowledge them openly, he’s also apparently a sad hypocrite who can’t respect himself…
It’s none of your business.”
There’s nothing like recycling a comment (#622) verbatim that says Me Think Hard!
Anyway, pretty much everyone knows how that works in practice.
^ I really must apologize for an omission in foregoing comment; given that S.N. had already appointed himself sebastocrator, the only possible result of the chastisement is to imply that he expected to be watching.
Those darn parents!
They’re probably kooky creationists.
Why are creationists against education?
http://www.startribune.com/school-s-sex-store-field-trip-brings-calls-for-new-leader/306215651/
I think somebody earlier asked about the historicity of Exodus.
I don’t know what the Chinese feel about that history, but their minds are probably just occupied with TODAY:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112207/Thousands-toads-descend-China-heavy-rainfall-results-biblical-scene.html
Given that the Sacrament of Penance only had the sacramento, ah, put in its olive by the Council of Trent, one might wonder about the dating scheme here.
No you’re not.
Again, no you’re not. This time, you just clipped the part of my post that could leave you in no doubt that my reason for mentioning it was (and I quote) that “I was just surprised you thought it remarkable that I chose not to answer. It seemed really pretty self-explanatory to me that to many people, private beliefs are private.”
I’m amenable to a reasonable argument to the contrary. Bring it on.
I was laboring under a misapprehension, for which I sincerely apologized as soon as you brought the error to my attention. And it was one.
However. That’s not a true analogy. I was asking you to address a question about something you wrote, not just making random demands for personal information because I didn’t have a better option on the merits than a Hail Mary pass.
So to speak.
If it isn’t, bring it on.
Uh-oh, panic time has come again.
I presume that randomly offering “extreme unction” hadn’t been faring so well on the concupiscence front.
I have little doubt that he’s been around the block more times than your average serotype of the clap.
^ But he has repeatedly backed himself into the position of trying to improvise, at which point the matter becomes something like waiting for an inflamed sebaceous cyst to grow to such proportions that the “need to poke” is amply rewarded with persistence and a needle that has seen better days.
This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRv4VQra2kc
And maybe Delphine’s and MI Dawn’s.
^^ Moreover, S.N.’s variance from his usual posting schedule suggests that he’s well into his veritas.
To come back to Orac’s original question:
“Why do doctors deny evolution?” now I can answer that, for some of them, it’s because they fear hell.
You stand accused of the sin of intemperance, and you have forfeited recourse to jurisdictional defenses based on foreign law, Torquemadito.
To ann #1142:
“So I still don’t see why I’m obligated to answer personal questions that have no bearing on the arguments that I’m making… I’m amenable to a reasonable argument to the contrary. Bring it on.”
Consider the following:
1) I have revealed that I am a true Catholic (i.e. One who believes in and strives to follow ALL that the Church teaches.).
2) You don’t like what I say and the positions I take.
3) You’d like to show that what I say and the positions I take are wrong.
4) Your tactic to try to show me in the wrong is to cite Catholic teachings which you THINK CONTRADICT what I say and the positions I take.
5) Thus, with your tactic, you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.
Do you think the above is accurate?
If not, why not?
At #1116, Narad provided a link to concordatwatch.eu. I followed some links there, and found a quote① from a cardinal② about RCC doctrine. The gist of the quote was that RCC encourages lying, with two conditions: ⑴ the liar can tell himself that he’s not really lying, and ⑵ the lie redounds to the benefit of the church and its hierarchy. It goes under the name “mental reservation.”
Perhaps I need to apologize to SN: by lying, he’s just being a Good Catholic™. I don’t think I will, however: his lying might not be a sin, but it’s an excellent example of the distinction between the religious-only concept of sin vs the secular concept of morality, and why the christianities (particularly the RCC) have so little to teach about the latter..
———————————————–
① Second right-side inset, a couple of screens down.
② Not the North Carolina state bird. If it were, the cardinal would be violating the NC③ state motto④.
③ Yeah, I grew up in NC. What of it.
④Esse quam videre, to be rather than to seem. I adopted it as a personal motto, which is part of the reason I’m not a christianist, after a christianist pulled Pascal’s Wager on me.
FTFY. I mean, given the other “needs” that you’ve advanced, I have little doubt that your limited technological skills nonetheless have adapted to “selfies.”
Would you like help with the markup? Have you ever seen Twister?
MI Dawn, June 5, 2015:>
Dawn, it’s not just women that he’s afraid of. I’m a guy who is an atheist through thought, bible reading, and science reading. He’s not addressed anything I’ve posed, either.
Bill, that’s a pretty distinctive set of glyphs. Have you spent time in Japan?
You’re quoting SN, of course, when you use the word “athiest”.
It is of course the superlative form of “athier”.
But I am informed that a preference for correct spelling is elitest, so no matter.
Then again, I suppose that “I have revealed that I am a true Catholic” might be deliberate spoor, but the prior would seem to be forced into a very tight corner.
Nartad, no. I just took some time to shop the Unicode charts as displayed by the Character Map utility. The circled/parenthesized numbers are in the range U+2460 through U+24FF. Since this site uses UTF-8 encoding, I just copy and paste the raw character into the comment box, rather than trying to remember how to construct an entity from the Unicode coding. I happen to recall that ™ is called out by the ™ entity, so I don’t bother shopping for the raw character.
You seem to have found the superscript and subscript unicode digits. what technique do you use?
Nartad? No, Narad. Sorry.
Ah, yes, I had nearly forgotten this Bullwinklish appeal to popularity. One might well wonder how the likes of aspirants to wearing a funny hat and a dress such as S.N. would fare against, say, Robert Hunter in terms of a plebiscite over who better understood Luke 17:21.
The State. Of. The. Teaching., skirts.
Then again, the last I checked, S.N. showed no sign of even understanding the question. When TSR 1071 would represent a drastic philosophical upgrade, one can’t expect too much.
* I forgot that one of the index cards was the Ur-recipe and the other was the one that I had actually worked out, leaving me with meatball cookery of the first water. And I took a shot at a downward revision of the idiosyncratic timing of the electronic pressure cooker that time forgot. Moreover, I freaking failed to adequately brown the orzo. It’s still nutritious, BUT.
See Noevo,
1. Evolution is not an entity that either exists or does not exist, like an alien or a deity, it is a process that we can describe, observe and record in detail.
2. Both evolution and speciation have been observed multiple times. Repeatedly denying this is simply ridiculous.
3. Evidence of the existence of aliens and deities is sparse and unconvincing.
BTW
I know you’re far more familiar with these tales than I, but I don’t think Judas said that. According to the bible he hanged himself before Jesus died. Unless you believe, as some do, that the apostles were happy to hang out with Judas after he betrayed Jesus, leading to his death, which seems a little unlikely.
Have you really resorted to claiming that evolution cannot be true because people who believe in it have other attributes that you don’t like? That is truly weird.
People who believe your variety of Holy Writ is infallible are more likely to follow its list of prescriptions and proscriptions (in public, at least) than those who do not believe. How extraordinary [/sarcasm].
Based on what I have seen here, I think it’s your religion with its bizarre proclamations about sex that drives people to furtive, hypocritical and, ultimately, damaging behavior.
Finally…
You have a very feeble grasp of logic. If I point out that you fail to follow your own rules, that doesn’t mean that I follow your rules or think they are right.
Awwwww….SN thinks I’m a criminal. How sweet of him. But, actually, if you asked my ex, he’d tell you he’s happier in his new marriage than he was in our last several years of marriage, and I’m happier in my new relationship than I was. We are still friends, still united parents to our (adult) children. We actually like each other more now. So our divorce was good for both of us and our relationship.
See has become more Catholic than the pope – literally, as the Catholic Church DOES accept evolution. As for the start of life? Well, See, evolution doesn’t address that. It only addresses change. So, cats won’t give birth to dogs, ducks and crocodiles won’t mate. Try reading what evolution really IS and what it says about life. You might learn something.
@Delphine: my condolences on the Trisomy 18 child. As a nurse, I cared for one. It’s very tough to care for a baby you know is going to die, and the parents had my every respect. Katydid (as I called her) lived about 1 month. And I had the joy 2 years later of being with the parents as they gave birth to a healthy boy. But if you asked the parents, they would tell you that if the second child was also T18, they would have aborted him. Watching 1 child die in pain was enough!
Oh, and See: I could say this is truth: my new lover is married, I’m one of 3 girlfriends, his wife has a few lovers also. We are all happy, polyamorous, loving people, we all love each other very much and get along wonderfully OR I could say this is truth: I’m in a monagamous relationship with another woman. We are very happy, loving people and we love each other very much. We are thrilled the state allows us to be married and are planning our marriage OR I could say: I’m actually not in a relationship at all and this is all bogus. You’d never know.
The only true thing is that I feel for Delphine and I agree with her that you are a heartless *ss. Until you have been pregnant and given birth (and NOT had your wife do it, YOU), you won’t know how it feels to carry a child you KNOW will live in pain and die very soon. I don’t blame Delphine a bit.
That’s both true and accurate. I believe that you are, and actually never intended to suggest otherwise, with the exception of the stuff I withdrew, which I said while under the erroneous impression that you were a schismatic traditionalist.
But I apologized for that.
It would be more accurate to say I think a lot of it is wrong. I’ve agreed with some of it.
When I think they’re wrong, I strive to show that they are by giving my reasons for thinking so, which is — as I understand it — completely in accordance with the generally accepted rules for debate.
I’d like to be right myself, naturally. But when I’m wrong, I admit it.
When that’s what I think you’re wrong about, yes.
No. I’m saying you’re wrong because the Catholic teachings are demonstrably other than what you say.
Whoa. This thread is still going on?
I refer you to your own remarks @#1134 regarding, specifically:
(a) the difference between accusations with and without proof; and
(b) the prohibition on slander (cf. Mat 15:19).
@#1165 —
Is that bad?
To Krebiozen #1161:
“Based on what I have seen here, I think it’s your religion with its bizarre proclamations about sex that drives people to furtive, hypocritical and, ultimately, damaging behavior.”
Except for the use of “bizarre”, I think you may be right.
My hypothesis is that people leave or stay away from the Church primarily, and often entirely, because of its unchanging teaching on matters involving sex (e.g. divorce, fornication, abortion, contraception).
And when you think about it, Jesus and the Apostles focused a lot on sexual sins, too.
Mat 5:28;
Mat 5:32;
Mat 15:19;
Mat 19:9;
Mark 7:21;
Mark 10;11-12;
Luke 16:18;
Rom 1:26-27;
1 Cor 6:9;
Gal 5:19;
Eph 5:3,5;
Col 3:5;
Rev 21:8;
Rev 22:15.
To ann #1164:
Me: “5) Thus, with your tactic, you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.”
You: “No. I’m saying you’re wrong because the Catholic teachings are demonstrably other than what you say.”
No, you’re demonstrably wrong. And I have in fact demonstrated why you’re wrong numerous times above.
HOWEVER, EVEN IF a position of mine which you disagree with contradicted Catholic teaching, why should you care? Why do you spend the time? It would be like you spending time reprimanding me for believing unicorns actually have three horns because my authoritative church of unicornology states they have only one horn. In terms of the real world, my unicorn church and I are BOTH wrong. And in terms of the real world, my Catholic Church and my position could theoretically BOTH be wrong. But in terms of the real world, SO WHAT? Why do you care?
And besides, I have shown, or could show, why my positions make sense, even from a secular perspective.
So, why are you spending time trying to show me why you think I’m wrong?
Out of your basic, average, common-to-garden-variety commitment to the epistemic virtues.
But fwiw, if I hurt your feelings, I’m sorry to have done so.
Wow. Is this ORAC’s longest thread? Who reads these?
I’m a Canadian doctor, and I suspect based on other survey data I have seen, that this is largely an American phenomena. Americans generally are far far more religious, more likely to believe in god/heaven/hell etc than do citizens from any other modern industrialized country. And the particular type of Christianity that dominates the culture (evangelical, fundamentalist) is the most inclined to dis-believe science that appears to contradict the Wholly Babble.
American doctors come from that unique cultural background, so it should surprise nobody that they are more inclined to disbelieve Evolution.
As ORAC and others have pointed out several times, doctors are not scientists. I think it would be great if we all had some scientific training, but it is rare. Most doctors have an undergraduate science degree, but that is not DOING science, it is learning some basic principals, and reams of information. Many medical schools now will accept candidates who have undergraduate degrees in the arts.
“And besides, I have shown, or could show, why my positions make sense, even from a secular perspective.”
You haven’t shown it yet, and if I were a betting person I’d make a big bet that you can’t show any position of yours makes sense.
To ann #1166:
Me: “This may very well be ann’s song.
I don’t know. Sure as hell, she’d never say.”
You: “I refer you to your own remarks @#1134 regarding, specifically: (a) the difference between accusations with and without proof; and (b) the prohibition on slander (cf. Mat 15:19).”
Don’t sweat it, ann. No violation.
…….
To ann #1170:
Me: “So, why are you spending time trying to show me why you think I’m wrong?”
You: “Out of your basic, average, common-to-garden-variety commitment to the epistemic virtues.”
Commitment to epistemic virtues? I guess you mean knowing for the sake of knowing. Kind of like “ars gratis artis”. Both garbage.
Knowing just for the hell of it. And in this case, arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Too bad the entire field of epistemology, of which science is one off-shoot, is just so much mental masturbation when it is without Catholic philosophy.
…..
To ann #1171:
“But fwiw, if I hurt your feelings, I’m sorry to have done so.”
Thanks, but don’t worry. You haven’t “hurt my feelings.”
To “hurt my feelings” in the most importance sense, you’d have had to show me where I’m wrong. And such correction usually hurts. But I would recover from the wound and mend my ways, and would be better and stronger for the correction. I’d even thank you. But I’m not going to thank you, because you haven’t shown me I’m wrong.
You also haven’t “hurt my feelings” in the less important, emotional sense. This is because I really don’t care about…well, how should I say this? You haven’t “hurt my feelings”, because what you think about me is not one of my primary concerns. It’s not even a secondary or tertiary or…what are the ones that come after tertiary? Anyway, you haven’t “hurt my feelings”, because you can’t “hurt my feelings.”
But thanks.
See, please stop. You are dragging Christianity through the mud with your idolatrous worship of church hierarchies, and your incessant and deliberate lies. Focus on doing what is right, and don’t waste your time condemning others when you have your own sins to worry about.
A certain commenter named “dean” directly above tells me “…I’d make a big bet that you can’t show any position of yours makes sense.”
I believe this is the same person who about a month ago said he was finished responding to me.
Yet, I can’t even count how many times he’s responded to me SINCE then. The man of his word, dean. He’s made close to 2-dozen posts to or about me on this thread alone.
But if my posts and points are so non-sensical, they should appear so to everyone, including dean. They would be so obviously wrong that one would be a fool to spend any time pointing out it out, because it’s obvious. Like that old saying, “It goes without saying” (After which, the sayer invariably starts saying.).
Why O why, dean, are you so obsessed with me, and with tearing at virtually every post I make?
No need to. They’re OBVIOUSLY wrong, right?
So, better you spend your time doing something else, something meaningful.
And what are you hoping to accomplish, See?
obsessed? curious. how can a single person possess the sheer number of reprehensible traits you do? serial lying, asserting things about science that are false, displaying blatant racism and bigotry, yet claiming to be an honest and moral person.
Have you ever done a decent thing in your life?
Bullshit. You were transparently and intentionally scratching the itch I declined to help you satisfy in fantasy, out of nothing but sheer, frustrated desire.
Nobody could possibly be blind enough not to see that, including you.
^There should have been a comma before as well as after “in fantasy.”
See Noevo,
I’m surprised, but suspicious. Do you think it is a good thing that your religion aims to make people ashamed of their own bodies and their sexuality? Is it healthy for people to think that perfectly normal feelings mean there is something wrong with them, or that there is an evil supernatural being trying to seduce them? I can’t understand why anyone would think that preventing people from using contraception and protection against STIs is a good thing. What motive do you think God had for creating creatures that sexually reproduce and then constraining their behavior with so many odd rules around reproduction? To be fair, browsing Leviticus, it isn’t just around reproduction….
Does this mean you would like to see reform? I don’t get the impression that you are in favor of divorce, contraception or abortion.
Not really. Jesus mentioned sex, or marriage, only a very few times, in the first seven verses you listed. The remainder of those verses are from Paul, who never met Jesus and wasn’t really an Apostle.
Jesus didn’t mention sexual impropriety, as such, he warned about marrying the wrong woman, ‘coveting’ a married woman or divorcing for reasons other than adultery. I’m not a theologian, but these look very much like the various complex rules around men’s property to me, rather than about sexual morality, much as it does in various developing world cultures today.
As far as I know (I was raised as an Anglican) Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, or abortion or contraception. He didn’t mention adultery (the “he who is without sin” tale is thought to be a later forgery), except in those few passages, saying things like, “Whoever divorces his wife apart from adultery and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery”.
That’s thin gruel to feed the current Catholic stance on sex methinks. Why accept the OT on sex but not on diet? Didn’t Jesus do away with both?
I’m done with going off-topic, and also with responding to off-topical posts.
My apologies to the people who didn’t..
Because we say so.
Given the utter catastrophe that was your posturing about fundamental physics, the record strongly suggests that you would just pretend it never happened.
I wanted to comment several times as I read through this. Definitely have to agree on the U.S. cultural phenomena part. It is sad and a little scary when religion can color so much of our lives. It is also ironic that the most fundamentalist of Christians seem to focus on “if he will not work, do not let him eat” at the expense of social justice, or insistence on abstinence vs birth control, prohibiting abortion and then limiting assistance for the children born to poor, unprepared young people.
To Krebiozen #1180:
Me: “My hypothesis is that people leave or stay away from the Church primarily, and often entirely, because of its unchanging teaching on matters involving sex (e.g. divorce, fornication, abortion, contraception).”
You: “Does this mean you would like to see reform? I don’t get the impression that you are in favor of divorce, contraception or abortion.”
No, I would not like to see reform. But what I think is irrelevant. The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.
“Jesus didn’t mention sexual impropriety, as such, he warned about marrying the wrong woman, ‘coveting’ a married woman or divorcing for reasons other than adultery.”
Really? Besides adultery, I see Jesus several times calling out the evil of “fornication.” I assume you know the definition of that. Also, “every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” sounds like that could cover modern day pornography. Don’t you think?
“The remainder of those verses are from Paul, who never met Jesus and wasn’t really an Apostle.”
False (cf. Acts 9:4-5) and false (cf. Romans 1:1).
And here’s a “timely” verse from the Apostle Paul:
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.” [Romans 1:26-28]
“I’m not a theologian, but…”
You don’t have to be.
“As far as I know (I was raised as an Anglican) Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality, or abortion or contraception.”
Ah, the Anglican church, founded upon divorce. Bravo. (Goodbye, old friend, Thomas More.)
There may be no end to the number of things Jesus did NOT specifically mention. For instance, He didn’t mention bestiality, embryonic stem cell research, or Ponzi schemes. I THINK Jesus would be against these things. More importantly, His Church does also.
“That’s thin gruel to feed the current Catholic stance on sex methinks.”
Youthinks? Well maybe when you become pope of your own church you can tell your folks the way it’s going to be. There’s already about 30,000+ such churches. One more won’t matter. The more the “merrier.”
I asked because the only place I regularly encounter them is in Japanese engineering papers.
This one. They suck. Of course, Unicode itself is an incoherent mess, and on top of this, the brilliant SB IT monkeys have removed* <sup> and <sub;gt; – the correct way of doing this – from
$allowedtags.* They’re in the stylesheet, so that’s not it.
Way to fail again.
P.S. That’s not what “cf.” means.
^ Ah, no, I see that I f*cked up there. Haste makes waste.
IMAGINATION EXERCISE!
Getting back closer to the original topic of “Why do doctors deny evolution?”, what if NONE of them did? That is, what if ALL doctors believed in evolution, and so never denied evolution?
Here’s an EXERCISE IN IMAGINATION. This could be fun.
Let’s assume EVERYONE, not just doctors, throughout human history believed in Evolution.
OK. Then, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?
Now, here’s a sensible but IMPORTANT RESTRICTION for this imagination exercise:
You can’t compare this hypothetical life to actual life today, because you’d be comparing the hypothetical world to false/nonexistent history.
I’m thinking of a specific example which would violate this restriction, namely, saying “Well, our lives would be different and better in this hypothetical world because we wouldn’t have to write articles about doctors insanely denying evolution and we wouldn’t have these battles in education and elsewhere over the science of evolution!”
WRONG! VIOLATION for false history. There IS NO battle about evolution and there NEVER WAS. In this world, everyone has ALWAYS bought into the big E.
Now, just because everyone believed in evolution doesn’t mean the ancient people understood evolution as well as some people say we do today. Knowledge about the details develops and advances over time, as with many things. But the new developments never contradict the earlier basic truths. (In fact, you could say the same about development of Catholic doctrine.)
For example, even though we all know the Bible isn’t meant to be a biology textbook, that doesn’t prevent it from telling us truths about the physical world, truths which could be developed later in actual biology textbooks.
So, Genesis 1 and 2 would tell us many basic truths about creation by using FIGURATIVE, non-scientific language the ancients could understand.
Let me show you what I mean. The hypothetical Genesis 1 and 2 would include verses like these:
“And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years” [No change. Same as the actual Gen 1:14]
But then…
“And the Lord God formed from the dust of the ground the first creatures over many years, a fourth season.”
“And then the Lord God formed from these creature many different creatures – the birds of the air and the fish of the sea and the beasts of the field – over many more years, a fifth season.”
“Then the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon one of the beasts of the field, and while it slept took two of its ribs and closed up their place with flesh; and the ribs which the LORD God had taken from the beast he made into a man and into a woman.”
“And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” [No change. Same as the actual Gen 1:29-30]
But then…
“And God said, but that’s just for a little side salad or antipasto. You should then eat each other. Thus, animal will eat animal, and man will eat animal, and sometimes, animal will eat man. But don’t forget those nice green plants to start. They help with digestion.”
“The Lord God did this over many years, a sixth season.”
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, but not really. For on the seventh day after the sixth season God had not finished his work which he had done, but he rested on that seventh day from all his work which he had done, knowing he had more creating to do for many years to come.”
‘nough said! The first life coming from the earth, becoming animals which were formed into different animals, one of which was formed into Man. All over many many years.
That’s (hypothetical) Scripture! That’s Evolution! And that’s Entertainment!
The ancients would get it. In fact, in this hypothetical world, they DID get it. Gen 1 & 2 creation is about “Evolution”. Oh, they might have used a different word, but the basic truth of Evolution is there.
And flipping to the New Testament, John 14:26 might read “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. And those things he will teach in the future will include more details about Genesis. Nothing to worry about. But you cannot bear them now.”
And the years roll along, and we eventually discover fossils and DNA and mutations and what not. Big deal. It’s just filling in some details about the original Gen 1 & 2 “evolution” story that everyone believed anyway.
OK.
So, in this hypothetical scenario, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?
Use your imaginations, and tell me!
Narad, #1187:
In the 1970’s, I worked for a ‘puter company. Among other things, I was the representative of our local business unit on our Corporate Codes Committee. We had to deal with 6-bit (48-character and 64-character versions), 7-bit (96-char and 128-char) and 8-bit (96-, 128-, and 256-character versions) Coded Character Sets from all around the world, some even based on ISO646.
The incoherence of Unicode is a mere bagatelle in comparison to that utter chaos.
If doctors accepted that evolution happened, they’d probably be less likely to prescribe antibiotics for everything, reducing issues with antibiotic resistance and preventing a possible global plague.
Now tell me See, why do you think “Do not bear false witness” is a strongly-worded suggestion?
In your silly game, there would be no need for the kind of mythology filling your bible, so no one would have written a bible.
Thus, you would have no need to violate your own rule “You can’t compare this hypothetical life to actual life today, because you’d be comparing the hypothetical world to false/nonexistent history.” by bringing it up.
To Gray Falcon #1192:
“If doctors accepted that evolution happened, they’d probably be less likely to prescribe antibiotics for everything, reducing issues with antibiotic resistance and preventing a possible global plague.”
OK. The doctors take action (or refrain from acting) to slowdown or prevent what they believe to be evolution.
I have a feeling, though, that if a global plague DID arrive, everyone and his government bureaucrat brother would be screaming for antibiotics and lots of them. And they they’ll get them.
Ho-hum. Looks like it could be pretty bad without or without more evolution.
“Now tell me See, why do you think “Do not bear false witness” is a strongly-worded suggestion?”
We both know it’s not a suggestion but rather a command. But with that silly question, I can only suppose you’re trying to get around to saying I have borne false witness in this thread.
IF that’s the case, I’ll give you one and only one shot. In what one specific case do you think I’ve borne false witness here?
To Bill Price #1193:
“In your silly game, there would be no need for the kind of mythology filling your bible, so no one would have written a bible.”
Sorry, I have to throw the flag, Bill. Violation.
Remember, the ONLY thing different with the hypothetical world is that everyone believes in evolution. (Well, that and a different kind of Genesis 1 & 2, to make more believable the universal and constant belief in evolution.)
Everything else is the same, including the rest of the Bible.
That’s OK. You can try again.
See, do you understand the concept of “antibiotic-resistant bacteria”?
For a specific example of false witness, there’s your claiming that scientists believe that each part of the eye developed separately and came together to form a functioning organ.
Here’s another example of false witness:
Nobody ever suggested that sunburns would turn into optic organs.
To Gray Falcon #1196:
“See, do you understand the concept of “antibiotic-resistant bacteria”?”
Yes, I do. And I know that many people believe it’s an example of evolution. But in the hypothetical world, everyone will believe it’s an example of evolution. In that world, if doctors are less likely to prescribe antibiotics for everything it would be because they want less possibility of evolution (i.e. bacteria developing antibiotic resistance).
“For a specific example of false witness, there’s your claiming that scientists believe that each part of the eye developed separately and came together to form a functioning organ.”
First, give me the comment # where I said that.
there was a time on earth with zero human beings, call it “through time X”, then, [according to MANY SCIENTISTS] at X plus one second 10,000 NON-human beings became 10,000 human beings.
That’s one of the several examples just in this thread alone.
I dunno, is the pretending to have only “heard” about free porn on the Internet another example?
you are essentially saying that I am wrong BECAUSE the Catholic teachings are right.
Could be false witness, but, sadly, I think it’s just run-of-the-mill Dunning-Kruger. See Noevo has racked up an impressive number of childish logical errors in this thread, I must say.
I guess if you don’t understand logic, you’ll reach all manner of erroneous conclusions, which you will wrongly believe to be logically correct. It explains a lot about folks like See Noevo’s attachment to wrong positions.
See, <metaG>your original hypothetical was that everyone understood and accepted evolution throughout the existence of H. sap. sap. (You used the word ‘believe’, but for non-religious matters, like evolution, ‘believe’ means ‘understand and accept’.) Do you wish to change the game, now that people are taking you up on it? I must assume that, since you discuss differences between the bible of this universe and of the hypothetical, that such discussion is on the table.</metaG>
Under the hypothetical, there is no need for a creation myth, either a general myth or a special-creation myth like those myths in Genesis. Since the hypothetical is universal, the uselessness of special creation myths is likewise universal.
Understanding evolution also puts the kibosh on the Noachian and similar flood myths. The tower of babel myth falls to linguistic evolution, also. Without the special creation and the special flood survival of Genesis, all that’s left of the Old Testament is the pseudo-history and the “I coulda been a contender” war stories.
The elimination of the special-creation myths eliminates the ‘original sin’ nonsense of the christianities, thus the sine qua non of the Yeshua myth and the entire new testament’s raison d’être.
Without the Yeshua myth to base his religion on, [P|S]aul would have to use some other myth, if he could find one with enough semi-organized followers to take over. It may, or may not, have been possible.
Assuming [P|S]ual had succeeded, it’s still not clear whether his religion would have been power-hungry enough for Constantine to filter, unite and co-opt in his quest to overthrow the political power of the Roman priesthoods.
Without the RCC/EOC, the the history of Rome, and its empire, would likely be quite different. In particular, without the RCC, the dark ages probably would not have happened and, with the foundation of evolution, our understanding of reality (science) would have developed much farther, much faster.
Bah. Where did the G come from in my pseudo-html meta tags. Please pretend they aren’t there.
@ Occamslaser
I guess that the main logical error of SN relates to Pascal’s wager.
Fortunately, he does not bet on the 72 virgins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager#Variations
And another 200 posts, which further illustrate why some of us find organised religion, especially the RCs, so obnoxious and objectionable.
Actually I would use this thread as a teaching aid to demonstrate how NOT to construct an argument (thanks for that, SNE), what exactly is wrong with organised religion in general and X-tianity in particular.
Thinks: is SNE’s role really to subvert RC-ism? ‘Cos he/she/it/they are doing a great job at it.
Post #173.
Correction: Post #173 is where See outright lied about eye development.
To Murmur #1204:
Please, let’s get back closer to the original topic, the way you did in your #28.
Try the imagination exercise in #1098! The hypothetical is: Everyone has always accepted evolution. Now what? What do you see?
………
P.S.
You say “Actually I would use this thread as a teaching aid to demonstrate how NOT to construct an argument (thanks for that, SNE), what exactly is wrong with organised religion in general and X-tianity in particular. Thinks: is SNE’s role really to subvert RC-ism? ‘Cos he/she/it/they are doing a great job at it.”
I think that’s a good idea. If you know someone who is an educator, please suggest they consider this thread as a teaching aid. All of it.
Correction to #1207:
Try the imagination exercise in #1198.
Correction to the correction:
The Imagination Exercise is in #1190.
See Noevo,
I find it distressing that anyone holds such a view in the 21st century when the Catholic Church’s teachings are causing such terrible suffering. The Church’s teachings do change. They are only infallible between changes, it seems.
I thought I knew what fornication was, i.e. sex out of wedlock, but it seems it’s a bit more complex. In Jesus’ time, until the 12th century, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to cohabit and have sex, so presumably this means that Jesus would not consider this ‘fornication’. That’s very similar to how my contemporaries live – cohabit, have children, marry, or not, later.
Anyway, “several times calling out the evil of ‘fornication'”? Sigh. I knew I should have written this down before. I used the Aramaic Bible in Plain English here:
Mat 5:28; “But I am saying to you, everyone who looks at a woman so as to lust for her, immediately commits adultery with her in his heart.”
Mat 5:32; “But I am saying to you that everyone who divorces his wife, apart from the report of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery, and whoever takes her who is divorced is committing adultery.”
Mat 15:19; “For from the heart proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, murders, fornications, thefts, lying testimonies, blasphemies.”
Mat 19:9; “But I say to you, “Whoever divorces his wife apart from adultery and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery.”’
Mark 7:21; “For from within the heart of the children of men proceed evil ideas, adultery, fornication, theft, murder.”
Mark 10;11-12; And he said to them, “Every man who divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery. And if a woman divorces her husband and another man shall have her, she commits adultery.”
Luke 16:18;“Whoever divorces his wife and takes another commits adultery, and everyone who takes her who is divorced commits adultery.”
The remaining verses are not the words of Jesus, they are the words of Paul.
I see just three ideas here. The first is that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery. the second is that evil comes from our hearts (the only mention of fornication by Jesus in the Bible, I believe), the third is that only divorce on the grounds of adultery is valid, perhaps not even then (depends on whether you believe Luke or the others).
I think that’s a large stretch. I still think this sounds more like rules of property (“Are you looking at my bird?”), inheritance, alliance and money than more enlightened modern attitudes to sex. If a man can never look lustfully at a woman, the human race is in big trouble, isn’t it? Can a man look at his wife that way? At another man? What about an unmarried woman he might pursue? Also, what about women? Are they allowed to look lustfully at men? Other women? Unmarried women?
That was a vision after Jesus had died and/or ascended to heaven. If you believe an account of someone hallucinating an encounter with Jesus and then claiming apostleship counts as evidence of what Jesus intended then this conversation is pointless (yeah, I know). I’m sure I was taught that there were only twelve apostles, but the Anglican Church would say that, so I’ll concede that’s semantics.
Again, I’m not interested in what Paul had to say about Christianity. IMO he took a religion that was about love and forgiveness and turned it into something that spawned the Inquisition.
Anglicanism is just like Catholicism, but with less paganism, incense, dressing up, statues, rosaries, confession and general theatrics. You might be surprised that Anglicans in the UK are a bit less accepting of cohabitation and homosexuality than Catholics, oddly. I’m no longer an Anglican, but I do think that the ability to divorce is an important freedom, especially for women.
I would say we can be quite certain of that.
True, but the Church doesn’t appear to have been obsessed with these things, for centuries, and for no discernible reason.
I agree, apart from the stem cell research which I think he would support, thanks to all the suffering that could be ended by it.
There are a lot of people who do not regard the Catholic Church as Jesus’ church. Far from it. I think Jesus might well be horrified by what some Catholics have done in his name, assuming he existed and his teachings haven’t been completely eroded through editing over time.
I’m just expressing my opinion and my curiosity about how people come to believe what they do; I have no interest in starting a religion. I believe I have the right to criticize when I think an existing religion is causing suffering, and not even following its own rules, especially when it causes pain to people I care about.
Note that when I pointed out where See Noevo very clearly lied to us, he refuses to mention anything about it.
When you get down to it, papal infallibility is the act of placing a mortal above the level of God. In other words, it is an act of idolatry. Also, it was not part of church dogma until 1870. So it isn’t an essential part of the church, it’s a recent development.
Bit ‘o pedantry: we don’t call them the dark ages because they were barbaric and unenlightened, we call them the dark ages because they are relatively obscure to historians, compared to other historical eras. The idea that someone just sort of pressed “pause” in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire, and didn’t press “play” again until the Renaissance is a common misconception.
I figure the (western) Empire would’ve fallen for some reason or other with or without the RCC, but it’s awfully hard to say, because it didn’t happen that way. I mean, the course of history would’ve turned out differently if I were to go back in time and step on a butterfly, so no RCC? Hard to say. The monasteries actually did some good in terms of “preparing the ground” for the Renaissance, for instance. And they gave us the university.
In any case, historical hypotheticals, I’ve found, are pointless to entertain within the context of one’s own life – “If I’d just done this, if I hadn’t done that” – let alone a couple thousand years of European history. Things are the way they because they happened the way they did, period. That’s one of the reasons why I find this new “game” of SN’s to be perhaps his most sophomoric performance so far.
My post 28 still stands: you have simply further illustrated that point, even if you aren’t a doctor.
Cherry picking, appeal to authority, “no true Scotsman”, epic goal post shifting, irrelevant questions about religious affiliations of various posters, conflating science with religion (hint: you don’t understand either if you do that), ignoring anything that doesn’t fit a preconceived narrative…
Agreed. That’s why I called it ‘his game.’
Alternate history is fun, though — a distant acquaintance of mine just wrote a book imagining that Rome never fell, and telling the story of an encounter between a Roman military expedition to the New World and the native Americans.
More on point, I’m kind of amazed that SN has managed to tie up so many obviously bright people for so long rebutting his drivel.
As for me, there are climate wars to fight – the denialosphere is abuzz and atitter over a recent study that finally came right out and said that there has not actually been a “pause” in global warming over the last decade-and-a-half or so This was pretty much understood in the scientific community, but since it’s been the denialist meme of choice for some time now, it’s kicked up a frenzy of indignant harrumphing among the usual suspects. Watts came right out and accused a scientists of “prostituting” himself:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/06/the-perversity-of-deniers-and-pause.html#comments
Wildly off-topic, I know, but since we’re almost up to the “Lyman-alpha” comment (the wavelength of Lyman Alpha is 1216 Angstroms) perhaps I might be indulged.
Since we’ve (tinw) gone there, I’ll point out that it makes sense to look at those passages in light of historical marital/divorce practices at the time. It was quite easy for a Jewish man to divorce his wife if she displeased him, but not the other way around. (He basically just had to say “I divorce you” three times to her in public.) This would essentially ruin her life, because she would be seen as “spoiled,” unable to remarry, and would lose her children, property, etc. The whole practice was awfully unjust from the woman’s point of view, and very easy for a man to do, which I imagine is what JC was concerned about.
I always took the “lust in [one’s] heart” bit to be a caution against thinking about other people as objects to be lusted after and acquired, myself.
Well, he’s tied up too, at least, I suppose. I’m mainly here for the digressions and side discussions.
I think any notion of “topicality” with regards to this thread because obsolete quite some time ago.
Oh sure, just for fun, I suppose, although I never really got into the genre myself. (I did enjoy His Dark Materials as a kid, which I suppose has a bit of an “alternate history” thing going on.)
dean @1173
See Noevo @1176
I was going to tell dean he won’t find anyone who’s read these comments to take that bet, but you beat me to comments yesterday.
See Noevo @1190
Well, for one, we wouldn’t be reading random bible passages posted by someone who’s never attempted learning anything about evolution.
To Krebiozen #1210:
Me: “No, I would not like to see reform. But what I think is irrelevant. The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.”
You: “I find it distressing that anyone holds such a view in the 21st century when the Catholic Church’s teachings are causing such terrible suffering.”
How is the Church causing terrible suffering?
If anyone claims they’re suffering at the hands of the Church, I’m quite confident they’ve already sought relief by leaving it. Why would they want to stay in a Church whose constant teaching causes them suffering anyway? Their “suffering” has turned to “joy”, outside the Church.
And besides, Jesus said following him would cause distress and worse, even within families:
“Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division;
for henceforth in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three;
they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.” [Luke 12:51-53]
and
“”Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues,
and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.
When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour;
for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.
Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” [Mat 10:16-22]
“The Church’s teachings do change.”
No. The Church’s teachings, that is, its doctrines and dogmas do not change.
“I thought I knew what fornication was, i.e. sex out of wedlock, but it seems it’s a bit more complex. In Jesus’ time, until the 12th century, it was acceptable for a betrothed couple to cohabit and have sex, so presumably this means that Jesus would not consider this ‘fornication’.”
That’s news to me. I’m not a scholar of first century sexual mores, but I know how to read this:
“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;
and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to SHAME, resolved to divorce her quietly.”
[Mat 1:18-19]
“I agree, apart from the stem cell research which I think he would support, thanks to all the suffering that could be ended by it.”
The Church is OK with ADULT stem cell research, but condemns embryonic stem cell research. You can probably figure out why. And oddly enough, from what I remember reading, the former is the one that has demonstrably helped people. No such luck with the latter.
“There are a lot of people who do not regard the Catholic Church as Jesus’ church.”
I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
Any thoughts on the IMAGINATION EXERCISE in #1190?
To JP #1212:
I think I agree with your words on the so-called Dark Ages. And I appreciate your plug of the RCC (“The monasteries actually did some good in terms of “preparing the ground” for the Renaissance, for instance. And they gave us the university.” [I think the RCC also started the first hospitals, and maybe the first “soup kitchens”.])
“Things are the way they because they happened the way they did, period. That’s one of the reasons why I find this new “game” of SN’s to be perhaps his most sophomoric performance so far.”
But we can easily turn my “sophomoric” hypothetical into reality.
The reality today is that many people, such as yourself, want evolution to be accepted by everyone.
OK. What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution?
With everyone believing in evolution,
HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?
Nothing “sophomoric” about the question at all.
It wasn’t a plug: it’s just recognition of historical fact. Universities, hospitals, and prisons as we have them in “Western” society pretty much came out of the structure of cenobitic monasteries.
Have you invented a time machine?
This is nothing more or less than another example that you have difficulty understanding the meanings of words.
Anyone who seeks definitive life-prescriptions in scripture (in translation, no less) is being waay over-confident about the semiotics of language. What did the words of the passage now rendered in English as ““every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” mean when it was written? Property relations? Eroticism? What of the gendered pronouns, where “one” is then equated to “his”? Are women not “one”? Is it OK, in either case then, for lesbians to look lustfully on each other? Or can they not even do that, as they have no property rights? Is there only one answer, or did the original language reveal and/or paper-over contested meanings about these concepts?
Derrida’s writing may seem obscure, but post-structuralism offers a pretty irrefutable kibosh to Biblical literalism, and a strong basis for critique of the politics at work in any attempt at scriptural exegesis. Why would a God who wants His human creations to follow His rules curse those creatures with the imprecision of language? Unless, of course, He is a despicable asshole (not that this is a new revelation or anything…).
I mean, so does midrash, and the whole long interpretive tradition of Judaism. Biblical literalism is actually a weird and modern (even if anti-modern) phenomenon.
While I prefer to see people engaged in reality I don’t really want to be the thought police demanding no one ever think anything other than evolution…but I’ll play.
I see a few potential scenarios from a few viewpoints.
1. What I think most likely. Not much will change but we will stop wasting time, resources, and oxygen between those desperate to get religious indoctrination added to the science curriculum and those desperate to keep on specific religions creation stories in appropriate churches and out of the school. It might make the Biblical truth as allegory a bit more popular than the it is the only accurate history and text book one should ever need view of the the bible.
2. My best case scenario. People seeing the interconnectedness of all life on earth may reduce the earth destroying habits and may make our use of resources more equal and having something we all see we have in common might make humans less likely to kill each other over superficial differences as it will be harder for us to dehumanize “the other” in order to kill them.
3. What I think the can’t teach evolution crowd fear…either that they will lose their set of privileges and beliefs that allow them to continue to use and abuse other people and the planet in ways that seem contrary to other messages in the Bible. (although I suspect those dedicated to hate and power will still find a way to justify their hate and power grabs as what G-d wants them to do). Secondarily they may fear that people will just be totally immoral even though the historical evolutionary path of humans seems to be toward cooperation so the majority of the group survives each generation to reproduce rather than personal need to kill everyone in your family/group.
Michel Foucault agrees that wasn’t a plug for the RCC:
“Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?”
— Discipline and Punish
What is the panopticon, after all, but man’s attempt to emulate the disciplinary function of belief in an omniscient and judgmental deity?
@ SN
“What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution?
With everyone believing in evolution,
HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?”
Well, our lives on earth may not be very different, but because of our belief in evolution, we will go to hell, and because you have failed to save us, no paradise for you. Well, you would have been alone anyway, everyone believing in evolution (or maybe the 72 virgins?).
You also haven’t “hurt my feelings” in the less important, emotional sense. This is because I really don’t care about…
Another example of See Noevo’s cowardice and fear of his own thoughts. Can’t pretend they don’t exist, though.
Get your courage up and say what you mean.
The Church’s teaching on these things will never change, because they CAN’T.
Vatican II.
you’re saying it WOULD be OK to accuse people WITH proof.
False witness. One of many. I wonder if See Noevo is confessing these.
If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.
Followed by…
“What has the fact that not everyone believes in evolution have to do with the truth of the matter?”
Virtually nothing.
Can’t make this stuff up. So instructional.
Having gotten over my disgust at being crypto-quasi-creeped upon, I retract and renounce my flounce.
That’s a reasonable inference, but you were right the first time. Fornication is non-marital, by definition.
It’s true that marriage wasn’t a sacrament until the late 12th/early 13th century. So there wasn’t necessarily a hard and fast dividing line between betrothal and marriage until then, one legal civil commitment to monogamous cohabitation that wasn’t blessed by the church being as good as another..
However, marriage (as then understood) was still a part of the divine plan per Genesis, etc., in Christianity as in Judaism. And fornication was still bad. The thing that really distinguished Christianity’s thinking about sex and marriage from Judaism’s was the idea that lust was bad, and celibacy therefore good.
And that’s a very meaningful difference, even when the rules are more or less the same. Because, you know. The concept of sin and its relationship to eternal punishment or reward changes everything.
So. Long story short:
As a consequence, until the 12th/13th centuries, only chastity/celibacy/virginity were regarded as truly holy. (By and large; Augustine made a qualified case to the contrary for marriage, a couple of early fathers of the church were married, etc.) And prior to that, the Christian position was essentially that while fornication was completely out of the question, marriage was okay and possibly even good, although marital sex wasn’t the latter until later.
Anyway. That’s a little reductive. But whatever. My main point is that it was really the premise that sex=bad and celibacy=good that was significant, not the prohibition on fornication, per se..
.
Necessarily, here:
Because, as you say, you don’t know.
And as the CCC says:
So that’s that.
To KayMarie #1224:
“1. What I think most likely…”
Sorry. Violation. See IMPORTANT RESTRICTION in #1190.
“3. What I think the can’t teach evolution crowd fear…”
Sorry. Violation. There is no such thing as a “can’t teach evolution” crowd. Everyone believes in evolution.
“Secondarily they [the non-existent “can’t teach evolution” crowd] may fear that people will just be totally immoral …”
Why would believing in evolution, which everyone does in this hypothetical world, lead to immorality or to fears of people being “totally immoral”?
You tell me. You were the one who made that exact claim previously, when you wagered that people who believe in evolution engaged in a laundry list of things you consider sinful.
Now, tell me something. Why should we play your little game? What point is there? My guess, the same reason you enjoy the idea of the infallible Catholic Church: You enjoy having power over other people.
See Noevo,
Teaching people that using contraception to prevent pregnancy and STIs is wrong is the first example that springs to mind. Child sexual abuse, which I’m sure has to be somehow the results of the Church’s twisted teachings on sex, is another. I have seen first-hand the misery that the Church’s teachings on abortion can cause – I mentioned my Catholic friend who killed herself because she couldn’t stand the guilt of having had one – as abortion is a deadly sin calling for immediate excommunication, I believe she had no way back.
As you well know, people are born into a church and its teachings, and abandoning a faith, even if it makes you very unhappy, is not so easy.
That’s something to be proud of? The sufferings Jesus warned of were of people persecuting his followers. I see no warnings of people spreading AIDS because they think God doesn’t want them to use a condom, or a woman dying because her body couldn’t take yet another pregnancy, or a young woman jumping in front of a train because she thought her God hated her.
I think there are some differences in meaning in the word ‘dogma’. Are you claiming the Catholic Church never supported slavery? What about opposing the separation of religion and state in the US? “There is no salvation outside the Church”? What about when the Pope makes an infallible pronouncement? These are mere doctrines I suppose. Could a Pope lift the ban on condoms if God spoke to him directly?
I think you misread the essential bit: “before they came together she was found to be with child”. Doesn’t the rest imply that if they had had sex all would have been well?
Adult stem cells have been used for a long time, in treating people with leukemia for example. I’m not sure it’s true that adult stem cells are more helpful, I thought they were less undifferentiated than fetal stem cells. I see no problem with using leftover IVF fetuses for stem cell research, unless you insist that is also a form of abortion, which seems silly to me.
Explain this to a Mormon. That would be a conversation I might enjoy hearing.
How would our lives be different if your holy book had an accurate account of how life originated on Earth instead of a pre-scientific origin myth? Who cares?
Take a look at Europe. We seem to do OK and I have never met anyone here who doesn’t believe in evolution. Hold on, one exception – an elderly, illiterate Bangladeshi lady, the mother of a colleague.
I think you could go further than that.
….
Well. I guess there’s room for debate about how instrumental the Church was to the rise of western civilization, in some regards. But I really don’t think it’s possible to overstate how foundational it was. The west would not exist as it does in the present day without it.
And that’s just the Church. Christianity was (and is) also enormously influential. Too much so to really apprehend, probably.
To ann #1231:
“The thing that really distinguished Christianity’s thinking about sex and marriage from Judaism’s was the idea that lust was bad, and celibacy therefore good.”
It’s almost as if you’re saying lust and celibacy are opposites. But they’re not. Lust and CHASTITY are closer to true opposites.
Christ and His Church call ALL to chastity, but only some to celibacy.
Since you’re apparently the only one who understands the rules of this game well enough to play it with yourself, I think it would be better for everybody if you just played it while we watched.
Well, obviously, right? It was the only game in town for a very long time. I suppose that theoretically the role that the RCC played in Western Europe could have been filled by another religion or church, but again, it wasn’t, so it’s a moot point.
I’m so sorry. That must have been…
And this utilitarian fiction has a pretty sorry rationalization retconned onto it. Strange that the Church nonetheless feels the urge to engage in secular meddling such as opposing legal recognition of civil unions, particularly given its assertion that it’s not even a legal entity when convenient.
To ann #1232:
Me: “In what one specific case do you [Gray Falcon] think I’ve borne false witness here?”
ann: “Necessarily, here: [See Noevo saying] “This MAY very well be ann’s song. I DON’T KNOW. Sure as hell, she’d never say.”
No. Necessarily NOT.
CCC 2476: “FALSE WITNESS and perjury. When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. IN COURT IT BECOMES FALSE WITNESS. 276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of JUDICIAL decisions.”
Were we in court? No.
And even if we WERE in court, how could a statement be considered contrary to the truth if no positive proposing of a fact is made? How could this statement – “This MAY very well be ann’s song. I DON’T KNOW.” – be contrary to the truth? It can’t.
Now if someone said “This IS ann’s song. I KNOW it is”, that would be a positive proposing of a fact.
And even in THAT case, what’s the harm? I think it’s a fantastic song. So do over 12 million other people (i.e. views on Youtube.). And besides, everyone sins. Fiona’s just more honest and articulate about it.
“And as the CCC says: 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons …”
Whose reputation?
Oh, that of “ann”? Who’s “ann”, man?
Sure as hell, I don’t know. Probably no one else does either. ‘ceptin’ “ann”.
So that’s that.
By the way, I think the song in question is so good I’m going to post it again, but this time with the creepy video.
It would help if the Church were able to get its shіt together enough to do the same.
Re Derrida, Foucault, etc —
Q: What happens if a Mafia Don gets a PhD in modern literary theory?
A: He makes you an offer you can’t understand.
And it’s apparently Very Important that things stay that way.
I think you mean “postmodern.” 🙂
Discipline and Punish was a pretty good book, actually; I read it my first year of college, if memory serves. If you’re going to read one book by Foucault, that’s probably the one to read, although I did find out sometime later that he tended to play a bit fast and loose with historical sources and, well, facts.
I personally never could get very far into Derrida, so to speak, although a college friend of mine was a big fan. He actually was being deliberately obscure, as I understand it, in a “language game” sort of way.
@#1237 —
I put it that way simply because the badness of lust and the goodness of celibacy are distinct to Christianity, whereas the badness of sex (or fornication, etc.) and the goodness of chastity (or virginity, etc.) aren’t. And that’s really all.
I’m certainly not saying that lust and celibacy are opposites. I don’t even think that lust and chastity are, properly speaking.
JP,
It was a long time ago, but it still stings. The worst part was that I had no idea how unhappy she was or what she was planning until after it was too late.
@1242 —
Bullshit. Every word of that compounds the original lie.
Great song, though. She didn’t actually mean what you’re using it to mean. In fact, as far as I can dimly recall, she meant the opposite. But art is for everybody. So it’s not a big deal.
To Krebiozen #1235:
“I mentioned my Catholic friend who killed herself because she couldn’t stand the guilt of having had one – as abortion is a deadly sin calling for immediate excommunication, I believe she had no way back.”
She had a way back. It’s called the Sacrament of Reconciliation (a.k.a. Confession).
“As you well know, people are born into a church and its teachings, and abandoning a faith, even if it makes you very unhappy, is not so easy.”
The Church doesn’t think we’re on earth to do easy things. We’re here to do difficult things, great things. (This is even somewhat reflected in the secular saying “No pain, no gain.”)
Of course, Jesus thought the same:
“”Enter by the NARROW gate; for the gate is WIDE and the way is EASY, that leads to DESTRUCTION, and those who enter by it are MANY.
For the gate is NARROW and the way is HARD, that leads to life, and those who find it are FEW.” [Mat 7:13-14]
Few. Whew!
“Are you claiming the Catholic Church never supported slavery?”
No, I’m not. And I’m not claiming Jesus never supported slavery, either.
Although it’s curious that Jesus never condemned slavery. Maybe He had so many other sins to condemn (e.g. adultery, fornication, murder) that He just never got around to it.
[By the way, murder, specifically, murdering a baby in the womb, is objectively far worse than slavery. At least a slave is treated fairly well and kept alive and healthy, because otherwise he’s not much use to the master. And as long as he’s alive, he has the hope of freedom. Many slaves in the U.S., of course, eventually DID see freedom. The tender targets in the womb aren’t so lucky.]
“I think you misread the essential bit: “before they came together she was found to be with child”. Doesn’t the rest imply that if they had had sex all would have been well?”
No, it does not.
Me: “What if you SUCCEEDED in getting everyone to believe in evolution? With everyone believing in evolution, HOW WOULD OUR LIVES BE DIFFERENT TODAY?”
You: “Take a look at Europe.”
Case closed.
“But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition,[*] and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church — but private revelations do not constitute dogmas, and some theologians confine the word defined to doctrines solemnly defined by the pope or by a general council, while a revealed truth becomes a dogma even when proposed by the Church through her ordinary magisterium or teaching office. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church.” (Boldface added.)
* Which is why historical inconveniences can engender contortionism.
It never really stops, does it?
People can be very good at hiding that sort of thing; my own father’s suicide seemed to come completely out of the blue, at least from my perspective. I have since been “blessed” to understand the man from the inside out, so to speak.
I held myself at least partially responsible for I don’t know how many years, because obviously an 11-year-old girl is responsible for the things her parents do.
Oh, I see that SN is now defending slavery. I’m not terribly surprised.
Of course they didn’t. The Church says so itself. Problem solved.
Not everyone agrees.
To ann #1238:
“Since you’re apparently the only one who understands the rules of this game well enough to play it with yourself, I think it would be better for everybody if you just played it while we watched.”
I think you’d have to be pretty close to an idiot not to understand the rules of this game.
Actually, it’s not ruleS. There’s JUST ONE rule, as I made clear and with capital letters in #1190. Essentially, it’s that if everyone has always believed in evolution, then your response CAN’T be that life would be better with no fights about evolution. There aren’t and never were fights over evolution.
You seem so very full of thoughts, ann. And so imaginative.
No thoughts about how our lives would be different today with everyone believing in evolution?
^ The Catholic Encyclopedia’s defense of Las Casas contains some choice bits:
Is the prohibition against false witness limited to what you say and do in court? No.
You are plainly proposing a fact. That you’re not proposing it outright or without qualification makes no difference whatsoever to whether or not it’s an offense against the truth, per the CCC, because:
(a) By your own admission, you have absolutely no basis for making a tacit suggestion of moral fault on my part.
(b) The suggestion that there is one therefore can only arise from your own tacit assumptions.
(c) Per the CCC, to assume, even tacitly, the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient foundation is an offense against the truth.
On the contrary. It’s necessarily false. Please see above. It’s open and shut.
To JP #1252:
“Oh, I see that SN is now defending slavery. I’m not terribly surprised.”
By any chance, do you write headlines for the New York Times?
Or perhaps work for MSNBC?
Or, are you actually Brian Williams, late of NBC Nightly News?
Oh. Well then.
I wonder if the pontiff uses all caps when he is tweeting ex cathedra?
Not the last time I checked.
I guess that makes your supreme confidence in your towering ignorance of fundamental physics, as well as having to redefine your way out of evolution, a bit awkward.
JP,
I quite enjoyed Derrida, and some of the other nominally pomo writers of the time, Barthes and Baudrillard for example (I preferred the French writers). After a lot of struggle, I realized there was no deep difficult secret to understand, it was largely about style over substance (that, or there is a deep secret that I never uncovered).
In my final year studying social anthropology, in the early 90s at SOAS, some of my fellow students got caught up in that kind of pomo obscurantism. It reminded me a little of the kids at my Church of England school who were confirmed so they could take communion with the grown-ups, a little of conversations I have had with heroin addicts (oddly, enough one student who was particularly enthusiastic about this game was a ex/recovering junkie) and a little of Gurdjieff (“bury the dog deeper”). Not my idea of fun, really.
My tutor wanted me to do a PhD on C. S. Peirce, who he thought was in need of rehabilitation into the pomo era. Luckily funding was withheld that year and I had a family to support.
That said, I think pomo is often very useful when looking at cultural stuff. We still don’t generally realize just how much of what we think is ‘real’ is culturally constructed and pomo at least gives us some way to approach that. It’s only when pomo tries to class the scientific method as “just another way of knowing” that my hackles really rise. Otherwise I try to think of its excesses as a sort of performance art.
So we are asked to state how life would be different from how it is now, but we are not allowed to state how it would be different from how it is now.
I did show this thread to an educator, and she expressed appreciation for my providing her with such a crisp example of how people can cling to incorrect beliefs due to a combination of ignorance, bias, dishonesty, and a lack of understanding of basic logic.
^^ It’s truly a work of art:
SN,
No, you are breaking the rules of your own silly game. There is no “different” to compare to, as there is no reality where anyone disbelieves in evolution, remember?
“We might take Gurdjieff as an example of a master bullshіtter and Meher Baba as an example of a master horseshіtter.”
To ann #1256:
“(c) Per the CCC, to assume, even tacitly, the moral fault of a neighbor without sufficient foundation is an offense against the truth.”
Gee, ann, where’d you find that coupling in the Catechism?
I mean the “even tacitly”.
I find it in only one place:
“2477 Respect for the REPUTATION of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty: – of rash judgment who, EVEN TACITLY, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor…”
I ask again, WHOSE REPUTATION? The reputation of an anonymous person?
I refer you back to my response in #1242, in what’s becoming a full circle of silliness.
“It’s open and shut.”
If only you were talking about your mouth, I’d be pleased. The shut part, I mean.
Or maybe you just need some shut-eye.
Nope.
But there’s no food for them, absent some indication of what (if anything) there is about evolution that makes thinking about its transformative potential as a universal belief system a worthwhile exercise.
As phrased, it really seems more like a contrivance designed to show that Catholicism is better at being Catholicism than evolution is than it does a question.
And a fixed fight is just not thought-provoking.
I haven’t even read back that far yet, but since it’s already apparent that S.N. has resorted to whiny control mode out of sheer desperation, I’ll note that I have little choice but to assume that it holds the position – but unwilling to say so – that it is physically impossible for humans to experience an extinction event, thus implying a hard upper limit on the time until the Second Coming.
See Noevo,
She didn’t see it that way, evidently.
I don’t see how making up a raft of weird rules around reproduction, and then threatening people with eternal suffering if they follow their instincts instead of these rules,will result in “great things”. It seems like spiteful torture to me.
My only interest in what Jesus had to say is to see if he had any useful ideas I can plunder for secular humanism. Persecuting people for having and acting on sexual feelings doesn’t seem very useful to me, especially not now we have effective contraception and ways of avoiding STIs. You can keep that one. Thanks though.
So there was a change in dogma/doctrine? Or is this all retrospective; i.e. this was always the Church’s dogma, they just didn’t know it then?
Or it was such a normal part of 1st century life he didn’t even notice it?
Objectively? I think not. You seriously think a terrified young Irish girl traveling alone to England to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is worse than enslaving a human being? If so, I find that very odd.
I dislike suffering, and since a fetus aborted before the 3rd trimester experiences no pain, and a life of slavery is likely to include great suffering, not least from the mere lack of freedom, I think slavery is far, far worse than abortion.
Well that’s all right then [otherwise lost for words] .
Why not? Surely after they ‘came together’ is when you would expect Mary to be with child. Why mention it otherwise? I know it’s of no consequence, I’m merely curious.
What’s wrong with Europe? I’m a USophile, but even I can see that in some ways Europe seems to be doing better than the US, even by your somewhat peculiar standards. For example, the abortion rate in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Liechtenstein, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Switzerland, Abortion rates in the Aland Islands, Channel Islands, Denmark, Estonia, Faeroe Islands, Finland, Guernsey, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sark, Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands, Sweden, and the UK is 17 per 1,000 women or less. In the US it’s 19 per 1,000 women.
It must be all those wicked non-Catholic USians furiously fornicating away, I guess.
@Ann,
We could argue. Personally, I think the Christian “stances” on those issues are neither that far removed from Second Temple Judaism in general
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutae
nor from some other Hellenistic movements, e.g. Neoplatonism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism
and especially Gnosticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Moral_and_ritual_practice
Not that some brands of Gnosticism don’t seem like a good way to become a memetic sex god with associated cult, though of course the descriptions coming from their enemies make for some doubts…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borborites
Oh, please.
First of all, I have repute under this name and in this forum.
Second of all, the prohibition applies to the spirit of your words as well as to the substance of what you say.
And third, whether or not something is an offense against the truth is not exclusively dependent on whether or not it’s consequential.
The reputation of a neighbor, you moron.
What part of this is unclear?
If other people can hear and/or read what you’re saying about another person whom you identify by the name under which they know and recognize him/her, you are — by effing definition — talking about a person of repute.
Your defense is absolute crap no matter how many times you refer to it.
JP @1246 — Aargh! It shoulda been “post modern”, of course.
I have to admit taking quite a bit of delight in the Sokal hoax, which if you’ve never heard of it (you being evidently a younger person than my very-very-late-middle-aged self) I urge you to look up.
I’m 27, which I suppose is not very old.
Hmm. It’s sort of funny, I suppose. I mean, it wasn’t a peer reviewed journal or anything, which we do have in the humanities.
I did miss out on a lot of the “pomo” wars, partially because of my age and partially because Slavic studies sort of almost skipped postmodernism. (It’s a very conservative field in some ways.) I suppose I count myself lucky.
It can lead to silliness sometimes when scholars in the humanities decide to comment upon science, at least when they don’t really understand the science they are commenting upon. Even science enthusiasts can have a tendency to jumble things together in a way that doesn’t really work; my own advisor asked me to read an article of his before publication, and I talked him out of a pretty dumb analogy involving dark matter in the context of a poet who was writing on mystery in the religious sense.
He has also stolen some of my ideas which had come up in conversation, but I didn’t mention that.
To Krebiozen #1270:
“So there was a change in dogma/doctrine? Or is this all retrospective; i.e. this was always the Church’s dogma, they just didn’t know it then?”
Why do you ask? It makes no difference to you. You’ll “win” no matter what the answer is.
“Objectively? I think not. You seriously think a terrified young Irish girl traveling alone to England to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is worse than enslaving a human being?”
Objectively, yes, for the baby.
“I dislike suffering, and since a fetus aborted before the 3rd trimester experiences no pain…”
Experiences no pain. Neither does someone assassinated by having his head blown off. All thing considered, I’d probably take that, over having my skull opened up with surgical instruments and then having my brains sucked out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction
“Why not? Surely after they ‘came together’ is when you would expect Mary to be with child. Why mention it otherwise? I know it’s of no consequence, I’m merely curious.”
If you’re really curious, you could try ruminating on the only way this verse could make any sense whatsoever:
“And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?”
“If you’re really curious, you could try ruminating on the only way this verse could make any sense whatsoever:
“And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?””
And when you do you realize it’s simply fiction believed by the ignorant.
To ann #1271:
Me: “I ask again, WHOSE REPUTATION?”
You: “Oh, please. First of all, I have repute under this name and in this forum.”
Really? How could this be? The definition of repute is “GOOD reputation.”
Hmmm. I guess it depends on what the meaning of …
Well, I’ll just say that, WHOEVER you are, you’re one of the more pathetically pedantic people I’ve encountered.
You might have made a “great” Pharisee. If you had some balls.
…….
Dear ann, do you think you have it in your heart to forgive what you consider my offense?
Will you?
See is definitely guilty of one of the Deadly Sins….obviously, he has been consumed by the sin of Pride. Satan / Lucifer could take lessons from him.
Update on #1190’s IMAGINATION EXERCISE:
Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that
our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.
Some may be somewhat surprised by these results, given all the time and energy expended by atheists and others on the teaching of evolution and for the acceptance of evolution. Some might wonder: Why bother, if it won’t change anything?
re #1278 – More to the point, why bother indulging in this pointless exercise since the author thereof was going to declare a win no matter what the outcome.
„Wer hat euch befohlen also zu setzen? ‚Schweig du Ketzer, was zu unserm Mund ausgehet, das soll man halten.‘ Ich hör es; welchen Mund meinst du? da die Förze ausfahren? (das magst du selbst halten) oder da der gute Korso einfleußt? (Da scheiß ein Hund ein!)“
Note the tell, which corresponds to S.N.’s original Torquemadito routine. Just as the big bang equals the string landscape in the anaerobically deliquescing slop between his ears, “under the hood” he imagines an argument with New Atheists, which he has transplanted here out of cowardice.
Or to try another approach.
Gee, SN. That’s where I found it too!
But unless you’re saying that this…
…only applies sometimes to some relations with others, because — for example — when everybody’s pseudonymous and you have no idea whether or not what you’re suggesting is the truth, you’re under no obligation to bear witness to it, except when, in your estimation, somebody’s reputation is at stake, it doesn’t matter where those two words come from. An offense against the truth is an offense against the truth, whether it’s tacit or explicit; informed or ignorant, partial or comprehensive, and/or consequential or harm-free.
I mean, are you saying that you can easily sidestep the eighth commandment whenever you feel like it, simply by sticking to subjects about which you’re completely ignorant on the internet, because as long as everybody’s pseudonymous and nobody gets hurt, you’re not obligated to bear witness to the actual truth — you know, the one that is and is willed by God — but just to what might be the truth, for all you know or care?
Because that would be a very idiosyncratic reading.
@#1276 —
If it ever becomes a matter of concern to you, ask me again and I’ll let you know.
Up the creek without a paddle again, I see.
There’s an old adage in the (north american) world of public figures, relating to disputes with newspaper owners: “Don’t get in an argument with a man who buys ink by the ton.”
SN has led us to a corollary: “Don’t get into an argument with a man who produces foot-noted excrement by the metric ton.”
It’s truly fascinating to see what a what happens when an
RCC priest impregnates a snake-handling fundamentalist and the child of this union is raised to believe that BOTH parents are right. Or so one would guess, based on SN’s writing.
The irony, it burns.
Unless taken literally, in which case I should have said “foul, anaerobically deliquescing slop,” as it’s then just another instantiation of tie misogyny that S.N. has been unable to refrain from drip-drip-dripping out as though his prostate were as enlarged as his self-image.
Or like Clement VI, whatever.
Well, that was a real cliff-hanger. Who could have predicted?
To ann #1282:
Wha, ann-abelle!
I do declare! Did you just write fuh thuh whole wide world to see that See Noevo be talkin ‘bout ‘subjects about which he’s COMPLETELY IGNORANT on the internet’?
Missy ann-abelle, doesn’t “completely ignorant” mean 100% ignorant?
Oh my, Missy ann-abelle! Duh ya think thas fair? Mightn’t that be what you called… wha was it now… oh, an “an offense against the truth”?
……..
Missy ann, are you on medications?
Oh, fugetaboutit. That be “personal.”
P.S.
ann, do you think you have it in your heart to forgive what you consider my offense?
Will you?
Again, See, I direct you to comment 173, where you insisted that the current theory was that each part of the eye developed separately and co-located together to form a functioning eye. We sent you links discussing the evolution of the eye, so you don’t even get plausible deniability on that one.
Then there’s your Mount Rushmore analogy, which was based on the assumption that every member of a species changed in the exact same way at once. I have studied evolutionary algorithms in computer science, the flaws of that argument are extremely easy to see.
@Krebiozen – it isn’t only the Catholic church. I was raised fundamentalist Baptist and was coerced into an abortion by a boyfriend (he threatened suicide if anyone found out about the pregnancy). Between his position and a stepmother who always said, “If you turn up pregnant, don’t even bother coming home,” I couldn’t see any place for support. A few months later I went to a pastor looking for counseling for my unforgivable sin. He said my inability to forgive myself was idolatry (yay, more sin). That was no help…
… a year later I just barely failed a suicide attempt.
I don’t understand why churches everywhere elevate sexual behavior outside of their rules to the level of unforgivable sin, but a serial killer can be “saved” and safe in the embrace of Jesus in heaven. I know that it took more than a decade to come to terms with my abortion and the loss.
To ann #1286:
Me: “Responses through 7:27 PM EST 6/7/15 indicate that our lives would be no different today if everyone believed in evolution.”
You: “Well, that was a real cliff-hanger. Who could have predicted?”
Sounds like you’re saying everybody would have predicted that “nothing” outcome.
But then, that makes atheists and others pushing evolution even sillier than I thought before. Why are they wasting resources on a cause which has no impact on our lives?
Why aren’t the science-y evolutionists switching over to doing real science for real impacts on our lives like, say, on climate change?
I mean, yes, climate change concerns aren’t high on people’s priority lists. But unlike with evolution, at least they’re ON the list.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
And as far as spending resources on climate change instead of on evolution indoctrination, yes, some experts don’t even want to spend precious resources on climate change. But at least climate change MIGHT have a shot of getting on the list sometime. Maybe.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/copenhagen-consensus-iii/outcome
In any case, I just can’t believe how silly and wasteful evolution educators are.
It’s almost…well, sinful!
See Noevo @1278
Incorrect. I answered your question once already (#1218: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2015/05/20/why-do-doctors-deny-evolution/#comment-402521 )
But I am willing to take your question seriously. How would our lives be different?
Well, I’d be a lot less uncertain about the future of the US economy going into the next century. Why, See Noevo? Because if everyone “believes” in evolution, that would include students currently being educated in the United States. “Belief” in evolution comes from understanding evolution. Understanding evolution comes from understanding scientific method.
Students who understand scientific method can problem solve. Those students will be equipped for employment in scientific and technical fields – jobs which can both benefit humanity as a whole and also pay well. Their contributions, in turn, will advance knowledge, create new jobs, and improve the quality of life and economic security worldwide (yeah, long term goal).
This means the future gets better for everyone.
As long as you are unwilling to try to understand the universe you are in, you cannot contribute to that better future.
Mrs. Woo, I’m glad you made it.
I have a friend, an Orthodox priest, who is more conservative than I am on certain issues, but is in general a real mensch. He gets particularly angry about the way fundies place all the blame for everything related to “sexual sin” on women; “Well, where are the men?” he once opined.
It’s not even just religious ideologues who have this problem; the Soviet Union, for instance, was an extremely prudish place. Sex education was basically non-existent, oral contraception was hardly available, and even condoms were hard to come by. A friend of mine got pregnant as a teenager back in the 80s and had an abortion, and literally didn’t tell anyone about it, not even her dad or grandparents, for years. She was messed up about it for a long time.
Actually, no. That wasn’t a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-type accusation in question’s clothing that I was wildly flinging at you out of nowhere. It was a real question about the eighth commandment. And there was a real basis for it in your ostensible justification of yourself.
I was hoping for a real answer. But oh, well.
I mean, just to be clear:
I did effectively write for the whole wide world to see that you were completely ignorant about the truth of this:
But that’s not controversial. So did you.
Do you always go all minstrel-show in the face of adversity? Or is it something I said?
Because another person’s humiliation is very painful to behold. So if there’s a trigger, I’d really like to avoid it in future.
Now that’s what a when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife-type accusation in question’s clothing being flung wildly out of nowhere looks like..
So there you go.
Tell me why it’s of concern to you, and I’ll do my best to address it.
To Gray Falcon #1288:
“Again, See, I direct you to comment 173…”
Thanks, Gray. Almost forgot about old #173. It was a good one. (But aren’t they all?)
Old Gray one, it’s getting late and probably past your bedtime. Get some rest.
You mentioned you were Lutheran. Here’s some bedtime reading for you. It’s about Richard John Neuhaus. He was a Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism and became a Catholic priest. He was a wonderful guy. http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2009/01/how-i-became-the-catholic-i-wa
I am.
That’s just a restatement of the same contrived fallacies that made the outcome of the original exercise a foregone conclusion.
And as I already said, there’s really nothing thought-provoking about a fixed fight.
^ Nearly forgot:
The misogyny follows all too naturally from one whose actual object of veneration is a morally bankrupt cult of bureaucracy that comically took to imagining itself – in a shining example of sado-paternalistic hypocrisy – as the bride of Jesus and thus both setting itself up as the purest example of, and therefore authority on, the proper arrangement of submission and seizing for itself a perfectly natural aspect of life and converting it into something inhuman.
Yeah, the overt stinking racism on top of the sexism and the “medications” talk is really something to behold. I mean, I already knew he didn’t think slaves had it that bad, but man…
@#1297 —
IKR.
It’s really almost a shame that going the “What are you wearing?” route has to be so off-limits to him. He was thisclose to pitching a perfect game.
See, if you were trying to convert someone to Christianity, and after reading the Bible, they refused because Jesus declared people with red hair have no souls and deserve to die, what would you think of them?
That’s what your arguments about the human eye are like. There was absolutely nothing suggesting that was how the eye developed. Jesus demanded humility from His followers, I suggest you follow His command.
And I can name entire nations that abandoned the Catholic church for Protestantism. Norway for one. One man isn’t going to sway me.
@JP – it took them several days to get kidney function back online. I remember vaguely remember a very rapid IV, alarms that kept going off all the time, repeated blood gas tests and very angry nurses. My very inadequate health insurance didn’t cover much. The day before my discharge a doctor came in and said, “That was stupid. Going to do it again?” I replied, “Duh. It didn’t work.” And was released. No counseling, no discussion about why I might be that desperate.
I didn’t tell my family for almost ten years. As far as I know they weren’t informed at the time. I think they would have done something about it if they knew.
I don’t think the teachings of Christ are wrong, but I believe they are terribly misused. The church I attend with Mr Woo tends to focus on being as good as you can be and God filling in the blanks. This implies, without explicitly saying so, that you have some part in earning that forgiveness. It also loves to stress that “better” believers get “better” rewards. At one Sunday school lesson a teacher actually said they worried about possibly dying in an accident with an unrecognized skin not repented for yet. Talk about a capricious diety!
It gets increasingly difficult to call myself Christian. So many are just shameful in how they treat others, all the while proclaiming their selfishness and lack of humility or love as based in the most basic tenets of Christian belief. And I am in the wrong, a hypocrite to share judge them, when I am imperfect myself.
To Gray Falcon #1299:
“One man isn’t going to sway me.”
I know, Gray. I know.
You could be speaking for everyone here with that line.
That MAY even have been spoken by Martin Luther, or Henry VIII. I don’t know.
That MAY even have been spoken by Judas. I don’t know.
But sure as hell, I know Jesus said it would have been better for that man had he never been born.
Here’s a bedtime song for you. One more time,
for Fiona Apple annie:
@JP – that is often asked about the woman caught in adultery. Some of the fundamentalist Baptist churches I attended were very patriarchal. One in particular had a pastor that taught that if America allowed polygamy, men would not have as many struggles, because whenever they found a woman attractive the Bible really had no problem with him having sex with her, as long as she wasn’t married to someone else. Marriage, even, was pretty much mostly required if he got caught or if she wasn’t a prostitute. Only women, really, were ever meant to honor a marriage contract – men were expected to sow their seed far and wide.
Some of the very fundamentalist, “Quiverfull” teachings pretty much reduce women to chattel. Everything is their husband’s, including the wife herself.
*sin, not skin. This Kindle gets very creative in its corrections!
I’m sure the devil felt similarly after the pain of shіtting out a watermelon such as yourself.
Problem of why don’t every one just become a climate scientists.
But if the world is only 6000 years old and the only global disaster is the one flood and both are due to the magic fairy in the sky, why study climate change. Base it only on the last 6000 years, because we can’t use any of the data of how climate changed over the eons to help us understand what is going on now, because none of that ever happened and is just a lie put here to confuse us.
Which is probably why most biblical literalness are also doing things like passing laws in my state to pretend as if we just don’t allow any predictions about aspects of climate change to be made then nothing bad will ever happen. They are so powerful they can prevent the rise of the sea and hurricanes just by closing their eyes and putting fingers in their ears and humming really loud.
The Catholic Church of course used to sanction prostitution and brothels. The Bishop of Constance even managed to monetize priestly concubinage.
@Mrs. Woo:
Oy. I have had a couple attempts; after the most recent one, I was chatting with a social worker about how I’m obviously incompetent at it anyway. She indulged my own dark sense of humor with jokes of her own – I suppose, working in a psych ER, that if you didn’t have one to begin with, you develop one – but that kind of callousness is just awful.
The priest that I referred to – the one who asked, “well, where are the men?” – meant it in the sense of it takes two to tango, I suppose. He brought it up after a couple days after a fundie protest at an abortion clinic where the “Christians” were heaping abuse on the women going into the clinic. He is something of a feminist, actually; having only daughters might have something to do with it. (He always makes a point of referencing “the Desert Fathers and Mothers,” for instance.) One thing I can appreciate about the Orthodox Church(es) is that there is a sense, at least, that morality is about situations rather than rules – economia and all that.
To open Chemmomo #1292:
“How would our lives be different? Well, I’d be a lot less uncertain about the future of the US economy going into the next century…. Understanding evolution comes from understanding scientific method. Students who understand scientific method can problem solve. Those students will be equipped for employment in scientific and technical fields – jobs which can…”
… and everything’s happy ever after.
“Scientific method” my butt.
“Scientific method” is just a science-y flourish for “trial-and-error”, something any person from about age three forward practices.
And the SM does NOT “problem solve”. It just eliminates the possibilities that might have worked. It certainly never proves what will work. Science never proves anything.
I WILL say that “replication” is a strength of trial-and-error, er, the “Scientific Method”. It’s just that these days there seems to be less and less of it.
“Replication—The confirmation of results and conclusions from one study obtained independently in another—is considered the scientific gold standard. New tools and technologies, massive amounts of data, long-term studies, interdisciplinary approaches, and the complexity of the questions being asked are COMPLICATING REPLICATION EFFORTS, as are increased pressures on scientists to advance their research… In particular, observing processes as they occur in nature allows for discovery but MAKES REPLICATION DIFFICULT, because the precise conditions surrounding the observations are unique… the CONCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD. Debate about the merits of lab-based and field-based studies has been a persistent theme over time… The need to convince the public that data are replicable has grown as science and public policy-making intersect, an issue that has has beset climate change studies.” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1225.full
I bet that, for the population of young people graduating from college, the % who understand and believe in evolution is higher than for the general population. You might even agree.
But, surprisingly, it seems they’re “problem solving skills are lacking:
“A survey of business owners to be released next week by the American Association Colleges and Universities also found that NINE out of 10 employers judge recent college graduates as poorly prepared for the work force in such areas as critical thinking, communication and problem solving.” http://www.wsj.com/articles/test-finds-many-students-ill-prepared-to-enter-work-force-1421432744
Happy days are here again!
But that’s OK, open Chemmomo.
My #1190 exercise didn’t say everybody had to UNDERSTAND evolution (or problem solving).
Just that everybody BELIEVE evolution.
I have a friend here in the History dept. who grew up in the “Quiverfull” movement. Her stories are relatively mild compared to some of what I have read, but they are bad enough. It is a disgusting “culture.”
Looks like someone is still very busy transubstantiating the wine tonight.
The “scientific method” and the the pitfalls of gay “science.”
(I wonder if he taught Hillary how to destroy data?)
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-retraction-response-20150529-story.html
Old Pa Zen once posted a picture of himself “biking on the Columbia” on Facebook – I posted a retort: “So when are you going to turn the water into beer?”
“Well, I’ve turned a lot of beer into water!”
How long have you just been getting a busy signal for? You seem to have a lot of pent-up hostility toward women.
^ Another fun “Ma and Pa Zen” anecdote: somebody once needed something done, by Kyogen specifically, “urgently.” He replied that he could probably get to it by Tuesday evening.”
“Well, what about Monday?”
“I don’t think you understand. Do you know what I do on Mondays? On Mondays I drink beer, watch football, and screw.”
Given that you’re plainly too ignorant to do more than barf up a newspaper story about how the fraud was caught out, the only signal to be extracted here would be if you please sacked up to clarify the precise meaning of “gay ‘science’.”
^ Or, of course, that replication is part of what you’re braying about, little donkey. Careful on the ice.
See, in my #1193, I hinted that I recognized your #1190 “IMAGINATION EXERCISE” as a Calvinball game. I can’t know how many others had the same recognition, but your commenting history made it obvious that you would not have the honesty or humility to play it straight.
I played with you, just to see what you would pull. I’m disappointed that you gave up so quickly, but I’m not at all surprised that you ignored all the replies, and claimed that there were none. After all, honesty is not your forté.
As calvinball games go, yours rates about .3 on 0-10 scale.
As I have caught up and then stayed with this exchange, I have to admit to being confused about what SN is really attempting to accomplish here. He obviously has no hope of changing any of the minds he is arguing with. Often his attitude seems pedantic and condescending, as though he views the whole discussion as some kind of demonstration of his “superior” intellect or understanding.
I understand RI regulars usually attempt to provide information to counter misinformation…
Most likely I am just not informed enough to take part in this…
Don’t sell yourself short.
^ My previous comment, as a result of revising on the fly, actually reads as assigning credit where none was due. This clumsy emendation will have to do:
@Bill Price – I think you have that pegged about right.
@JP – I have always considered myself a both/and rather than either or… but I am not a doctor, so I cannot answer why some doctors do not believe in evolution. The “afraid of going to help” type comment up there somewhere resonated with me, though, especially with a fundamentalist history.
If you choose to look at the Bible as types of literature, some of which was not intended to be taken literally, it becomes much easier to navigate life with scientific literacy and faith. In my own journey, though, loyalty to Mr Woo has placed me in a church I strongly disagree with, and as I struggle with why I can’t agree with their beliefs, I realize just how much is taken on faith, and end up perplexed by how I can have faith to believe some teachings and not others. It of course gets even more frustrating and conflicted when people in his church who are strong believers in faith healing accuse me of sin/lack of faith/demonic possession/etc., because I remain chronically ill no matter what they try.
The longer I am there, the closer I drift to agnosticism. The experience also tells me that the likely answer to the question posed by this blog entry is that personal belief is complex and the brain is more than capable of serious cognitive dissonance. If someone is more comfortable maintaining that vs. examining it, especially of they draw comfort from their faith and it’s related family and community, they are unlikely to be willing to choose one over the other, but rather keep as much as they can of both to remain functional in both work and personal spheres…
In short, because they are human.
Darn it Kindle!
“…going to hell
If, for some insane reason, you were to review the record again, one of the original “questions” was this:
This promptly required a redefinition of “evolution” to “mean” viruses turning into kittens in the lab, or something and, at long last, has devolved into this self-parody presented as Triumph:
Better that he should have conserved all his soiled pants to wipe his mouth with.
See, you are not Christ, and I am no Judas. When I criticize you, I am not betraying Christ. To suggest I am is idolatrous, blasphemous, and arrogant.
But at least I’m now aware of Radical Criticism after wondering on and off for a while whether S.N. was actually a Marcionite.
And I had completely forgotten that not only did Paul “meet” Jesus, so did Moses. Which brings me back around to my disappointment at his turning tail on the UNPOSSIBLE FIZIKS before I could get to the Hartle–Hawking wavefunction.
It turns out that this had already attracted some sort of screwball creationist physics,* but I was curious to see whether it would fritz out over “imaginary time,” which would have led, after some mirth, right back to pi.
* Not that this response seems all that promising at first glance.
See Noevo 1309
That’s all you’ve got?
No, it wasn’t: See Noevo 1309
This is why you fail.>/i>
Think again, See Noevo: do you want contribute to a better future? Or do you want to live in an unattainatble, idealized version of the past?
See, I finally got a look at the testimony you sent me. The man was formerly a Missouri Synod Lutheran, in other words, a biblical literalist who abandoned literalism when he joined Catholocism. In other words, the opposite of you.
Such is often the nature of trolls. Basically he’s posting to get attention, have his jollies and possibly to feed his ego.
Who knows if he is even a member of a church or religious, sometimes it does seem more like a caricature of religious zealotry than any actual faith.
Basically he is responding in whatever way that he thinks will get people to respond back so the thread continues on and on.
His type of trolling in this sort of forum does tend to collect a number of anti-trolls (from an old Usenet post that was written as if trolls were particles and how they interact with online communities) which I’m sure has him fapping himself straight to hades because well of course from what appears to be his world view every sperm is sacred he has to be spilling way more than his fair share over what he thinks is brilliance.
I’m actually hoping it is all just an act and he gets some sort of points if the thread reply count hits 1500 or something. If not I feel sorry for those who have to put up with his antics in RL.
Or SN could be pulling a Gergles — hoping that at some point he gets provoking enough to be banned; so he can brag about how dangerous he is.
Mrs Woo,
I know. The Anglicans aren’t much better. After my parents divorced my father remarried and had two more children, while my mother and us kids moved to a village in East Anglia. I remember my mother telling me that when she wanted to sing in the Anglican village church choir, the vicar would only allow her to join if she went to confession and discussed a possible reconciliation with my father. He was aware that my father had remarried, decades previously, so I’m not sure what he thought that reconciliation would have looked like, and where my stepmother would have stood. My mother joined the choir of the church in the next village.
Later, when she was retired, elderly and frail my mother was approached by the church again, this time asking her to tithe 10% of her pension to them, which annoyed me.
I also remember being treated horribly by the vicar at school, but it was only later that I realized it was because my mother was divorced.
I know this isn’t even in the same league as the kind of ordeal you and my friend went through, but it left a sour taste regarding the church. Well-meaning Vicar of Dibley types are one thing, but I detect a sort of spite in this behavior, that I can’t help wondering is based on envy.
@#1302 —
It’s still a great song and a great video. I’m a fan. (As it happens, I also know her slightly. But that’s really only “as it happens.” Small world, etc.) I’m basically just a fan.
I especially like the videos she did with PTA. This one, for example.
Anyway. Thanks!
@shay
That often is the troll end game. Especially if the regulars stop feeding the troll and then then the only source of amusement is to see how obnoxious you have to be so the powers that be finally ban you and thus you can claim imaginary points that only impress other trolls.
See Noevo,
I’m not trying to ‘win’, whatever that might entail. I doubt anything I write here is going to change your mind, and any casual reader will doubtless have formed their own opinion of you by now anyway. I’m curious about your beliefs, how you come to hold them and how you rationalize them to yourself. I find it hard to understand how anyone can put all their faith in anything, much less a holy book written thousands of years ago by people living thousands of miles away, rooted in an utterly alien culture and language. I know most people follow the religion of their parents (though I met a female Lithuanian convert to Islam recently, which surprised me), but don’t they wonder what would have happened if they had happened to have been born into another religion? Do they just think themselves lucky being born into the one true religion?
There was no baby. There was a 15-week (at maximum, I’m guessing) fetus. Clearly that is the root of our differences here: I don’t believe a fetus is a baby/person and you apparently do.
A don’t see how a first trimester fetus can be considered a “someone”, whether legally or by any rational definition of the term I am familiar with. This is a tired old argument that we are not going to resolve here.
During the first trimester (there are other arguments later in pregnancy, obviously) your brain would not be capable of feeling anything, or of even knowing it existed (since you’re a Cartesian). Of course it’s possible to personify a fetus, put yourself in its place and imagine how unpleasant an abortion might be. It’s possible to do the same with animals and plants, or even with inanimate objects. Our emotional responses are not always the best gauge of things.
If I have to weigh the actual suffering of a real live slave, or a young woman, against the painless loss of a parentally-unwanted potential human life, I would pick the real suffering as most important every time.
As I understand it, according to your Church the souls of aborted fetuses either go the Heaven or into some sort of limbo as “Companion Martyrs to the Holy Innocents” (reading about this strongly reminded me of the pomo literature I read some years ago, but is less interesting). Surely by your beliefs there are plenty more souls all waiting for a chance to incarnate. Couldn’t one of them step aside and let the aborted fetus’ soul have another go? That way there’s no harm done, and it only seems fair… I know, I know, you didn’t make the rules and we’re not going to agree.
I can think of a couple of other ways it would make a great deal of sense, but I don’t think you would like either of them very much.
Wow almost as epic as MarJudith and even Satan (not Miroslav) makes an appearance. Who says religion isn’t woo?
Of course doctors can deny evolution they’re human after all and most of us have religion foisted on us via familial/societal indoctrination in infancy.
As I’ve discovered over the years, woo knows no bounds. People of all stripes and levels of education will believe utterly ridiculous things. Most get quite irate when it is pointed out the Emperor they’re worshiping is buck naked, be it Bengston or Yeshua.
See Noevo (how cute), I’m an atheist because I read the BuyBull cover to cover after being told by nice old ladies in Sunday School that The Holey Book has all life’s answers. It raised a lot more questions aboot the moral monster in the sky in my curious mind and then learning the bloody history of christianity and all the pain and suffering it caused (and does to this day) sealed it.
Besides, why would I want to go to Heaven when my parents are damned:
Presumably to hell. That’s not love, that’s abuse – “I’m sorry, but you made me punch you out for not having dinner on the table when I walked through the door.”
Besides, as mentioned above, Hell has a better band.
There’s a thing floating aboot many christian circles claiming there’s more historical evidence for Buddy Jebus than Julius Caesar, Emperor Tiberius or Napoleon even. In the case of Tiberius, a book claimed 42 sources for Jesus and 10 for Tiberius. One way they accomplished this was by stretching the window of independent contemporary sources to 150 years! In that vein, next year I publish my eyewitness account of First Manassas.
Here a student of the antiquities analyses the claim and concludes:
“People are free to believe in Christianity on the basis of faith, but pretending that this faith is rooted in historical evidence is a pernicious illusion spread by disingenuous apologetic salesmen.”
Those hucksters being Protestant Inc. and VatiCorp AKA The Raping Children Church.
As for Buddy Jebus and slavery, Stephen Fry said it best – “Then what are you for?”
The time I spend learning is not time I consider wasted.
Over the years, I’ve heard the phrase “without mental reservation or purpose of evasion” in various oaths. One, in particular, is the US military oath for commissioned officers. I had thought it was just kinda decorative.
Thanks to See, however, I find that it has much more significance. In the discussion of the RCC’s catechism, I found that “mental reservation,” in catlick doctrine, is the church’s permission to lie. So, this phrase is aimed at those catlicks who would use that doctrine in favor of the church, against secular organizations.
Thanks, See, leading me to understand yet one more evil of your church.
@Mrs. Woo:
I myself would probably waste no time telling those people to f*ck right off, but I am a blunt and vulgar person.
Seriously though, a kooky church is one thing, but that is BS of a magnitude up with which you should not have to put.
True that. Most of my experience with creationists was with JWs growing up; they don’t tend to have a lot of cognitive dissonance on this particular issue, since the WTBTS conveniently more-or-less forbids the pursuit of higher education, so yer pious JWs are typically not going to college and learning much about evolution anyway. The thought of someone managing to get through pre-med classes, medical school, etc., though, and still holding on to creationist (of the evolution denialist variety) beliefs almost fills with a kind of wonder, actually. Like, “man, how does your brain even do that?”
I like to think that I am immune to this sort of thing, but I was observed, while spending the day at the arboretum this past lovely Saturday, to be singing a song about my cute, lovely spider friends I had made up in their honor while allowing them to crawl up and down my arm.
To Krebiozen #1334:
“I’m curious about your beliefs, how you come to hold them and how you rationalize them to yourself. I find it hard to understand how anyone can put all their faith in anything, much less a holy book written thousands of years ago by people living thousands of miles away, rooted in an utterly alien culture and language. I know most people follow the religion of their parents …but don’t they wonder what would have happened if they had happened to have been born into another religion?”
You’re actually touching on one of the reasons why I became really Catholic (as opposed to Catholic by birth or upbringing). One might call it the witness of history.
Recall that in #715 I said “… I do not accept it as Holy Writ blindly. I accept it as Holy Writ ONLY because I use the critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity.”
“There was no baby. There was a 15-week (at maximum, I’m guessing) fetus. Clearly that is the root of our differences here: I don’t believe a fetus is a baby/person and you apparently do.”
I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument that was logical or made any common sense.
Even from a secular perspective.
Speaking of which, here’s a modern person – from the UK, no less – who sounds pretty non-religious and pretty non-dogmatic (“I’m not laying out a complete or coherent position here, because frankly I don’t precisely know where I stand…”) who nevertheless doesn’t see the sense of the pro-abortion position either:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/07/i-wish-we-had-a-religious-right-to-talk-sense-on-abortion/
“Surely by your beliefs there are plenty more souls all waiting for a chance to incarnate.”
Surely not.
“The Anglicans aren’t much better.”
Methodists are no great shakes either. After she discussed options with us and we had Hospice care come in for my father, she asked her minister to visit. He did, but told her that he was disgusted with her because “people only call Hospice when they’ve given up caring and want someone to die.” He then left.
He returned after my father’s funeral, explaining that he was sure my father would want her to make a contribution to the church’s drive to build a new wing. I will always be grateful that my sister who answered the door and explained why that wasn’t going to happen and what should happen to him, so my mother didn’t have to deal with him.
He probably isn’t as scummy as see noevo, but they are quite close.
“I have never, ever seen one, single, solitary pro-abortion argument that was logical or made any common sense.”
Your failure to grasp a concept does not invalidate it.
Celibacy is not holy in Judaism. And lust is not an offense against G-d. I would say that those are significant differences. But I agree — and, in fact, said — that the relative attitudes towards fornication, chastity, virginity, etc. aren’t all that distinct.
So if that’s not what you’re arguing with, we have no argument.
Also:
Sorry, JP! #1299 was addressed to you. I just typed the wrong numeral.
Chemmomo:
See’s ‘game’ is rigged, and a virtual tautology. The answer is indeed, “nothing (much) changes” due to the way he framed the hypothetical, which definitionally reduces evolutionary theory to decontentextualized trivia. He’s playing a trick of pure sophistry by pretending that the answer to his rigged question has some meaning or relevance to our non-hypothetical world.
See’s hypothetical frames ‘evolution’ as BELIEF, supported by the language of Genesis. As such, it can be abstracted from science, and would not be an examplar of valid modes of inquiry that could be applied to solve other problems. The hypothetical is ridiculous, because there is nothing in the real world that EVERYONE believes, and evolutionary theory IS connected to ideas that move back and forth between other matters of science and morality.
If everyone just ‘believed in evolution’ on See’s terms, that would affect the other dogmata of fundies or RCC extremists not one whit. That is, they’d still be the authoritarian patriarchal racist (ad infinitium) haters they are now, whipping up crackpot exegesis of scripture as the definitive Word justifying whatever the hell (literally?) their twisted psyches want it to mean.
You ‘lost’ when you tried to play the game. The only ‘winning move’ was to call out the ‘rules for their irrelevance to any issue of substance.
For example, if ‘everyone believed in evolution’ there would be no Young Earth Creationists, but there would still be battles over the content of high school science textbooks. Religious dogma would then be some form of ID — species evolved over millenia, but all according to God’s Plan and by His hand. In our actual world, there is no ‘theory of evolution’ of course, but a vigorous debate between scientific theories of exactly how evolution works (e.g. Pinker vs. Gould, etc.), almost all of which would fall under the category of apostasy in See’s rigged hypothetical… Thus, the scientists would still be doing their own truth-seeking thing, and it would still be too dangerous for the fundies to tolerate.
shay @1341
That basically sums up this entire comments section.
To Bill Price #1336:
“In the discussion of the RCC’s catechism, I found that “mental reservation,” in catlick doctrine, is the church’s permission to lie…Thanks, See, leading me to understand yet one more evil of your church.”
I don’t remember seeing the term “mental reservation” in the Catechism,
but I’ll let ann take that one.
She’s the expert on the Catechism and catlick doctrine.
……
P.S.
In the meantime, and on a more personal note, I might have had a dream last night. It was weird and I think I was protecting someone named “ann” from nazi-storm-trooper kind of guys by hiding ann in my basement. I showed her various nooks and crannies she could hide in. Then, the pounding on my front door forced me to leave her at the base of the stairs. As I hurried up the steps, I whispered back “Go hide somewhere, ann!” When I opened the door, my worst fears were realized. It was the nazi-storm-trooper kind of guys. They looked at me menacingly and the leader shouted “We have reason to believe you may be harboring someone named ann who we’re looking for. Do you know where ann is?” And I hesitated for a moment. Thoughts of right and wrong ran through my head. I don’t want to lie but I also don’t want to… And then I looked at the leader and said “Officer, I can assure you, I do NOT know where ann is!” Despite the situation, I now felt at peace.
But my peace was shattered by more pounding – the jarring pounding of jack hammers down the street. And I awoke from my dream.
And I thought, “What was THAT all about?”
Any ideas?
See Noevolution, #1339:
Shay, #3141:
FTFY, Shay.
You have an incredibly overblown sense of your own importance?
Obviously the Holy Spirit is telling you to stop holding this thread hostage and go do something more important with your life like working on climate change.
Clearly false sn. You would never turn down a chance to sell someone out to a group like that.
To sadmar #1343:
“See’s ‘game’ is rigged, and a virtual tautology…
definitionally…decontentextualized trivia… sophistry…”
Thems some fancy words, ramdas.
But with the rest of your post, you seem to be saying the problem is not failure to believe in evolution. You seem to be saying the problem is believing a God has anything to do with evolution or with how evolution works.
At bottom, you seem to be saying the problem is believing in God.
You know, Jerry Coyne put out a book a while back titled “Why Evolution Is True”.
He now has a follow up work titled “Faith Versus Fact: Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible”.
I think if Jerry was a little more honest, and more transparent about his agenda, he would have titled the new book
“Why Faith Is False”.
Or better yet, “Why God Is False”.
I thought, “What was THAT all about?”
Any ideas?
Of course. You believe all the lying you’re doing here in this thread (and elsewhere) is excusable, because you’re convinced your goals are righteous.
You’re wrong, of course, but I very much appreciate your confession.
See, if you don’t understand words, look them up. Don’t make fun of people for using them, you’ll just look stupid.
Believing in god? Which one or ones?
Given your statements, it seems as though we could even say the different Christian sects here in the US worship a different god, in your opinion.
Oh, sure. There’s nobody who’s more qualified to speak for the importance of respecting and preserving life than Milo Yiannopolis.
Right. Who could have predicted.
How about “At this point in time I do not desire to carry an unplanned pregnancy to term”?
Re: “Believing in god? Which one or ones?” it’s instructive to remember that a Christian rejects belief in just one less god than does an athiest.
@Lawrence – forty years ago, churches often seemed to also be of the opinion that they worshipped different gods. To this day, most mainstream Christians will assure you that Mormons and their offshoots do not worship the “same” God or Jesus.
When letting go of organized religion, the accusation is more of a comfort than alarming, though. In SeeNoevo’s case, I would suspect he might take it as a compliment.
FTFY. Perhaps you could try out your act over here. You could even bring along the doubtlessly profound Constitutional insight that you’ve alluded to (but scuttle away from challenges to) here.
That was in unclear. In SN’s case I would expect him to take the suggestion as proof he has achieved greater understanding of doctrine and God than his accuser rather than as a suggestion that he makes assumptions that create an unrecognizable version of God.
@#1345
Yes. But it’s more or less the same one Shay had @#1341.
@#1346
It looks more like a real cognitive deficit to me than it does a refusal. Because, for example, if this is true:
Then this can’t be:
But I think that’s genuinely not apparent to SN.
It seems kind of like all abstract concepts look the same to him, or something.
Anyway. I’m not so sure it’s as willful as it looks.
I see no reason to assume that the god (or gods) of any particular religion is either more or less “correct” than any other….it just so happens that Christianity (or specifically the Catholic Church) managed to ingratiate itself into the dominant culture at the time (Roman) & helped maintain a modicum of stability as the Roman Empire splintered and collapsed.
The “Catholic” Church that we know today created at the literal “point of the sword / spear” when the Roman Emperor Constantine brought together the various church leaders at the time to create a clear and coherent doctrine.
Over time, it was alternatively in the best interest of the local kings to either have a strong Church that could help them keep control of the population or a weak Church that they could manipulate for their own ends.
Of course, if say China or Islam had risen to become the dominant culture (if they hadn’t been decimated by the Mongols, they probably would have), then the face of religion today would be significantly different.
See just wants to believe in something that makes him important – hence his overblown sense of self. But, I know just as many people who feel the exact same way about Buddha or the various Pagan religions, yet another reason why religion is an interesting pastime, but means nothing to real life.
To ann #1360:
“… if this is true:
[I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.]
Then this can’t be:
[I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s.]
But I think that’s genuinely not apparent to SN.”
You’re right, ann. It’s not apparent to me that if the one is true that the other can’t be true. Because I KNOW BOTH are true, even as written.
And you are wrong. Again.
Start thinking. Don’t be so pedestrian, ped-ann-tic.
@ann – obviously, SN does not like being challenged by a mere woman….
See, #1345:
I discussed it in an earlier comment, a couple of days ago. Search for the word cardinal.
I don’t think I said that the words were used there, but that the idea, according to the cardinal, were.
Mrs. Woo:
I’m glad you made it, too. The disjunction between the realities of depression alternating with SN’s verbal jerking-off makes this thread kinda surreal. I’d like to say the sophistry is just silly, but it is connected with the pain, isn’t it? On the subject of dieties, I might ask myself what kind of God would allow the pain to be dished out so disproportionately to the best people (like you and JP), while the asshats get to sit in a catbird’s seat of smug satisfaction. If He existed, I’d certainly tell Him to fu¢k off, not worship the bastard. Alas, knowing He doesn’t, doesn’t relieve the metaphysical quandry. It sounds like Mr. Woo’s church is pretty twisted, laying on judgement and guilt, but attributing it to God so the believers can claim to be humble, selfless and accepting.
Still… No matter what ideas or principles any of us hold dear, someone is going to come along, claim them for themselves for some dubious purpose, and piss all over them. We could say it gets increasingly difficult to call ourselves anything, including ‘human beings’. Back to SN — the whole point of the protest-ant Reformation was that what had been THE Church no longer got to have exclusive say on the meaning of the Word. Post-Gutenberg, folks outside of monastery monks got to read scripture for themselves, and wound up responding, ‘Hell, what Rome claims the Good Book says isn’t what it says to me at all!” There are not only a multiplicity of ‘Christian’ sects with drastically different theologies, but different orders and subcultures within the RCC that subscribe to very different positions on a variety of social issues: e.g. Plowshares anti-militarism. If the teachings attributed to Christ speak to you, and suggest that faith demands only a sincere effort to do as much good as you can, and places no judgment on your inevitable human imperfections, then you have as much right to consider yourself a Christian (if not much, much more) than any fundie.
There are churches where you would probably feel a lot more comfortable (modern Mennonite congregations come immediately to my mind, as I have a good friend much involved in same who’s guite heathy in all the ways SN appears to be sick). Perhaps your problem is not with religion per se, but with Mr. Woo’s version of Christianity? Perhaps your Christ would say, ‘Forgive him, but pay the false judgements of his congregation no mind whatsoever. Believe that you do know me, and go in peace…’?
While we’re on the subject of urine and bad faith, I’d be remiss if I didn’t note my own harsh judgment of the outrageous secular failure of the medical establishment in the wake of your desperate act. No counseling referral. Completely inadequate insurance coverage for it had you been referred to some place that could have helped. Just another ludicrous definitive judgment, another form of the Word: “That was stupid.” Uh, no, Dr. Asshat. Failing to understand the reasons sensitive people fall into desperation amid the myriad injustices of the world in general and their everyday lives in particular is stupid. But worse than that, it’s cruel.
See Noevo. Hear Noevo. Speak Noevo.
Evo—>Eva—>Eve.
Damn women, getting the bros kicked out of Eden, all ’cause they listen to that Snake, and we all know what shakin’ serpent that is, amirite?
Ever get the feeling you’ve been ribbed?
If anyone claims they’re suffering at the hands of the Church, I’m quite confident they’ve already sought relief by leaving it. Why would they want to stay in a Church whose constant teaching causes them suffering anyway? Their “suffering” has turned to “joy”, outside the Church.
Apparently he missed the Rwandan Genocide altogether.
Someone earlier seemed to suggest that I “stop holding this thread hostage”. Others here have posted similar sentiments.
I can envision how this thread might look sans See Noevo:
Comment #1: That some of these doctors deny evolution is outrageous! So sad.
#2: Absolutely.
#3: And it’s outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#4: EXACTLY.
#5: Right on!
#6: The problem, I think, is that these doctors are in denial of evolution for one reason only – their RELIGION!
#7: Absolutely.
#8: And this religion-based-denial-of science is outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#9: EXACTLY.
#10: Right on!
#11: And this so called RELIGION calls them to HATE WOMEN. So sad.
#12: Absolutely.
#13: And their hatred of women is outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#14: EXACTLY.
#15: Right on!
#16: And these basta#%s can’t deny their religion’s hatred of women. It’s so obvious. Just look with your own eyes. These religious nut-cases are AGAINST ABORTION. How dare they deny a woman the right to do what she wants with her own body! Those religious women haters. So sad. And SO DANGEROUS.
#17: Absolutely.
#18: Yes! It’s outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#19: EXACTLY.
#20: Right on!
#21: Actually, that isn’t really the main problem. The evolution denial because of the religion is a FACT, yes. But where does the religion come from? Basically, it comes from a belief in god or gods.
Let’s face facts, the REAL problem here is BELIEF in GOD.
#22: Absolutely.
#23: And this belief in a God is just so outrageous on so many, many…you know?
#24: EXACTLY.
#25: Right on!
#26: I just thank g-d (ha ha) for a site like this, where free-thinking people with diverse views can really dissect and dialog, and come to not just common ground, but come to the TRUTH!
#27 Absolutely.
#28: And this thread and this site are so wonderful on so many, many…you know?
#29: EXACTLY.
#30: Right on!
#31: I’d love to stay, but I’m late for a Black Mass.
#32: Ahh. You’re no fun.
#33: Actually, that sounds like fun!
#34: Absolutely.
#35: EXACTLY.
#36: Right on!
An insightful and important thread, involving wide-ranging but related and relevant topics. All brought to multiple mutually satisfactory conclusions in three dozen comments.
Yes, all wrapped up in 36 comments, sans See Noevo.
And the brevity of the above envisioned comments is not too unlike the short retorts I often actually get here (e.g. #1349, #1352, #1363).
Ahhh, life in the bubble. Short and sweet. And stagnant.
Putrid, really.
@sadmar:
Thanks for the reminder of that album; I haven’t listened to it in ages*, and it’s welcome accompaniment to a stack of Russian homework that otherwise is making me feel a bit stabby.
*Let England Shake has been on regular rotation for a while now, but I don’t think I’ve listened to Rid of Me since college or so. I might have lost it in a move at some point.
See Noevo, doesn’t the Bible teach that pride is not only a sin, but the greatest sin of all? So why are you acting arrogant?
An insightful and important thread, involving wide-ranging but related and relevant topics. All brought to multiple mutually satisfactory conclusions in three dozen comments.
Yes, all wrapped up in 36 comments, sans See Noevo.
And the brevity of the above envisioned comments is not too unlike the short retorts I often actually get here (e.g. #1349, #1352, #1363).
Ahhh, life in the bubble. Short and sweet. And stagnant.
Putrid, really.
This is concerning. He went from fabricating something totally imaginary to attacking it as though it had actually happened, all in the span of a few sentences. It’s getting more than a little embarrassing. But importantly revealing, too.
Sn, without your lies, assertions with no supporting evidence, refusal to answer questions, demonstrations of bigotry, racism, and dismissal of women, there is no way to no what the discussion would have been lIke.
I take it that the reason for writing G-d can be added to the list of things you’re utterly clueless about.
Once again, if you had the balls, you could quit pretending that you’re at FTB.
Given that your experience with RI appears to be limited to this thread and your shіtting on the Wallace Sampson post, it’s utterly predictable that days and days of accumulated asshurt of comical failures and cowardly flight from them would leave you with nothing to resort to but moronic caricature at this point.
Project much? Mirrors are your friends; in this case, I suggest that you use competent clerical authority for the role. Better drop off a printout at the rectory a few days in advance, though.
Lay off the Welsh Rabbit.
And promptly fled back to the bosom of the self-constructed nightmare to which you are desperately attached as a lone, pathetic comfort shield from your own failings.
What do your kids think about evolution?
@ann, 1342:
It’s not holy in mainstream contemporary Rabbinical Judaism, though I wouldn’t be that certain with e.g. every small quasi-heretic Chabad offshoot. For the past, as mentioned, there were historical movements in Second Temple Judaism that are described as celibate and IMHO it’s likely they thought celibacy holy, else they wouldn’t have implemented it. IMHO celibacy is only indicative if you compare contemporary Christianity and Judaism, not past one.
It’s also not necessarily in Roman Catholicism, at least if it’s between man and woman, it’s real love, the partners are married and the sex is open to conception.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_teachings_on_sexual_morality#Chastity
In fact, in these cases the whole exchange of bodily fluids is even holy and seen as a parallel to
a) God[1]’s love for humanity
b) the Holy Family (e.g. Joseph, Maria and Jesus)
c) the love of the Father for the Son in the Trinity
Choose you flavour.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
And don’t ask how it squares with celibacy, nobody asked the RCC to be coherent, in fact, “credo quia absurda est”. 😉
As for lust outside of marriage in Judaism…
Personally, the Big Three (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) arguing with each other always reminded me of some quite similar friends with, err, issues who always stressed the other one was totally messed up and totally different from themselves. Therapy helped, at least somewhat. 😉
[1] Omission of letters is only for the Tetragrammaton…
Oh G-d, he has kids?
I’m not surprised.
And I imagine that it’s also not apparent to you why this:
Is not analogous to this:
Because it’s the same kind of category error.
It’s really kind of interesting, potentially.
… how does it get so messed up?
@sadmar – yes. This was long ago – very late 80s. The sin aspect still bothered me almost a decade later. I remain personally pro-life, but life is too complicated for me to remove another’s choice, especially if they do not believe as I do or are in a really bad situation. A counselor years later said serial abortion is very rare, etc., as we discussed many things in my adventure. Using it as “birth control” as one would more easily procured options? Not much risk in that.
Just told Mr Woo what I was commenting on. He snorted and said, “Everyone knows science has disproved evolution. I heard they are working on new theories.”
Life in his echo chamber…
The church? We are moving and will be church shopping. Hoping to find something more mainstream.
To whom it may concern, regarding #1378:
“… if this is true:
[I was a cradle Catholic from 0 to 14; was a nominal Catholic (i.e. go through the motions without really believing) from about 18 to 22; was effectively agnostic or atheistic from about 22 to 33; came back to Christianity at 33; came back to Catholicism fully about 40.]
Then this can’t be:
[I converted from agnosticism/atheism to Catholicism a couple decades ago when I was in my 30s.]”
BOTH bracketed statements are true, even as written.
While ann says the second CAN’T be true (given the truth of the first), she is wrong.
It’s just not apparent to her.
P.S.
I’m normally a very pro-marriage person.
But if SHE’s married…well…
I just pity that poor bas
FTFY. If it were printed out, it would have to be disposed of properly.
By the way, See, the reason we give short answers is simple. A skilled fighter doesn’t waste energy on useless motions, he simply looks for an opening and delivers the decisive blow. The same is true with words.
Do you normally spill your seed on a framed image of the Virgin or use it as a condiment?
The movement you mentioned was described as chaste, and also as ascetic. But neither of those is synonymous with celibacy. And in a Jewish context, neither automatically suggests it. Because as the Encyclopedia Judaica states:
It’s conceptually at odd with the religion.
Which is not to say it might never have happened. Judaism has been around for a long time. But it would be a radical departure if it did.
That’s true now, but it wasn’t for a long time. And I was talking about the early church.
But it would still be completely true to say that lust is an offense against G-d in Catholicism, but not in Judaism. I mean, that’s the case.
There is no such conceptual entity.
Sex outside of marriage — aka “fornication” — is prohibited, discouraged, and severely sanctioned. Among the ultra-orthodox, women are practically kept in purdah. Female sexuality is traditionally stigmatized, suppressed and restricted, as are all expressions, signs, and signifiers of it.
But lust itself is not conceived of as inherently bad, wrong, or offensive — ie, the reason that coveting a neighbor’s wife is prohibited is not that G-d frowns on covetous feelings. It’s that he frowns on offenses against duty, the rules, property, and order.
If you think I’m arguing for the superiority of one system over the other, that’s sheer projection. I don’t dispute that all three Abrahamic religions have broadly similar attitudes to sex and sexuality, or that all three are similarly sexually oppressive in practice. That would be idiotic. It’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m really making a very basic point. There are no implications attached to it. It’s just a stone fact that sexual sin is not conceptually central to Judaism. Neither is original sin. Inasmuch as the expulsion from Eden ever comes up, which is rarely, the emphasis is on Adam’s disobedience and not on the weakness that led to it or followed from it.
I mean, obviously, immorality — including sexual immorality — is an offense against G-d. Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. It’s lax. G-d doesn’t like it. But it’s not, like, the execrable, unthinkable, absolutely ungodly act that worshiping the Golden Calf is. Judaism is very, very theocentric. And also very, very rules-based. Or…You know. G-d doesn’t particularly care what your stupid feelings are. He cares what you do.
It’s a very different paradigm.
@Narad, 1381:
In Judaism, this command only applies to some Hebrew names of god, not all names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton#Written_prohibitions
So I’d leave it at that, using the same argument for the word “god” IMHO would get a Jew into all kinds of problems, not the least one indicating that the God of some other religions is the same one as his. 😉
And I never cared that much for Evangelicals and their fashions. Let’s just say doing more than Mosaic Law(tm) demands and else following “sola fide” makes for a strange mixture.
And personally, I’d like to believe I couldn’t care less for courtesy to religious taboos, but than, I also don’t usually depict the Mohammed (PBUH), let alone in an insulting manner. Interesting analogy, come to think about it…
I am a true Catholic (i.e. One who believes in and strives to follow ALL that the Church teaches.).
Then,
Missy ann, are you on medications?
And,
I’m normally a very pro-marriage person.
But if SHE’s married…well…
I just pity that poor bas[tard]
Did the Church teach you to talk to women — or anyone — that way?
Jesus wouldn’t like you at all. He’d be quite angry with your behavior.
As I don’t consider W—dia to represent competent halachic authority or have the energy at the moment to set it all out, I’ll instead leave it at this.
I only have one close Orthodox friend at the moment, but it’s “G-d” all the way in E-mail.
^ And the BookFace feed.
We might of course argue what Philo meant when he mentioned both Essenes and Therapeutae left their wives behind, or the Esseneswere only men. I see two interpretations to reconcile it with your opinion, either staying in the community was just a phase in life, not that likely, or they indulged in extramarital sex, the Essenes usually with other men. We could argue if this or celibacy is more out of bounds for Judaism…
So Christianity changed, but Judaism never did?
Where most of the leaders, like one Simon Petrus, were married. Hell, even celibacy for priests is a somewhat late development, thank you Augustinus…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibacy#Augustinian_view
So removing German chancellor Angela Merkel, of all cases, from pictures, is just to keep men from disobeying their duties or coveting their neighbours’ things. Funny thing they usually don’t do it with thy neighbour’s car, though of course it has nothing to do with sexual sin. The Nile…
Now that is your projection, I wasn’t arguing about superiority, just about distinctiveness.
Rabbinical Judaism and Christianity are both offshots of Second Temple Judaism, which is a development from early Judaism, which is an offfshot from General Canaanite religion. And neither of those makes any sense without their forebears. And quite often each other, BTW.
And BTW, the Jewish Encyclopedia has this to say about the Therapeutae:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14366-therapeutae
Which is exactly my point.
Aren’t you glad my mother didn’t abort me, though?
For parish priests; celibacy has been required of bishops since the year 400 at the latest reckoning. The question of celibacy had been discussed for quite some time already by then – see Tertullian, for instance. One could argue that this was partially a pragmatic thing – kids might take up too much time and energy that could be spent bishoping, for example – but there was certainly a sense of celibacy being “holier” if you go back and look at the discussions of the time.
I mean, Christian monasticism is undeniable celibate, and that is, after all, what is referred to as “the angelic life” within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Monasticism is not typical of Judaism, in fact it has been pretty much condemned.
^ Sorry about the typos and weird compositional tics.
Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you.
……………
Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.
……………
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
See Noevo: What gives you the right to decide what is holy and what isn’t?
Which is his prerogative.
In my world, g-d or G-tt is usually used by Evangelicals to indicate a putative connection to Judaism, which is somewhat funny given “sola fide” is about as far from orthopraxy as you can get.
From what I got about Judaism, they agree somewhat to the text you linked, it’s somewhat controversial.
Of course, Orthodox Jews are invited to do the placeholder game with “god” or “Gott”, though as mentioned IMHO this indicates they think the Christian god (or any others) is the same as HaShem. Which, come to think about it, is also somewhat ironic. 😉
It’s not typical of contemporary Judaism. My point is, given the vicinity and similarities between Therapeutae, Essenes and early Christian monasticism, it might not be a Christian innovation but a tradition from the Hellenistic Judaism that got preserved in Christianity, but for a variety of reasons didn’t make it in Rabbinical Judaism. IMHO there are quite a few indications that early Christianity was not that much of an outlier in Second Temple Judaism as we might think. So arguing “this is Christianity, this is Judaism” is about as sensible as differentiation birds from theropods.
Come to think about it, you also don’t usually find religious paintings in synagogues today AFAIK…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_synagogue
WTF?
It changes continually. Religion is a dynamic, not a static thing. My remarks were not designed to make one religion look better than another. I was speaking about the ways in which early Christianity was a departure from Judaism.
There is no question that one of the principle ways in which it did, indeed, depart was that it conceived, categorically, of lust as a sin and of celibacy as the ideal and most sinless state.
Again, WTF?
There is no question — zero, none — that the early church and all the early church fathers until Augustine regarded celibacy as the only entirely holy state. That included those who were married. They were okay with Christians marrying. But that was not because either sex or sexual desire was not sinful within marriage prior to Augustine. It was because they recognized that not everybody was cut out for celibacy.
Nevertheless, celibacy was preferred, holiness-wise.
Okay. This is ridiculous. No, it is not. And nothing I said indicated that I thought so. The ultra-orthodox are extremely sexually repressive. And all the worst things that can go along with it do go along with it.
However. They do not regard lust as an offense against G-d, or celibacy as an ideal. That is simply not a part of the concept. It’s not how they think about it. It’s not how the religion conceives of it.
You can persist in taking that to mean that I’m asserting some kind of all-or-nothing binary opposition to what is, from your point of view, apparently the one and only repressive religious conception of sexual morality possible until you’re blue in the face. But it’s not what I mean.
Ah. OK. Well, if you think there are no meaningful distinctions of any kind, we will never agree. It’s a valid point, from the perspective of praxis.
But there’s more to life than praxis. And I would say that the presence (or, as the case may be, absence) of (a) heaven; (b) hell; and (c) an immediately imminent afterlife is a meaningful distinction.
That’s really not separable from the distinctions regarding celibacy and lust, actually. Even when the values are fundamentally the same — as with chastity and virginity — their import’s very different, once it gets incentivized that way.
There are no frequent-flyer miles in Judaism. You don’t get rewards for good behavior. On a this-lifetime, quotidian basis, it’s pretty much all stick, no carrot. You do the right thing because you’re Jewish, end of story. And if you don’t, you’re bad. But you don’t have a personal relationship with G-d. And neither does anybody else. So “bad” doesn’t have the same connotations.
It’s really a very different religion, however closely related to Christianity it may be and/or is. And however similar in most regards it may be and/or is.
Yes, I know. What’s your point?
As I said, Judaism is a very old religion. It’s also not an inherently monolithic religion. There’s no central locus of control. No Top Jew. No institutional hierarchical organization. No head office coordinating the far-flung franchisees.
That’s actually another way it differs from Christianity (meaning what we now call Roman Catholicism). So, yes. Sure. There were no doubt sects who practiced all kinds of stuff that mainstream Judaism didn’t. And, no doubt, there still are. But they don’t typify or define the faith, any more than polygamous Mormons did Christianity.
I mean, sh-t happens. Nothing to be done about it.
BTW — no argument here. Nothing’s ex nihilo. History is not just one great big unidirectional line of singular cause leading to singular effect, step by innovative step, right up to the present.
But it’s just crazy to insist that there are no distinctions between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It begs too many questions. I mean, why, exactly, is Christianity so incomparably more popular if they’re all substantially the same?
This is true of historical Christianity, actually, and is still the case w/in Orthodoxy. There is a patriarch and a hierarchy within each “national” Church, but there is no equivalent of the Pope, i.e., there is no head of the entire Orthodox Church. It is certainly more “one religion” than Judaism is, in that there is doctrinal unity – if one excludes the heterodox Oriental Churches and so on, the Churches are in communion with each other (but not with Rome), and so on.
I’m not quite sure why you’re conflating those two noun phrases.
I’m guessing you mean that Christianity is incomparably more popular than Judaism, not Islam, which is fast closing in, actually, numbers-wise.
I think that explosion at the secret
RussianMan-Cave irony reactor is probably visible from space, given your braying in comment 1368, Esel.Which about nails it where my problems are. You are using extant Rabbinical Judaism as a placeholder for the Judaism from which Christianity departed. Where the forefathers of Rabbinical Judaism, the Pharisees, were just one of many movements in Judaism at the time, actually quite close to that strange Jewish sect that became Christianity in some regards. Actually Paulus even once played the “I’m a Pharisee” gambit according to Acts, though of course we might argue about the veracity.
We know quite a lot about the Pharisees, a little less about the Sadducees, quite something about the literature of the Essenes and some lone facts about other movements. And then there is this big dark entity called “Hellenistic Judaism”, or Jewish Diaspora”.
Err, we are talking about the same early church where one Paulus wrote:
“If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?”
I’m not saying the early church was a haven of gender equality and sensible sexuality, I’m just saying you are simplifying too much.
Err, I was not talking about celibacy, I was talking abou lust. As you mentioned, chastity is not celibacy. And else, sorry, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Err, remember, we are not talking about contemporary Judaism, which in part developed as a reaction towards “heretical” beliefs close to early Christianity, we are talking about Judaism in the 1st century CE.
BTW, the things you mentioned are part of mainstream Roman Catholicism, but not necessarily every current in Christianity. Some groups have something called “soul sleep” instead of an imminent afterlife, for example.
I agree. And birds and crocodiles are quite different animals. That doesn’t say how birds differed from other Mesozoic archosaurs.
My personal take, it’s all about the meat and sex. 😉
AFAIR, early Christianity had three currents, one group trying to stick to Jewish dietary law and keeping circumcission, leader James, brother of Jesus. Mostly the old, Galilean Messianic stock. Second group, the gentiles followers don’t have to, the Jewish have, both just have to believe into Jesus, leader of this group Paulus of Tarsus, most likely somewhat tied in with Hellenistic Judaism. Since all the funny “original sin” and “sola fide” stuff comes from there, IMHO it raises some questions about how much Hellenistic Judaism played into early Christianity.
Third group, trying to negotiate. Leader one Simon Petrus. Trying to go a middle road to keep Jewish customs but not scare the sympathetic gentiles away, who were quite a factor in the Jewish diaspora, see Flavius Josephus on one Poppaea, mistress of Nero, of all people.
Which lead to some kind of compromise, gentile members of the Jesus sect were not required to keep Jewish dietary law, but they had to refrain from “temple meat”, e.g. the cheap meat from pagan sacrifices. Which compromise, AFAIR, Paulus’ homies broke almost immediately…
Sorry, from memory, there might be some factual errors. Some time later, Rabbinical Judaism reformed what was left from Second Temple Judaism without the Second Temple, expunged Greek and Aramaic from the sacred literature, while Christianity went all Pauline; after that, both sides had quite some fun with their shared heritage. At the some time, the other groups, e.g. Essenes, Sadducees, Hellenistic Judaism etc. went either extinct or were absorbed by one or both currents, with some leftovers maybe playing into Samaritans, Mandeans, early Islam, Alevites and like. And voila, we have two totally different religions, minus the occasional Sabbatean, Frankist or Chabad who at least for me make for a strange deja-vu…
I’m aware of 1 Tim 3:2 – I brought it up in a similar context quite a while ago – but I’m aware of exactly no historical precedent that supports a notion that bishops/clergy were ever required to be married. Which is to say, “the husband of one wife” seems to clearly mean “just one” not “at least one,” or an indefinite article would have been used, or an indefinite article would have been used. Indeed, many translations simply have it as “faithful to his wife.” Paul, in any case, clearly regarded celibacy as a “gift” and superior to non-celibacy. (Corinthians 7)
I don’t really see how biological evolution is a useful metaphor here, given that a sect, and later a church, is a very conscious human creation, much moreso than language, let alone biology. There’s no reason why a sect couldn’t depart quite wildly and quickly from its “parent” religion, quite unlike what is possible w/in biological evolution.
^Sorry, there couldn’t have been a definite article, but I don’t see why the number one would have been used unless specifying just one.
@JP:
Actually, I’d argue if we could speak about clergy at this time; and if we read this one as a job advertisment, the profile reads more like a mid-level manager, where some experience is welcome.
Speaking about 1 Tim, it seems to be generally quite pro-marriage, e.g. with chapter 4:
Of course, Paulus might write with his audience in mind, according to tradition Timothy was a young man with a Jewish mother, while the Corinthians were pagan converts. Of course, this is somewhat up to debate.
And Cor 7 starts with “Now concerning the things where of you wrote unto me”, e.g. it might be an answer to something written to him. And so I have this strange picture of some old bearded guy, writing about the unrestrained youth of his day and how it’s much better to abstain from women, and always opportunist, err, understanding Paulus agrees to not rebuke him. Just an idea, but I find it entertaining.
As for 1 Tim 4, I think it’s somewhat puzzling if the people prohibiting marriage and the ones prohibiting some food are the same or different. Given Paulus’ stance, the latter most likely want to uphold Jewish dietary law, but I guess the first ones would be into celibacy. And we already talked about why this might be strange or not strange in the same person.
As for the exact wording, err, my Koine Greek is somewhat non-existant…
^^That should have been 1 Corinthians 7.
BTW, it’s Paul in English. Constantly writing “Paulus” makes about as much sense as if I were to go around referring to Moskva and Warszawa, or better yet, Parizh and Rim.
@JP:
Sorry, old habits die slow. Also, there are quite a few Pauls around, so I thought English used the same nomenclatura to differentiate them from old I-met-Jesus-too-you-know as German. Again, sorry.
@JP:
As for the Pauline letters, there is of course also the old question of authorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles
There is a strong case for 1 Tim being written not by Paul but a later pupil, and the people prohibiting marriage and some food being early Gnostics.
@#1402 —
@JP
Because I’m a bad writer.
@Trottelreiner —
Err, so?
Err, has it ever occurred to you that what it looks like to you might not be the same as what it looks like to someone who’s been extensively and thoroughly indoctrinated to understand, think of and view it in entirely different terms?
Err, it is obviously completely and entirely possible that the surviving documentary record of both Jewish and Christian practices and beliefs from the 1rst century CE is full of so many gaping holes and so heavily revised by subsequent generations that many — possibly even most — practicing, believing 1rst-century Jews and/or Christians wouldn’t recognize the practices and beliefs therein described.
But them’s the breaks. Extant sources are extant. There is a Mishnah. And a Torah. There are Dead Sea Scrolls. There is a Nag Hammadi Library. And so on.
Long story short: That the historical record is imperfect does not constitute an open license to posit entirely imaginary things about the past in accordance with your own personal/idealogical needs and whims.
There is, afaik, no indication that Jews ever believed that conduct in this life led to eternal punishment or reward in an immediately imminent afterlife. And it would be such a major departure from the Mosaic covenant if they did, it would effectively be a different religion if they did.
There are and always have been a variety of competitive sectarian beliefs and practices within both Christianity and Judaism (and, for all I know, within every single religion ever ever). If that’s your point, I agree with it.
Tenure does, though.
Sorry, I didn’t realize English wasn’t your native language; I thought you were just being pretentious.
@ Trottelreiner —
Yikes. I also didn’t adjust for fluent-but-non-native English, and wrongly assumed attitude.
I apologize. I really don’t think we have any very major disagreements. The only one I even feel strongly about is the principle I was trying to express here:
Except minus the unnecessarily aggressive tone. The ultra-orthodox who took Angela Merkel out of the picture live in an insular community the members of which have very little (if any) exposure to anything else. They really are rigorously, extensively indoctrinated to think about, eg, women exclusively within the terms and parameters of their belief system, which is the only one they know.
You can’t necessarily assume that they share your connotative understanding of sexual repression, even if it’s more or less universally shared by the culture at large. They’re not a part of it.
“Long story short: That the historical record is imperfect does not constitute an open license to posit entirely imaginary things about the past in accordance with your own personal/idealogical needs and whims.
Tenure does, though.”
Amen, annie.
I think of tenure in much the same way I think of unions. Not nice thoughts. I think the whole idea of a protective cocoon of tenure should be opened up for the so-called national conversation. Perhaps Wisconsin will lead the way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/the-tenure-conundrum_b_7531386.html
Some of the craziest stuff I’ve ever heard comes from tenured PhDs – in economics, psychology, philosophy, theology, and most definitely, in science.
And some of the evilest
http://www.equip.org/article/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/
Now understand, I have nothing against the idea of formal higher education. I have some myself, including a masters from the Ivy League.
However, the older I get (now 59), and especially over the last couple decades, the less respect I have for tenure and for fancy academic credentials in general. Frankly, it’s almost to the point for me where a PhD is guilty until proven innocent (of academic fraud). And if the PhD is in “evolutionary biology” or “evolutionary medicine”, it’s all over for me. No more evidence needed, your honor, annie.
See, does that include the evolutionary biologists responsible for figuring out where oil and coal deposits are located?
SN,
That’s what my cult leader says too!
” I have some myself, including a masters from the Ivy League”
How strange that everything you say indicates that yiu never learned anything. Who did you cheat from?
For the lurkers attracted by the (much earlier) talk about fossils, I will mention this site:
http://fossilcalibrations.org/
It’s an open database of fossil calibrations.
I like open repositories of curated scientific data. Free access, and some people went to the trouble of double-checking the entered results (that’s the “curated” part).
How very odd it is that atheists and others here try to reprimand me for what they perceive to be my violations of commandments of decency, and particularly of commandments of God and Catholicism.
It’s not odd in the sense of being unusual, for I see it all the time, in this thread and elsewhere.
Rather, it’s odd in the sense of being bizarre and/or illogical, for at least four reasons:
Reason #1:
The atheists and others here are quick to condemn me for what they perceive to be harsh/politically-incorrect language.
But some of the foulest things imaginable have been said about me here (e.g. #1349, #1383, #623), and yet no one says a word. No one reprimands THEM.
How very sensitive and decent of you. How bizarre.
(But I understand.)
[And regarding one of the tamer examples, #623, I know and God knows that everything I’ve said here is true, or at a bare minimum, we know that I believed to be true everything I’ve said here. Perhaps, old Gray is just too stupid or invincibly ignorant to know when to lay off the word “lying.” I don’t know.]
Reason #2:
The atheists and others here condemn me for what they perceive to be my breaking of doctrines and rules which they themselves believe to be false or evil. In other words, ‘You’re an evil/false person, because you’re not obeying the evil/false rules.’ Bizarre. Illogical. And related to this…
Reason #3:
The atheists and others here condemn me for hypocrisy for what they perceive to be my breaking of doctrines and rules which I say are good/holy.
Now, remember that the charge of hypocrisy makes sense ONLY when what is supposedly violated is generally or universally considered MEANINGFUL AND GOOD.
Hypocrisy makes no sense if the thing violated is essentially meaningLESS (e.g. A man who says he loves the color Red, but in his public and private life displays every color EXCEPT red. So what? Strange? Yes. Hypocrite? No.)
And hypocrisy makes no sense if the thing “violated” is generally or universally considered BAD (e.g. No one would even think of calling hypocrite a happily married and forever faithful man who for some reason advocates “free love” and sleeping around.)
So, atheists’/non-Catholics’ charge of hypocrisy against me makes sense ONLY if they see as GOOD the things I’m supposedly violating, namely Catholic doctrine and teaching. YOU think Catholic doctrine and teaching GOOD? Bizarre.
Reason #4:
The atheists and others here condemn me for arrogance, for what they perceive to be a) My supposed air of superiority, and b) My belief that the Catholic way is superior to all other ways, and what’s more, that Catholic doctrine is infallibly true.
Regarding a), so sorry if I come off that way. Perhaps your fury will be softened by my truthful admission that I, See Noevo, could end up in hell. See Noevo MAY go to hell. I don’t know.
I have no certainty that I’ll make it to heaven. (Although I can have reason for confidence that I’m on the right track.)
Regarding b), why would the idea that SOMETHING/ANYTHING is superior to all other things be objectionable? If NOTHING is superior then ALL things are the SAME in merit. (Tell that to MVP Steph Curry.) It’s ridiculous. It’s bizarre, illogical.
Oh, and on the infallibility thing, nothing strange about that. In fact, EVERYONE reading this right now AGREES that the INFALLIBILITY of statements by a human being is possible. (Even Pope Francis would smile.)
So, why anyone would object to the idea of infallibility is bizarre, illogical.
Thus, I end where I began: The attacks on me here are very… “odd”.
P.S.
I believe it necessary to confess EVERY sin you can think of in the sacrament of Reconciliation, and then do your best, with the help of God’s grace, to repent of each one of them. But I can think of nothing I’ve done in this thread that I would need to confess.
P.P.S.
As I noted to someone in #1174, the attacks on me here have not “hurt my feelings.” I’m doing great, thank you.
And what about your lying, arrogance, and heartlessness, See?
Definitely a picture perfect example of the phrase “Pride Goeth before the Fall.”
<I?But I can think of nothing I’ve done in this thread that I would need to confess.
Everyone else can.
Is it possible sn is as clueless as that most recent post indicates?
Forget what I wrote about 500 posts ago of this dude reminding me of converted Catholics. He doesn’t remind me of any Catholic I’ve ever met. The Franciscans/Jesuits/Carmelites under whom I studied were less doctrinaire. And none of them were pompous windbags, either.
When you are less liberal than the current Pope, perhaps it’s time to reassess.
@see
Whatever “god” that you profess to worship, who allows people to blatantly lie and cast false aspersions on others without proof, is a deity that I wouldn’t want to worship at all.
“And what about your lying, arrogance, and heartlessness, See?…
Is it possible sn is as clueless as that most recent post indicates?”
Yeah, what they said.
Absolutely.
And See Noevo’s outrageous on so many, many…you know?
EXACTLY.
Right on!
Well, when you realize sn said that nobody should ever study anything for which there isn’t an immediate application, you can’t be surprised that everything else he says is reasonable (or honest).
See, the arrogance that I see in you is your apparent attitude that your belief, your choice of tenets about reality, is superior to all evidence to the contrary; that your choice of belief takes precedence over any evidence to the contrary. That’s the arrogance of (religious) faith. It’s an arrogance that fits well with narcissism.
—————————————————————-
Ah, no. Hypocrisy occurs when the hypocrite violates what the hypocrite claims to be “MEANINGFUL AND GOOD.”
It’s hypocrisy when the RCC preaches against extramarital sexual activity, but hides, protects, and otherwise encourages its extramarital sexual actors. Extramarital sexual activity is not universally considered bad.
It’s hypocrisy when a cop, who tickets unbelted car occupants, puts more passengers in his own car than there are seatbelts. Seatbelts are not universally considered good (e.g., in Texas).
It’s hypocrisy when the Duggar family et. al. preach fear of imaginary gay child molestation while protecting and thereby encouraging Josh’s own actual duggaring.
And the beat goes on…
Reason 1 explained —
To an impartial reader, two of those accusations appear justified by the truth. And the third is a tit-for-tat reply to the equivalently personal attack by you quoted right above it, which — like nearly all the harsh things you were criticized for saying — was a unilateral and elective first-strike, not a pushback against one.
Which is why you were criticized.
Reason 2 explained —
I’m not clear on how it differs from Reason 3. Please see below.
Reason 3 explained —
It’s neither true nor sensible that hypocrisy only makes sense when everyone agrees that the hypocrite’s purported values are meaningful and good.
For example:
You not only don’t have to be pro-communism to think that members of the politburo who live in luxury while imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses are hypocrites, you’re probably likelier to think it if you’re anti-.
You not only don’t have to be pro-war to think that political chickenhawks are hypocrites, you’re probably likelier to think it if you’re anti-.
And so on. Which pretty much takes care of the “makes no sense when agreed to be bad” condition, as well.
I’m not sure I understand the meaningless condition. But I don’t see how it applies to the instant circumstances. So I suppose it doesn’t matter.
Reason 4 explained —
Speaking only for myself, I do not regard it as arrogant that you believe the Catholic way to be superior to all others or that you accept the doctrine of infallibility.
I do regard it as arrogant that you feel entitled to pass judgment on people, subjects and things about which you know very little and don’t appear even to have thought about casually, particularly since you compound it by issuing wholesale condemnations of those who are unwilling to work.
You might not be the most reliable judge of that, however. Few people are wrt their own faults and failings.
I suggest printing out the thread and showing it to a moral authority who’s familiar with all the by-ways of your faith. Such as a priest. There might be some errors and lapses that you didn’t catch.
What on Earth are you talking about? No one is INFALLIBLE. A statement may be true, but the speaker is not thereby infallible. S/he’s just right in that statement.
@#1426 — #1429 —
Well. If the comments were more detailed, you’d just say they were pedantic.
So it’s never your fault. Funny how that works.
@#1423 —
Sadly, yes.
To ann #1432:
“Reason 1 explained — …”
No comprende.
Ándale. Skip it.
……..
“Reason 3 explained —
It’s neither true nor sensible that hypocrisy only makes sense when everyone agrees that the hypocrite’s purported values are meaningful and good.
For example:
You not only don’t have to be pro-communism to think that members of the politburo who live in luxury while imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses are hypocrites, you’re probably likelier to think it if you’re anti-.”
Most people would consider BAD a “pro-communism” platform which is “imposing stringently non-materialist privations on the masses.”
I would agree that it’s also BAD that a person pushing such “pro-communism” in fact lives in luxury.
I can understand how this could be considered hypocritical. This would be Bad and Bad. So, I can see how you, ann, MIGHT say See Noevo is a hypocrite because ‘See Noevo is an evil/false person for his not obeying the evil/false rules of his Church.’
….
“I do regard it as arrogant that you feel entitled to pass judgment on people, subjects and things about which you know very little …”
I don’t pass judgment on people, only God does that.
I pass judgment on subjects and things, like on people’s actions and speech. And thanks to Christ and His Church, I know quite a bit about them, that is, know about when they are wrong. Or at least as much as I need to know.
I JUDGE these things AT THE COMMAND OF JESUS CHRIST. And so should EVERY other Christian.
How so? To repeat what I said in #655:
“In the citation I gave of Mat 18:15-18, how does a believer KNOW when “your brother SINS against you” and how would he have the capability to DEFINE and “TELL him his FAULT”?
In the citation of 1 Cor 5:11-13, how can Paul tell the believers to JUDGE those inside the church, and how would they have the BASIS for this REQUIRED judging?”
Answer: From what Christ and His Church say.
So, for example, when a Nancy Pelosi-type of person publicly supports abortion and works to further abortion rights, I AM OBLIGATED to “suggest” to the Nancy Pelosi-type to knock it off, for the sake of the babies and the parents, and for the sake of her own soul.
To LW #1433:
“What on Earth are you talking about? No one is INFALLIBLE. A statement may be true, but the speaker is not thereby infallible. S/he’s just right in that statement.”
Or statementS.
And what I said is absolutely true: EVERYONE (that includes you) reading this right now AGREES that the INFALLIBILITY of statements by a human being is possible.
Um, I’m not sure if the Catholic Church is the right one for you. This kind of rant is more consistent with the Westboro
Baptist Church. I think you’d like the whole the only way to love thy neighbor is to hate the crap out of them.
What, you believe your powers of mind control are so vast that if we read any combination of letters that spew forth from you fingers we will then go against all logic, sanity or reason and believe the world is only as the great and powerful See Noevo commands them to see it?
Some people may say some things at some times that might actually turn out to be true for some value of the truth. I don’t know that any human can ever make a statement that completely and totally encompasses the whole entirety of the truth of anything. Because you know humans aren’t omniscient.
Back to the original topic involving doctors and evolution…
well, actually not exactly back to it because the article was talking about doctors of medicine, MDs.
Anyway, here’s a new article about evolution and OTHER kinds of doctors, PhDs:
“Proteins commonly decay hundreds to thousands of years after an organism dies, but…
What they found shocked them. Imaging the fresh-cut surfaces with scanning and transmission electron microscopes, “we didn’t see bone crystallites” as expected, Maidment says. “What we saw instead was soft tissue. It was completely unexpected. My initial response was these results are not real.”
For real.
http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2015/06/signs-ancient-cells-and-proteins-found-dinosaur-fossils
Old news, actually. Just a current update. Yet still “shocking.”
To KayMarie #1438:
“Um, I’m not sure if the Catholic Church is the right one for you.”
Um, looks like we got ourselves a female pope!
But, um, I’m quite sure the Catholic Church is the right one for me. In fact, it’s the only one.
“I don’t know that any human can ever make a statement that completely and totally encompasses the whole entirety of the truth of anything.”
You don’t know. So, in your eyes, it’s possible.
Good.
A person might, but I wouldn’t.
I would say it’s hypocritical of you to continually find a way to blame others while giving yourself a free pass.
I mean, you can’t even just say “I failed to comprehend this journal article, my bad, next time I’ll work harder.” You have to pin it on the efforts of imaginary headline-writing editors to make you look bad.
So. I might say that was hypocritical (or irresponsible, or self-indulgent, or lazy, or childish, or whatever). And if I was pissed off enough I might say that you were a hypocrite (or a jerk, or an idiot, or a big baby, or whatever).
You don’t show much regard for the truth. But I’m not sure I’d even be right to say you were a liar. And I certainly wouldn’t say you were a false person. Because (a) I have no idea; and (b) I really don’t care.
And you’d have to be guilty of a hell of a lot worse than posting your hypocritical, irresponsible, ill-considered and sometimes ill-natured thoughts to the comments section of a blog before I’d start thinking in terms of evil.
But I’m glad you now understand that Reason 3 isn’t one.
^^That’s just first-rank unwillingness to work, imo.
To ann #1441:
“I mean, you can’t even just say “I failed to comprehend this journal article, my bad, next time I’ll work harder.” You have to pin it on the efforts of imaginary headline-writing editors to make you look bad.”
IMAGINARY headline-writing editors?
This headline didn’t write itself: “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of Soft Tissue”.
Then again, maybe the headline self-organized or maybe it just mutated into existence. Yeah, it FIRST mutated into existence as “The Oldest Shrimp (Devonian: Famennian) and Remarkable Preservation of IMPRESSIONS of Soft Tissue”
But THEN it experienced the almost invariably harmful mutations, and lost those critical letters, namely “IMPRESSIONS of”.
I’m pretty sure I comprehended the article I posted above on roughly the same topic.
Did you?
If you missed it, here it is again: http://news.sciencemag.org/paleontology/2015/06/signs-ancient-cells-and-proteins-found-dinosaur-fossils
…………..
“But I’m not sure I’d even be right to say you were a liar.”
I’d suggest you be damn sure before you do.
Just a suggestion.
………….
“^^That’s just first-rank unwillingness to work, imo.”
The key portion there is “imo”.
To use your words, I really don’t care.
Incidentally, I picked those examples of hypocrisy because in both cases, many people are willing to cross political lines to condemn them (going left to right for the politburo and going right to left for the chickenhawks).
But I notice you only picked one. And I’d be interested to hear why you don’t think it’s hypocritical for people who dodged the draft themselves to accuse people who object to their plans to send soldiers off to die of being wimps.
Because I would say that was hypocrisy.
And I MIGHT also say it was hypocrisy that you chose just the one. Depends on whether/how you think it’s defensible.
…
I’m assuming that’s not a personal question. But you said you were 59. So the draft must have ended shortly before you were eligible and the war not long after.
Dear FSM you really do have to twist everything so every human on earth completely and totally in every way possible no matter what must always agree with your personal version of perfection after all you seem to believe you know all truths even better than God in all ways all the time don’t you?
And you think I think I’m the pope? You seem to claim power far beyond what even the pope does.
But honestly the only church leaders I have seen use those bible verses in that way are the Westboro Baptist folks, and I’ve run into a few off the deep end Catholics that wouldn’t go that far. Including the Catholic wedding that was almost entirely an anti-abortion rant that confused even the Catholic that had a double major in theology and biology from the Jesuits i was sitting with (who was convinced that evolution is how we got here, for what that is worth).
Considering you decided that “nothing” was at least as much as you needed to know about me before your moral obligation to “suggest” I was complicit in damnable wrongdoing way back at #674, it kind of has the appearance of hypocrisy that you think you’re in a position to school me on such things.
For another, similar example:
Yes, I know. That’s why I put it there.
.
There’s a “kicked in” missing from the above that should have gone after the word “wrongdoing.”
“Nothing” also being as much as you needed to know before your moral obligation to associate all people who accept evolution with pornography, divorce, STDs, and the disintegration of the community.
Of course.
^^Kicked in.
Sorry.
To ann #1443:
“Incidentally, I picked those examples of hypocrisy because…But I notice you only picked one.
And I’d be interested to hear why…”
Maybe I have only so much time and patience to respond to the profusion of pedantry you put out.
I guess you’ll never know for sure.
But stay interested.
P.S.
I read your #1445 twice. Didn’t understand it either time.
P.P.S.
Re: #1446, #1447. Go get some sleep, ann.
Back on #1368, the main “scholar” brings the profound dialog to an end by saying he’d love to stay, but he’s late for a Black Mass.
It didn’t HAVE to be a Black Mass, of course. It could have been something else.
Sure as hell, he/she/it may have been late for something like this:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/09/priest-and-monks-gay-sex-on-altar-bishops-anger-at-racy-coming-out-video-by-childrens-television-presenter/
“The beast and dragon, adored
You been gone so long
Where you been for so long”
……
Actually, I think they’ve been here all along.
But neat beat and scratchy guitar.
#1368? That would be your fantasy conversation involving imaginary people, correct?
(Can’t wait to see what point he’s trying to prove with this one…)
G: Next!
SN: That’d be me!
G: Name?
SN: See Noevo – get it??
G: Heh. I see what you did there. Well, Mr. Noevo. How’re you doing?
SN: I’m feeling pretty good about my chances, to be honest!
G: Well, let’s talk about that. I’m rather unhappy with your behavior. Your posts on the Internet, to be specific.
SN: Whaaat? I always acted as you commanded. Can we get these gates open already?
G: I don’t think so, Mr. Noevo. You acted very badly towards others.
SN: Not at all! What do you mean? I need concrete examples.
G: Well, frankly, there are too many to list them all, and there’s a line forming up behind you. First, you used foul language. I take a dim view of obscenity.
SN: No no no! I was very careful to use various tricks so I could deny actually cursing. Like, I would write “S h ! t”! And, um, “p i s s i n g.” If the obscenity filters don’t match the word, it’s not obscene! So, strike one, there, Slugger.
G: Mr. Noevo, it’s your intent and the effect that count, not some sort of string comparison function’s output.
SN: Ah, but you can’t know what my “intent” was! I was just scattering letters with spaces between them. Dum da dum.
G: Er…are you aware that I’m not only omniscient, I’m not stupid? I know you were cursing, you know you were cursing, Zorak knows you were cursing. More seriously, you were intentionally cruel to people in an attempt to make them feel pain. I’m not into that.
SN: Impossible! I was always asking myself, “what would Jesus say?”
G: You mocked gay people, See. Can I call you See? Made fun of them. Jesus wouldn’t say those things. He’s into kindness. You, not so much. The opposite, in fact. This concerns me deeply.
SN: But they’re sinners, Mr. God sir, and besides, they’re gay, for goodness sakes. Lighten up! Admit it – my gay jokes made you chuckle! Who cares about their feelings, anyway?
G: I do, See. And you were supposed to, also. But you disappointed me. You also mocked people’s appearances; you know, people you thought were unattractive, or overweight. That sort of thing. Not cool.
SN: Oh, please. I followed the Commandments and all that stuff. Look it up. You’re getting a little too touchy-feely for my liking. Can we cut to the chase?
G: You also tried to hurt people using tactics that you thought would give you deniability so you could rationalize your behavior to me – you know, like when you asked that woman, “Missy ann, are you on medications?”
SN: Uh, well, I was just making conversation, obviously. Chit-chat. Small talk. Expressing an interest! It’s not all about me, you know.
G: No. You were insinuating that she was behaving like someone who was impaired by drugs. And now you’re pulling that deniability act on me.
SN: You can’t prove that! Look at what I wrote – it’s just a question! Not even a statement. Can’t pin anything on my there. Maybe I’m interested in medications! Sometimes, when I get a stuffy nose, I use Afrin. Ever tried it? Great stuff. Some rebound. But, anyway, I just like to get to know the good folks with whom I correspond. The weather, sports, medications, whatever. No no no. “Insinuate?” C’mon! You’re really reaching here, Big G.
G: (Sighs). See, I don’t even need to play the “omniscient” card on this one. It’s so obvious. And here you are, trying to put one over on me. On ME! Wow. This is exactly the deniability game I’m talking about, and it’s worse than I had thought. It doesn’t play with me, Mr. Noevo.
SN: You’re maybe being a little too picky here. I’m a good guy, I’m kind and gentle, open the f u ( k i n g gate! Hey, look, some letters and spaces got sprinkled in there. Don’t look at me!
G: And you tried to hurt that same woman when she said, “It’s open and shut,” and you replied, “If only you were talking about your mouth, I’d be pleased. The shut part, I mean.”
SN: Whoa, there – that was purely hypothetical! I said, “IF only you were!” But she wasn’t!!! So IT DOESN’T COUNT. I have no responsibility, and I’m squeaky-clean. I know you are all-seeing, but you are not paying very close attention. New prescription?
G: See, it’s becoming clear you never really understood what I asked of you. And you were even crueler when you said of Ann, “if SHE’s married…well… I just pity that poor bastard.”
SN: WRONG!! A ha! I’ve got you now. My ticket through the gate is all but punched! You’re misquoting me, Oh Omniscient One with Sloppy Reading Habits! I didn’t write “bastard.” Ouch – that wasn’t even easy for me to type, it’s so abhorrent to my basic, warm, kind, nature. But it was in the service of the TRUTH! I wrote “bas”! B-A-S. You, sir, have a dirty mind!
G: Doesn’t matter, See; you thought “bastard,” and you intended Ann to read “bastard.” That’s the only thing that matters.
SN: “Thought?” What, now you’re the Holy Thought Police?? You don’t know what I thought! I could have been thinking, um, that her husband was an impoverished, er, BASketmaker! They do NOT make a lot of dough, I hear. Basket market is on the rocks. Containers in general. Sell short. That could have been what I was thinking! Very possible. Maybe even likely!
G: Marty, Marty, Marty…
SN: (Startled) Whu…how’d you know my name?
G: Still not hip to the whole “omniscient” thing, eh? Anyway, I know what was in your heart. And I don’t like it one bit.
SN: Nonsense! Do you know how many words start with b-a-s?? I read that a bunch of PhD’s said it was in the MILLIONS!
G: um, got a cite for that?
SN: Wow, do a little homework on your own! I don’t keep that kind of information, well, anywhere at all. Can’t you look it up? No Wifi up here?
G: I’m afraid our time has run out. You’ll be going through the door down the hall, on the extreme left. Dress for summer.
I am really beginning to regret catching up to the end of this thread to only continue to follow SN’s antics. I have to admit to enjoying the discussions about first century religion, though.
I presume that anyone with the slightest understanding of the market and two neurons to rub together has already immediately and precisely understood exactly what this is a recipe for, but I’d love to see just what sort of onanistic fantasy S.N. has of how the “so-called national conversation” might unfold to his liking.
Then again, he hasn’t had the meat curtains to address the handouts from the public purse that his own favored, tenure-based monstrosity enthusiastically gobbles down, so I’m not expecting anything but another entry in the personal blotter of shіt-and-run accidents.
And the great part is that this is formally juridical, so S.N. is in fact playing a role equivalent to your run-of-the-mill district attorney. Well, if they had tenure.
Most glaring, though, is that there’s not the slightest glimmer of interest in whether the prosecutorial duty is being handled competently.
Aw, poor you. Always the victim, it’s never your fault.
@#1455 —
I hope it goes without saying that I was not really commenting on tenure at all. I just meant that bad scholarship and the humanities are not strangers to one another.
@#1453 —
Happily, he’s too emotionally undisciplined to be better at cruelty than he is at anything else. I mean, it’s always distressing to see someone having hysterics, of course. But it’s not hurtful.
“I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass.”
Great line.
Great song.
Get over it.
“I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass.”
Great line.
Jesus wouldn’t think so.
I understand why people feel that way. But I think that if you can’t make your case without using entrapment, you should just stay home.
I mean, as far as I can see, until he came along, his primary targets hadn’t really done anything wrong. For the most part, they were just sitting around making perfectly generally acceptable (and sometimes even good) contributions to their field.
And again, as far as I can see, that’s actually more than you can say of Sokal.
Anyway. Not a fan.
Yeesh.
Not that inner-child-speak isn’t annoying. But the Eagles?
palate cleanser
@#1463 —
I love that song, which is linked in my mind to this one, for no very particular reason.
By which I meant this one:
I’m just gonna leave this here.
They’re both perfect, tight pop songs with perfectly timed solos. Have you seen John Peel’s headstone? http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00655/news-graphics-2008-_655824a.jpg
I love the brothers Davies. The story of of how Dave created the distortion on this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ffgqjcH40 is truly cool (cut into his amp speaker with a blade and then stuck pins in it.)
Heh. I met my first love at an Undertones gig, and was listening to John Peel on the notorious night he played Teenage Kicks on his show twice in a row.
Merely providing the opportunity to do something is most certainly not “entrapment.”
ann has sent me down a Kinks rabbit hole, in which I have listened to Waterloo Sunset on auto-repeat for the past hour.
@ #1469 —
I suppose that’s true. But to the best of my knowledge, prior to Sokal’s little prank, Social Text was not in the business of deconstructing hard science that its editors couldn’t comprehend and had no intention whatsoever of going into it.
I mean, maybe there were some people there who were guilty of gruesome acts of Science-Wars terrorism that I’ve never heard about. But it’s not necessarily unreasonable to say that science is culturally determined. Sometimes it is.
And based on my impression of the work of the only two who I’d had some casual exposure to (Stanley Aronowitz; Andrew Ross), there was nothing particularly objectionable or notably foolish about it unless you just hate the left. They’re not even excessively pomo. I probably wouldn’t have gotten as far as casual exposure if they had been. I think that stuff is ridiculous.
Anyway. I’m not saying that they weren’t ordinarily foolish, or that their work was error-free. But as far as I can recall, they weren’t doing anything that called for hoaxing rather than regular old bare-knuckled academic feuding. And Sokal himself was not exactly standing on a record of such distinguished professional achievement in his own field that there was simply nothing further for him to do but go out and bring those toiling others up to speed.
I thought he was a troll, basically.
@#1470 —
Well, I owe you for the palate cleanser. I mean, if it wasn’t for “The Boys of Summer,” I could honestly say that the mere sound of Don Henley’s voice on the radio is practically enough to make me fling myself from a moving car into oncoming traffic.
There really is no arguing about taste, though. And at least it wasn’t Glenn Frey.
^^Almost but not quite on topic.
Stupid esprit de l’escalier
^^More on topic.
Obligatory:
The Eagles had one good album.
They’re fine, really.
But OccamsLaser wins the internet.
Doesn’t even matter if your Mr. Fantasy is a she (e.g. Mother Natural Selection)
or an it (e.g. Evolution-of-the-Gaps) …
…. or Something else.
That old dinosaur Stevie can still play:
Synchronistically, as I recall, the eponymous Doobie Brothers album had at least one standout in “Slippery St. Paul.”
I still have it on vinyl here somewhere, but it looks like the vertical bearings on the tone arm are gummed, and the races are sealed from what I’ve read.
Jesus, failure to figure that one out after 1000 comments is idiocy for the ages.
Jesus would weep if He could see what SeeNoevo has been up to on Disqus:
Discussion on Breitbart News Network 252 comments
Feminist Ariana Grande Says Media Treats Women Like Accessories to Men
See Noevo
See Noevo 3 days ago
Women an accessory to men? I don’t know about that.
I kind of like the reverse idea: Men as an accessory to women.
What I REALLY mean is…
Arianna could wear ME anytime.
Looks as though this thread has run out of gas.
(I do encourage you, however, to tell others about it. Show it to everyone you can think of, from dyed-in-the-wool Darwinists to crazy Catholic creationists and everyone in between.)
As Barack Hussein Obama has said on a related junk science topic, ‘This debate is over.’
…..
P.S.
I probably shan’t return here. I’m getting going over at
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/06/10/the-cambrian-explosion/#comment-63431
Perhaps he’ll actually leave this time….
Perhaps …. all of his arguments have been shot down here.
I wonder how long he’ll last at the other blog?
As Phil B observed of SN over at evolutionblog:
Oh, dear, and I was just going to ask the Big Big Bang Bumbler whether he thought these guys had been successful or not.
Or whether the ability to make such calculations at all kind of puts the Good Ship Unpossible on a course to deliver its crewmember to Davy Jones’ Locker.
True, but now that we have his prevaricating style down, it’s easy to recognize that he has lost whenever he tries to change the subject. He also craves attention in the most obvious and crass manner.
Now, seeing as he enjoys wasting bandwidth, watch this:
Hey See Noeveo, I’m an atheist (it took 13 years of Catholic schooling before I gave up pretending to believe in God) and was wondering if you could, without using the Bible, Catechism of the Catholic Church, or Canon Law and Dogma, answer this:
If God is omnipotent, can He create a boulder so large that He cannot lift it?
Bill Price earlier mentioned lying for Jesus being quite alright and it is, as long as it is in service to the faith. This “idea” has a long TRADITION! and not only amongst the Cult of the Magic Underpants. Here’s John Chrysostom, 5th C. Bishop of Constantinople:
Iggy Loyola, founder of the
VatiCorp HitmenJesuits on the corporate policy of Mind Phuqqery:Lest anyone think the Reformation put an end to the professional authoritative bullpoopery, here’s that
hateful, anti-Semitic scumbagepitome of humanity, Marty Luther, revealing that his malevolent imaginary friend:welcomes it:Additionally, here’s what Marty had to say aboot the women in his flock:
and
These last two quotes from sweet, sweet Marty (of many, many more) are right in line with the earlier mention of women as property and, indeed, reduces women to sperm receptacles that are somehow less than worthy of being considered human. An opinion which, for all intents and purposes, still holds.
More recently, we have the Raping Children Church spreading the lie in Africa that condoms do not help prevent HIV/Aids but actually spread it:
Following the link, there are similar lies uttered by lower, middle and upper management of The Original Salvation Inc. (accept no substitutes) worldwide – Australia, England, Colombia and Spain. A real doozy comes to us from Mozambique via the Archbishop Francisco Chimoio, who claims condom companies deliberately infect them with HIV to spread Aids. Sounds like spreading FUD to make your product a palatable, or even preferred alternative, no?
Dr. Goldacre informs us of the reality of 80% effectiveness for condoms and concludes:
So we see with just these few examples among some very large number of them, SeeNoevo is merely following a looong standing TRADITION! of religious authoritah! He(?) is also a wee late to the party in giving christianity a bad name.
Just to clarify some earlier implications, yes The Raping Children Church is OK with evolution. Their bastardised version, where at some point in what is obviously a completely natural process, the supernatural Malevolent One penetrated human genealogy and ejaculated a soul.
When this happened is hard to say, considering all our earliest examples of art contain not one image of Jeffery Hunter, er, Yahweh or his zombie offspring self. Wildlife, their own hands or themselves and spacemen, sure, but nothing remotely resembling the portraits that regularly appear on burnt toast these days.
Appy-polly loggies for the long comment, but we all know how difficult it is to respond to a Gish Gallop – especially one that has been running for aboot 2000 years.
The breadth and promptness of S.N.’s collapse over at Jason’s crib are tantamount to the triumph of Aesthetic Design, BTW.
“Dr. Goldacre informs us of the reality of 80% effectiveness for condoms and concludes”
Antibiotic resistance is the next biggest global threat to humanity – the obsfucaction by proper doctors over the real causes of ‘infections’ is putting the world’s population at risk in the same way that the catholic church is over contraception.
Infection is not ’caused’ by deficiency in antibiotics and he sooner proper doctors start being taught the real cause of diseases the more useful they will be.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/amr-report/en/
If the WHO sees proper doctor’s use of antibiotics as a bigger threat than even ISIS, maybe that is why there is so much vitriol on this site.
Are you sure you are not a Catholic NObRed?
Doctors need to stop looking at microbes as if they just ‘appear’ they don’t, they evolve dependent on their environment. Bishop Pasteur was the first pharma shill and what a balls up he started.
@ Johnny
I suppose you didn’t read the article you linked to. The only thing you cited correct was the threat of antibiotic resistance. Everything else you say is wrong and can’t be read in the article.
johnny
Way ahead of you dude, doctors stopped doing that since Pasteur came around.
Re: al kimeea #1487 and many, many others:
Although the subject article was about doctors denying of evolution, this thread eventually focused quite a bit on the Catholic Church.
I didn’t bring up the RCC, others did (#29, #322). And then the hounds were released.
I’ve found that virtually any prolonged discussion about evolution eventually mutates into tirades about Catholicism.
Not surprising, really. The Devil’s most hated target among men is the Catholic Church. Probably the same could be said for atheists and other evolutionists.
Along those lines, perhaps I should modify the hypothetical hyperventilations in #1368 above.
The leader says “Let’s face facts, the REAL problem here is BELIEF in GOD.”
Perhaps he should say instead “Let’s face facts, the REAL problem here is THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
Say what you will (and you will) about the Catholic Church. No other organization (i.e. A distinct body of people under centralized hierarchical authority with established practices, doctrines, rules.) in recorded history can come anywhere close to it in longevity.
And I will guarantee you this much, or, at least I would bet the house, hell, I’d bet my very life, that
when this world comes to an end, at least one church will be still standing, and that Church will be the Catholic Church.
Sure as hell.
AND…. he just can’t stick the flounce!
They’re not very interesting stakes, now are they?
Once again, see comment 1269.
Oh, right…
Wholesale lack of self-awareness duly noted.
I’ve been drifting in and out for the last thousand comments or so, but I find myself morbidly fascinated with See’s last couple. I’ve never encountered someone who so overtly worships the Church itself – it seems strange, but when you think about it its also an obvious trap for a religious person to fall into. I’m sure See isn’t the first, which makes me curious: does anyone know of a specific term for, or teachings about, idolatry of the Church itself? My somewhat cursory Google search comes up empty.
How can we miss you, if you won’t go away?
He’s lashing out after the failure of the flounce to bring him the engagement that he so desperately craves.
The speed with which his performance at Jason’s degenerated into desperately contrived obnoxiousness is truly embarrassing.
Same desperate tactics as the others; deliberately set out to be banned or put into moderation so you can tell yourself how dangerous you are.
To Sarah A #1496:
“I’ve been drifting in and out for the last thousand comments or so, but I find myself morbidly fascinated with See’s last couple. I’ve never encountered someone who so overtly worships the Church itself … I’m sure See isn’t the first… does anyone know of a specific term for, or teachings about, idolatry of the Church itself? My somewhat cursory Google search comes up empty.”
Your Google search comes up empty because there is no such thing as worshiping or idolizing the Church.
You either have a very poor vocabulary or a very poor understanding of what I’ve said here, or both.
If you’re going to drift in here and read, it won’t do you any good if you don’t have simple comprehension skills.
Perhaps you should drift back out of here and go read a dictionary. And the Catechism.
S.N.’s collapse at EvolutionBlog is so hysterically funny that I can scarcely restrain myself from annoying the regulars. He’s just trotted out this, but worded it even more ignorantly.
*SPLORF*
You come running back here dіck in hand and start giving orders?
Oh, G-d, I’m laughing so hard I could cry.
Perhaps you should drift back out of here and go read a dictionary.
Would that be some sort of reference book that would contain a definition of “phosphatized”?
Sarah–
I dug out my rusty Greek: the word you’re looking for is ecclesiolatry.
Once again, SN has shown that his (or anyone’s) individual ignorance of a word or concept doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
To Vicki #1504:
You’ll note that Ms. Sarah A said I “overtly worship” the Church itself.
As you probably know, the Catholic Church, in accordance with its Founder, says that God ALONE is to be worshipped. To worship ANYTHING besides God is gravely sinful.
As you also know, or should know, I fully agree with Christ and His Church.
And on a more personal note, I have never met nor heard of anyone who worships a church.
Merriam-Webster defines ecclesiolatry as “excessive devotion to the church.”
Thefreedictionary defines it as “obsessional devotion to ecclesiastical traditions; an intense devotion to church forms, authority, and traditions.”
I AM devoted to the Church, of course. However, devotion is not worship.
But you and your sisters-in-spirit (Sarah A and pedantic ann) can have fun calibrating “excessive” and “obsessional”. Why, you might even try to paste them on me.
Have fun.
“I’ve found that virtually any prolonged discussion about germ theory eventually mutates into tirades about Catholicism or antibiotism.” NobRed
Funny that – germ theory follows spontaneous generation – bit like god making the world – just like that. The idea that germs evolve of us and within us dependent on the environment is an alien concept to the medic.
The medical idea that most disease is bad luck or chance is really about the woo of germ theory – we don’t know so we won’t discuss it.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/
What is interesting here is that the biggest problem is the one where doctors have prescribed antibiotics for common so called infections – not even life threatening.
You will see here that the resistance is not limited to bacteria, it includes viruses, fungus etc. All things doctors try and interfere with when they are not life threatening, just producing annoying symptoms.
if we ignore the idiot Pasteur and his germ killing ethos and take the Bechamp route we can see a clear explanation for the ‘evolution’ of microbes and fungus. If you fiddle with the symptoms alone and do nothing about the environment you are setting up a nasty nemisis.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/boy-12-wins-120000-in-damages-after-swineflu-jab-left-him-severely-disabled-by-narcolepsy-10312491.html
latest on narcolepsy for all you swine flu jab poison deniers.
Fiddling with flu with virtually no benefit at all – produces this kind of event. Good thing is now people are getting fined for doing it. I like the idea of ‘doctors on trial’.
“The idea that germs evolve of us and within us dependent on the environment is an alien concept to the medic.”
But apparently not alien to you. So could you explain, from your superior knowledge, how the germs that evolve within me can be affected by antibiotics that someone else, nowhere near me, took?
@ Vicki – Thanks, that’s exactly what I was looking for. As you can imagine, googling phrases like “Church worship” or “idolatry of the Church” wasn’t very helpful. As a bonus, we now have an explanation for See’s repeated word fails – he’s been using the dictionary backwards. He doesn’t seem to realize a dictionary is for looking up words and finding the definition, not the other way around.
FTFY, Phildo.*
Far be it from me not to assist someone who’s still too stupid or hung over** to figure out who he’s attempting to “cleverly” misquote while impersonating another commenter.
* Philip Hills, Hope Osteopathic Clinic Essex, Rotary Club Thurrock Gateway, Brentwood Catenians.
** Or maybe you went for some Sunday eye-openers, whatever.
In #1492 I noted “Say what you will (and you will) about the Catholic Church. No other organization (i.e. A distinct body of people under centralized hierarchical authority with established practices, doctrines, rules.) in recorded history can come anywhere close to it in longevity.”
Yesterday, I saw similar but zingier words from Hilaire Belloc:
“The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine– but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
I found the quote in the article below. It’s by a recent convert to Catholicism on why he will NOT leave the Church. It’s quite good.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/acatholicthinker/2015/05/why-i-am-not-leaving-the-catholic-church/
The Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka has centuries on the RCC, FYI.
In any case, it’s a stupid argument that a church must be the true one because of its age, as is the argument that the Bible must be true because it’s the oldest Holy Book.
Actually, it reminds me of a discussion I had on the matter with a fundie of a certain stripe.
“The Bible must be true, because it’s the oldest Holy Book!”
“What? The Rig Vedas are a good deal older.”
“But the Rig Vedas don’t make any sense!”
*blink*
In any case, you’re welcome to visit a barber-surgeon the next time you have a health problem of any sort.
Anyone lurking aboot who’d like an unsanitized look at the origins and effects of christianity throughout history would be well served in visiting Rejection of Pascal’s Wager.
Grounded in reality, not Salvation Inc marketing bumf, and founded by an ex-christian able to wipe the scales from his eyes. He found cracks in the dogma he was being spoon fed by religious authoriTAH! and started digging and digging and digging. And digging some more, then a nice, light lunch. Then back to digging.
The result is a very comprehensive and well referenced resource, The provided link jumps right into the history section, but do look around you’ll not be disappointed. Surprised, maybe. Some samples:
Yes, he uses an out of favour term for the era following the fall of Rome but it changes nothing.
I couldn’t agree more.
On book burning:
Today, the Raping Children Church has this to say regarding their Index Librorum Prohibitorum:
IOW, let us tell you what and how to think.
Anti-vaccinationism is often addressed by our inspiring, blinky perspex box. This irrational notion is based on the erroneous idea that more medicinal harm is done by this effective, prickly intervention than good – today. When vaccination was re-discovered not so long ago, it was opposed by, of course, religious authoriTAH!
On what grounds? The tired old cliches of man subverting doG’s will. That’s right, illness as retribution by the loving imaginary friend for some imaginary slight. Or, could it be… Satan?:
There’s lots more if you follow the initial link provided.
@ al kimeea
Wow, that’s a blast from the past – Rejection of Pascal’s Wager was one of the first websites that started me seriously questioning Christianity and the existence of God in general. In fact, one of the reasons I was interested in See Noevo’s obvious (to everyone but him, apparently) worship of the RCC was that protestant fundamentalists (the tradition in which I was raised) have their own version – bibliolatry, or worship of the Bible (or, more accurately, a particular interpretation of the Bible.)
^Oops – accidentally hit submit. I was going to say that it was websites like Rejection of Pascal’s Wager that helped me recover from bibliolatry and realize that both the Bible and the church were created by fallible human beings.
The worship of “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Bible,” as a friend of mine once characterized it.
Watching See and al kimeea go at each other is going to be a treat.
@JP
Hah – don’t say that in front of a Oneness Pentecostal. Don’t you know the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a blasphemous corruption introduced into the original, pure Christian church by those pagan polytheists masquerading as Christians – Roman Catholics? The fact that it’s considered a central doctrine by almost every other Christian denomination – Catholic and Protestant alike – is irrelevant: the word “trinity” isn’t in the Bible, so that settles it!
He wasn’t more or less despotic and repressive than Domitian or Caligula, neither of whom was Christian. Julius Caesar was posthumously deified. And Augustus established himself as an imperial rather than republican ruler by, among other things, investing the office with quasi-divine religious authority.
So I think it’s a little ahistorical to suggest that it all originated with Christianity and the bible.
To multiple addressees…
To JP #1511:
“The Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka has centuries on the RCC, FYI.”
The “centralized hierarchical authority” I referred to is like a pyramid. Every pyramid has a point at the top. And every organization with centralized hierarchical authority has a “point man” AT THE TOP (e.g. a corporations has a CEO, a school has a principal or superintendent, a sports league has a commissioner.)
Where’s the list of top dogs, of “popes”, for the Sangha of Buddhism for the last 2,000+ years?
If there be none, than Buddhist Sangha is NOT an “organization” as I defined “organization”, and as virtually everyone understands “organization.”
……
To Sarah A #1513:
At least you made one valid point: “bibliolatry, or worship of the Bible (or, more accurately, a particular interpretation of the Bible.)”
Yes.
No one, not even the Pope, believes in the Bible.
What people believe is what THEY THINK the Bible MEANS.
That’s why there are over 30,000 different Jesus Christs in non-Catholic “Christianity.”
Yes, there’s nothing that says divine creation like the ability of a corrupt bureaucracy to perpetuate itself. Perhaps you should have saved it for some time when you have the opportunity to “argue” with some Lamaists, though, since the parallel is much closer.
The comedy just keeps coming. U.S. Congress? Not an organization.
Time for an Intermission.
I’m watching some of the PGA Tour’s St. Jude Classic.
It’s in Memphis, which made me think of that rollicking plaintive tune from that band…what’s its name again?
Anyway, it features one of the finer examples of Robbie’s rolling, stinging guitar style:
SN,
The whole point of my comment was that the “argument from antiquity” is stupid. The fact that the RCC and the Bible don’t even win it was secondary.
Anyway:
Defining words for us now, sweetums? Maybe you should consult a DICTIONARY, “boy.” Here’s how the OED defines “organization”:
An organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.
Nothing in there about hierarchical structure. Are the Catholic Workers an organization?
Re: Sri Lankan Buddhism: It’s the longest unbroken Buddhist lineage out there, which refers to the practice of bhikkus ordaining bikkhus. (And bikkhunis ordaining bikkunis, but there’s a bit of a story there.) Think of it as “apostolic succession,” if you want. In any case, the Buddhist Sangha has been extant in Sri Lanka since the 3rd century BCE.
Oh, so the Church is a pyramid scheme?
O RLY? What about THIS ONE?
Actually, there have been saṅgharājas instituted in various Theravadan lineages within certain countries, but frankly, I don’t see the point.
The Council of Trent has exactly nothing on the Third Buddhist Council temporally speaking, BTW. But one wouldn’t wan’t to overtax poor S.N.’s brain – it is already watching golf on television, after all.
Hi Sara A, glad to meet you and happy to see you’ve made it out of the belly of the beast. I hope you didn’t pay too dear a personal cost as many, many apostates are shunned by their families and friends for their realization the BuyBull depicts nothing more than another ancient mythology.
Funny coinky-dink with the website, but for me it’s a blast from only the last 48hrs give or take. I started digging because elements of what Phyllis Graham referred to were popping up here and there in the thread.
Christianity has been marketing their wares for quite some time, so some of their
useful liesapologetics are bound to be taken up by the cosmic consciousness.JP – LOL I was thinking of the layered mustabas designed by Imhotep for Djoser. Spooky action at a distance?
Time to make some noise.
Re: #1523.
Pop quiz:
No Googling allowed for this first question: What is the name of the head of Buddhism today?
Googling allowed for this second question: What was the name of the head of Buddhism in 100 A.D.?
…..
For extra credit:
In considering “An organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association, etc.”,
– What business does not have a top dog (e.g. a sole owner or a CEO)?
– What society does not have a top dog (e.g. a king or a president)?
– What association does not have a top dog (e.g. a director or a secretary-general)?
There isn’t one, dipsh*t. There’s also no such thing as “Buddhism” in the way you seem to be imagining it.
There wasn’t one. I see that as a positive thing, myself.
Try the Catholic f*cking Workers.
FTFY. Time to stop playing fantasy golf with your putter and get to work.
What association does not have a top dog (e.g. a director or a secretary-general)?
Strange that S.N. has already felt the need to change nomenclature, BTW. Massively ironic is that he’s “communicating” with one.
^ I’m bummed out about that blockquote fail, even if S.N. is all but certain to choose
$COWERover$FAIL_MOAR.Its droolingly incompetent attempt at EB to invoke computability theory, sadly, is also likely never to be fruitful and multiply in the way that it so richly deserves:
(More to the point, why does it take effort to come up with such a mechanical system that isn’t Turing-equivalent?)
^^ Oh, wait, is that “gay ‘science’“? Brave Sir Noevo never did get back to that one.
^^^ Also, while I’m in the mood, it’s hard to figure out how 64 can be orders of magnitude more than anything.
Ha! This is perhaps literal plagiarism from a little creationist comic-book tract that was once handed to me on the diag. Sadly, I can’t locate it online.
To JP #1527:
[[No Googling allowed for this first question: What is the name of the head of Buddhism today?
There isn’t one, dipsh*t. There’s also no such thing as “Buddhism” in the way you seem to be imagining it.
Googling allowed for this second question: What was the name of the head of Buddhism in 100 A.D.?
There wasn’t one. I see that as a positive thing, myself.]]
…..
Wha, I thinks wha we have right heah, is a fail-yah to communicate.
It be soundin’ like you be sayin’ this Buddhism or Buddherism AIN’T no organization.
So, how could an organization that don’t exist be olda than that there Catlick Church organization?
Son, one might say you been pullin’ our leg! To be puttin’ it gently.
Um, only if one accepts your, uh, idiosyncratic definition of “organization,” SN.
This really is surreal.
BTW, I see you’ve gone all minstrel show again. Is this something that happens when you’ve realized you’re in a corner?
Given what the 64 codons actually code for, a divinely reasoned argument against RISC designs is certainly warranted.
But hey, at least Sylvester II revived the notion of an abacus.
Oh: given that I just said that a monolithic “Buddhism” doesn’t exist, yeah. The Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka, specifically, certainly exists, though.
Re: #1537:
Pop quiz #2 (Don’t fret kids, summer vacation is almost here!):
No Googling allowed for this first question:
What is the name of the head of the Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka today?
Googling allowed for this second question:
What was the name of the head of the Buddhist Sangha in Sri Lanka in 100 A.D.?
……
For extra credit:
Is the “Catholic f*cking Workers” (a.k.a. Catholic Worker Movement?) organization older or younger than the Catholic Church?
For extra extra credit:
What is the longest-running organization ever, where organization has the commonly understood meaning of a distinct body of people under centralized hierarchical authority with a head kahuna and established practices, doctrines, rules?
Who the f@ck cares, since all is shows is abject stagnation & shows how its followers are just a bunch of trolls who need to be told what to think by a book that was put together out of political expediency at the Council of Nicea & originally concocted by a bunch of plagiarizing nomads from 5000 years ago….s
The point wasn’t how old they are or are not; it’s that yes, Virginia, there are organizations without heads, in contradiction to your, uh, “definition” of “organization:”
“Commonly understood” apparently means “as understood by SN,” but the fact remains that you have pulled this definition out of your a$$.
In any case, back to the actual point, the mere fact that something is old, or has been around for a long time, doesn’t mean it’s good, or true, or of any value whatsoever.
See the Kalama Sutta.
As has already been pointed out, you never left the starting gate, Sticky Thighs.
See Noevo, for someone who calls himself a Christian, you seem strangely obseesed with worldly power and authority.
^ Hey, what happened to “association,” Wonder Bread?
Who’s the Pope of the Internet? Who’s the Pope of Congress? Who’s the Pope of the Supreme Court?
Shall I call in Ivan Brunetti?
I may disappoint you shay @1516. To paraphrase Paine, arguing with someone so far down the rabbit hole is akin to administering medicine to the deceased.
Although it is quite the surprise to see a Catholic Creationist I must say (imagine Ed Grimley speaking). Even more so to learn Antonin Scalia, a demon fearing catholic appears to be cut from the same cloth. It’s time for the quadrennial playoff twixt the red and blue clowns in the US, so maybe he’s just trying to score points for his team amongst the hoi polloi. Go Reds!
Mencken would consider SeeNoevo a “Tennessee Holy Roller” and was prescient in at least one sense:
ann @1518, I’m not sure what the thing is you mention in your last sentence. The snippet you quote, in context, refers to knowledge/education and the Caesars you invoke, indeed Roman society, were big on that. Even the mob were taught to read and write, while the upper classes got a more thorough education including the musings of Greek scholars. Girls were educated differently than boys, more along the lines of running a tight ship @ home. Sexist, sure, but sensible given that many husbands were off keeping the barbarians at bay.
One of the Greeks they may have learned aboot was Epicurus who raised a conundrum for the faithful of his age:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
^^ Who’s the Pope of Market Basket?
You seem to like them thar bidness analogies, chicken hawk.
For some reason, this has got me in a right giggling fit, and is going to have to become a catchphrase or a slogan or something, in one way or another.
It gets better for “our” onanistically braying theocorporatist ass:
Who’s the Pope of Darden Restaurants?
ZOOP! goes the Holy Theocorporatist Ghost and the College of Cardinals.
Tell everyone about your clubs, Foghorn.
^ And your handicap, baby, tell everyone about your handicap.
Hey, I have an even better idea, Torquemadito! Remember this and this?
“Before we go any further,” are you circumcised?
Yikes! LOL but yikes.
Pope of the Internet? Mickey Rourke? No, wait that’s Greenwich Village. The NSA? That’s more like it. Insinuating themselves into peoples’ lives like the nipple headed old professional virgins in funny dresses because they can.
Greco-Roman literacy rates are estimated to have been in the 5 to 20 percent range. Most people were illiterate, and those who could read and/or write were, for the most part, not well-educated in the contemporary sense of the word, because it’s ahistorical nonsense to claim that Greco-Roman civilization was pro-rational or pro-education in some way that Christendom wasn’t. The state didn’t invest in education, or promote it, or mandate it, or otherwise revere it. It was primarily a privilege of the elite classes in both cases. And in both cases, there was some possibility of upward social mobility via education and traning in the service of the elites for some.
The primary difference is that since education was under the auspices of the Church during the Christian middle ages, and the Church — as noted elsewhere on the thread — is a centrally administered, well-organized institutional hierarchy of exceptional longevity, stability and reach, the concept of formal education as we know it today came into being.
As did, eg, universities.
Which is not to say that the vast majority of medieval Christians could even understand a word of Latin, let alone read or write it, and that they weren’t therefore sitting through mass listening to nonsense syllables for all they knew. They were. But that’s not because the Bible and Christianity came along and wrecked up the mythically rational and pro-education paradise that flourished during classical antiquity. There was none.
And ftm, if the Bible is so packed with anti-education Kryptonite, why were Jewish males almost guaranteed to be at least literate and quite possibly well-educated over a very long stretch of time during which quite a few pagan kings and rulers came and went who couldn’t necessarily do more than sign their own names? If that much?
A lot of it pre-dates the Christian era, after all. (The Bible, I mean.)
Who you lookin’ at?
Buckaroo Bonzai was perhaps my favorite movie back in middle school, as it turns out. I mean like up there with The Fly (the one with Jeff Goldblum, obviously.)
Bringing to conclusion a matter which never should have advanced beyond #1492, and which was so obvious and generally accepted it SHOULD have gone without saying (but apparently it needed to be said and defended)…
See Noevo: ‘Say what you will about the Catholic Church. But no other organization (i.e. A distinct body of people under centralized hierarchical authority with a head kahuna and with established practices, doctrines, rules.) in recorded history can come anywhere close to it in longevity.’
Ann: “…the Church — as noted elsewhere on the thread — is a centrally administered, well-organized institutional hierarchy of exceptional longevity, stability and reach…”
Hilaire Belloc: “The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine– but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.”
Thank you, ann and Hilaire.
S.N.’s appeal to imaginary Canadian ball-gag fantasies writes itself.
^ “The response to”/”its own response,” etc.
It’ll never notice one way or another. By design.
Since many of the posts here deal with religion and creation, I figured I’d provide this epic “Our Father”, so to speak.
Actually, it’s Bob Dylan providing, via Manfred Mann’s Earth Band (one of the first bands I ever saw live).
“Father of night, Father of day,
Father who take the darkness away,
Father who teaches the birds to fly,
Builder the rainbows up in the sky,
Father of day, Father of night,
Father of black, Father of white,
Father who built the mountain so high,
Shapeth the clouds up in the sky,
Father of loneliness and pain,
Father of night, Father of day,
Father of grain, Father of wheat,
Father of cold, Father of heat,
Father of air, Father of trees,
Dwells in our hearts and our memories,
Father of night, Father of day,
Father who take the darkness away,
Father who teacheth the birds to fly,
Builder of rainbows up in the sky,
Father of loneliness and pain,
Father of night, Father of day,
(Guitar!!!)
Father of night and Father of day,
Father who take the darkness away,
(music)
Father of black and Father of white,
Father who turneth the rivers and streams,
Father of night, Father of day,
Father who take the darkness away,
Father who teacheth the birds to fly,
Builder of rainbows up in the sky,
Father of grain, Father of wheat,
Father of cold, Father of heat,
Father of minutes, Father of days,
Father of whom we most solemnly praise.
Father of loneliness and pain….
Father of night, Father of day….”
Oh, dear, the cowering sebastocrator doesn’t understand “via” any better than it does “cf.”
You noever know whether the Precious Gig might have enough friction for hemorrhoids but not enough to briefly seek relief during the lunch breaks that noebody asks you to come along to.
^ Two links. Could random chance have caused Magic Fingers?
I agree with JP @#1511 and ff.
“But apparently not alien to you. So could you explain, from your superior knowledge, how the germs that evolve within me can be affected by antibiotics that someone else, nowhere near me, took?” LW
You have to think outside the box. An antibiotic moderates the terrain, temporarily, because our system excretes them. If they were a requirement for health we would welcome them.
Bit like spraying disinfectant on shxt. After a while the smell breaks through, unless you clear up the shxt.
All humans produce the same kind of shxt, it breeds the same kind of bugs. Put a tourniquet around your neck in the UK and get someone else to do it in the USA. Both develop ganrene within about 7 hours – no one caught it.
If we keep moderating the terrain by taking antibiotics, and not keeping our body clean – we get nasty bugs. That is what MRSA is. Medicine likes to tell us that all these infections are bad luck, genes or lack of vaccines.
That’s a spin to get us all to believe in their snake oil.
What is happening now is that so many people have taken antibiotics for irritating non life threatening conditions, we are all more at risk from being colonized by germs beyond our normal physiological ability to cope with.
In a sense what doctors have done is create an inverse herd immunity/susceptibility. Only those who have largely ignored the calling to be medicated at every turn have a chance to survive what is coming.
Rather biblical in a funny sort of way, and to think oracus and co are the authors of this Jones town event looming.
Well done!
Any evidence for your claims, other Johnny?
And here is johnny confusing again Clostridium infection (gas or wet gangrene) and tissue necrosis (dry gangrene).
According to the Imperial House of Japan, it beats the papacy by either 700-1000 years, or thereabouts, depending on when you think papacy begun.
RE: 1558
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEU-rkbodsc
“All Things Dull And Ugly”
Monty Python’s Contractual Obligation Album
and
Monty Python Sings
All things dull and ugly
All creatures short and squat
All things rude and nasty
The Lord God made the lot
Each little snake that poisons
Each little wasp that stings
He made their brutish venom
He made their horrid wings
All things sick and cancerous
All evil great and small
All things foul and dangerous
The Lord God made them all
Each nasty little hornet
Each beastly little squid
Who made the spiky urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all, Amen
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
I’ve a response for See Nothing in moderation because I messed up my e-mail addy – Sorry Orac.
@#1566 —
Indeed. If institutional longevity (as defined) is proof of systemic superiority, the Declaration of Independence was a big mistake. As long as there is one, the British Monarchy will always be superior to anything we can cook up.
ann @1569
…. then this discussion thread is clearly superior to almost any others.
“Any evidence for your claims, other Johnny?” Greyfookwit
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/amr-report/en/
30 April 2014 | Geneva – A new report by WHO–its first to look at antimicrobial resistance, including antibiotic resistance, globally–reveals that this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance–when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections–is now a major threat to public health.
Also common sense, but I predict you have had that taught out of you, don’t think too hard birdy.
“Any evidence for your claims, other Johnny?” Greyfookwit
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/amr-report/en/
30 April 2014 | Geneva – A new report by WHO–its first to look at antimicrobial resistance, including antibiotic resistance, globally–reveals that this serious threat is no longer a prediction for the future, it is happening right now in every region of the world and has the potential to affect anyone, of any age, in any country. Antibiotic resistance–when bacteria change so antibiotics no longer work in people who need them to treat infections–is now a major threat to public health.
Also common sense, but I predict you have had that taught out of you, don’t think too hard birdy.
All things medical and doctery
All chronic diseases, the lord doc made them all
Each tinky little cough and cold he pushed them deeper in
that vain attempt to clean and build was treated as a sin
that little ache was twarted thus, eventually to become pus
We need more funds to spread the word appeals the doc
without our snakeoils talisman your bodies will live, not
nature has no clue about how to keep us well and
without our drugs and poisons life becomes a living hell
Pay your pension, donate to cause, and when you finally retire we’ll take the lot……………………………………..
The whole Catholic church thing is no different to the lord Oruc and his minions NobRed, Grey birdwit, saint Lilady, Helicus..
Dead writings, misogamy, teachings that make little or no sense, cult like vaccine adherence…………..
So Bishop NobRed aka Narad the bad, how’s your day been on jobsearch?
Other johnny, I said any evidence for your claims. That article did not support your claims it all. It did mention antibiotic resistance, but it did not suggest that germs were not the cause of disease, not did it suggest anything you suggested would help in the matter at all.
Also, it was once “common sense” that black magic caused disease. Think about it.
Oh Grey birdy, you must be one of those followers of the ‘catch a flu belief’. It’s a common fallacy that you can catch flu. Even lab experiments at the common cold unit showed only 3% ‘caught flu’ when virus aerosols were sprayed up their noses! That’s worse than a placebo.
As I said earlier, antibiotics temporarily modify the environment but they don’t fix why the environment changed to be more conducive to unpleasant colonies.
I can just imagine you with water pouring through the roof of your house, spraying fungicide on that ‘annoying’ fungal infection in the parlor.
What is it exactly that you don’t understand? We all know common sense isn’t part of EBM.
Johnny, not everyone who drives drunk gets into an accident. Does that mean drunk driving is perfectly alright?
Also, if germs are not the cause of disease, antibiotics wouldn’t work, and antibiotic resistance would not happen. Given that the article you linked to shows that isn’t the case, it’s clear you’re wrong.
To ann #1569:
“@#1566 — Indeed. If institutional longevity (as defined) is proof of systemic superiority…”
I agree that longevity is not proof of superiority**.
But neither is novelty.
Nevertheless, longevity is worthy of some respect.
And related to longevity, BREADTH and INFLUENCE is worthy of some respect. One might call it “reach.”
[“the Church — as noted elsewhere on the thread — is a centrally administered, well-organized institutional hierarchy of exceptional longevity, stability and REACH…”]
Regardless of definitional debates about “organization”, I think there is probably no debate about whose REACH is greater – the Catholic Church or the Imperial House of Japan.
I don’t know much of anything about the IHJ and certainly don’t know (sans Googling) the name of its current head. And virtually every person in virtually every country outside of Japan would be likewise clueless.
In contrast, the CC is indeed catholic, and so it reaches, and reaches out to, every people on earth. And many people, Catholic or otherwise, in virtually every country on earth know a good bit about the CC, and could name its current head.
** I DO hope you understood that Belloc’s words, while insightful, were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. After all, he knew, and EVERYONE here knows, that unbelievers will accept NOTHING as “proof of its divinity.”
So, you approvingly quote someone who said he was “bound to hold [the Catholic church] divine,” but you not only deny that you are an ecclesiolator, you deny the very existence of that heresy?
Why do I even bother?
Yes, many people do know the almost worldwide touch of the church’s evil.
SN is pretty funny, in a limited sort of way: after many and varied utter fails in biology, physics, etc., he tried sticking to what he thinks should be safer turf, i.e. religion, only to be humiliated there as well.
His overt displays of racism and misogyny are florid even if they aren’t shocking (coming from him.)
This isn’t exactly lepidoptery, but he is something of a specimen, though not a particularly stunning one.
I hereby declare McDonald’s to be the One True Church, the Golden Arches its cross, and Ronald McDonald the Savior of us all.
French fries, anybody?
See, it’s funny how a supposed all loving, all powerful supreme being – capable of anything, knowing everything and not just at the moment but for all eternity – all of a sudden develops all too mortal and human traits like being too busy to end slavery or end the abuse of women as nothing more than fleshy incubators because of dealing with too many things on the table.
Ya know even if your deity were to cause every priest who phuqqed a child over the last 1800 years, or is similarly murdering the psyche of one ATM, and all those who aided & abetted them to appear in St. Pete’s Square and spontaneously ignite, I’d accept IT as divine.
I still wouldn’t worship it because that ‘miracle’ would unequivocally demonstrate your imaginary beast could have intervened and chose not to. Why? Too busy advancing the careers of Tim Tebow or Denzel Washington or fixing March Madness perhaps. No, I bet it’s the ulimate non-answer that is always, always trotted out when faith gets backed into a córner – mysterious ways.
As per Epicurus above, my quatloos are on malevolent.
Ya know why I help people? Not because of some reward or punishment divvied out by The Great Celestial Bully. It’s the right thing to do and that makes me feel good.
Your earlier wee mind game is pointless as evolution wasn’t even in play until the later 1800s, yet the faithful found myriad ways to slaughter each other over the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. Introducing evolution changes nothing.
You wanna be on your knees for limitless eons, good for you. Yoú and doG are peas in a pod. Me? I’m going back to the ocean from whence we came and be recycled as some other form of life.
Your sophomoronic sophistry sickens. [Spits.]
Don’t strain yourself with those goalposts. The “REACH” of the RCC is largely artifactual, and it’s not exactly trending in a happy direction. Japan at least has the excuse of WWII, and if one can consider, oh, say, a country to be an “organization,” their global
influenceREACH hasn’t exactly been declining.Of course, your stinking cowardice has already plainly revealed that you think that it is physically impossible for anything to occur that would existententially challenge the RCC (much less all of humanity, which is apparently of no particular concern) without Jesus’s stepping in.
This truly highlights the imbecility of your posturing attempts to “argue” about “probabilities” in physics and everything else you have no actual knowledge of or interest in.*
As I’ve already pointed out – and you have duly cowered from – is that you are doing neither more nor less than insisting on a simple clockwork time bound on the Second Coming. Because you’re frankly stupid, it hasn’t occurred to you that this implies the existence of the clockwork’s mechanism. To which you imagine yourself to have certain, ah, Gnosticky insight.
Or does the Vatican have a Secret Bunker? Hardened against fast neutrons and so forth, of course. Have you seen the Preparedness Document? Does it give a fυck about the laity, or just the Holy Hierarchy and Complete Dungeonmaster’s Rules that you actually worship?
But, hey, you like “giving assignments,” right? Here’s a dandy one: Go find anyone further up in the Holy Hierarchy to endorse your performance here.
Lacking the ability to do this, it’s entirely prudent for one to consider whether the Devil in fact shіt you out here with the explicit purpose of making Roman Catholics look really fυcking bad.
* Your foray into linguistics was truly a thing to behold.
^ The italics should have closed after “argue” and only reappeared for “Secret Bunker,” but whatever.
^^ One might further note, in the context of disaster planning, that the baroque comedy of apostolic succession in the RCC makes the squabble over the Seventh Patriarch look like a model of organization.
It seems that S.N. is lately finding the need to seek refuge in this weird tactic to try, and pathetically fail, to distract from the glaring Humpty Dumpty marketing campaign that he’s rolled out.
“I don’t know what you’re talking about, so virtually every person in virtually every country outside of Japan has no idea who the Emperor of Japan is.”
Because, as everyone knows, interest in royal families Does Not Include the freaking zipperheads.
I mean, it is also amusing that he is taking the contents of his own head, “sans Googling,” as a yardstick for anything. “I’m a clueless idiot, so everybody else must be too, which means I win at the stupid game I invented! Give me a
wafercookie!”Have you noticed that sn seems to be probing around other blogs here, leaving a stupid remark, sometimes returning, sometimes not. He was pushing his “soft tissue found in fossils “line a few other spots.
Regarding dean #1590’s
“Have you noticed that sn seems to be probing around other blogs here, leaving a stupid remark, sometimes returning, sometimes not.”
I tried to post on another blog a couple hours ago.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/15/what-is-the-magna-carta/
However, my post there is still “awaiting moderation.”
I’ll try posting it here below:
The 800th anniversary of the awesome Magna Carta.
Worth reflecting on, and being thankful for.
“And indeed, Magna Carta conceives rights in NEGATIVE terms, as GUARANTEES AGAINST STATE COERCION. No one can put you in prison or seize your property or mistreat you other than by due process. This essentially NEGATIVE CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM is WORTH CLINGING TO in an age that likes to redefine rights as entitlements—the right to affordable health care, the right to be forgotten and so on… they saw parliamentary government NOT as an expression of MAJORITY RULE BUT as a GUARANTOR OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/magna-carta-eight-centuries-of-liberty-1432912022
………..
I’m not at all sure how most of Greg’s piece has anything to do with the Magna Carta, but I have a couple observations:
“Then, something like climate change happens. Not the globally devastating climate change we are seeing today, but something likely more regional and not as severe, but that affects everyone’s gardens in roughly the same way. Over here you have famine more often, but over there you have higher productivity many years in a row. Maybe there is a three year long drought that causes mass migration, or maybe there is a summer with out a winter.”
That paragraph seems to describe what man has experienced throughout recorded history. Except for “the globally devastating climate change we are seeing today”.
I don’t know what Greg’s talking about.
Greg, what is the ONE GREATEST globally devastating climate change we are seeing today?
“In any event, the pot is stirred, but when you stir the Stone Soup of society over a large area, you don’t increase homogeneity like when you put all the different stuff in a blender to make a smoothy.”
In the U.S., the metaphor of a “melting pot” is usually used instead of the more modern “blender.” But regardless, although you might put IN to the blender Italian prosciutto, Irish potatoes, African camel’s milk, and Japanese ginseng, you don’t expect to get OUT of the blender those same things. In a very real sense, what results is not Italian or Irish or African or Japanese.
I don’t have a name for the hypothetical recipe above. Perhaps I’d call it “Cut out the hyphenated-American crap.” Or maybe “How about you learn to speak English when you decide to become an American?”
Or maybe “Damn the Diversity. Up with Unity.”
Who knows? Maybe it’ll end up in the Betty Crocker Cookbook, just in time for the Fourth of July.
“Instead of the guy in charge (and it will almost always be a guy because men can’t have babies and thus feel the need to take over everybody else’s junk all the time) …”
Remarkable. But I’ll make no remarks about it right now. Instead, I’m just going to give it an instant replay for all to consider. YOU make the call!
“Instead of the guy in charge (and it will almost always be a guy because men can’t have babies and thus feel the need to take over everybody else’s junk all the time) …”
“Instead of the guy in charge… being older and stronger and better connected than the other guys in a village, the guy in charge is the one with an extra 100 horses or a better blade or a clever strategy like stabbing the other guys up close instead of throwing something at them. This is how you get a king.”
Let’s see. That first king might have a bloodless but nevertheless liberty-crushing reign. The second may spill some blood in defense of liberty.
Either way you get a king.
Which king is better?
S.N. did predictably cower from that whole “immanence” thing. But I had already profaned his tender, LPGA lovin’* ass, I suppose.
* Great stuff there. Check it out:
I’d love to epoxy that to his chest, drop him off in Washington Park – maybe with a spritz of banana essence – and watch his attempts to Dale Carnegie the joint up.
FTFY, pathetically lily-livered attention whore.
See Noevo@1579
Nope. Slavery was an institution much before the Catholic Church; personally I see no reason why it should be granted respect just because of this. Institution being a different thing from organization in this context. That being said, I think the comparison still works; in a vacuum (as your statement was) longevity is simply a trait. It means something has been around for significant peroid of time; nothing more, nothing less.
One might also say another group with significant reach is ISIS. They are certainly not worthy of respect. These traits you listed only describe form, they say nothing about substance.
Akihito and the previous emperor was Showa. I’ve watched a lot of anime. Your view seems very ethno(culturo?)centric.
I probably need to read back a bit to get a handle on this conversion but what the heck is this See Noevo even going on about? “My religion can beat up your religion?” A dick measuring contest between gods?
To capnkrunch #1593:
Me: “And related to longevity, BREADTH and INFLUENCE is worthy of some respect. One might call it “reach.””
You: “One might also say another group with significant reach is ISIS. They are certainly not worthy of respect.”
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not trying to draw an equivalence between ISIS and the Catholic Church.
“These traits you listed only describe form, they say nothing about substance.”
That’s an interesting choice of words. Are you familiar with Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy? I THINK it delves quite a bit into “form” and “substance”. If you are familiar, do you think A-T thought on form and substance is valid?
See Noevo@
As far as both of them having significant reach, yes, I am comparing them. That was where my comparison ended though, I wouldn’t call it “trying to draw an equivalency” between them. I was simply making the point that reach in and of itself is not reason for respect. If you want to make the case that the Catholic Churh has significant reach and uses it for good which is worthy of respect, then great. That is not what you said however.
Ah, I didn’t really mean anything that deep. A more concrete analogy would be to look at an institution as a computer program. Longevity and reach might correspond to date created and file size. This metadata is certainly useful but it tells you nothing about how well the program works which is what actually matters. I guess metadata vs content would’ve been a better starting point than form vs substance given all the added metaphysical meaning behind the latter.
Speaking of metaphysics, I don’t really understand well enough to comment and I’m sure if I try I’ll only make myself look stupid to the people here who actually know what they’re talking about. I believe sadmar would be the guy to ask if you’re interested discussing philosophy.
You fool, information theory is S.N.’s very field of expertise.
To capnkrunch #1596:
“A more concrete analogy would be to look at an institution as a computer program. Longevity and reach … tells you nothing about how well the program works which is what actually matters.”
But if a computer program works in such a way that many highly intelligent (and less intelligent) people (and even a former agnostic/atheist such as myself) “purchase” that computer program, even today, 2,000 years after its product launch… then, THAT might tell you something.
I cannot begin to describe how delicious your screaming technological ignorance and the insane analogies that flow from it really are.
@ capnkrunch
Sadmar already had a go at it, around #1322. Our visitor complained the words were too big.
@ capnkrunch
Missed this part in your previous post:
I will save you some time and say “yes, that’s about it”, with “religion” being about any topic S.N. decides to focus on.
@capnkrunch
It might also help to know that sn, who is also an expert on cosmology and so can dismiss it out of hand without providing any evidence, said at Ethan’s blog that nobody should ever spend time or money studying anything that didn’t have an immediate application.
When someone starts from that viewpoint it’s only a short step into the lunacy sn demonstrates.
Horatio,
It seems no one has heard from Him since he was first asked this question a couple of thousand years ago. I assume He has been giving it some thought.
See Noevo: A more apt analogy would be that for most of its history, the Catholic Church was like a piece of software that required people to pay extra money every time that they wanted it to do what it was supposed to do, with all the source code in FORTRAN, and published by a company that employed goons to beat up anyone who tried to compete. The Protestant Reformation happened for a good reason: The Catholic Church had all but abandoned the teachings of Christ by the sixteenth century.
Now, back on topic: What explanation do you have for all the coal, oil, and natural gas appearing exactly where the evolutionary biologists say they did?
ann @1550 & 1552
I didn’t mean to give the impression that there was some kind of empire wide public school system and was really thinking only of the core of the empire – the boot of Europe and the larger cities. I could have been more clear. I doubt schooling extended to the far reaches of Gaul or Dacia. Education wasn’t controlled by the state, it was under the auspices of the freehand of the market.
It seems the rate of literacy of the ancients is still hotly contested amongst those whose knowledge of the subject far exceeds two plain folk on the intertubes. It hovers around the numbers you mentioned.
Apparently the origin of the phrase hocus-pocus, IIRC.
I take it you didn’t go poke around the site Sarah A found so enlightening. It is quite impressive for the work of only one man.
The last bit from another ex-nun, there’s a trend developing.
It seems the anti-rational/knowledge bits are largely to be found in the New Testament, which answers your question @1552. We also have that uber-mensch Luther chiming in:
Thankfully, in this day and age, that struggle is now on the other foot.
I earlier mentioned the 42/10 meme (contemporary evidence of Jesus/Emperor Tiberius), but didn’t limn the results of the scholarly analysis. It turns out there are several dozen facts supporting Tiberius and 0, zero, contemporary mentions of Jesus. In fact there are around 100 or so ancients writing of then current events and no mention of an itinerant apocalyptic death cult preacher shaking up a very tiny backwater of the empire (much less China or Japan or Central America).
There are many references of those Krazy Kristians, but only 1 of their Holey Man. It is considered a later insertion by christians. Another of their useful lies, I guess: Here’s Celsus from somewhere in the 100sCE:
and
Christianity setup schools not to teach natural philosophy, but to promulgate dogma resulting in the persecution of Galileo, among others and with Copernicus publishing his work posthumously so as not to suffer the rather gruesome fate of Bruno, who posited a cosmology closer to what we now know although still deity driven.
For the Johnny who can’t tell the difference between a virus and a bacteria, what colour is the sky in your world? I wonder if you’ve ever been deathly ill. If you do fall prey to some nasty infection (hopefully not), is it because you weren’t clean enough?
@SeeNoevo – does the Catholic church still sell indulgences? With the whole papal infallibility and so forth, I can’t imagine such a perfect, everlasting institution changing anything proclaimed in its history. Darn that stupid printing press and increasing literacy interfering with the church’s ability to ignore its own Scripture and teach whatever it felt like in its place. If they hadn’t made the constantly dissatisfied Luther a teacher at university (forcing him to read those texts himself), they might have delayed the Reformation another decade or so (but maybe not; it was kind of inevitable).
SeeNoevo, one of your problems in your argument and why you make no headway is your response boils down to, “Well, God, Bible and Catholic Church. Worse, the last of your arguments supports evolution! Doubling down, moving goal posts or changing topics completely do not win a debate. If your opponents do not credit any of your supporting arguments as coming from a credible source, they will not be swayed by those arguments. You are just wasting time if you cannot provide anything more concrete.
Given your enormous levels of bigotry and racism, coupled with general lack of education and knowledge of history, it isn’t a surprise you don’t know that immigrant families never immediately learned English when they came here: it was always a generational change.
Didn’t close my quotes after Catholic Church.
@al kimeena:
The problem with your assertions and arguments, for the most part, is that you are starting with a conclusion – “religion (Christianity, at least) is stupid, evil and wrong” – and working backward from that conclusion. You are not doing history, you are doing polemics.
This is one reason why many educated people don’t take, say, Richard Dawkins very seriously at all when he talks about much beyond evolutionary biology.
Part of the reason the “Christianity is the cause of Rome’s fall and the Dark Ages!” argument is that it:
a) Ignores every other issue the late Western Roman Empire suffered, including overpopulation, resource depletion, widespread corruption, gross inequality, and so on…
b) Ignores the Eastern Roman Empire, which was equally Christian, but held on much better.
I mean, part of the reason it fall flat.
Also, I should note that al seems to enjoy quoting Scripture out of context just as much as See does.
I’m well aware of how Rome fell, what happened after christianity grabbed the reins and The Schism.
Funny, when people provide links to sources I follow them which doesn’t seem to be happening in this regard.
if the verses are out of context, rather than assertion, how about correction.
Strawman arguments and deflection, one of the hallmarks of medi-wooligans
Al, remember I Corinthians 3:18-20? The full chapter spoke of schisms and divisions in the church. The “wisdom of this world” he spoke of probably had nothing to science, and was more likely some form of Gnosticism or similar.
@al kimeena:
The link you provided is not to a work of academic merit. All the author does is pick random verses – yes, out of context – and rant about them; if that’s what I was interested in reading, I’d go find a creationist screed or something.
Besides that, the author makes hardly any citations, never cites any primary sources, and what few citations he does provide are to non-academic popular books. I am not impressed.
BTW, stomping your foot and sticking your lower lip out when somebody criticizes your arguments instead of addressing the criticisms is not going to get you a lot of credit.
^I forgot to mention that “Rejecting Pascals’ Wager” has web design worthy of 1995, which doesn’t necessarily invalidate any of its arguments, but is kind of chuckle-worthy.
No, I did. Really, the whole of my dissent from it could be summed up by my response to the first sentence on the page you linked to:
This is true to the extent that faith, in its essence, is fundamentally anti-reason. But it’s not truer of Christianity than it is of any other faith. And if your aim is to examine the particular ways in which it’s true of Christianity, you just mess yourself up right out of the gate by not acknowledging that.
I suppose it is kind of pedantic of me. But I believe in defining your terms.
Likewise:
^^That’s not something “Christianity” did. The Catholic Church was an enormously powerful quasi-imperial political force for centuries. And it acted like one. Obviously — even self-evidently — it was able to do that in part because its own indispensability is a foundational tenet of the faith.
But nevertheless. If you say “this is how Christians act, what Christianity is, etc.” rather than “this is how institutional power that’s accountable to no one acts, how it is, etc.” you miss a very key point. Because again: That’s what happens when you don’t define your terms. It’s inherently inimical to reason.
For example. If I read you correctly, you’re arguing that Greco-Roman education was under the auspices of the free market. First of all, to what, exactly, do you attribute the poularity of Christianity? And second of all, what light does it shed on the world as it is now or as it was then to suggest that people who lived in a pre-industrial largely agrarian economy prior to the invention of the printing press were mostly illiterate because either: (a) free market (if pre-Christian); or (b) the Church (if post-Christian)?
As far as I can see, all it does is obscure the much more instructive fact that until quite recently, most people couldn’t read, didn’t have time to, and wouldn’t have had anything to read if they did, for reasons that had nothing to do with religion.
In any event. I respectfully dissent from the argument you’re making. But maybe we should just agree to disagree. To each his/her own.
Cheers.
See Noevo@1598
You’re focused way too much on the specifics of the metaphor and even then your argument doesn’t hold. What about the ubiquitous Ask toolbar? What about malware? Sure it might “tell you something” but that something isn’t neccessarily positive as you imply.
Other popular but awful things: misogyny, racism, prejudice against homosexuals. Back to my original point, popularity, reach, longevity, these are just descriptors. They are completely neutral. In a vacuum none of those traits makes something worthy of respect. This was the point I was trying to make that you have now twice ignored in order to quibble over some minor part of my delivery.
Narad@1597
Clearly. Bad move on my part bringing the ‘discussion’ into See Noevo’s home court. I’m don’t think I have an answer to the “laptop on the moon” paradox.
Helianthus@1600/1
Thanks for saving me the trouble. The response to sadmar was worth going back and reading.
dean@1602
I read some of the comments over at Starts With a Bang. In addition to the “immediate application” argument I also see “your theory isn’t perfect so we should scrap it for my theory. My theory isn’t perfect but who cares! It doesn’t have to be, it’s not science.”
Also thanks for turning me onto Ethan’s blog. I’ve never ventured far from RI here.
Small clarification to my previous comment.
I used “other” meaning in addition to my previous examples of the Ask toolbar and malware; this was not an implicit statement that the Catholic Church is awful. I suppose I should have written “prolific” instead of “popular.” Just want to clear that up before See Noevo uses it as a reason to ignore the rest my comment.
To ann #1616:
“Really, the whole of my dissent from it could be summed up by my response to the first sentence on the page you linked to: “Christianity, in its essence, is fundamentally anti-reason.” This is true to the extent that faith, in its essence, is fundamentally anti-reason. But it’s not truer of Christianity than it is of any other faith.”
I don’t think faith is “fundamentally anti-reason.” I think faith is different than reason but faith is supported by, and works with, reason. They MUST go together.
Otherwise, to hell with “faith alone”. (And to hell with reason alone.)
I think St. Peter would agree:
“but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always BE PREPARED to MAKE A DEFENSE to any one who calls you to ACCOUNT FOR the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence.” [1 Peter 3:15]
(I don’t think Peter wouldn’t look kindly on an argument such as “Well, I can’t or won’t justify my faith. It’s just what I feel and what I believe.”)
And of course, so does the Church. For example: http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
I myself came to faith THROUGH reason. Others may come to faith via more experiential, mystical or even revelational means. But even then, the Christian should fortify the faith with reason. Again, one must have fides ET ratio.
This is also why Catholic seminaries, from my understanding, require a grounding in philosophy BEFORE one begins studies in theology.
To capnkrunch #1617:
“Other popular but awful things: misogyny, racism, prejudice against homosexuals. Back to my original point, popularity, reach, longevity, these are just descriptors. They are completely neutral. In a vacuum none of those traits makes something worthy of respect.”
And “misogyny, racism, prejudice against homosexuals” are completely neutral, in the vacuum of evolution.
Oh, yes they are.
See: Evolution isn’t a religion. It doesn’t make value judgments. Don’t conflate evolution with atheism. When you do so, you’re no better than Richard Dawkins.
See Noevo@1620
What does this even mean? You’ve once again ignored my point. You said longevity and reach are all things worthy of respect. I gave examples of things with longevity and reach that are not worthy of respect. I even told how to fix your argument but you also ignored that and and opted for this drivel instead. For someone who claims to be a man of reason you are doing a piss poor job of showing it.
al kimeaa: “See, it’s funny how a supposed all loving, all powerful supreme being – capable of anything, knowing everything and not just at the moment but for all eternity – all of a sudden develops all too mortal and human traits like being too busy to end slavery or end the abuse of women as nothing more than fleshy incubators because of dealing with too many things on the table.”
Yes, this is pretty much why I’m not a Christian. I don’t let men boss me around in real life (unless they happen to be my employers), why would I let an uberman force me into a drab, joyless life? As I said on another thread, God and Christians tend to be more malevolent then benevolent- why do we assume God approves of multi-celled life?
Also, SN, you must be trolling. No Christian would listen to Dylan. Or are you one of the Discovery Institute’s paid trolls? Furthermore, reason and faith are totally, utterly incompatible.
Finally, aren’t you, as a Christian, supposed to support misogyny, homophobia and probably racism? You seem to be saying those are bad things, which is an odd thing for someone as religious as you to say.
PGP if you ever got anything right about Christianity, I think I would have to check the ambient temperature in Hades.
PGP’s what you get when you take the premises of fundamentalist Christianity and follow them to their logical conclusion.
Believe it or not, I don’t think we’re really in disagreement on this one. I was just echoing the phrasing of the line I quoted, because….Well. While not exactly, precisely true, it seemed to me to be close enough for the immediate purpose to which I was putting it — ie, pointing out that it’s ridiculous, nonsensical and biased to say that Christianity is fundamentally anti-reason.
I mean, nobody can be all pedantry, all the time. I guess I kind of fell down on the job.
But fwiw, I agree that faith is different than reason. And discrete from it, even. I also agree that it can be supported by reason and work with it. And I agree that that’s a better way of putting it.
I would further say that all people rely on faith more or less continually in the course of their daily lives in some way, shape or form, and probably couldn’t get by without it. It’s human nature.
That’s not necessarily religious faith, though.
I certainly agree that it’s a good idea. So if that’s what you mean, I agree. But I would also say that faith is beyond reason. Inherently. So if there’s a conflict, one or the other has to yield, imo. And I have a feeling we might not agree about that.
I too do not know what this means. Misogyny, racism, and prejudice against homosexuals are to evolution as banana, area rug, and Spirograph are to Catholicism. As far as I know.
But it’s been a while since I took the SATs.
Could you rephrase?
“misogyny, racism, prejudice against homosexuals”
He’s referencing some of the things he holds most dear.
@capnkrunch:
It’s even worse than that. The “navigation” argument immediately collapses, with the most recent example being the tying of GPS to the second iteration of the International Celestial Reference Frame.
Moreover, as a random attention-seeking interloper, he failed to realize that Ethan isn’t a Multiverse Maniac in the first place. His version of cosmology has nothing to do with the real world and everything to do with regurgitating partially digested creationist talking points.
But this has been gone over before. He makes an idiotic stink about things that he’s totally ignorant of (there’s an encore going on at EvolutionBlog) and then changes the subject if he gets the slightest opportunity.
As for “Starts with a Bang” itself, I largely gave up when Ethan started using it as a redirector to the unsightly medium.com except for the comments. Make up your mind, already.
GF: I am not, and never have been a Christian. I just observe them.
Shay: What part of my comment was wrong? SN is obviously a fundamentalist, which means he doesn’t support rights for anyone who isn’t a fetus or a straight male.
^ I failed to mention that the “navigation argument” wrapped itself of with a snide, off-topic stupidity that is noteworthy only as a proof that Odorama isn’t strictly necessary – when everybody has gone home except for an attention-whoring imbecile, the stench of the pathetic, freshly shіt-eating grin actually oozes from the screen.
First of all, he’s a Catholic with very socially conservative views.
Second of all
Dylan is himself not only Christian, but born again. Has been since the ’70s. And his work often reflects it.
Even if that wasn’t the case, virtually everyone likes and listens to music.
They’re not totally incompatible. They’re utterly incompatible to a degree.
I don’t know how many times this has to be pointed out to you. But that’s an offensive, overly broad and bigoted characterization. Outlandishly so, even. I mean, have you ever noticed that the Reverend Martin Luther King was a Christian?
It appears that there’s more question about whether Bob Dylan’s Christianity is intact than I realized.
I regret the error.
Ann: I thought Dylan was Jewish. And, no music isn’t for everyone, Christians are supposed to only listen to Perry Como or “Christian artists.”
My apologies to SN, sort of. Catholics still mostly think that fetuses are more important than women, they’re okay with gays as long as the gay people don’t actually dare to exist in their vicinity or are willing to never, ever have a partner or be happy. Catholic women are also not allowed to be happy or, you know, have opinions.
MLK was a very good man, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have prejudices or turn a blind eye to certain things. Like say, Gandhi being a racist. At least two of MLK’s kids have been active in anti-gay movements. Though I will note that Corretta King was an advocate for glbt people, so it’s hard to say where he’d come down on that.
Roger McGuinn, formerly of the Byrds, is a born-again Christian of many years standing (about 30 years, I believe). Despite my atheism, I am still a huge fan because he is relatively low-key about it, and doesn’t proselytize.
In concert, he still plays the Dylan hits , including Tambourine Man, My Back Pages, You Ain’t Going Nowhere to name a few. He deliberately does not do “Christian Music”, except for a few traditional country and folk songs with a Christian theme, probably no more than the average folk troubadour.
To capnkrunch #1677, #1622:
Me: “But if a computer program works in such a way that many highly intelligent (and less intelligent) people (and even a former agnostic/atheist such as myself) “purchase” that computer program, even today, 2,000 years after its product launch… then, THAT might tell you something.”
You: “You’ve once again ignored my point. You said longevity and reach are all things worthy of respect…You’re focused way too much on the specifics of the metaphor and even then your argument doesn’t hold. What about the ubiquitous Ask toolbar?”
What is the longevity, and I might add, reliability, of “Ask toolbar”?
“What about malware?”
What is the longevity of “malware”? Is the purpose of malware what you call “positive”? Is “positive” good or bad?
The “computer program” of the Catholic Church not only has almost incredible longevity, it also has stability and has reach,
and MOST IMPORTANTLY, after 2,000 years, provides results so “positive” that many highly intelligent people “buy” it.
I bought it and I didn’t even need a money-back guarantee.
SN: You’re ignoring all the people your lovely ‘program’ stampeded over and is still hurting today. That’s not a benevolent program, it’s purely a weapon. Just ask the 10-year olds who are forced to give birth, the environmentalists who are going to get double-crossed, or all the kids your beloved priests raped.
To ann #1627:
Me: “And “misogyny, racism, prejudice against homosexuals” are completely neutral, in the vacuum of evolution. Oh, yes they are.”
You: “I too do not know what this means. Misogyny, racism, and prejudice against homosexuals are to evolution as banana, area rug, and Spirograph are to Catholicism. As far as I know.”
Then you don’t know enough. And the SATs won’t help you.
Could I rephrase? Yes. How about this:
1) Evolution is value-less. There is no “good” or “bad” in evolution. In evolution there is only life, change and death. But again, death isn’t “bad” and life isn’t “good”, because there is no “bad” or “good”.
2) All living organs and organisms are the result of this value-less process (according to evolutionists). One such organ is the brain, from which come, among other things, what humans might call “value judgments”, such as ‘Racism is bad’ or ‘Racism is good’ [or even ‘Racism is ridiculous, because there are no races. There’s only one race, the human race. Just ask the genteticists.’]
3) Thus, a value-less process (i.e. evolution) cannot produce values or organisms with values, that is, values in the sense of OBJECTIVE right and wrong. Everything is subjective, really like matters of taste. Some think vanilla is not only good, but is better than chocolate. Some say the same about pro-abortion vs. pro-life. Whatever. Vive la difference. Or to hell with the difference. Whatever.
That’s what I meant by saying “misogyny, racism, prejudice against homosexuals” are completely neutral, in the vacuum of evolution. Oh, yes they are.
@#1638 —
This is as inarguably true of evolution as it is of rock music, hoagies and architecture.
But I’m still not sure I see your point.
He famously (VERY famously) converted back in the late ’70s/early ’80s. (“Gotta Serve Somebody,” etc.)
Oh, brother. I give up.
I’m a bit surprised of all the talk about Bob Dylan since #1558.
I guess commentary on such afterthoughts is one of the reasons we’re at over 1,600 posts here.
Well, I’ll go with the flow a little bit.
This isn’t one of my favorite melodies from Dylan, but it’s one of his better lyrics. It was probably written back in his born-again days. But even if he’s no longer Christian, the lyric is still profound, simple and true:
To ann #1639:
“This is as inarguably true of evolution as it is of rock music, hoagies and architecture.”
Not really. Rock music, hoagies and architecture were produced by evolution, that is, by our evolved brains. Nothing objectively “good” or “bad” about them.
Speaking of food, the Wall Street Journal had an article this past weekend on the evolution of cooking: http://www.wsj.com/articles/cooking-has-a-place-in-human-evolution-1433950620
“But I’m still not sure I see your point.”
When’s the last time you had your “eyes” checked?
But “hoagies”? Are you from the Philadelphia area? I am.
I like that one too, although his stuff has never really loomed all that large in my personal pantheon, with a few exceptions. For which I blame myself, not him. But so it be.
^^I love that song.
We should just make this a dedicated music video thread, imo.
What part of my comment was wrong?
Shall we start with the “Christians don’t listen to Dylan”?
@#1642.
Yes, I know. No, I’m not. But I have family who are. So I speak the lingo.
Well, I wouldn’t expect your cheap cult to be confident enough to offer a guarantee. If they don’t have faith in their product, why should you?
The best deal out there is
ETERNAL SALVATION — OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK
http://www.subgenius.com/pams/pam2p1.html
Also see –
(Not safe for work or small children)
https://youtu.be/Qt9MP70ODNw
(Not safe for work or small children)
I don’t see how your conclusion (a valueless process cannot produce values or organisms with values in the sense of OBJECTIVE right and wrong) logically follows from its precedent (all living organs, including the brain, and organisms are the result of a value-less process ),
Why not?
Shay: Well, they can, but I’m sure they’re not allowed too.
The “Blood on the Tracks” album is one of his best.
My favorite track from it is this:
You effing idiot, yes, we are.
Well, that’s probably enough for tonight.
Maybe you’ll Meet Me in the Morning.
Kick it at 3:30!
Given that your sorry ass is apparently back from JACK IN THE BOX, don’t you think you have more pressing things to attend to?
But fυck, if you’re still smeared with Jack’s Secret Sauce and want to (weirdly, given your loathing of its original concept) “play” Dylan instead, let’s at least try something appropriate.
See Noevo@1636
Ok, let’s drop the metaphor. You’ve twisted it much further than I ever intended (or indeed than makes sense). I simply wanted to illustrate the difference between “metadata” (longevity, reach, etc) and “content” (actions). I agree with you that positive results are most important. None of the other traits you listed are worthwhile without them. That however, was not your original argument. You claimed that longevity and reach are worthy of respect in and of themselves. That the CC is good was never what I took issue with, my personal feelings towards it are pretty neutral. My contention was that you claimed it was good simply because it is old and influential.
@1683
As JGC mentioned in #1647 your conclusion doesn’t follow. I’m pretty sure there’s a good old fashioned syllogistic fallacy in there, maybe Narad can name it for us. Regardless your entire premise is flawed.
A process is “a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner.” A process (action) can’t possibly have the same traits as a human (object). Following your logic to the leads us to a bizarro world where every process is also its own product.
The process that Dictionary.com gave as an example was decay. Consider a decaying carcass (morbid, huh?). The process of decay is a series of chemical reactions. These reactions have no smell themselves, the are simply the rearranging of chemicals. However, they produce chemicals such as putrescine and cadaverine which do indeed possess a distinctive odor.
Your current argument seems to be that values/ morals could only have possibly been given to us by God because only he has values to give. Personally, I subscribe to a very simple value system which is pretty much just the golden rule*. This can be explained by evolution. The ability to empathize would confer an evolutionary advantage to a member of a social species such as ourselves. Where did empathy come from?
To be honest this is getting outside my area of knowledge but I would hazard that emergence can explain it. Consider a pile of sand. As you continue adding grains of sand to it it eventually reaches a tipping point. Prior to this each grain of sand didn’t affect the entire pile much but the next grain of sand will cause an avalanche. This avalanche may even trigger more and more and in this way a change on the micro scale (+1 sand) can cause sweeping changes on a macro scale (cascades of avalanches). Adding the grains of sand would be random genetic variance and the avalanche is the development of empathy.
The exact mechanisms by which thoughts and emotions arise are far outside my knowledge but the take away is that in a complex system miniscule changes can have profound effects and behaviors or patterns that were not present previously can develop.
*before you claim that is a CC construct let me say no, it isn’t. It may have been most famously verbalized in the bible but it has been around as written/spoken word much longer than Christianity and likely as a human characteristic even longer.
RE: Bob Dylan
I like to joke that my favorite Bob Dylan is All Along the Watchtower…by Jimi Hendrix. Its not a very good joke but that’s never stopped me.
That’s not what he’s doing. In fact, I’m confident that nothing you’ve written has been “processed” by S.N.’s Divine “INSTRUCTION-rich” trans-Turing supercomsmurter*
I mean, I could go on at length about the grasping, fraudulent history of the word metadata, but S.N. just isn’t paying attention in the first place. I’m amazed that it hasn’t had the sense to switch over to intoning from a “fresh,” cheap Protestant tract involving “epigenetics” yet.
* ‘Solves’ desperately complicated climate PDEs, BTW. AND THE HALTING PROBLEM (but, really, c’mon, that’s freaking “gay ‘science’“).
@ capnkrunch 1653
A philosophy nerd has put together a flash game treating about the issue of what should be the ultimate source of morality.
Being a complete noobs myself in such matters, I was of course enthralled. People with more background in philosophy may be less impressed. I would expect that summarizing 6000+ years of philosophical debates into a game cannot be done without seriously cutting corners.
I won’t spoil the conclusion of the game. I will just say the author hadn’t the arrogance to believe he/she has the definite answer to the ultimate question about life, the universe and the rest.
One point I remember from the Greek philosopher/priest character who contended that morality comes from the gods was that such a position only displaced the question. Do the gods create values, or do the values they give us come from a more universal source?
With the latter, faith is not the only way to learn right from wrong.
To capnkrunch #1653:
“Ok, let’s drop the metaphor. You’ve twisted it much further than I ever intended (or indeed than makes sense). I simply wanted to illustrate the difference between “metadata” (longevity, reach, etc) and “content” (actions). I agree with you that positive results are most important. None of the other traits you listed are worthwhile without them. That however, was not your original argument. You claimed that longevity and reach are worthy of respect in and of themselves. That the CC is good was never what I took issue with, my personal feelings towards it are pretty neutral. My contention was that you claimed it was good simply because it is old and influential.”
OK, we can drop your metaphor. But some final clarifications may be in order:
1) My initial statement in #1492 was NOT that the CC was good, nor even that it was worthy of respect. My initial statement was only that as an organization, specifically defined, it was unrivaled in longevity, and that I felt it would still be standing at the end of the world.
2) My secondary and much later statement, way down in #1579, was that longevity and reach are worthy of “SOME respect”. That is, “SOME” respect. [The same could be said of poison ivy.]
3) My third statement in #1598 was that the CC program is still purchased today, even by highly intelligent people.
4) In my fourth statement in #1636 I was more specific, saying that these intelligent people buy the CC program NOT blindly but buy it because the CC program “WORKS in such a way”, even in what you might call a “POSITIVE” way.
So, when a computer program (and/or metadata)
– has virtually unrivaled longevity and reach, AND
– WORKS in such a way that highly intelligent people STILL want it, 2000 years after it was started,
Then, well, you really got something.
Contrary to what you say, I never “claimed it was good simply because it is old and influential.”
Yours wasn’t a bad metaphor.
It just worked better for me than for thee.
I must have misread that.
I agree with JGC. That’s not inarguably true of evolution (or rock music, not including the part about producing organisms). If organisms evolve enough capacity for thought and feeling to be capable of moral discernment, then they are.
On an unrelated note, I think it’s to the credit of all concerned that we got through that much Dylan without anyone posting “Idiot Wind” or “Positively West 4th Street” at anybody else.
It’s almost enough to give a person faith, or something.
See Noevo@1656
First, I’d like to note that this is the 4th time in a row that you’ve focused on my delivery instead of the actual meat of what I’ve been saying. Not that it surprises me, I just don’t think it can be pointed out enough.
You are not quite metaphoring properly. You are using some terms from my metaphor but you are applying them to the church as itself, not as a program like the metaphor does. I think you even realize this yourself because you’ve been putting quotes around words like ‘purchase’. You referred to the church as a 2000 year old program. Computer programs have been around for far less. You took my examples from in context (Ask TB and malware) and compared them to something out of context (the 2000 year old church).
Just because you called it a program doesn’t mean you are describing it from within the framework of my metaphor. In fact, that destroys the whole purpose of creating a metaphor in the first place.
As a final and arguably most important point, you missed the entire purpose of my metaphor in the first place. You said longevity and reach were things worthy of respect. I called those things metadata and said you can have 2 files with the same metadata and one could be a useful utility while the other is malware. Likewise two things may have the same amount of longevity and reach could be as seperate as the church and slavery.
Keep in mind this all started because when I simply used form and substance you tried to distract by bringing up philosophy. From the beginning (or when I got here at least) every defense you’ve used has been rhetorical. This suggests to me that your ideas hold no merit on their own, else you’d be able to mount a much stronger defense.
Grey Falcon @1613, I’ll get back to you. Been busy. My commiserations on your IT job being sent to India. Mine ended up in Chennai I think. We got to train our replacements with mgmt all the while spouting they will augment us not replace us. How sending local buying power half way around the world advances the local economy has yet to be properly explained.
Ann @1616 – semantics, but as you wish
JP’d @1609, 1614 – you must have good ears to hear me in the comfort of my parent’s basement
Now we add ad-hom and poisoning the well to your list of conduct unbecoming.
You know what is also chuckle-worthy, or maybe a guffaw or a snort-chortle? You
thinkingbelieving a polemic and “doing history” are two mutually exclusive things.Also from radicaltruth.net – “How are Christians to respond to challenges from both the irreligious and those of other religious persuasions? We are to engage in apologetics and polemics.”
Here’s the bibliography (sound it out JP’d, you can get it) of the chuckle-worthy site.” Probably a couple of hundred references including:
Bart D. Ehrman – an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Issac Asimov – we all know he has no chops
Karen Armstrong – OBE FRSL is a British author and commentator known for her books on comparative religion. A former Roman Catholic religious sister, she went from a conservative to a more liberal and mystical Christian faith. – as a former nun, you’d think she’d have something germane to say
Samuel George Frederick Brandon – was a British priest and scholar of comparative religion. He became professor of comparative religion at the University of Manchester in 1951.
Neil Asher Silberman – is an archaeologist and historian with a special interest in history, archaeology, public interpretation and heritage policy
Israel Finkelstein – is an Israeli archaeologist and academic. He is the Jacob M. Alkow Professor of the Archaeology of Israel in the Bronze Age and Iron Ages at Tel Aviv University.
Stephen Jay Gould – was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.
Frederick Clifton Grant – was a New Testament scholar. He was professor of Biblical Theology at the Union Theological Seminary in New York.
Robert Solomon Wistrich – was the Erich Neuberger Professor of European and Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the head of the University’s Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.
Amongst many, many dozens more. Some of them may be popular books, so what if the work was put in to ensure their veracity, and you can’t get much more primary than Celsus.
So, it is quite obvious you looked a a single page. You’re not unimpressed, you’re uninterested, not to mention lazy and obtuse. Or maybe a professional liar for Jesus.
the CC program is still purchased today, even by highly intelligent people.
To calibrate things, Marty, do you consider yourself a highly intelligent person?
@al kimeea:
I have no idea where you live; I wouldn’t presume to mock you for living in your parents’ basement even if you did. This economy hasn’t been easy on any of us.
I read the page you specifically linked to, and I poked around a little bit as well. I am unimpressed, but you’re right, I am also uninterested. The author plucks Bible verses completely out of context and then makes very broad, bold and incorrect historical arguments based on them.
I’m not sure how I feel about Karen Armstrong, as it’s been a while since I read her books – I read several of them as a teenager, and then one or two new ones that came out when I was in college. I’d have to revisit them to form an opinion on the scholarship and arguments, I think.
Regardless, the author of the site you linked to makes a very strange reading of this statement of Armstrong’s which he quotes:
She seems to be crying out against Biblical literalism and fundamentalist Christianity here, which I also find simplistic and silly, as well as harmful. But the author of the page then writes:
This is just a dishonest reading of Armstrong. I notice there are also a lot of ellipses in the quote provided; I don’t have the time right at the moment to track down the original, but given his dishonest-on-the-face-of-it reading, I distrust the way he has even quoted her.
Yah, that is a long bibliography he has there, but again, a lot of them are popular works, and in any case, it’s not just the sources you list, but the way you use them, and the way you represent them, that counts. The list you make above comes off more as an argument from authority than anything: Asimov! Armstrong! Etc.!
Yes, a lot of those authors are very intelligent people, and I would not deign to say otherwise, but context matters, and again, how one uses one’s sources.
Yes, I would argue that writing polemics and making cogent arguments based on historical fact are two different things. I’m confused as to why you offer a quote from “radicaltruth” stating that Christians should engage in polemics. I’m not any more interested in reading Christian polemics than I am in reading anti-Christian polemics.
I’m no fan of Paul, incidentally, and I’m not a Christian, which makes it pretty funny that you accuse me of being “a professional liar for Jesus.” I personally just don’t believe the specific truth claims of Christianity, but I have plenty of respect for Christians who understand their faith in a nuanced way and actually try to practice it. In the “History” section of “Rejection of Pascal’s Wager,” for instance, the author keeps making exclamation-point-laden statements that the events of the OT are not historical fact! This is a classic strawman argument, at least if he is attempting to de-convert those educated Christians for whom this is not a revelation.
Re: polemics vs. history again: it is, I presume you know, bad science to start with a conclusion and attempt to prove it. It is similarly bad history to do so, and, believe it or not, bad literary criticism. It is frowned upon within the scholarly community in general.
Your argument about how Christianity plunged Europe into the “Dark Ages” has some major flaws, for instance, which were pointed out by Gray Falcon. Rather than address these, you made this reply:
That is obnoxious. Can you see why?
They don’t all deny it.
Some of us rather like it!
http://darwinskidneys.blogspot.com
Moreover, it’s neither true nor accurate that Europe was in a state of intellectual oblivion for more than a thousand years, or that Paul was more responsible than anyone else for what did happen.
He had nothing to do with the Carolingian renaissance, for example. Or the influx of Vikings.
I mean, a thousand years is a long time. Europe is a continent. Paul, though a very influential figure in Christianity, was just one man. It’s an absurd thing to say.
@Mrs Woo:
Actually, there are still indulgences in the RCC, but it’s more of the “do some prayers”- kind, not the “gimme the money”.
The wiki-article explains it somewhat, but I’ll try to summarise it from my Grissomite Catholic[1] POV.
According to the RCC, man is gifted with reason and the ability to distinguish Good from Evil. It’s not perfect, since it’s marred by Original Sin (there go the Pelagians), but he is not utterly depraved (vide Calvinism). As such, the idea of the confessor being the accuser makes some sense, since you know you did something wrong (BTW, Neil Gaiman gets this quite right in some of his texts, but then, the guy is a big Chesterton fan AFAIK). Of course, it’s not perfect, vide SN. 😉
Confession absolves you from sin, but it doesn’t nullify all consequences. To use a somewhat problematic comparison, when you beat someone up you might be forgiven by him, but you still have to do time for GBH.
The idea with indulgences is similar, the sin is confessed and thus forgiven by god, but the sinner still has to do some atonement. Where indulgences are one way of doing it. And of course an easy way out, when you just pay some money.
BTW, sorry for disconnecting somewhat from the discussion, I’m somewhat up to there in work, have to prepare my holidays and tomorrow buy some used Newton reflector. I’ll resume ASAP.
[1] ‘I suppose I practice a kind of secular Catholicism that involves ritualizing certain aspects of everyday life and imbuing them with a spiritual intensity they might not otherwise possess, but I don’t want to put too fine a point on it.’ Gill Grissom, “Double-Cross”, CSI.
And then, I usually say I’m about as Roman Catholic as Noam Chomsky is Jewish…
To ann #1657:
Me: “Thus, a value-less process (i.e. evolution) cannot produce values or organisms with values, that is, values in the sense of OBJECTIVE right and wrong.”
You: “That’s not inarguably true of evolution…If organisms evolve enough capacity for thought and feeling to be capable of moral discernment, then they are.”
It is arguable that organisms could evolve ANY capacity for thought and feeling at all. I certainly would argue they can’t evolve such things.
And it is INarguable that the biological evolution of thought or feeling (or even just brains) has ever been observed.
And what’s with the “moral discernment”?
In the atheistic evolutionist’s view, “MORAL” discernment or morality is nothing more than a matter of taste. Flies are attracted to feces but humans are not. And some humans say abortion is always gravely wrong, and some other humans say it’s not. It’s all just ‘De gustibus non est disputandum.’
Oh, the atheistic evolutionist MIGHT not be AWARE that this is her position on morality, or specifically, on OBJECTIVE right and wrong.
But it most certainly is.
@SN:
Counter-Question: How is it any easier for an ID proponent to assume something is “objectively right or wrong”? The Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever created wasp larvae that eat living caterpillars from the inside, male ducks that gangrape, err, gangcopulate by force their females to death, lions doing things Richard II most likely didn’t etc. ad nauseam. And God saw it was good…
OTOH, it’s quite easy for an evolutionary biologist to assume highly social but not eusocial evolving empathy to heighten cooperation (or deception) and latter on learning some code of behaviours to go by. Not adherring to said code likely gets you a stick on the head or worse.
Given that I’ve blocked Y—be scripts from this browser, I haven’t even seen the raw link dumps.
It is of course noteworthy that Mr. Chastity/Call*-to-Celibacy would choose Blood on the Tracks as a blind favey-fave, but I would expect most to understand that “Idiot Wind” assigns far too much credit for such a purpose.
Si Tu Dois Partir almost would pass muster.
* Who’s been on the other end of the line?
I have wondered this a lot. How physicians can deny evolution, but it is really like anyone else denying evolution. It comes down to ideology blinding a person’s sense of reason. You can compartamentalize anything, and may be easier to do so if you’re very intelligent – better at rationalizing. I actually had one medical student that told me that their undergraduate degree -from a bible college of some sort – was in evidence against evolution. I could hardly believe it.
My Darwin’s Kidneys blog will have a lot of posts about evolution, but is still new so don’t have many essays up yet.
http://darwinskidneys.blogspot.com/
To Rich Feldenberg #1669:
You say you “actually had one medical student that told me that their undergraduate degree -from a bible college of some sort – was in evidence against evolution.”
So, it sounds like you have students under you.
Dr. Ben Carson made it through medical school, and seems to have attained even greater world-renown than you as a medical doctor.
How have your evolution-believing med students compared to your evolution-DISbelieving students, in terms of academics and practice?
Carson has gained world renown not as a doctor but rather as a member of the Republican Party’s rapidly growing lunatic fringe.
Shay: Yah, Carson’s lost whatever brain power he once possessed. Frankly, the colleges he and Jindal graduated from should rescind their degrees.I bet he was never a good doctor in any case.
SN: Something tells me the evolution denying doctors aren’t very good at their job, and that they are much more willing to let their patients die (especially if those patients are women, who don’t count as human to God). So much for morals.
Just to review, you are renowed for being a 59-year-old male from the Philadelphia area who appears to be childless and devoid of female companionship, leading to a misogynistic streak that you have trouble concealing, and specializes in saying really stupid things about subjects he has no understanding of and eventually throwing tantrums, right?
Maybe some doctors deny evolution because of the skullduggery with skulls and such.
From a book review by Nicholas Wade of Ian Tattersall’s “The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack”.
=================
“The Piltdown hoax is recounted in “The Strange Case of the Rickety Cossack” as a lesson in how easily paleoanthropologists—those who study human fossils—can be misled by notions that play to their prejudices. The author, Ian Tattersall, is himself a paleoanthropologist and has watched the antics of his profession for many years from a front-row seat at the American Museum of Natural History. His account of the field raises the wider issue of how, despite the supposed rigor of the scientific method, whole communities of scientists can occasionally be blown far off course by nonscientific motivations.
One of paleoanthropology’s problems, as Mr. Tattersall sees it, has been professional isolation from other sciences. From its beginnings in the 19th century, the subject was dominated by anatomists who paid minute attention to bone shapes and little to taxonomy or other relevant biological disciplines. These anatomists would make oracular pronouncements, which were basically intuitions beyond the reach of scientific analysis. One advised the young Mr. Tattersall that if he stared at the fossils for long enough, the bones would speak to him.
… Mr. Tattersall is unsparingly critical of the mental habits of his fellow paleoanthropologists. He describes the profession as one “whose practitioners are often slow to change their minds, even in the face of compelling evidence.” For years they resisted the assertions of molecular biologists that hominid fossils must be far younger than assumed. Until the arrival of cladistics, a more rigorous form of biological classification, debates among paleoanthropologists about how one hominid species was related to another were far from scientific, and “salesmanship was at a greater premium than rigorous reasoning was.”
Bad scientific habits, Mr. Tattersall believes, have been so pervasive that to the present day they distort knowledge of the human past. “If the entire hominid fossil record were to be rediscovered tomorrow and analyzed by paleontologists with no horses already in the race, it is pretty certain that we would emerge with a picture of human evolution very different from the one we have inherited,” he writes.
The author concedes that not all his colleagues will agree with everything he says. Still, he has presented a scalding indictment of a scholarly community and shown how easily nonscientific motives can influence supposedly scientific conclusions. Fraud in science is all too common, but failings in objectivity, especially when part of a community groupthink, are harder to detect and far more corrosive.
It doesn’t happen often, but whole communities of scientists do fall into error, sometimes for decades, when strong emotions drag them off course. Leading geophysicists resisted for decades the idea, proposed by a mere meteorologist, that the Earth’s continents had drifted. Chauvinism induced French physicists to believe for years in a colleague’s supposed discovery of N-rays, which they saw as an achievement to rival the German discovery of X-rays.
Such debacles raise the pertinent question of whether peer review and other safeguards are always successful in protecting science from political infection. When climatologists warn of global warming, for instance, could their political passions somehow leak into the parameters of their climate models? At first glance one might dismiss any such thought as ridiculous. But read Mr. Tattersall’s lively memoir about how unscientifically an entire scientific community can behave, even when no issue of national politics is involved, and you may start to wonder.”
===================
Before I choose a gate, I want to know:
Do the gates lead to the same place?
Is the wide gate for vehicular traffic and the narrow gate foot traffic? If so, am I driving a vehicle?
Is it assigned seating or general admission? History shows that general admission and narrow gates can be problematic.
Which has the shorter queue?
Are there other gates leading to the same place that are closed but available? Has anyone tried opening them? Why are they all queuing up at one gate when there are three other perfectly good gates right next to it that nobody is going through?
Is there some unnecessary hazard at one of the gates – say, a crocodile or a group of robbers – which I could avoid by taking the other gate?
Do I really want to go to where the gate leads? Does the sign above it say, “this way to the Egress” or “abandon hope all ye who enter here”?
Which gate can I fit through? While most gates are wide enough for the average person, I’d hate to try to go through one where I’d get stuck. Then someone would have to call the rescue squad, people would be yelling, and my picture (from an unflattering angle) would be all over social media with “clever” captions like “Shouldn’t have taken the narrow gate, dude.” That would be embarrassing, unless I could find some way to cash in.
You people amaze me with all your high-falutin’, grandiose pretension of supposed enlightenment. One quick question. You dearly love to ridicule Conservatives/Republicans who express any belief in a higher power. Yet, when those on the left engage in the same expression of beliefs (obamao & the clintons, included), you always give them a pass. I suppose this is because of some tacit understanding among you elitist wannabes? “Oh, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we HAVE to say that because of a certain element in our base (HMMMM, now WHO might that be?!?!), but we – the only ones who count – know better. Can you say hypocrite? Can you say bald-faces liars? You cretins make me ill.
Unless you have any examples of this, I’ll just assume that either your comment was intended for some other blog or you’re one hell of a dumbass cracker.