Webcast: The Evolution of Religion

I am totally against "accomodationism" and am all for bitter confrontation. I think it should be a case of one side wins, the other side loses.I want the Darwinists to be frank and honest - theism is irreconcilable with their philosophy. You may get by being a Deist, a freemason, a pantheist or non-theist (rather than just an atheist or agnostic), but no true theist or panentheist can support Darwinian naturalism and materialism. People should stop trying to find the "middle ground".

Atheistoclast said: I am totally against "accomodationism" and am all for bitter confrontation. I think it should be a case of one side wins, the other side loses.I want the Darwinists to be frank and honest - theism is irreconcilable with their philosophy. You may get by being a Deist, a freemason, a pantheist or non-theist (rather than just an atheist or agnostic), but no true theist or panentheist can support Darwinian naturalism and materialism. People should stop trying to find the "middle ground".

I am totally against “accomodationism” and am all for bitter confrontation.

I think it should be a case of one side wins, the other side loses.

I want the Darwinists to be frank and honest - theism is irreconcilable with their philosophy. You may get by being a Deist, a freemason, a pantheist or non-theist (rather than just an atheist or agnostic), but no true theist or panentheist can support Darwinian naturalism and materialism. People should stop trying to find the “middle ground”.

harold said: I strongly support everyone's private right to believe whatever they want, but when creationists try to violate the constitution by teaching select sectarian dogma as "science" in public schools, it's time for confrontation. Also, when they try to mislead the public with nonsense books and so on, although they have a first amendment right to do so, the science supporting community should respond, in the interest of an informed public...

Richard Hoppe wrote (in the OP) They have had a distinctly “accommodationist” flavor, and given the Templeton Foundation’s funding of the series (via Susan Fisher of the Department of Entomology at Ohio State), I suspect this one will carry on that theme. I know little of Tiger’s or Wade’s views on that, so I may be wrong.

(Publisher's Weekly) the instinct for religious behavior is an evolved part of human nature because, like other human social traits that have evolved over many thousands of years, the practice of religion conferred a decided survival advantage to those who practiced it.

Atheistoclast said: I am totally against "accomodationism" and am all for bitter confrontation. I think it should be a case of one side wins, the other side loses.I want the Darwinists to be frank and honest - theism is irreconcilable with their philosophy. You may get by being a Deist, a freemason, a pantheist or non-theist (rather than just an atheist or agnostic), but no true theist or panentheist can support Darwinian naturalism and materialism. People should stop trying to find the "middle ground".

Neal Conan did a follow-up on a report by Barbara Bradly Hagerty over on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation" on September 22, 2011.

One can really hear the underlying stress between Daniel Harlow, professor of religion at Calvin College and Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The stakes are apparently high enough for there to be blood.

That report by Barbara Bradly Hagerty over on NPR is here.

Mike Elzinga said: Neal Conan did a follow-up on a report by Barbara Bradly Hagerty over on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation" on September 22, 2011. One can really hear the underlying stress between Daniel Harlow, professor of religion at Calvin College and Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The stakes are apparently high enough for there to be blood.

harold said: Joe Bozorgmehr said -

I think it should be a case of one side wins, the other side loses.

It is. Your side lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLean_v._Arkansas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.

Atheistoclast said: no true theist or panentheist can support Darwinian naturalism and materialism

As the Thomas Bailieul's paper suggests:

Religion becomes dangerous when:

• a set of beliefs become ossified;

• ritual and imposed doctrine/practice become a primary source of individual identity;

• external authority becomes more important than internal reflection and exploration;

• differences (beliefs, rituals) are emphasized over similarities - driving xenophobia; and

• one faith tradition tries to impose its beliefs and practices on people outside that tradition.

This seems to describe Atheistoclast pretty well, yes?

But I looked into the link on Brian Leonard and was wondering what ever resulted from this case. Though it was stupid to begin with, I don't see how such a dissertation could be accepted and that Leonard was wasting his time. I did see that the dishonesty institute did a lot of dishonest chatter, but I could find no conclusion to the case. Anyone?

I read the BB Hagerty link and, does it seem to others as it seems to me, that DI types should read it with a view to defend all of the academic expulsions? That is, it seems to me that the moment you express doubts of an academic nature, about the robustness of biblical truth, you are flung out upon your ear. These people "Expel" oponents with gay abandon.

robert van bakel said: I read the BB Hagerty link and, does it seem to others as it seems to me, that DI types should read it with a view to defend all of the academic expulsions? That is, it seems to me that the moment you express doubts of an academic nature, about the robustness of biblical truth, you are flung out upon your ear. These people "Expel" oponents with gay abandon.

They're rioting in Africa. They're starving in Spain. There's hurricanes in Florida, and Texas needs rain. The whole world is festering with unhappy souls. The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles. Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch. And I don't like anybody very much! But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud, for man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud. And we know for certain that some lovely day, someone will set the spark off... and we will all be blown away. They're rioting in Africa. There's strife in Iran. What nature doesn't do to us... will be done by our fellow man.

Will they have presentations from actual religious ists?
To make the case for religion not being from evolution of this or that .
Is the audience getting equal time on these conclusions.?

Counter point might be about how ideas on religion evolution EVOLVED!

Its all simple.
There is a great creation which leads to a conclusion of a great being with great intelligence.
Everyone everywhere always concludes this.

Since there is largely no revelation then elements invest the nature of this being. The winners become the dominant religion.

The only thing to add is that from the beginning there was already serious claims of a God having revealed himself a little. This before mankind broke up.
Then a more serious claim of revelation , the bible, brought great conviction and great result to powerful religions.

To talk of the origins of religion without the option of there being a accurate and revealed truth about a higher being is to make a presumption that disqualify's any claim to discovery of truth .

Atheistoclast said: I am totally against "accomodationism" and am all for bitter confrontation. I think it should be a case of one side wins, the other side loses.I want the Darwinists to be frank and honest - theism is irreconcilable with their philosophy. You may get by being a Deist, a freemason, a pantheist or non-theist (rather than just an atheist or agnostic), but no true theist or panentheist can support Darwinian naturalism and materialism. People should stop trying to find the "middle ground".

Joe Felsenstein said: I don't think the discussion will really be about accommodationism -- the controversial issue seems likely to be whether an "evolutionary psychology" explanation of religion is valid. Both panel members seem likely to be on the same side on that one. Theories that religions are social constructs for reasons that have to do with their role in present-day or recent societies may get undeservedly short shrift.

harold said: The theory of evolution is obviously incompatible with your theism.

I don't personally agree with your statement here. I'm non-religious, but some scientists are religious, and they tell me their religion is compatible with mainstream science. That's good enough for me.

However, it's actually irrelevant, at least to me. The evidence shows that the theory of evolution explains the diversity and relatedness of cellular life and viruses on earth, due to evolution from common ancestry over 3.5-3.8 billion years. I personally find it hard to believe that "all religion" is incompatible with this (surely someone could just invent a religion that is not), but if it is, so be it. The facts are what they are.

If any religion is incompatible with the reality of evolution, it is a false religion and is doomed to failure. This is true regardless of whether you are familiar with the evidence or not. This is true regardless of the consequences. This is true regardless of your personal needs or beliefs. The legitimate role of science is to explain how such a counter productive and indeed destructive social phenomena could arise and propagate. If you don't like the conclusions of science, once again, that's too bad for you. Reality doesn't care what you think.

In the United States, everyone is free to believe in whatever god they choose, regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof. And everyone is free to actually become familiar with the evidence and to accept reality for what it is. If you don't have the honesty, courage and decency to do so, fine. But you shouldn't try to force your views on others, or pretend that you know better than all of the real scientists in the world. Ignoring the evidence won;t make it go away. Evolution will remain an inconvenient truth, no matter how strongly you try to deny it, no matter how you try to demonize it or equate it with religious dogma, no matter how badly you want it to not be true, no matter how how much you hate it. Setting up a culture war pitting the forces of ignorance against the forces of truth and reason can only bring grief and destruction, even if you win.

Evolution is real, it has many lessons to teach for those who are willing to learn. Ignoring those lessons will only cause harm. If your god is too small to exist in a world where evolution occurs, you need to find another god, or not.

phhht said:

harold said: I strongly support everyone's private right to believe whatever they want, but when creationists try to violate the constitution by teaching select sectarian dogma as "science" in public schools, it's time for confrontation. Also, when they try to mislead the public with nonsense books and so on, although they have a first amendment right to do so, the science supporting community should respond, in the interest of an informed public...

And when they make themselves ridiculous in their claims, as they always do, it is our duty to laugh - aloud.

DS said: Evolution is real, it has many lessons to teach for those who are willing to learn. Ignoring those lessons will only cause harm. If your god is too small to exist in a world where evolution occurs, you need to find another god, or not.

phhht said: You're full of braggadocio, Thiesotclast, full of confrontation and bluster, but when it comes to evidence for your delusions, you can't come up with a damned thing. All you've got is incredulity, denial, repetition - you know, hot air.

In other words, you're lying about denying being a science-denier: you're just pulling excuses out of your ass to justify your science denial and your morbid daydreams of stuffing all of your hated enemies into science concentration camps to die in agony.

I find it interesting, Atheistoclast, that you are unaware of the evolution of your own religion? How it is a syncretic built on a syncretic belief built on a syncretic belief.

For example, if you're a protestant, your Protestantism includes beliefs that were not part of Christianity pre-reformation. But, in fact, have been taken from other belief systems. Catholicism is, well known, to be a syncretic belief system that incorporates beliefs and functions from paganism.

Judaism is a syncretic belief. It is the marriage of the Israelite POLYTHESITIC RELIGION (El) with the Judean monotheistic religion (Yahweh). Both of which are syncretic, derivative and have precedents in history.

Have you never wondered about the story of Genesis? Have you never noticed that the story itself contridicts itself in the order in which things are made? Did you know the voice talking to God was NOT JESUS as modern Christians assert, but God's Wife -- Asheroth? That Genesis 1:26 was, in the ancient texts, a FEMALE VOICE? That Asheroth was speaking to El (aka El Shaddai)?

I could go on. Make quite the monograph. But I'm sure you're too hard-headed to accept anything that points out your belief is just the most recent God-Story in a chain of evolving god-stories that go back past recorded history. That it is, in fact, not only nothing special, but well documented in its origins and its evolution which, fundamentaly, falsify the belief-system your relgion holds/incorporates.

Did you know any of that? Of course you didn't. Because you've never bothered to explore the history and evolution of your religion.

Atheistoclast said: They [Darwinists] believe that matter can self-generate into life and evolve into a diversity of forms. They deny any kind of divine intervention in the universe.

John_S said:

Atheistoclast said: They [Darwinists] believe that matter can self-generate into life and evolve into a diversity of forms. They deny any kind of divine intervention in the universe.

How does believing the first sentence necessitate believing the second? Where, exactly, must a "true theist" draw the line between what is accomplished through "natural forces" vs God's direct intervention?

MosesZD said: I find it interesting, Atheistoclast, that you are unaware of the evolution of your own religion? How it is a syncretic built on a syncretic belief built on a syncretic belief. For example, if you're a protestant, your Protestantism includes beliefs that were not part of Christianity pre-reformation. But, in fact, have been taken from other belief systems. Catholicism is, well known, to be a syncretic belief system that incorporates beliefs and functions from paganism. Judaism is a syncretic belief. It is the marriage of the Israelite POLYTHESITIC RELIGION (El) with the Judean monotheistic religion (Yahweh). Both of which are syncretic, derivative and have precedents in history. Have you never wondered about the story of Genesis? Have you never noticed that the story itself contridicts itself in the order in which things are made? Did you know the voice talking to God was NOT JESUS as modern Christians assert, but God's Wife -- Asheroth? That Genesis 1:26 was, in the ancient texts, a FEMALE VOICE? That Asheroth was speaking to El (aka El Shaddai)? I could go on. Make quite the monograph. But I'm sure you're too hard-headed to accept anything that points out your belief is just the most recent God-Story in a chain of evolving god-stories that go back past recorded history. That it is, in fact, not only nothing special, but well documented in its origins and its evolution which, fundamentaly, falsify the belief-system your relgion holds/incorporates. Did you know any of that? Of course you didn't. Because you've never bothered to explore the history and evolution of your religion.

John_S said:

Atheistoclast said: They [Darwinists] believe that matter can self-generate into life and evolve into a diversity of forms. They deny any kind of divine intervention in the universe.

How does believing the first sentence necessitate believing the second? Where, exactly, must a "true theist" draw the line between what is accomplished through "natural forces" vs God's direct intervention?

Atheistoclast said: Belief is is an intuitive understanding that the there is a divine agency in this universe that is not itself not material.

the controversial issue seems likely to be whether an “evolutionary psychology” explanation of religion is valid.

Atheistoclast said: A theist recognizes that [his] own perception of reality is limited whereas a naturalist stubbornly does not.

But he does deny that these laws are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe, that of course preceded them, and the origin, diversity and complexity of life.

Atheistoclast said: I am totally against "accomodationism" and am all for bitter confrontation.

harold said: Joe Felsenstein said -

the controversial issue seems likely to be whether an “evolutionary psychology” explanation of religion is valid.

The term "evolutionary psychology" has become controversial, possibly unfairly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology However, all human behavior is the result of evolution, directly or indirectly. ... [Much thoughtful discussion snipped] ... I perceive a false dichotomy inherent in all "evolved versus social construct" arguments.

Atheistoclast said: A theist does not deny materialistic and naturalistic causes. After all, the natural laws in place have been set by the Creator. But he does deny that these laws are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe, that of course preceded them, and the origin, diversity and complexity of life.

Atheistoclast said: I am totally against "accomodationism" and am all for bitter confrontation.

If any religion is incompatible with the reality of evolution, it is a false religion and is doomed to failure.

If one aspect of a belief system is called into question - or is negated by scientific observation - then it can call into question the entire belief system. If the Garden of Eden did not exist, then the story of original sin is just that, a story. And if original sin is a fiction, how can there be salvation? And without salvation, how can there be eternal life?

Evolutionary biologist, Stephen J. Gould, proposed that science and religion constituted separate and separable ways of knowing - “non-overlapping magisteria”. In this conception, the two approaches to knowledge need never be in conflict as they address different areas of human inquiry.

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle" -- operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat... "NOMA does impose this 'limitation' on concepts of God..." --from Gould, Rocks Of Ages, Chapter Two

John_S said:

Atheistoclast said: A theist does not deny materialistic and naturalistic causes. After all, the natural laws in place have been set by the Creator. But he does deny that these laws are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe, that of course preceded them, and the origin, diversity and complexity of life.

How does a "theist" come to the conclusion that natural laws are insufficient to explain something? For a biblical literalist, the answer is easy: when there's an alternative explanation in the Bible. But many people are theists without being biblical literalists. Not to be flip, but if you can't find your car keys, at what point would you give up and conclude that they must have been poofed out of existence by God?

FL said:

If any religion is incompatible with the reality of evolution, it is a false religion and is doomed to failure.

Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity.

Joe Felsenstein said: I think anthropologists, sociologists, etc. have different theories. Some explain a social phenomenon (religion, in this case) in terms of evolution acting on the brain in a hunter-gatherer society. And it did so act. Others explain the form of the phenomenon in present-day societies in terms of functionality in those societies, or perhaps as a historical carryover from an immediately preceding society.

Atheistoclast said: I know through observation and logic that matter and energy alone are not sufficient to produce the complexity and information we see in life and the universe.

One of the biggest clues that the sectarianism of our trolls is a social phenomenon is its extreme hostility to people who attempt to keep educating themselves about the world in which they find themselves.

The seething hatred and anti-intellectualism directed at others who don’t accept their narrow sectarian dogma is so evident that it obviously doesn’t spring from any innate “religious impulse.” It is pure, arrogant bigotry coming from willfully ignorant trolls for whom feeling superior to everyone else just isn’t good enough.

Atheistoclast said: The religious impulse... is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship.

FL said (quoting Tom Baillieul): If the Garden of Eden did not exist, then the story of original sin is just that, a story. And if original sin is a fiction, how can there be salvation? And without salvation, how can there be eternal life?

Atheistoclast said: Through one's reasoning power. I know through observation and logic that matter and energy alone are not sufficient to produce the complexity and information we see in life and the universe. However,the materialist thinks that, since matter alone exists, everything "natural" must have a materialistic explanation. But that is an inherently flawed assumption. We have seen this attitude on this forum. Joe Felsenstein, for example, believes that the genome encodes everything about an organism - both its physical and behavioral traits. Even the cause of consciousness and sentience must be found within a mass of nucleotides. However, anyone with any real sense, knows this to be completely nonsensical. Yet he and his esteemed colleagues continue to insist on this dogma which is also deeply unproductive as far as science is concerned.

Mike Elzinga said: One of the biggest clues that the sectarianism of our trolls is a social phenomenon is its extreme hostility to people who attempt to keep educating themselves about the world in which they find themselves. The seething hatred and anti-intellectualism directed at others who don’t accept their narrow sectarian dogma is so evident that it obviously doesn’t spring from any innate “religious impulse.” It is pure, arrogant bigotry coming from willfully ignorant trolls for whom feeling superior to everyone else just isn’t good enough.

Atheistoclast said:

MosesZD said: I find it interesting, Atheistoclast, that you are unaware of the evolution of your own religion? How it is a syncretic built on a syncretic belief built on a syncretic belief. For example, if you're a protestant, your Protestantism includes beliefs that were not part of Christianity pre-reformation. But, in fact, have been taken from other belief systems. Catholicism is, well known, to be a syncretic belief system that incorporates beliefs and functions from paganism. Judaism is a syncretic belief. It is the marriage of the Israelite POLYTHESITIC RELIGION (El) with the Judean monotheistic religion (Yahweh). Both of which are syncretic, derivative and have precedents in history. Have you never wondered about the story of Genesis? Have you never noticed that the story itself contradicts itself in the order in which things are made? Did you know the voice talking to God was NOT JESUS as modern Christians assert, but God's Wife -- Asheroth? That Genesis 1:26 was, in the ancient texts, a FEMALE VOICE? That Asheroth was speaking to El (aka El Shaddai)? I could go on. Make quite the monograph. But I'm sure you're too hard-headed to accept anything that points out your belief is just the most recent God-Story in a chain of evolving god-stories that go back past recorded history. That it is, in fact, not only nothing special, but well documented in its origins and its evolution which, fundamentally, falsify the belief-system your religion holds/incorporates. Did you know any of that? Of course you didn't. Because you've never bothered to explore the history and evolution of your religion.

You're talking about the history of religion and the confluences of thought that gave rise to religious doctrines. What I am referring to is the religious impulse itself. Belief is an intuitive understanding that the there is a divine agency in this universe that is not itself not material. All religions and spiritual paths recognize this to be the case, irrespective of their particular rites and dogmas. Science regards any belief that is non-naturalistic and non-materialistic as non-scientific...except when it comes to "dark energy", of course.

Atheistoclast said:

Mike Elzinga said: One of the biggest clues that the sectarianism of our trolls is a social phenomenon is its extreme hostility to people who attempt to keep educating themselves about the world in which they find themselves. The seething hatred and anti-intellectualism directed at others who don’t accept their narrow sectarian dogma is so evident that it obviously doesn’t spring from any innate “religious impulse.” It is pure, arrogant bigotry coming from willfully ignorant trolls for whom feeling superior to everyone else just isn’t good enough.

I freely admit I am an anti-intellectual in that I oppose the pomposity and arrogance of many philosophers and scientists who base their ideas on a priori assumptions and prejudices. They are fundamentally ideologues who hide behind the mask and veneer of learning and knowledge. However, I am all for logic, reasoning and observation as the best way of empirically searching for truth and understanding.

Atheistoclast said: I oppose... pomposity and arrogance...

MosesZD said: Once he was a powerful, albeit absent-minded, Amorite/Ugarit god who lived on top of a mountain and controlled the forces of nature while pro-creating (he was the father of all the lesser gods of his pantheon), creating and destroying. He brought, through his son Baal, the fertile seasons and bountiful crops. Then came Josiah and he got a name change as Josiah combined the Israelite and Judean religions: I revealed myself to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as Ēl Shaddāi, but was not known to them by my name, Yahweh And I understand why Josiah did it. He needed to forge one nation out of two and to increase his claim on the territory of Israel. What I don't understand is why a modern person, such as you, again reforges the god-myth. At least Josiah 'respected' the myths, at least as far as he could get them to get he wanted... He didn't castrate God, but made him more powerful. You've turned him into a divine eunuch. Or, even worse, now he's a vague force to be hidden away in the gaps as you fight a pointless fight that you will never win. How pathetic your modern theology is... It's like divine homeopathy...

The evidence shows no such thing. The diversity of life and form is due to the creative expression of the Creator - and not to random mutations.

Atheistoclast said: ...I am all for logic, reasoning and observation as the best way of empirically searching for truth and understanding.

Atheistoclast said: The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship.

Atheistoclast said: I have always claimed that theism is a universal belief that goes beyond just the Abrahamic faiths.

John_S said:

Atheistoclast said: A theist does not deny materialistic and naturalistic causes. After all, the natural laws in place have been set by the Creator. But he does deny that these laws are sufficient to explain the origin of the universe, that of course preceded them, and the origin, diversity and complexity of life.

How does a "theist" come to the conclusion that natural laws are insufficient to explain something? For a biblical literalist, the answer is easy: when there's an alternative explanation in the Bible. But many people are theists without being biblical literalists. Not to be flip, but if you can't find your car keys, at what point would you give up and conclude that they must have been poofed out of existence by God?

That last sentence was my response to what was above. Sorry for the formatting error.

Joe wrote:

"The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship."

Actually, the predisposition for religiosity has a heritable basis, as does almost every other human trait, behavioral or otherwise. Once again, the evidence is against you and you ignore it. You lose.

Atheistoclast said: I freely admit I am an anti-intellectual in that I oppose the pomposity and arrogance of many philosophers and scientists who base their ideas on a priori assumptions and prejudices. They are fundamentally ideologues who hide behind the mask and veneer of learning and knowledge. However, I am all for logic, reasoning and observation as the best way of empirically searching for truth and understanding.

DS said: Joe wrote: "The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship." Actually, the predisposition for religiosity has a heritable basis, as does almost every other human trait, behavioral or otherwise. Once again, the evidence is against you and you ignore it. You lose.

DS said: I accept all of science, except those conclusions that go against my preconceptions. Then I will ignore all evidence, rationalize away any argument and impugn the integrity of anyone who dares to disagree with me. I will simply declare myself the expert and final arbiter and declare that my opinions trump all others, even when others are clearly more qualified than I. In order to maintain a veneer of respectability, I will still claim to be doing science, but in actuality, all I am doing is stroking my own ego and refusing to examine my misconceptions. All I have to do is then deny my shortcomings and project them onto others. In that way I will have have justified my behavior to myself, which is all that I require to declare myself correct. This is convenient, since I never have to change my opinion in the face of evidence and never have to admit that I was wrong.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pdNyoQAXk5GJMHp.VvmJYeGbof9PHFR_VPXHhryxiA--#6ef82 said:

Atheistoclast said: The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship.

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose the religious impulse were produced by the brain, in similar fashion, say, as voices are created in the brains of schizophrenics. How would you know the difference between something created in the brain and an "intuitive understanding"? Try convincing a paranoid schizophrenic that the voices aren't "real" and that no one is really out to get him.

Atheistoclast said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pdNyoQAXk5GJMHp.VvmJYeGbof9PHFR_VPXHhryxiA--#6ef82 said:

Atheistoclast said: The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship.

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose the religious impulse were produced by the brain, in similar fashion, say, as voices are created in the brains of schizophrenics. How would you know the difference between something created in the brain and an "intuitive understanding"? Try convincing a paranoid schizophrenic that the voices aren't "real" and that no one is really out to get him.

So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane? Only the atheists are sound in mind?

Atheistoclast said:Nonsense, you can have

DS said: Joe wrote: "The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship." Actually, the predisposition for religiosity has a heritable basis, as does almost every other human trait, behavioral or otherwise. Once again, the evidence is against you and you ignore it. You lose.

Nonsense. You can have atheist parents and grandparents and still be religious. You can have religious parents and grandparents and still be an atheist. Once again, your "evidence" doesn't exist.

Atheistoclast said: So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane? Only the atheists are sound in mind?

FL said:

If any religion is incompatible with the reality of evolution, it is a false religion and is doomed to failure.

Spoken like a true anti-Christian, DS. For the clear and documented truth is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. That one fact is inescapable and insurmountable, regardless of what you choose to believe about Christianity or its future prospects. Even the writer Tom Baillieul seems compelled to address this specific fact in his article. (Emphasis his): They are teaching The Virgin Birth as a scientific fact in public schools! Don't worry, though. It is completely compatible: http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

If one aspect of a belief system is called into question - or is negated by scientific observation - then it can call into question the entire belief system. If the Garden of Eden did not exist, then the story of original sin is just that, a story. And if original sin is a fiction, how can there be salvation? And without salvation, how can there be eternal life?

Yep, ole Tom gets it. So what does he do next? Like any good evolutionist who's been trapped by the truth, He searches for an escape hatch, of course. Predictably--utterly so--Tom tries to escape by offering his readers a dark swirling cupful of Stephen Jay Gould's favorite Kool-Aid:

Evolutionary biologist, Stephen J. Gould, proposed that science and religion constituted separate and separable ways of knowing - “non-overlapping magisteria”. In this conception, the two approaches to knowledge need never be in conflict as they address different areas of human inquiry.

Bailleul describes this "NOMA" Kool-Aid as the "ideal". And just to make sure you drink it all up, he quotes the iconic American preacher and activist MLK Jr: "Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values." *** Gould would have easily agreed with both Tom and MLK, of course. But what Tom ISN'T telling you, and what nobody apparently ever told MLK before he passed away, is that a cup full of NOMA carries a very distinct, very hefty, price tag. Fortunately, Gould was a VERY honest evolutionist, and he didn't mind spilling the beans himself, without hesitation:

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle" -- operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat... "NOMA does impose this 'limitation' on concepts of God..." --from Gould, Rocks Of Ages, Chapter Two

Think about that one. The very FIRST requirement of NOMA, Gould himself says, is for you to abandon--literally rationally abandon--ALL historical claims of God doing ANY supernatural interventions (normally called 'miracles') in actual Earth history at ANY time. He's not joking, he's not playing. He means it. But that abamdmonment would automatically include, the biggest historical miracle of all, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Bye-bye-Rez. Bye-Bye Christianity. Evolutionist H. Allen Orr was right: Gould wasn't serving up a Peace Treaty, he was serving up a SURRENDER DEMAND. (And even if you'll re-read MLK's statement, even HE had signed the surrender demand. For if the world of "facts" are restricted to whatever the scientists say they are, with religion sitting in the back of the bus and permitted only to speculate on mere "values" , then even MLK's own Christian belief in the Resurrection of Christ would likewise be relegated to the world of NON-FACT. For science has indeed confirmed that people who die from the type of injuries Jesus suffered on the Cross, do NOT rise again from the dead after three days and eat fried fish dinners with their friends.) *** So, bottom line: Tom Bailleul pointed out an INESCAPABLE, INSURMOUNTABLE reason why Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity, and talked as if there was some sort of escape hatch. But in the end Tom didn't give anybody AMY escape hatches at all. After quoting King, Tom simply dropped the subject. That's all, he just DROPS the subject and that's that. You're not even told what Gould said about NOMA's first commandment, you're not told where and how MLK shot down his own Christianity with a poorly-thought-out statement of surrender. But NOW, you do have the information at your disposal. You NOW know that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, and that Tom couldn't fix it. You NOW know what's in the dark, swirling cup of Kool-Aid that Tom gave you as an escape hatch. If you're an Atheist, then please drink up to your heart's content. Get some ice and potato chips and some college football on TV, and drink it up by the gallon. Slosh it out the jug. But if you're a Christian, then remember that the Christians in Guyana were only able to drink one cup of it, and there was nobody left for seconds. Period. FL

Atheistoclast said: So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane?

The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools.

There is no conflict, though.

http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

phhht said:

Atheistoclast said: So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane?

Let me try that again. The point of the question you dodged, Theistoclast, is that you cannot know that your intuition is true false, any more that someone with a schizophrenic delusion can. You cannot be sure that your intuition is not the product of, say, a pathologically exaggerated faith which compels you to believe in gods, despite the absence of evidence, and despite the counter-evidence. The only sound basis for determining the truth in a situation like yours is to query the real world. Is there real, repeatable, testable evidence for gods? No, there is not. That should tell you something.

arthuriandaily said: The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools. There is no conflict, though. *spam redacted*

arthuriandaily said: The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools. There is no conflict, though. http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

DS said:

Atheistoclast said:Nonsense, you can have

DS said: Joe wrote: "The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship." Actually, the predisposition for religiosity has a heritable basis, as does almost every other human trait, behavioral or otherwise. Once again, the evidence is against you and you ignore it. You lose.

Nonsense. You can have atheist parents and grandparents and still be religious. You can have religious parents and grandparents and still be an atheist. Once again, your "evidence" doesn't exist.

Nonsense, you can have parents with dark hair and you can have light hair. You can have parents with dark skin and you can have light skin. You can have parents with dark eyes and you can have blue eyes. None of these observations can be interpreted as meaning that the traits under questions do not have a heritable basis. The heritability estimates for religiosity are as high as 65%, depending on exactly which aspects you examine and which types of data you analyze. Once again, your ignorance is evidence of nothing.

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools. There is no conflict, though. *spam redacted*

Very deceptive of you to deliberately conflate the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ with a strawman cartoon of Abiogenesis, and then use said deceptive strawman to conflate and magically invalidate Evolutionary Biology, Cosmology and the Big Bang.

phhht said:

Atheistoclast said: So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane?

The point of the question you dodged, Theistoclast, is that you cannot know that your intuition is true, any more that someone with a different kind of delusion can. You cannot be sure that your intuition is not the product of, say, a pathologically exaggerated faith which compels you to believe in gods, despite the absence of evidence, and despite the counter-evidence. The only sound basis for determining the truth in a situation like yours is to query the real world. Is there real, repeatable, testable evidence for gods? No, there is not. That should tell you something.

Looks like we have another word-gamer here.

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools. There is no conflict, though. http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

Apparently, according to your link to your “flat you lance a lot,” you are one of those who think that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps you would explain how that is possible. Can you explain why life is temperature dependent? Does that have any significance to you? Do you also believe that religion has not evolved?

Atheistoclast said:

DS said:

Atheistoclast said:Nonsense, you can have

DS said: Joe wrote: "The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship." Actually, the predisposition for religiosity has a heritable basis, as does almost every other human trait, behavioral or otherwise. Once again, the evidence is against you and you ignore it. You lose.

Nonsense. You can have atheist parents and grandparents and still be religious. You can have religious parents and grandparents and still be an atheist. Once again, your "evidence" doesn't exist.

Nonsense, you can have parents with dark hair and you can have light hair. You can have parents with dark skin and you can have light skin. You can have parents with dark eyes and you can have blue eyes. None of these observations can be interpreted as meaning that the traits under questions do not have a heritable basis. The heritability estimates for religiosity are as high as 65%, depending on exactly which aspects you examine and which types of data you analyze. Once again, your ignorance is evidence of nothing.

So you think atheism or theism can be in the genes/memes but skip a generation or two? What an idiot.

arthuriandaily said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools. There is no conflict, though. http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

Apparently, according to your link to your “flat you lance a lot,” you are one of those who think that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps you would explain how that is possible. Can you explain why life is temperature dependent? Does that have any significance to you? Do you also believe that religion has not evolved?

I must have missed where I stated: Evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life is temperature dependent, and we sit on a planet tailor made for life. Who cares about religion?

Science purports: 1.) Thermodynamics is scientifically sound. 2.) The Big Bang is scientifically sound 3.) Evolution is scientifically sound. #1 doesn’t rule out #3. #2 gives it some problems, but doesn’t rule it out. However, #1 and #2 seem incompatible, since energy must come from somewhere.

Atheistoclast said:

phhht said:

Atheistoclast said: So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane?

The point of the question you dodged, Theistoclast, is that you cannot know that your intuition is true false, any more that someone with a schizophrenic delusion can. You cannot be sure that your intuition is not the product of, say, a pathologically exaggerated faith which compels you to believe in gods, despite the absence of evidence, and despite the counter-evidence. The only sound basis for determining the truth in a situation like yours is to query the real world. Is there real, repeatable, testable evidence for gods? No, there is not. That should tell you something.

of course faith plays a role in religion. It is to believe in the invisible without, of course, being able to see it. But let address one crucial point. The very first verse of the Bible and the Torah (Gen 1:1) is as follows: Be reshith bara Elohim ha shama'im wa ha 'aretz. The Hebrew means "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth." Any Jew or Christian who think that you can be a believer and deny the creation of this world by God is a liar and a fraud. I want nothing to do with these Deists and freemasons. They should be ostracized from every church and synagogue.

arthuriandaily lied: I did not deceive. The Virgin Birth is a FACT of evolution. There was the original, pre-virgin birth, then the birth that spawned life from the first organism on the otherwise lifeless planet. There is no evolution without this prognosis. If this is a strawman, then Ken Miller is spouting strawman science.

arthuriandaily said: I must have missed where I stated: Evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Life is temperature dependent, and we sit on a planet tailor made for life.

Who cares about religion?

Mike Elzinga said: Looks like we have another word-gamer here.

If you're an Atheist, then please drink up to your heart's content. Get some ice and potato chips and some college football on TV, and drink it up by the gallon. Slosh it out the jug.

But if you're a Christian, then remember that the Christians in Guyana were only able to drink one cup of it, and there was nobody left for seconds. Period.

FL

FL, this is the most insane fundamentalist rant I have ever read in this forum. It talks about kool aid and Christianity as if Pope John Paul II had never said, "Evolution is more than a hypothesis", or the Anglican and Congregational Churches had never allowed for the overlapping magisterium argument (in any sense) as a logical accommodation for the ways proof is to be presented in religion and science. This is Biblicist junk that only the most fanatic (and wrong) Born Again lunatics drink as kool aid. You may as well pass out Jack Chick tracts. The early stories in Genesis are true the way PARABLES ARE TRUE. Parables are not escape hatches.

apokryltaros said: You, on the other hand, are a Lying Idiot For Jesus parroting anti-science religious propaganda.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/C0t8YHQ3q.1OX9ofyjj6GHvCnxFuqA--#f23d0 said: If you're an Atheist, then please drink up to your heart's content. Get some ice and potato chips and some college football on TV, and drink it up by the gallon. Slosh it out the jug. But if you're a Christian, then remember that the Christians in Guyana were only able to drink one cup of it, and there was nobody left for seconds. Period. FL FL, this is the most insane fundamentalist rant I have ever read in this forum. It talks about kool aid and Christianity as if Pope John Paul II had never said, "Evolution is more than a hypothesis", or the Anglican and Congregational Churches had never allowed for the overlapping magisterium argument (in any sense) as a logical accommodation for the ways proof is to be presented in religion and science. This is Biblicist junk that only the most fanatic (and wrong) Born Again lunatics drink as kool aid. You may as well pass out Jack Chick tracts.

The early stories in Genesis are true the way PARABLES ARE TRUE. Parables are not escape hatches.

Mike Elzinga said:

apokryltaros said: You, on the other hand, are a Lying Idiot For Jesus parroting anti-science religious propaganda.

Over at his website his “Great Disclaimer” seems to indicate his blog is essentially about random brain farts. Nothing particularly interesting over there as near as I can tell from a brief scan. I don’t know what game he is playing here; but the coyness suggests he has a shoe to drop.

Since this thread is about the evolution of religion, I should bring up the fact that, over on the Bathroom Wall, FL never responded to a question about John Calvin’s role in the killing of Michael Servetus for heresy.

The reason it is relevant is that the burning at the stake of Servetus was done with green, slow burning wood so as to maximize the length of time Servetus would be in pain.

Interestingly, many denominations of the Christian religion today would be horrified if such punishments for “heresy” were used today; and there is some indication that some sects would, in fact, use such punishments if they were not constrained by secular law.

This raises the question that ID/creationists often direct at “atheists” and people of other faiths, or of people who don’t belong to any religion. That question is really an accusation that non-sectarians are immoral, but it is couched in terms of an assertion that morality comes only from their deity.

So the evolution of religion – or at least some denominations – away from the horrifying torturing and killing of “heretics” must be a bad thing for the likes of FL.

But if it is a “good” thing, then where is the source of morality that preempted the morality that allowed the killing of “heretics?”

If that comes from within the religion, then religion evolves from what it was in earlier times; and that raises the question about whether or not the religious rules of those time were right or wrong.

If that morality comes from outside of religion, then morality doesn’t come from religion or from some deity; especially if secular laws become the preferred deterrent to the burning of “heretics.”

It appears that most of our current sectarian trolls would prefer to burn “heretics” at the stake and begrudge the fact that secular law gets in the way.

The evidence shows no such thing. The diversity of life and form is due to the creative expression of the Creator - and not to random mutations.

Atheistoclast said: of course faith plays a role in religion. It is to believe in the invisible without, of course, being able to see it. But let address one crucial point. The very first verse of the Bible and the Torah (Gen 1:1) is as follows: Be reshith bara Elohim ha shama'im wa ha 'aretz. The Hebrew means "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth." Any Jew or Christian who think that you can be a believer and deny the creation of this world by God is a liar and a fraud. I want nothing to do with these Deists and freemasons. They should be ostracized from every church and synagogue.

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: The Virgin Birth is being taught as fact in public schools. There is no conflict, though. http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

Apparently, according to your link to your “flat you lance a lot,” you are one of those who think that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. Perhaps you would explain how that is possible. Can you explain why life is temperature dependent? Does that have any significance to you? Do you also believe that religion has not evolved?

I must have missed where I stated: Evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Life is temperature dependent, and we sit on a planet tailor made for life. Who cares about religion?

You said,

Science purports: 1.) Thermodynamics is scientifically sound. 2.) The Big Bang is scientifically sound 3.) Evolution is scientifically sound. #1 doesn’t rule out #3. #2 gives it some problems, but doesn’t rule it out. However, #1 and #2 seem incompatible, since energy must come from somewhere.

Ok; so flatulence it is.

Atheistoclast said: Be reshith bara Elohim ha shama'im wa ha 'aretz. The Hebrew means "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth."

Atheistoclast said: So you think atheism or theism can be in the genes/memes but skip a generation or two? What an idiot.

arthuriandaily said: Okay. Excellent job of quoting me. Now can you highlight the spot where I said Evolution is incompatible with thermodynamics? No matter how many times I read it, I can't see where I said it.

However, #1 and #2 seem incompatible, since energy must come from somewhere.

harold said: Atheistoclast and Arthuriandaily - For some reason this comment of mine was overlooked, so I will repeat it here. Arthuriandaily, also feel free to provide some positive evidence for "design".

The evidence shows no such thing. The diversity of life and form is due to the creative expression of the Creator - and not to random mutations.

We disagree. Here is the rational way to approach this disagreement. First let’s keep it organized. Here are five separate things - 1) positive evidence for “design” (NOT disparagement of evidence for other views, positive evidence), 2) evidence for evolution of the terrestrial biosphere, including viruses, from common ancestry, 3) models of abiogenesis (origin of cellular life from non-living precursors), 4) evidence for theism versus atheism, 5) within theism, evidence that some sects are superior to others. Right now, we are talking about “1)” and “2)”. The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”. Then and only then, we can move on to discuss the evidence for the evolution of the biosphere from common ancestry. Then we can look at the evidence for each perspective, and decide which is better supported, and indeed, if either is sufficiently supported. Now get started with some positive evidence for “design”.

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: I must have missed where I stated: Evolution is incompatible with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

If that were true, then not only would we be totally incapable of creating new breeds of domesticated organisms, we would also be wholly unable to reproduce without the aid of honest-to-goodness magic.

Life is temperature dependent, and we sit on a planet tailor made for life.

Then, according your (non_logic, water and all other liquids are intelligently designed to fit the insides of any container they are poured into.

Who cares about religion?

Because religion can inspire idiots like you to lie and spread anti-science propaganda in the name of bigotry and Jesus.

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: Okay. Excellent job of quoting me. Now can you highlight the spot where I said Evolution is incompatible with thermodynamics? No matter how many times I read it, I can't see where I said it.

Well, perhaps it’s just flatulence after all. But I happen to know something about thermodynamics and the entire history of its abuse by ID/creationists since the 1960s; and I didn’t understand this part of your assertion.

However, #1 and #2 seem incompatible, since energy must come from somewhere.

Given the teasers that many of our trolls throw out around here before they “spring their gotchas”, I was expecting there might be some hidden agenda. It also appears to be out of place on a thread discussing the evolution of religion. Just wondering.

arthuriandaily said: To believe in evolution, you must believe that all life derived from a single source.

arthuriandaily said:... I still never said evolution was incompatible with thermodynamics.

arthuriandaily said: Thanks for the italicized highlighting, but I still never said evolution was incompatible with thermodynamics. Just wondering why you are trying to 'nail me down' on something I didn't say. Seems odd.

I should also point out that this discussion that arthuriandaily appears to be trying to start here, by posting a link to his site, has already taken place over on his site.

Not only is it off topic here, but there are people commenting on his site trying to get him to clarify over there as well.

Why repeat it here?

Single Source Origin. The pinnacle of the evolutionary belief system. This is a link about the evolution of religion. I think the Single Source Origin of all of life began the evolution of all religion. How could it be otherwise?

arthuriandaily said: If there were not an Original Life Form, all life forms would not be related. Macroevolution is entirely dependent on this. The Single Source Origin was able to survive on a lifeless planet. (If there was any other life on the planet, this might imply a different cause for the varieties of life on the planet). So: Single Source Origin is an unquestionable truth of evolution. If you don't believe it, you don't believe in evolution.

To believe in evolution, you must believe that all life derived from a single source.

arthuriandaily said: Single Source Origin. The pinnacle of the evolutionary belief system. This is a link about the evolution of religion. I think the Single Source Origin of all of life began the evolution of all religion.

How could it be otherwise?

Mike Elzinga said: I should also point out that this discussion that arthuriandaily appears to be trying to start here, by posting a link to his site, has already taken place over on his site. Not only is it off topic here, but there are people commenting on his site trying to get him to clarify over there as well. Why repeat it here?

apokryltaros said:

Mike Elzinga said: I should also point out that this discussion that arthuriandaily appears to be trying to start here, by posting a link to his site, has already taken place over on his site. Not only is it off topic here, but there are people commenting on his site trying to get him to clarify over there as well. Why repeat it here?

Because he's a spamming troll on top of an attention whore?

Sorry, ‘elohim’ is plural. An honest translation would read: “In the beginning the gods CREATED the heavens and the earth.”

arthuriandaily said: Single Source Origin. The pinnacle of the evolutionary belief system. This is a link about the evolution of religion. I think the Single Source Origin of all of life began the evolution of all religion. How could it be otherwise?

Isn't it intersting in all this anti-science negativity coming from the likes of Atheistoclast, FL, and Byers, and perhaps some others as well, it is accommodated on PT. However, if you went over to the Dishonesty Institute's web site, or other like creationist site, you don't find any sort of such open dialogue, do you now, even though the DI champions "free speech." They wouldn't dare allow open comments, they are all closed minded as are Atheistoclast, et. al.

I notice that FL has snuck his "evolution is incompatible with Christianity" garbage back in again. He's been called on it. His arguments, such as they are, have been comprehensively shown to be false. His response is his usual: go quiet on it for a while, then haul it out again, in the hope that a new audience will swallow it.

Dave Luckett said: His response is his usual: go quiet on it for a while, then haul it out again, in the hope that a new audience will swallow it.

HIs arguments (regarding the Incompatibility of Evolution and Christianity) such as they are, have been comprehensively shown to be false.

Atheistoclast said: You can have atheist parents and grandparents and still be religious. You can have religious parents and grandparents and still be an atheist.

I guess he ignored the "Just for the sake of discussion, suppose..." part and used that as an excuse to avoid answering the question.

The key takeaway here (ironically) is that if religion provides a survival advantage, (then) intelligent design becomes the (preferred) explanation for origins and biological development.

So the point that God(s) need not be considered in an explanation becomes moot. Desirability becomes the driving force.

A (Darwinian) evolutionary explanation, regardless of its validity, thus becomes uncompetitive and will likely be discarded.

harold said: The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”.

Now get started with some positive evidence for “design”.

Atheistoclast said:

harold said: The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”.

Read the works of Dembski and Meyer. They have provided clear methods for inferring design from non-design.

Atheistoclast said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pdNyoQAXk5GJMHp.VvmJYeGbof9PHFR_VPXHhryxiA--#6ef82 said:

Atheistoclast said: The religious impulse, however, is not something encoded in the genome or produced by some chemical in the brain. It is derived from an intuitive understanding that the universe has been fashioned by a divine Creator and that this being is deserving of worship.

Just for the sake of discussion, suppose the religious impulse were produced by the brain, in similar fashion, say, as voices are created in the brains of schizophrenics. How would you know the difference between something created in the brain and an "intuitive understanding"? Try convincing a paranoid schizophrenic that the voices aren't "real" and that no one is really out to get him.

So you think that 90% of the people on this planet are insane? Only the atheists are sound in mind?

Floyd wrote:

"Spoken like a true anti-Christian, DS. For the clear and documented truth is that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. That one fact is inescapable and insurmountable, regardless of what you choose to believe about Christianity or its future prospects."

Actually, denying evolution make you the anti-Christian Floyd. But that's OK, the people you have turned away from Christianity will thank you and the real Christians will forgive you.

Matt Young said: The plural construction of elohim may be a vestige of a polytheistic past...

If there were not an Original Life Form, all life forms would not be related. Macroevolution is entirely dependent on this.

The Single Source Origin was able to survive on a lifeless planet. (If there was any other life on the planet, this might imply a different cause for the varieties of life on the planet).

So: Single Source Origin is an unquestionable truth of evolution. If you don’t believe it, you don’t believe in evolution. To believe in evolution, you must believe that all life derived from a single source.

harold said: The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”.

Read the works of Dembski and Meyer. They have provided clear methods for inferring design from non-design. If you can’t be bothered to understand them, then that is your problem. They are very similar to the techniques that SETI use.

Now get started with some positive evidence for “design”.

Start with the genetic code. It is the foundation of molecular biology and also the best evidence for design in Nature because, among other things, it is extremely improbable (there are 1.51*10^84 possible ways of mapping 64 codons to 20 amino acids and a stop site), extremely fault-tolerant and extremely elegant.

Atheistoclast said: Read the works of Dembski and Meyer. They have provided clear methods for inferring design from non-design.

And remember that in Genesis god himself uses plural pronouns (“us” not “I”), and seems to be talking to an audience of other supernatural beings.

FL said:

HIs arguments (regarding the Incompatibility of Evolution and Christianity) such as they are, have been comprehensively shown to be false.

Hey, I merely called attention to the one Incompatibility that the evolutionist Tom Baillieul specifically highlighted.

Paul Burnett said: ... Joe, why can't you understand this? Dembski's and Meyer's "works" aren't about science - they're about religion.

Steve P. said: The key takeaway here (ironically) is that if religion provides a survival advantage, (then) intelligent design becomes the (preferred) explanation for origins and biological development. So the point that God(s) need not be considered in an explanation becomes moot. Desirability becomes the driving force. A (Darwinian) evolutionary explanation, regardless of its validity, thus becomes uncompetitive and will likely be discarded.

Atheistoclast said:

harold said: The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”.

Read the works of Dembski and Meyer. They have provided clear methods for inferring design from non-design.

I don’t think the discussion will really be about accommodationism – the controversial issue seems likely to be whether an “evolutionary psychology” explanation of religion is valid. Both panel members seem likely to be on the same side on that one. Theories that religions are social constructs for reasons that have to do with their role in present-day or recent societies may get undeservedly short shrift.

So, FL, this means you were lying when you claimed you do not reject those Christians who find Evolution compatible with their faith? That, you were lying when you claimed that acceptance of Evolution doesn’t mean automatic damnation, straight to Hell to be tortured and raped by God forever and ever and ever?

So Flawd, how many gods do you believe in? One? Three? More?

You can count, can't you?

So, FL, this means you were lying when you claimed you do not reject those Christians who find Evolution compatible with their faith? That, you were lying when you claimed that acceptance of Evolution doesn’t mean automatic damnation, straight to Hell to be tortured and raped by God forever and ever and ever?

Stanton. You forgot to mention the Bar-B-Que Sauce for the Hadean Pitch-Forked Shisk-O-Bobs. Again. You ALWAYS forget the Bar-B-Que Sauce!!! Grrrr!!!

harold said: Arthuriandaily -

If there were not an Original Life Form, all life forms would not be related. Macroevolution is entirely dependent on this.

This borders on being true, but you should use the terminology "last common ancestor".

The Single Source Origin was able to survive on a lifeless planet. (If there was any other life on the planet, this might imply a different cause for the varieties of life on the planet).

Absolutely incorrect. All of life shares common ancestry, although not necessarily from one single individual cell, but that does not tell us what else was present at the time that the last common ancestor of modern life existed.

So: Single Source Origin is an unquestionable truth of evolution. If you don’t believe it, you don’t believe in evolution. To believe in evolution, you must believe that all life derived from a single source.

1) Tragically for you, scientists as a group aren't particularly stupid, and without meaning to be excessively rude, you appear to be far, far, far less clever than your self-serving biases cause you to believe that you are (you may have high innate ability but be driven by emotional biases to make silly claims - that's a common model for "big word creationists", a group you seem to belong to). If a particular model of abiogenesis is patently stupid, it is not a model that science uses. The straw man model of abiogenesis that you advance is not anything that anyone but you has ever suggested; therefore arguing against it is pointless. 2) No-one has a complete model of abiogenesis of modern cells. I'm sure life didn't arise by magic, but since we don't know every detail of how it arose, and never will, you can always claim that it did, and I'll never be able to completely contradict you; at best I'll be able to show you a very good model of how cellular life can arise without magic, some day. So you can always technically, if rather foolishly, insist that your deity of choice (most likely a narcissistic psychological extension of your own ego) magically created life. 3) Wherever life came from, it evolves now, has been evolving for 3.5-3.8 billion years, and evolution explains the current diversity and relatedness of the biosphere. That's true even if the Elohim poofed the first cell onto a lifeless planent and magically provided it life support, 3.8 billion years ago.

arthuriandaily said: If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

arthuriandaily said: Why does it matter how the Single Source Origin extrapolated life. "it evolves now, has been evolving for 3.5-3.8 billion years, and evolution explains the current diversity and relatedness of the biosphere." Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? I will defer to your expertise here, since I am obviously less versed in this possibility than you are. If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

FL the Bigot said:

So, FL, this means you were lying when you claimed you do not reject those Christians who find Evolution compatible with their faith? That, you were lying when you claimed that acceptance of Evolution doesn’t mean automatic damnation, straight to Hell to be tortured and raped by God forever and ever and ever?

Stanton. You forgot to mention the Bar-B-Que Sauce for the Hadean Pitch-Forked Shisk-O-Bobs. Again. You ALWAYS forget the Bar-B-Que Sauce!!! Grrrr!!!

arthuriandaily said: Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

Dave Luckett said: I have read this over and over again. I have parsed it minutely. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's confusion compounded with incoherence. Is he saying that he concedes common ancestry? Is he saying that asexual reproduction preceded sexual reproduction? I can't tell. Can anyone?

Dave Luckett said:

arthuriandaily said: Why does it matter how the Single Source Origin extrapolated life. "it evolves now, has been evolving for 3.5-3.8 billion years, and evolution explains the current diversity and relatedness of the biosphere." Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? I will defer to your expertise here, since I am obviously less versed in this possibility than you are. If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

I have read this over and over again. I have parsed it minutely. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's confusion compounded with incoherence. Is he saying that he concedes common ancestry? Is he saying that asexual reproduction preceded sexual reproduction? I can't tell. Can anyone?

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

harold said:

So, FL, this means you were lying when you claimed you do not reject those Christians who find Evolution compatible with their faith? That, you were lying when you claimed that acceptance of Evolution doesn’t mean automatic damnation, straight to Hell to be tortured and raped by God forever and ever and ever?

Stanton. You forgot to mention the Bar-B-Que Sauce for the Hadean Pitch-Forked Shisk-O-Bobs. Again. You ALWAYS forget the Bar-B-Que Sauce!!! Grrrr!!!

The Christian tradition I was raised in, which I no longer follow but still respect, had lying as a major wrong action. Now here's the way it goes - 1) We know you believe in Hell. 2) We know that you believe that people who don't worship your god in some subset of correct ways go to Hell. 3) We know that you believe that anyone who accepts evolution isn't following Christianity correctly. It doesn't matter to me, but why don't you just admit that all people who accept the theory of evolution will burn in Hell, under your particular theology? Or if that isn't true, why don't you just say "some people who accept evolution will still get to heaven", and then explain why, if this is true, you waste your time arguing against the theory of evolution, instead of making a positive case for your religion?

dornier.pfeil said: Yes, life came from non-life. At the boundary condition there is really very little difference between the two.

arthuriandaily said: Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

Why does it matter how the Single Source Origin extrapolated life. “it evolves now, has been evolving for 3.5-3.8 billion years, and evolution explains the current diversity and relatedness of the biosphere.”

Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a ‘common ancestor’ who survived off of ‘uncommon ancestory’? I will defer to your expertise here, since I am obviously less versed in this possibility than you are.

If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Of course, this discussion would be greatly helped if we did not have Creationists and other science-deniers trying to stop it with religious propaganda and anti-science deceptions.

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate?

Just Bob said: The creationists on display here really can't stand or understand ambiguity. They can't tolerate fluid definitions of 'species' which merely reflect the fluidity of living things, where one 'kind' shades into another and lines drawn between them may be arbitrary--good enough for practical use. They can't tolerate non-living self-replicating chemical complexes gradually shading into something we would recognize as living, with no obvious dividing line between them. They can't tolerate extant biological entities whose status as 'living' is ambiguous, e.g. viruses, viroids, prions, etc. And they especially can't tolerate shades of Christianity that have even moderate differences from their own.

And creationists who seek to draw a definitive line between fossils of "man" and "ape" sometimes embarrassingly draw them in DIFFERENT PLACES. Seems it's difficult to tell humans from other apes where they shade into one another. But of course each creationist "expert" is certain there IS such an uncrossable boundary. It's where HE says it is!

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Of course, this discussion would be greatly helped if we did not have Creationists and other science-deniers trying to stop it with religious propaganda and anti-science deceptions.

dornier.pfeil said: Yes, life came from non-life. At the boundary condition there is really very little difference between the two.

arthuriandaily said: Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

Just Bob said:

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Strongly disagree.

The creationists on display here really can't stand or understand ambiguity. They can't tolerate fluid definitions of 'species' which merely reflect the fluidity of living things, where one 'kind' shades into another and lines drawn between them may be arbitrary--good enough for practical use. They can't tolerate non-living self-replicating chemical complexes gradually shading into something we would recognize as living, with no obvious dividing line between them. They can't tolerate extant biological entities whose status as 'living' is ambiguous, e.g. viruses, viroids, prions, etc. And they especially can't tolerate shades of Christianity that have even moderate differences from their own.

arthuriandaily said:

Just Bob said:

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Strongly disagree.

The creationists on display here really can't stand or understand ambiguity. They can't tolerate fluid definitions of 'species' which merely reflect the fluidity of living things, where one 'kind' shades into another and lines drawn between them may be arbitrary--good enough for practical use. They can't tolerate non-living self-replicating chemical complexes gradually shading into something we would recognize as living, with no obvious dividing line between them. They can't tolerate extant biological entities whose status as 'living' is ambiguous, e.g. viruses, viroids, prions, etc. And they especially can't tolerate shades of Christianity that have even moderate differences from their own.

arthuriandaily said: Are life and non-life 'nearly indistinguishable'? If you took a rock and a sperm to a laboratory to examine it, would quibbling over the distinctions have no scientific value, since evolution of life has nothing to do with how it began?

harold said:

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Of course, this discussion would be greatly helped if we did not have Creationists and other science-deniers trying to stop it with religious propaganda and anti-science deceptions.

That is an excellent question. In the biomedical sciences, we implicitly and operationally define the terrestrial life we currently study as cellular life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_theory We also study viruses, which appear to be descended from intact cells. Both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells currently tend to contain at least the following near universal features - 1) Multilayer lipid based membrane, but that also incorporates many proteins, and carbohydrate moieties. 2) Ability to regulate intracellular ionic concentrations relative to extracellular conditions, at least to some degree, via the membrane and its components. In eukaryotic cells, ionic concentrations is various compartments can sometimes be regulated to some degree, via analogous mechanisms. 3) Some degree of protein cytoskeleton structure. 4) A DNA genome and a modern genetic code. 5) The full complement of DNA replication, transcription, and translation, and therefore mRNA, tRNA, ribosomes, and required enzymes. A really complete and ambitious model of abiogenesis - and this borders on being something unrealistic to expect at current technology level - would ideally explain how life or life-like replicators could exist before all these features were present and how these features originated.

arthuriandaily said:

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Of course, this discussion would be greatly helped if we did not have Creationists and other science-deniers trying to stop it with religious propaganda and anti-science deceptions.

dornier.pfeil said: Yes, life came from non-life. At the boundary condition there is really very little difference between the two.

arthuriandaily said: Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

I admit, I misunderstood. I did not think 'when life begins' is an anti-science deception. Life's evolution from this state is paramount. The deception comes in, apparently, when you try to state the inception. The beginning, according to this post, is 'deception'. Are life and non-life 'nearly indistinguishable'? If you took a rock and a sperm to a laboratory to examine it, would quibbling over the distinctions have no scientific value, since evolution of life has nothing to do with how it began? Or does it matter after all?

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

arthuriandaily wrote:

"This information must be total BS, otherwise how would evolution address this?"

Well, if you are referring to the part about cells coming from preexisting cells, no that is not a problem for evolution. That is a problem for abiogenesis, regardless of your attempts to conflate the two. As for the rest, none of that is a problem for modern evolutionary theory either.

Do you have anything related to the topic of this thread that you want to discuss, or are you just slinging mud?

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: Are life and non-life 'nearly indistinguishable'? If you took a rock and a sperm to a laboratory to examine it, would quibbling over the distinctions have no scientific value, since evolution of life has nothing to do with how it began?

Have you actually bothered to READ any books about abiogenesis or evolution, or even biology? Do you consider viruses alive? Or the self-replicating protein strands in a cell-free environment in a test tube to be alive? Or what about lengthening hydrocarbon chains in a chemical reaction? That, and you still haven't answered the question of why it is necessary to understand how life began before one can understand examples of evolution occurring now.

Atheistoclast said:

harold said: The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”.

Read the works of Dembski and Meyer. They have provided clear methods for inferring design from non-design. If you can't be bothered to understand them, then that is your problem. They are very similar to the techniques that SETI use.

Now get started with some positive evidence for “design”.

Start with the genetic code. It is the foundation of molecular biology and also the best evidence for design in Nature because, among other things, it is extremely improbable (there are 1.51*10^84 possible ways of mapping 64 codons to 20 amino acids and a stop site), extremely fault-tolerant and extremely elegant.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad said:

Dave Luckett said:

arthuriandaily said: Why does it matter how the Single Source Origin extrapolated life. "it evolves now, has been evolving for 3.5-3.8 billion years, and evolution explains the current diversity and relatedness of the biosphere." Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? I will defer to your expertise here, since I am obviously less versed in this possibility than you are. If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

I have read this over and over again. I have parsed it minutely. It makes no sense whatsoever. It's confusion compounded with incoherence. Is he saying that he concedes common ancestry? Is he saying that asexual reproduction preceded sexual reproduction? I can't tell. Can anyone?

Yes, it's amazing how devoid of sense it is. But getting back to the earlier claims, I guess the point is that if you can make abiogenesis out to be as baseless as his religious claims, he thinks he's won something. Never mind that abiogenesis isn't even "birth," and it means nothing to be "virgin" as a simple replicator. On the matter of single vs. multiple origins, Darwin:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Not that Darwin settles anything per se, it's just that he said the only sensible thing at the time, that life could have had several or one origin and evolution would work well either way. It's the obviousness of the sentiment (vs. the obliviousness of arthuriandaily) in the quote that matters, not the "authority." As it turns out, it was just one form, not several, and we doubt that life was "breathed into" any forms, as Darwin doubted it later (quite possibly at the time). Glen Davidson

Wait a minute, I just checked the website you posted. This cannot be scientifically accurate, can it? Classical interpretation: 1.) All living organisms are made up of one or more cells. 2.) Cells are the basic unit of life. 3.) All cells arise from pre-existing cells. 4.) The cell is the unit of structure, physiology, and organization in living things. 5.) The cell retains a dual existence as a distinct entity and a building block in the construction of organisms. Modern interpretation: 1.) The generally accepted parts of modern cell theory include: 2.) The cell is the fundamental unit of structure and function in living organisms. 3.) All cells arise from pre-existing cells by division. 4.) Energy flow (metabolism and biochemistry) occurs within cells. 5.) Cells contain hereditary information (DNA) which is passed from cell to cell during cell division. 6.) All cells are basically the same in chemical composition in organisms of similar species. 7.) All known living things are made up of one or more cells. 8.) Some organisms are made up of only one cell and are known as unicellular organisms. 9.) Others are multicellular, composed of a number of cells. 10.) The activity of an organism depends on the total activity of independent cells.

This information must be total BS,

otherwise how would evolution address this?

Just One form? Did that form have parents? Did that (one) form GIVE LIFE to life that spawned evolutionary life on this planet? How does that differ from a Virgin Birth: Single Source Origin?

arthuriandaily said: Just One form? Did that form have parents? Did that (one) form GIVE LIFE to life that spawned evolutionary life on this planet? How does that differ from a Virgin Birth: Single Source Origin?

It is my understanding that we are all related… every living organism. I am related to a cockroach just as you are related to a sperm whale. We are all related to the grass, and amoebas, and moss, and mold… That is my understanding. So if we are all related, then we have to have a common ancestor. That is my understanding. Where am I wrong?

arthuriandaily said: Just One form? Did that form have parents? Did that (one) form GIVE LIFE to life that spawned evolutionary life on this planet? How does that differ from a Virgin Birth: Single Source Origin?

arthuriandaily said: Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

dornier.pfeil said: Yes, life came from non-life. At the boundary condition there is really very little difference between the two.

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Of course, this discussion would be greatly helped if we did not have Creationists and other science-deniers trying to stop it with religious propaganda and anti-science deceptions.

arthuriandaily said: I admit, I misunderstood. I did not think 'when life begins' is an anti-science deception. Life's evolution from this state is paramount. The deception comes in, apparently, when you try to state the inception. The beginning, according to this post, is 'deception'. Are life and non-life 'nearly indistinguishable'? If you took a rock and a sperm to a laboratory to examine it, would quibbling over the distinctions have no scientific value, since evolution of life has nothing to do with how it began? Or does it matter after all?

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

It doesn’t matter to me, but why don’t you just admit that all people who accept the theory of evolution will burn in Hell, under your particular theology?

Or if that isn’t true, why don’t you just say “some people who accept evolution will still get to heaven”,

and then explain why, if this is true, you waste your time arguing against the theory of evolution, instead of making a positive case for your religion?

I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen. --Richard Dawkins, TV interview with Howard Condor (2011)

The journey from very devout Catholic to outspoken atheist took about six months total. Once my trust in the Bible was shaken, (after reading Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion), I still believed strongly in a theistic god, but I realized that I hadn’t sufficiently examined my beliefs. Over the next several months, my certainty of a sentient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity faded steadily. I believe that the loss of a specific creed was the tipping point for me. After I lost the element of trust—be it trust in the Bible, trust in a church, or trust in the Pope—I had no choice but to vindicate my own beliefs through research, literature, and countless hours of deep thought. It was then that my belief in any sort of God faded away gradually, and to this day I continue to find more and more convincing evidence against any sort of design or supernatural interference in the universe. --Leo Behe (who hadn't even begun attending university at the time!!), The Humanist Interview (2011)

Dowd describes himself as having been "born again" while serving in the United States Army in Germany in 1979, and for the next three years living within a fundamentalist culture that was strongly opposed to evolution. Thereafter he came under a more eclectic range of religious influences (including a friendship with a "Buddhist-Christian" former Trappist monk, Tobias Meeker), that opened him up to first intellectual, and then spiritual, acceptance of evolution. ---Wikipedia

Mike Elzinga,

I went over to Arthurian's wordpress blog and read it. Could you explain something for me? I have the understanding that the universe has a net energy balance of zero.* The gravitational potential energy of the universe is negative and it exactly balances the positive total of the energy plus the mass of the universe. To put it snidely, the universe doesn't have any energy. When the creationists ask "where did the energy come from for the big bang?" isn't this a viable explanation?

*I can't remember where I read this, am not sure I am remembering it correctly, and don't know how dark energy plays a part. (Dark energy seems sneakily like a 1st law violation.)

Thank you

I think the real issue here is that no intellectual argument can sway an atheist. He is blinded by a deep sense of self-hate into supposing that he is nothing more than an assemblage of atoms,produced by a blind and dumb process over billions of years, and with no purpose other than reproduction. Darwinism is, bizarrely, comforting to many atheists who fear having to face up to their true selves as conscious, sentient and spiritual beings that have been created by an All-Wise power. That is how I have learned to deal with atheists over the years. They will never be persuaded with reason but only with emotion. They have identified with the ultra-materialistic orthodoxy within science and cherish it like it was something sacred and inviolable. They regard anything other than the "holiness" of matter as magic and superstition. Nature can be reduced to the aggregate of material interactions and processes. It has no soul, no life or anything mysterious. Indeed, anything that appears to "demystify" the enigma of existence is hailed by the atheists regardless of its scientific merit. if tomorrow someone claims to have solved abiogenesis or the origins of the universe, they will seize upon it like manna from heaven. Therefore, most people on this forum have essentially found refuge in naturalistic materialism and it is a source of joy and comfort to them as much as faith in God is to a believer. Even though I find it appalling and shallow, they see it as wonderful. So even though I am committed to destroying atheism through reason, the best approach may be to appeal to their psychological and pathological condition which is surrounded by some very twisted and perverse logic.

FL said: So I have chosen to speak up, speak out, call attention to the FACT that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. I simply choose to fight back. FL

arthuriandaily said:

Just Bob said: The creationists on display here really can’t stand or understand ambiguity. They can’t tolerate fluid definitions of ‘species’ which merely reflect the fluidity of living things, where one ‘kind’ shades into another and lines drawn between them may be arbitrary–good enough for practical use. They can’t tolerate non-living self-replicating chemical complexes gradually shading into something we would recognize as living, with no obvious dividing line between them. They can’t tolerate extant biological entities whose status as ‘living’ is ambiguous, e.g. viruses, viroids, prions, etc. And they especially can’t tolerate shades of Christianity that have even moderate differences from their own.

Sorry, disagreed with Bob, not the question... = 0

Atheistoclast said: I think the real issue here is that no intellectual argument can sway an atheist. He is blinded by a deep sense of self-hate into supposing that he is nothing more than an assemblage of atoms,produced by a blind and dumb process over billions of years, and with no purpose other than reproduction. Darwinism is, bizarrely, comforting to many atheists who fear having to face up to their true selves as conscious, sentient and spiritual beings that have been created by an All-Wise power. That is how I have learned to deal with atheists over the years. They will never be persuaded with reason but only with emotion. They have identified with the ultra-materialistic orthodoxy within science and cherish it like it was something sacred and inviolable. They regard anything other than the "holiness" of matter as magic and superstition. Nature can be reduced to the aggregate of material interactions and processes. It has no soul, no life or anything mysterious. Indeed, anything that appears to "demystify" the enigma of existence is hailed by the atheists regardless of its scientific merit. if tomorrow someone claims to have solved abiogenesis or the origins of the universe, they will seize upon it like manna from heaven. Therefore, most people on this forum have essentially found refuge in naturalistic materialism and it is a source of joy and comfort to them as much as faith in God is to a believer. Even though I find it appalling and shallow, they see it as wonderful. So even though I am committed to destroying atheism through reason, the best approach may be to appeal to their psychological and pathological condition which is surrounded by some very twisted and perverse logic.

arthuriandaily said: It is my understanding that we are all related... every living organism. I am related to a cockroach just as you are related to a sperm whale. We are all related to the grass, and amoebas, and moss, and mold... That is my understanding. So if we are all related, then we have to have a common ancestor. That is my understanding. Where am I wrong?

FL said: There you go. Another Christian dissolved by Universal Acid. The religion of Evolution is helping to send many people to a burning Hell, Harold. For all eternity.

So I have chosen to speak up, speak out, call attention to the FACT that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. I simply choose to fight back.

FL said: Harold asked,

It doesn’t matter to me, but why don’t you just admit that all people who accept the theory of evolution will burn in Hell, under your particular theology?

Because the Bible doesn't say that. I can't go beyond what the Bible says. (Btw, the fact that you asked the question DOES imply that it matters to you in some way.)

I think the real issue here is that no intellectual argument can sway a theist. He is blinded by a deep delusion of self importance into supposing that he is the reason that the entire universe exists, produced by a loving caring god in just one day, and with no purpose other than to serve that god. Religion is, bizarrely, comforting to many theists who fear having to face up to their true selves as limited, flawed beings that will one day have to die. That is how I have learned to deal with theists over the years. They will never be persuaded with reason. They have identified with the ultra-nonmaterialistic orthodoxy and cherish it by pretending that it is something sacred and inviolable. They regard anything other than the “holiness” of matter base and materialistic. Obviously, nature can be reduced to the aggregate of material interactions and processes, It has no soul, no life or anything mysterious. Indeed, anything that appears to “demystify” the enigma of existence is vilified by the theists, regardless of its scientific merit. If tomorrow someone actually solved the minor problem of abiogenesis or the origins of the universe, they will deny it, and refuse to accept it, regardless of the scientific validity. Therefore, most people on this forum have essentially found good explanations in naturalistic and materialistic explanations for nature and it is a source of joy and comfort to them, almost as much as faith in God is to a believer. Even though I find it wonderful, it is a joy that those who require supernatural explanations will never know. So even though I am committed to evidence and reason, the best approach may be to appeal to just ignore those committed to religious dogma and hope that they eventually learn the truth for themselves. As long as they don;t try to force their views on others, especially in public schools, the truth will eventually set them free.

Atheistoclast said: I think the real issue here is that no intellectual argument can sway an atheist.

He is blinded by a deep sense of self-hate...

...created by an All-Wise power.

I am committed to destroying atheism through reason, the best approach may be to appeal to their psychological and pathological condition which is surrounded by some very twisted and perverse logic.

dornier.pfeil said: Mike Elzinga, I went over to Arthurian's wordpress blog and read it. Could you explain something for me? I have the understanding that the universe has a net energy balance of zero.* The gravitational potential energy of the universe is negative and it exactly balances the positive total of the energy plus the mass of the universe. To put it snidely, the universe doesn't have any energy. When the creationists ask "where did the energy come from for the big bang?" isn't this a viable explanation? *I can't remember where I read this, am not sure I am remembering it correctly, and don't know how dark energy plays a part. (Dark energy seems sneakily like a 1st law violation.) Thank you

DS said:

arthuriandaily said:

apokryltaros said: Where does one draw the line between primitive life and complex organic molecules that can self-replicate? Of course, this discussion would be greatly helped if we did not have Creationists and other science-deniers trying to stop it with religious propaganda and anti-science deceptions.

dornier.pfeil said: Yes, life came from non-life. At the boundary condition there is really very little difference between the two.

arthuriandaily said: Are you, (or others) really trying to stake the claim that all life came from a 'common ancestor' who survived off of 'uncommon ancestory'? If not, what possibility could bypass The Virgin Birth; Single Source Origin of all life? (and the prototype for all religion.)

I admit, I misunderstood. I did not think 'when life begins' is an anti-science deception. Life's evolution from this state is paramount. The deception comes in, apparently, when you try to state the inception. The beginning, according to this post, is 'deception'. Are life and non-life 'nearly indistinguishable'? If you took a rock and a sperm to a laboratory to examine it, would quibbling over the distinctions have no scientific value, since evolution of life has nothing to do with how it began? Or does it matter after all?

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

I call POE. No one could be this obtuse.

Mike Elzinga said:

dornier.pfeil said: Mike Elzinga, I went over to Arthurian's wordpress blog and read it. Could you explain something for me? I have the understanding that the universe has a net energy balance of zero.* The gravitational potential energy of the universe is negative and it exactly balances the positive total of the energy plus the mass of the universe. To put it snidely, the universe doesn't have any energy. When the creationists ask "where did the energy come from for the big bang?" isn't this a viable explanation? *I can't remember where I read this, am not sure I am remembering it correctly, and don't know how dark energy plays a part. (Dark energy seems sneakily like a 1st law violation.) Thank you

These are the interesting questions in cosmology that are being explored right now. But the problem of energy is not really a problem. You noticed a particular example. However, there are many others; including the popping out of the “vacuum” of particle-antiparticle pairs that show their effects on a slight shift in the energy levels of atoms such as hydrogen and helium (“vacuum polarization,” for example). This kind of stuff happens routinely in particle physics. I think the reason many laypersons find this difficult to understand is that the language of “things popping spontaneously out of the vacuum” is not really understood in the way physicists understand it. “The vacuum” is something that is colloquially understood to be equivalent to “nothingness.” But to a physicist, anything in the universe that is very weakly interacting or non-interacting with the matter we ourselves are made of is effectively “nothingness” or near-nothingness. But what we think of as “empty space” is a sea of particles filling up every available energy state, which, by the rules of quantum mechanics means that these states do not interact with any of the matter we see in the universe. So it seems like nothingness to us. But, under the right conditions, particles can be “chipped out of” those completely filled states and become detectable as particles and antiparticles. Now there are a number of models that employ what we already know about such phenomena. Some of those are analogous of the particle-antiparticle pairs appearing “out of the vacuum.” But there are also other models that rely on higher dimensions; our universe being a projection down onto lower dimensions of events taking place in higher dimensions. There are also tests going on at CERN for things like this. Also recognize that time is intricately wrapped up with the existence of matter and energy. There could be no such thing as time if there were not matter moving around relative to itself, some movements of which can be singled out as references (called clocks) for the movements of other matter. The passage of time can only be “sensed” if there are complex enough structures in a universe that have hierarchies of memory that can “record” the sequences of events we call clock ticks and motion. Hierarchies of memory are required because they are needed to measure successive sequences of events and “rank order” them. And the “sensing” of the presence of particles can only take place if matter interacts with matter; which it does. That’s how we “know” something is happening.

I apologize for the mal-edit above.

phhht said: Wowser. That was good.

DS said: I think the real issue here is that no intellectual argument can sway a theist. He is blinded by a deep delusion of self importance into supposing that he is the reason that the entire universe exists, produced by a loving caring god in just one day, and with no purpose other than to serve that god. Religion is, bizarrely, comforting to many theists who fear having to face up to their true selves as limited, flawed beings that will one day have to die. That is how I have learned to deal with theists over the years. They will never be persuaded with reason. They have identified with the ultra-nonmaterialistic orthodoxy and cherish it by pretending that it is something sacred and inviolable. They regard anything other than the “holiness” of matter base and materialistic. Obviously, nature can be reduced to the aggregate of material interactions and processes, It has no soul, no life or anything mysterious. Indeed, anything that appears to “demystify” the enigma of existence is vilified by the theists, regardless of its scientific merit. If tomorrow someone actually solved the minor problem of abiogenesis or the origins of the universe, they will deny it, and refuse to accept it, regardless of the scientific validity. Therefore, most people on this forum have essentially found good explanations in naturalistic and materialistic explanations for nature and it is a source of joy and comfort to them, almost as much as faith in God is to a believer. Even though I find it wonderful, it is a joy that those who require supernatural explanations will never know. So even though I am committed to evidence and reason, the best approach may be to appeal to just ignore those committed to religious dogma and hope that they eventually learn the truth for themselves. As long as they don;t try to force their views on others, especially in public schools, the truth will eventually set them free.

phhht said: BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. There is no evidence for gods because there are no gods, Theistoclast. All your attempted reason, all your twisted logic, all your hate and your disdain, all are just hot air. Huff and puff, Theistoclast, blow that brick house down!

Atheistoclast said: WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU EXACTLY REQUIRE? I HAVE GIVEN YOU PLENTY OF EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THE SIGNATURE OF DESIGNING INTELLIGENCE IN NATURE: LOOK NO FURTHER THAN EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN YOUR OWN BODY! IT IS NOT THE OUTCOME OF CHANCE AND NECESSITY!

Atheistoclast said:

phhht said: BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. There is no evidence for gods because there are no gods, Theistoclast. All your attempted reason, all your twisted logic, all your hate and your disdain, all are just hot air. Huff and puff, Theistoclast, blow that brick house down!

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU EXACTLY REQUIRE? I HAVE GIVEN YOU PLENTY OF EXAMPLES THAT SHOW THE SIGNATURE OF DESIGNING INTELLIGENCE IN NATURE: LOOK NO FURTHER THAN EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON IN YOUR OWN BODY! IT IS NOT THE OUTCOME OF CHANCE AND NECESSITY!

Atheistoclast said: What is the ultra-nonmaterialistic orthodoxy? Theists don't dispute the existence of natural laws or the importance of matter. They just don't assert that these are sufficient to explain the mystery of life and origin of the universe. The theist is not an extremist like the atheistic naturalist is. But, if you think of yourself as just an assemblage of atoms, then which one of them am I presently conversing with?

apokryltaros said:

FL said: There you go. Another Christian dissolved by Universal Acid. The religion of Evolution is helping to send many people to a burning Hell, Harold. For all eternity.

So are you saying that I'm going to burn in Hell because I don't agree with you? Are you saying that Pope John Paul is burning in Hell because he did not condemn Evolution? Are you saying that you were lying like the Devil, himself, when you said you thought I was a Christian?

So I have chosen to speak up, speak out, call attention to the FACT that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. I simply choose to fight back.

By lying? By condemning everyone who disagrees with you to Hell? That is, on top of treating everyone who doesn't lick your ass as scum of the earth?

harold said:

Just One form? Did that form have parents? Did that (one) form GIVE LIFE to life that spawned evolutionary life on this planet? How does that differ from a Virgin Birth: Single Source Origin?

We get it. You, personally, cannot possibly imagine how life could have originated, and have no interest in learning anything about what anyone who has applied effort or intelligence to the issue has to say. In fact, it is probable that learning anything about abiogenesis would cause you to doubt some favored belief system, and this would make you uncomfortable. In fact, it is actually rather obvious that you are already uncomfortable. You wish to make the ideas that make you uncomfortable go away, by essentially plugging your ears and repeating "LALALALA I can't here you" over and over again. I strongly support your fundamental human and constitutional right to do so. However, the moderators will probably require you to do so on the bathroom wall, fairly soon now.

FL said: So I have chosen to speak up, speak out, call attention to the FACT that Evolution is Incompatible with Christianity. I simply choose to fight back. FL

"just because the story of original sin is just a story, doesn’t mean the concept of original sin must be a fiction. The only belief that’s called into question is the fundamentalist belief that the Bible is always a literal history or science book rather than metaphor or a record based on imperfect human understanding - and that’s a belief shared by only a minority of Christian sects."

DS said:

arthuriandaily said: It is my understanding that we are all related... every living organism. I am related to a cockroach just as you are related to a sperm whale. We are all related to the grass, and amoebas, and moss, and mold... That is my understanding. So if we are all related, then we have to have a common ancestor. That is my understanding. Where am I wrong?

Apparently you are wrong in assuming that this was a prediction of evolutionary theory. In fact, it is a conclusion of evolutionary biology. This is the best interpretation of the evidence. If it were not the case, evolution would still work. But it is the case. Deal with it.

arthuriandaily said: How exactly am I to 'deal with it' better than to acknowledge evolution as both theory and fact?

dornier.pfeil said: Arthurian, Study this page very carefully and then think about how the word evolution can have multiple meanings for differing applications. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cellis/heteronym.html

arthuriandaily said: How exactly am I to 'deal with it' better than to acknowledge evolution as both theory and fact?

arthuiandaily said: What i don’t understand is why everyone has attacked their understanding of my words, but never once said a negative thing about me.

arthuriandaily said:

DS said:

arthuriandaily said: It is my understanding that we are all related... every living organism. I am related to a cockroach just as you are related to a sperm whale. We are all related to the grass, and amoebas, and moss, and mold... That is my understanding. So if we are all related, then we have to have a common ancestor. That is my understanding. Where am I wrong?

Apparently you are wrong in assuming that this was a prediction of evolutionary theory. In fact, it is a conclusion of evolutionary biology. This is the best interpretation of the evidence. If it were not the case, evolution would still work. But it is the case. Deal with it.

How exactly am I to ‘deal with it’ better than to acknowledge evolution as both theory and fact?

phhht said: There is no evidence for gods because there are no gods, Theistoclast.

arthuriandaily said: I understand evolution can mean different things to different people, and for different applications. There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. What i don't understand is why everyone has attacked their understanding of my words, but never once said a negative thing about me. Respect starts with self-respect, so there you have it.

John_S said:

arthuiandaily said: What i don’t understand is why everyone has attacked their understanding of my words, but never once said a negative thing about me.

I gave up replying to your incoherent nonsense about 30 posts ago (go back about four pages). But you're right: I don't have anything negative to say about you. You may be a perfectly nice fellow that I'd be happy to have a beer with, if you could keep off the subject of religion. It's your words that don't make sense.

arthuriandaily said: I apologize for your confusion. That was my bad. I thought your understanding of evolution is: 1.) we are all related, and that in order to be all related 2.) we must have a common ancestor, and to have a common ancestor, 3.) that ancestor was the Single Source Origin of all of life. Your confusion. My bad.

arthuriandaily said: I understand evolution can mean different things to different people,

and for different applications.

There is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

What i don't understand is why everyone has attacked their understanding of my words,

but never once said a negative thing about me.

Respect starts with self-respect, so there you have it.

Scott F said:

phhht said: There is no evidence for gods because there are no gods, Theistoclast.

Sorry to have to disagree with you slightly here. The scientific statement is, "There is no evidence for gods", where "gods" are defined by all known religions. The strong atheistic conclusion based on the available evidence is that there are no gods. It's certainly not an unjustified conclusion (and one I would agree with), but if I understand the terms correctly, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, or something like that. It may seem to be be splitting hairs, but I think because of your strong emphasis on "evidence" that you are somewhat overstating what the evidence could actually show, even in principle. Unless there is actually some positive evidence that there are no gods??? IIRC, proving a negative is rather difficult to do. But then, I'm just our typical "weak atheist".

Scott F said: Instead, there is a "common ancestor" population. (There's actually a better term that escapes me at the moment.)

Take that for what it is worth and don’t blow it by an impugning respectfullness of the people who have taken the time to answer you.

dornier.pfeil said: Basal? A word I only learned in the last few years too. And one I quite like.

Scott F said: Instead, there is a "common ancestor" population. (There's actually a better term that escapes me at the moment.)

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: I understand evolution can mean different things to different people, and for different applications. There is a difference between micro and macro evolution. What i don't understand is why everyone has attacked their understanding of my words, but never once said a negative thing about me. Respect starts with self-respect, so there you have it.

I’m still puzzled about why you are attempting to drag your blog topic over onto this thread about the evolution of religion. Did you not get anything out of the things that Gabriel Hanna and Ed Darrell told you? Were you just pretending to listen? That discussion took place a couple of weeks ago. Why are you trying to start it up again here?

“just because the story of original sin is just a story, doesn’t mean the concept of original sin must be a fiction."

If the evolutionary account of human origins is true, then there was certainly no literal Fall from Grace — no Adam and Eve disobeying the Christian God and no Original Sin. But without Original Sin and expulsion from the Garden of Eden, then there is no reason to think that anything called "sin" (which is supposed to be disobedience to God) suddenly entered the world. If sin instead "evolved" into our ancestors through the natural development which God set into motion, why would God hold us accountable? A naturalistic development of sin should mean that insofar as we are "naturally" sinners, we simply are what our creator caused us to evolve into being. --taken from Atheism.about.com guide and writer, Austin Cline, "Evolution Vs. Christianity"

dornier.pfeil said:

arthuriandaily said: I understand evolution can mean different things to different people,

Now there you will find disagreement. For science to work, everyone must agree to use the same meanings for words representing the concepts for any given application.

and for different applications.

Yes. The word evolution is doing double duty here. First the word represents the concept of the descent with variation which resulted in the common ancestry that all eucaryotic metazoans (which is what I think you are seeking with your "SINGLE SOURCE ORIGIN" neologism) share. The historical fact of evolution is chronicled in the genetic record, the fossil record, and the physiological structure of all living things. Used this way, evolution happened, has always been happening, is still happening, and will continue to happen as long as there are reproducing living things on this planet. But Evolution is also the word that is used as the name/title of the theory that explains how the descent with variation of all life on this planet has led to the immense diversity of the life on the planet. It answers the WHY of what we see in the genetic record, the fossil record, and the physiological structure of all living things.

There is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Ok, this is a perfect example of why everyone has to agree to the same meanings for words when using them to describe concepts. The meanings creationits give to macro and micro are not the same as what biologists give to these two words. And what makes it so bad is that the creationist leadership uses misleading definitions deliberately in order to confuse non-experts.

What i don't understand is why everyone has attacked their understanding of my words,

Umm, I am a little confused by this. Why would I attack MY OWN understanding of YOUR words? If I may be so bold as to ask, is English your native language, because you use it in fairly confusing ways. I don't think you are saying what you think you are saying.

but never once said a negative thing about me.

Is this what you were/are expecting? I don't personally prefer attack dog mode. I have used it in the past. Sometimes quite enjoyably. I have read enough of Atheistoclast, for instance, that I really have no qualms about calling him a genuinely imbecilic moron. But I don't stake attack dog mode out as the default position. I read your blog and for the most part Ed Darrel and Gabriel Hanna also did not lay into you as much as some would have(although snoopi deserves the ridicule, and in spades). If the people you look up to as "leadership" in the creationist movement told you that you would be demeaned to the 99.99th percentile, they were only partially correct. Take that as an instance that they can be wrong. If they can be wrong about that, maybe that is not the only thing they can be wrong about.

Respect starts with self-respect, so there you have it.

Again, for the most part, you have gotten off remarkably easy. Take that for what it is worth and don't blow it by an impugning respectfullness of the people who have taken the time to answer you.

arthuriandaily said: Mike, I am not trying to drag anything anywhere. I just believe that evolution is predicated on the original Virgin Birth of life, and the Single Source Origin of life. I have yet to hear anyone explain how multiple sources create common ancestry, because they don't. Still, I have heard an awful lot of people get very upset at me for stating what I believe is a prerequisite of macro-evolution. Now it is possible I am wrong. Believe it or not others have even suggested this possibility. I don't mind being wrong. When the basis for evolution is skirted in these discussions, as if it is inconsequential, I find that troubling. How do people purport to believe in something, but fail to have a 'fairly' concrete analysis as to how evolution began? It isn't even an actual 'pre-biotic soup contained elements necessary for the emergence of a living cell', or the like. No matter what method occurred, it was still a Virgin Birth, and Single Source Origin of life. If there are multiple sources, macro-evolution doesn't work. If this were the case, the terminology would be false. Abiogenesis is a nice word. Whether it describes the beginning of life on the planet or not, is there ANY MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY METHODOLOGY which would NOT BE a Single Source Origin of life?

arthuriandaily said: I have been criticized for saying things that no one else has said. Are these blogs only for regurgitating the same arguments that others have made a million times before? If so, I could grab a bible and quote scripture, so I could 'fit in'. I actually enjoy different perspectives, and believe that skepticism is a valid search for truth.

arthuriandaily said: I actually enjoy different perspectives, and believe that skepticism is a valid search for truth.

In other words, FL, you're saying that believing in Evolution magically disqualifies a Christian from Salvation, and that not reading the Bible literally also magically disqualifies a Christian from Salvation. Thereby also falsifying your claims of accepting the Christians here at Panda's Thumb as Christians.

Tell us again where in the Bible it says acceptance of Evolution is forbidden to Christians, and tell us again where in the Bible it states that the sole requirements for Salvation were rejection of Evolution and reading the Bible literally.

arthuriandaily said: I have been criticized for saying things that no one else has said. Are these blogs only for regurgitating the same arguments that others have made a million times before? If so, I could grab a bible and quote scripture, so I could 'fit in'.

I actually enjoy different perspectives, and believe that skepticism is a valid search for truth.

arthuriandaily said: Abiogenesis is a nice word. Whether it describes the beginning of life on the planet or not, is there ANY MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY METHODOLOGY which would NOT BE a Single Source Origin of life?

FL said: I can't go beyond what the Bible says.

Paul Burnett said:

FL said: I can't go beyond what the Bible says.

(1) Is that a bug or a feature? (2) Are you bragging or complaining?

John_S said: But just because the story of original sin is just a story, doesn't mean the concept of original sin must be a fiction. The only belief that's called into question is the fundamentalist belief that the Bible is always a literal history or science book rather than metaphor or a record based on imperfect human understanding - and that's a belief shared by only a minority of Christian sects.

FL said: If you declare the historical account of Original Sin in Genesis to be historical fiction, you're ALSO declaring the historical account of Jesus's Atonement in the Gospels to be historical fiction too.

Scott F said: Hi John, Several weeks ago there was a similar discussion with FL about this very topic (a literal reading of the story of original sin). It was proved rather conclusively at the time that it is impossible for FL to recognize and understand allegory, metaphor, or analogy, unless it is explicitly bracketed with key words such as, "The following is a story that Jesus told...", or "There once was a man from...". It appears that the reason FL believes in a literal reading of the bible, including the story of original sin, is that FL is only capable of a literal reading of the bible. It's a lost cause. He is apparently psychologically incapable of understanding your point. Symbolic understanding (or understanding of symbolism) is something that is sadly foreign to him.

FL, your contention that evolution is incompatible with Christianity has been comprehensively refuted.

(I am starting to feel like Cato the Censor.)

I am almost willing to feel personally insulted by the implication that a story can't be true in the sense that it cannot tell a truth. I make a living making stories that tell the truth. They only work if they do.

The story of Eden and the fall of man is a story. It is not literally true, but within it is a great truth: at some time in the past our ancestors acquired empathy and a knowledge of contingency. That is, the knowledge of good and evil. At that moment, we were no longer innocent. However imperfectly, we know how what we do, say and think affects others, and we know what outcomes it will have. We became responsible for it. We have no choice about this. It necessarily proceeds from the very fact of our humanity. We are the ones responsible for our thought, word and deed.

So much is basic ethics. Now, Christian theology goes further. I don't accept this, because it involves several a priori assertions, but the extension goes like this:

This knowledge of good and evil is imperfect, because we are imperfect. Even if we always do the very best we can, even if we try always to do the right, we fail. We sin without knowing we sin. That is, we sin because of our very humanity. We can't help that ourselves. We need God's help, and He sent it. He gave His only begotten son to take our original sin on himself, and for the sins we know, He promised forgiveness to the genuine penitent.

Now, is man's imperfection, which is at the root of original sin, God's fault? That's a different question, a theological one, and irrelevant here. Creationists and Christians who accept evolution disagree only on process. Both are sure that God is the Creator, and that He created Man only in his image, not as a perfect copy. Both agree that God created humans, and that humans are imperfect. That has theological implications, but it doesn't matter to the question of what process God used. That question is answered by observed fact and empirical evidence. God used evolution.

So much for the contention that the Garden of Eden story must be literally, factually, completely true, down to the fruit and the serpent, or Christianity falls. It's nonsense. So are the rest of FL's arguments.

Cato the Censor, again: Carthage must be destroyed, and FL has been refuted.

Scott F said:

Scott F said: Hi John, Several weeks ago there was a similar discussion with FL about this very topic (a literal reading of the story of original sin). It was proved rather conclusively at the time that it is impossible for FL to recognize and understand allegory, metaphor, or analogy, unless it is explicitly bracketed with key words such as, "The following is a story that Jesus told...", or "There once was a man from...". It appears that the reason FL believes in a literal reading of the bible, including the story of original sin, is that FL is only capable of a literal reading of the bible. It's a lost cause. He is apparently psychologically incapable of understanding your point. Symbolic understanding (or understanding of symbolism) is something that is sadly foreign to him.

It's like in grade school, when we had to write "book reports" and one of the topics we always had to cover was the "theme" of the book. As a very literalist kid (weren't we all?), I had no idea what the "theme" even was. The question was meaningless to me, and I had no idea how to respond to it. Then later I grew up. I had to read a lot more and mature a lot more before I could understand, but the question finally made sense. In a very similar way, the concept that you're positing is simply meaningless to FL.

By the way; back to the topic of this thread.

Here is a transcript of an interview of Harvey Cox by Krista Tippett on her program "Speaking of Faith."

There is also a link on that page to an mp3 audio download of the interview.

For those of us here who remember Harvey Cox’s first book, The Secular City back in the mid 1960s, this interview is also relevant to this thread.

Dave Luckett said: FL, your contention that evolution is incompatible with Christianity has been comprehensively refuted.

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said: Wowser. That was good.

Thank you; physics is phun. I wish our trolls understood as well. But I guess that simply can’t happen.

Atheistoclast said:

But, if you think of yourself as just an assemblage of atoms, then which one of them am I presently conversing with?

Rolf said:

Atheistoclast said:

But, if you think of yourself as just an assemblage of atoms, then which one of them am I presently conversing with?

The whole is more than the sum of its parts. A computer is, according to your way of reasoning, just an assemblage of atoms. What are you "talking" to when "talking" to a computer? Would you consider the possibility that you are not talking to atoms but to a program designed by a human intelligence? That what you are doing and that the essence of what is going on is not just the obvious physical interaction, but information processing? Same as in any brain. Is religion the source of your inability to understand what you do not want to understand?

Atheistoclast said: But the computer is an intelligent design.

Scott F said:

arthuriandaily said: I apologize for your confusion. That was my bad. I thought your understanding of evolution is: 1.) we are all related, and that in order to be all related 2.) we must have a common ancestor, and to have a common ancestor, 3.) that ancestor was the Single Source Origin of all of life. Your confusion. My bad.

One thing I have learned in the last few years is that the notion of a "single common ancestor" is a misnomer. There is no "single" ancestor organism, just as there is no "single" individual organism that was the "first" modern homosapien. Instead, there is a "common ancestor" population. (There's actually a better term that escapes me at the moment.) This population, as a group, would have been the "common ancestor". In the case of abiogenesis, the "common ancestor" would have been a group of replicating molecules that, as a group or as an "ecology", evolved from simpler replicating molecules into the first set of primitive cells. So no, it is in fact your confusion, though it still is "your bad". I'm with Mike. Not only is physics fun, just learning new things is fun. :-) Life for a creationist must be exceedingly static and dull.

Here's my white towel. The wise knows when it is time to quit.

DS said:

arthuriandaily said:

DS said:

arthuriandaily said: It is my understanding that we are all related... every living organism. I am related to a cockroach just as you are related to a sperm whale. We are all related to the grass, and amoebas, and moss, and mold... That is my understanding. So if we are all related, then we have to have a common ancestor. That is my understanding. Where am I wrong?

Apparently you are wrong in assuming that this was a prediction of evolutionary theory. In fact, it is a conclusion of evolutionary biology. This is the best interpretation of the evidence. If it were not the case, evolution would still work. But it is the case. Deal with it.

How exactly am I to ‘deal with it’ better than to acknowledge evolution as both theory and fact?

Well for starters, stop whining about virgin birth as if that had anything to do with anything.

TomS said:

Atheistoclast said: But the computer is an intelligent design.

Does anyone have an example of something which is not an "intelligent design"?

arthuriandaily said: I fail to see how Virgin Birth fails to describe life's inception. Regardless of whether it was an individual soup-organism, or a population of soup organisms, they would all be virgins in a scientifically accurate sense. Since life came from it (or them,) the Virgin Birth begat life that macro evolution insists upon.

Arthuriandaily has some kind of agenda.

He's here to push it in the only way he knows how - repeating himself and rudely ignoring responses and feedback.

It could be his own weird agenda, but I was once taught, "When you hear hooves, look for horses before you look for zebras".

He keeps claiming that his own incoherently expressed "virgin birth" conception of?/straw man of?/analogy of? abiogenesis is "necessary" or "required" for "macroevolution".

He could be seeking validation for some kind of mysticism associated with "the original form of life" as he perceives it (which would be fine if he would be honest and coherent).

Or, given that "You can't study evolution because you can't explain the origin of life" is a common, desperate YEC propaganda slogan, and given that those who resort to it tend to repeat and repeat it, it could simply be that he is a common garden variety "stealth YEC".

Either way, there is a bathroom wall.

Dave Luckett said: FL, your contention that evolution is incompatible with Christianity has been comprehensively refuted. (I am starting to feel like Cato the Censor.) Cato the Censor, again: Carthage must be destroyed, and FL has been refuted.

Dave Luckett said: [explication of the symbolic, allegorical nature of 'original sin']

arthuriandaily said: So, let me get this right:

Just Bob said:

Dave Luckett said: [explication of the symbolic, allegorical nature of 'original sin']

David, you did this once before, and I thank you again. You make the basic concepts behind Christianity clear, logical, beautiful, and attractive (providing one accepts those a priori assertions). On the other hand, FL, Atheistoclast, Jumbuck, etc. make it ugly, mean, vindictive, bigoted, and most unattractive.

phantomreader42 said:

TomS said:

Atheistoclast said: But the computer is an intelligent design.

Does anyone have an example of something which is not an "intelligent design"?

The post you just replied to?

Atheistoclast said: But the materialists regard intelligence, feeling, consciousness, and all that we regard as our quintessential nature, as merely illusory - the product of blind laws and atoms.

This is where the self-hate comes in. Materialists deny that there is anything other than matter, including what we assume to be our innermost being. When will they ever treat living organisms not just as physico-chemical machines but as what they are...LIVING organisms.

DS said: Now if you want to talk about virgin birth, there are lots of organisms that reproduce without having sex. Some of them are descended from ancestors that did have sexual reproduction. Invariably, they have female offspring. So the story about a virgin human having a male child is just plain wrong. Where did the Y chromosome come from? IF it came from god, then he had sex with a married woman without her consent, Now you may or may not care about this, but it is the only really interesting thing to talk about if you insist on talking about virgin birth.

DS said: Where did the Y chromosome come from? ... it is the only really interesting thing to talk about if you insist on talking about virgin birth.

Phht, the classic answer to that question is the belief of the Syriac fathers that God impregnated the Virgin through her ear, thus to avoid any suggestion of the loss of her virginity.

I am not making this up.

eric said: AFAIK some materialists (not all) regard free will as illusory. But I doubt you'll find one who will argue with intelligence or feeling. Even animals feel: there is clearly feedback between organism and environment going on, and it's pretty obvious that nerve impulses generate feelings in the brain.

Rolf said:

Mike Elzinga said:

phhht said: Wowser. That was good.

Thank you; physics is phun. I wish our trolls understood as well. But I guess that simply can’t happen.

It seems so... uhm, simple and easy when you say it, you could write a book, couldn't you?

Dave Luckett said: Phht, the classic answer to that question is the belief of the Syriac fathers that God impregnated the Virgin through her ear, thus to avoid any suggestion of the loss of her virginity. I am not making this up.

phhht said:

Dave Luckett said: Phht, the classic answer to that question is the belief of the Syriac fathers that God impregnated the Virgin through her ear, thus to avoid any suggestion of the loss of her virginity. I am not making this up.

Wow. Did they mention a man from Nantucket?

Christianity is centered on CHRIST, not the BIBLE.

It was proved rather conclusively at the time that it is impossible for FL to recognize and understand allegory, metaphor, or analogy, unless it is explicitly bracketed with key words such as, “The following is a story that Jesus told…”, or “There once was a man from…”

The story of Eden and the fall of man is a story. It is not literally true...

eric said: I think you are simply trying to ressurect 19th century ideas of vitalism. "Living" refers to having various metabolic processes that are self-sustaining, given the right inputs (food, water, etc.). Its organic chemistry with a bit of inorganic thrown in. No vitalist claim to there being something elso to life has stood up to study or experimentation. No vialist substance has ever been detected or measured. You are your atoms; physical, electrical, but in no evidentiary sense, soulful.

So, FL, how come you won't quote where in the Bible Jesus specifically stated that He can not die for our sins if Adam and Eve were allegory and not real people?

How come you can't quote exactly where in the Bible Jesus said the acceptance of Evolution means automatic damnation?

How come you can't quote exactly where in the Bible Jesus said that Salvation would be automatically denied to those who did not read the Bible word for word literally?

FL said: How much do we know of Christ's words and deeds and Atonement and Resurrection apart from the Bible?

And that's on top of the fact that, in the New Testament, Jesus publicly and specifically affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Global Noahic Flood. There is no literature, no texts, that contradict this affirmation.

(1) Can you (or anybody) seriously say that you're a good follower of Jesus Christ, when you're busy publicly bucking Jesus on those issues?

DS said:

arthuriandaily said: I fail to see how Virgin Birth fails to describe life's inception. Regardless of whether it was an individual soup-organism, or a population of soup organisms, they would all be virgins in a scientifically accurate sense. Since life came from it (or them,) the Virgin Birth begat life that macro evolution insists upon.

Well that's the first thing you got right. Yes, you do fail to see. How can something be a virgin if it does not have sexual reproduction? One last time, macroevolution has nothing whatsoever to do with abiogenesis or virgins or anything else that you are whining about. Now if you want to talk about virgin birth, there are lots of organisms that reproduce without having sex. Some of them are descended from ancestors that did have sexual reproduction. Invariably, they have female offspring. So the story about a virgin human having a male child is just plain wrong. Where did the Y chromosome come from? IF it came from god, then he had sex with a married woman without her consent, Now you may or may not care about this, but it is the only really interesting thing to talk about if you insist on talking about virgin birth. Are you some kind of birther? Do you need to see the birth certificate for the first life form? SInce none of your yammering has anything whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread, any further responses by me will be on the bathroom wall, which is where you are headed whether you know it or not.

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: So, let me get this right:

The way to do that is to study some real science. Go back to elementary school science, proceed through middle school science, then high school science (be sure to take chemistry, physics, and biology; preferably the Advanced Placement versions). With just that background alone, you just might begin to start asking some coherent and intelligent questions. And by the way; this thread is about the evolution of religion. Please take your off-topic taunts over to the Bathroom Wall. That thread was designed for off-topic rants.

phhht said: I saw one of those bucking Jesus rides at a bar in Abilene one time. Nobody could stay on but the atheists.

arthuriandaily said: I always thought, "Here I sit, broken hearted" was on topic. (See, I actually read EVERYTHING!)

Man; what is it with this character’s obsession with virginity, flatulence, and crap?

arthuriandaily said: "Does "virgin birth" accurately describe prokaryotic reproduction? How can something be a virgin if it has no sex?" I don't know. According to you, Virgins need to have sex. Since your prerequisite is so deeply immersed in scientific viability, how can I possibly hope to approach such complexity? If there is no version of Virgin which you can find compatible with the first life source, I can't possibly hope to convey anything to you. Here I was thinking that 'no sexual relations' accurately described life's first organism. However, you ask how can it be a virgin if it has no sex? Upon further elaboration of meaning, I was ALSO thinking that first organism would be "pure; unsullied; undefiled"... Perhaps it needed to EVOLVE into this condition?

Error: Either 'id' or 'blog_id' must be specified.

FL said: ...busy publicly bucking Jesus?

DS said:

arthuriandaily said: Mike, I am not trying to drag anything anywhere. I just believe that evolution is predicated on the original Virgin Birth of life, and the Single Source Origin of life. I have yet to hear anyone explain how multiple sources create common ancestry, because they don't. Still, I have heard an awful lot of people get very upset at me for stating what I believe is a prerequisite of macro-evolution. Now it is possible I am wrong. Believe it or not others have even suggested this possibility. I don't mind being wrong. When the basis for evolution is skirted in these discussions, as if it is inconsequential, I find that troubling. How do people purport to believe in something, but fail to have a 'fairly' concrete analysis as to how evolution began? It isn't even an actual 'pre-biotic soup contained elements necessary for the emergence of a living cell', or the like. No matter what method occurred, it was still a Virgin Birth, and Single Source Origin of life. If there are multiple sources, macro-evolution doesn't work. If this were the case, the terminology would be false. Abiogenesis is a nice word. Whether it describes the beginning of life on the planet or not, is there ANY MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY METHODOLOGY which would NOT BE a Single Source Origin of life?

Still with the virgin birth nonsense. The question doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Life could have arisen many times and all extant life could still be descended from one common ancestor. All that is necessary is for all descendants of all other origins to die. And the single common ancestor was undoubtedly prokaryotic and asexual, therefore it would not have to mate with another organism in order to reproduce. Why is this so hard for you to understand? And even if it were only one organism in a population, the exact some logic still applies. There is no sense in which your question can be meaningful. As for macroevolution, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of life. Whales are descended from terrestrial ancestors, regardless of the origin of life or whether they represent only one of many independent lineages. The same is true of all major groups. Your question makes no logical sense at all. It's like asking how many shingles it take to cover a roof if ice cream has no bones. Since all life is demonstrably descended from a single common ancestor, all life forms share a common ancestor at some point in the past. This is not necessary for macroevolution, it is simply the case. Deal with it or not, it's still the case.

Mike Elzinga said: Man; what is it with this character’s obsession with virginity, flatulence, and crap?

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: I always thought, "Here I sit, broken hearted" was on topic. (See, I actually read EVERYTHING!)

Well, there’s your problem. Most of what you read is crap.

arthuriandaily said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: I always thought, "Here I sit, broken hearted" was on topic. (See, I actually read EVERYTHING!)

Well, there’s your problem. Most of what you read is crap.

So when I read what you say, is that on-topic, crap, or both?

FL said:

Christianity is centered on CHRIST, not the BIBLE. And exactly how much do we know of Christ's words and deeds and Atonement and Resurrection apart from the Bible, Dale? Hmm?

This discussion should happen on a different site. The Bible was not ratified until 397 A.D. Before that time, and even today, the SPOKEN word is used to declare the ministry of Jesus, not diminish it, and disciples are told to hold fast to the traditions be them written or spoken. Writing down/Retconning Sacred Scripture is a Fundy fetish. Most people who first heard the word could not read. Reading has never been a requirement for salvation.

Two more questions: (1) Can you (or anybody) seriously say that you’re a good follower of Jesus Christ, when you’re busy publicly bucking Jesus on those issues?

Fundamentalism is a bad fruit church, and Christ is King. Done and done.

(2) How do you rationally declare Genesis historical claims to be “fiction”, without simultaneously declaring Jesus’s historical claims in the Gospels as “fiction”?

I don't declare anything. The church that authored and ratified the New Testament decided this. The literalistic Bible is a fallacy made up in Reformation Times, passed to American aboard the Mayflower, and rekindled in the nineteenth century by Biblicists afraid of the advances of science. I'm sorry, FL.

The fact is that the writer of Genesis clearly WROTE the Eden and Fall accounts as literal history, straight historical narrative. THAT’s what the textual/contextual evidence (such as the Gen 5 genealogy and the multiple “Toledot” Formula) points to.

No, it doesn't. The overwhelming majority of Christian churches teach that this evidence does not point to a literal Genesis. Only Fundamentalists teach otherwise, and they only speak for themselves. FL makes a consistent false dichotomy that all Christians need to be Fundamentalists. All Fundamentalists need to be Christians, for sometimes they err by worshipping their own reasoning, or, as the Bible says, are "blown about by every wind of doctrine." I could isolate quotations from Mother Goose and ask how anyone can tell whether they're fables or allegories or not. It holds the whole idea of investigation up to ridicule. I am sure primitive tribes speak as truthfully as they can about natural phenomena without understanding it, and the words and ideas they would seem as real to them as scientific ideas do to us. It does not invalidate their account, but what they have to offer is not scientific. The ridiculous way you represent Christianity on this site is disaparging to me. It's like pulling weeds to separate what you say from what has always been taught. You follow your own thoughts, your own authority. No good fruit church teaches the things you try to pass for knowledge. And no amount of shouting, Bible quotations, or legerdeman is going to change that.

Man, go away for the weekend and things (nearly?) get out of hand! :)

Richard B. Hoppe said: Man, go away for the weekend and things (nearly?) get out of hand! :)

Richard B. Hoppe said: Man, go away for the weekend and things (nearly?) get out of hand! :)

Just for laughs, an attempt to address the supposed topic of this thread: The evolutionary basis of religion.

Disclaimer: I was a seminarian many years ago, and have read a lot of Eliade.

Religion, properly understood (where "properly understood" means "as I understand it") far exceeds the bounds that have been prescribed for it since the arrival of Science.

In pre-modern (and especially pre-literate) social groups, "Religion" encompassed, amongst other things:

o Who "we" are

o What we know about ourselves

o What we know about the world we live in (preserved in bardic recitations, Grandmother's wisdom passed down from her grandmother, etc -- 'Don't eat shellfish -- several generations ago there was a Red Tide... Don't eat the flesh of pigs...')

o How we should behave within the social group

o Some lore that gives explanations for the unexplainable (weather? earthquakes? disease?)

One of the incidental aspects of this complex of behaviours is that, unlike the cases with our (now deceased) large-primate competitors, there is no practical upper limit to the size of a human war party.

(Neandertals did not disappear because they were stupid. They were obligate carnivores and extremely efficient predators. Consequently they lived in small, geographically dispersed communities. None of that applied to us. When we became numerous enough to act upon their annoying habits of predation...)

(Neandertals did not disappear because they were stupid. They were obligate carnivores and extremely efficient predators. Consequently they lived in small, geographically dispersed communities. None of that applied to us. When we became numerous enough to act upon their annoying habits of predation…)

I think the confusion is the fault of the authors of this paper. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19706482

"Top level predator" would have been preferable to "top level carnivore". The latter may mislead the casual reader into thinking that a primate lineage were obligate carnivores, i.e. essentially could not eat anything but animal products, as is the case with cats. What they are trying to say is that when neanderthals ate animal protein, they got it from large prey as opposed to getting it from marine sources, bird eggs, etc.

harold said: ...obligate carnivores, i.e. essentially could not eat anything but animal products, as is the case with cats.

Just Bob said:

harold said: ...obligate carnivores, i.e. essentially could not eat anything but animal products, as is the case with cats.

Except before the Fall, of course. I've been told on this very site that cats ate grass until God got pissed at A & E. Their teeth seem curiously poorly designed for grazing--or did they speed-evolve carnivore teeth when they had to start killing for a living? You know, that would have had to happen pretty much instantly, or the Edenic cats would have been trying with guinea pig teeth to kill and consume rats.

FL said: And that's on top of the fact that, in the New Testament, Jesus publicly and specifically affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Global Noahic Flood. There is no literature, no texts, that contradict this affirmation.

Just Bob said:

harold said: ...obligate carnivores, i.e. essentially could not eat anything but animal products, as is the case with cats.

Except before the Fall, of course. I've been told on this very site that cats ate grass until God got pissed at A & E. Their teeth seem curiously poorly designed for grazing--or did they speed-evolve carnivore teeth when they had to start killing for a living? You know, that would have had to happen pretty much instantly, or the Edenic cats would have been trying with guinea pig teeth to kill and consume rats.

harold said: ***This comment was deliberately satirical in tone***

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: I always thought, "Here I sit, broken hearted" was on topic. (See, I actually read EVERYTHING!)

Well, there’s your problem. Most of what you read is crap.

So when I read what you say, is that on-topic, crap, or both?

There will be a response to this over on the Bathroom Wall.

Shebardigan said: In pre-modern (and especially pre-literate) social groups, "Religion" encompassed, amongst other things: o Who "we" are o What we know about ourselves o What we know about the world we live in (preserved in bardic recitations, Grandmother's wisdom passed down from her grandmother, etc -- 'Don't eat shellfish -- several generations ago there was a Red Tide... Don't eat the flesh of pigs...') o How we should behave within the social group o Some lore that gives explanations for the unexplainable (weather? earthquakes? disease?) One of the incidental aspects of this complex of behaviours is that, unlike the cases with our (now deceased) large-primate competitors, there is no practical upper limit to the size of a human war party.

arthuriandaily said: "For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species -- four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. "The universal common ancestor (models) didn't just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts," Theobald says." It's all BS, I guess.

arthuriandaily said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: I always thought, "Here I sit, broken hearted" was on topic. (See, I actually read EVERYTHING!)

Well, there’s your problem. Most of what you read is crap.

So when I read what you say, is that on-topic, crap, or both?

There will be a response to this over on the Bathroom Wall.

"For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species -- four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. "The universal common ancestor (models) didn't just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts," Theobald says." It's all BS, I guess.

This has been pointed out many times. Jesus never said that Adam and Eve were real people, nor that there was a literal garden. FL is simply adding to Scripture extempore because it suits him. In doing so, he lies, and in one compartment of his deeply fractured mind, he knows he lies.

Shebardigan said: Just for laughs, an attempt to address the supposed topic of this thread: The evolutionary basis of religion. Disclaimer: I was a seminarian many years ago, and have read a lot of Eliade. Religion, properly understood (where "properly understood" means "as I understand it") far exceeds the bounds that have been prescribed for it since the arrival of Science. In pre-modern (and especially pre-literate) social groups, "Religion" encompassed, amongst other things: o Who "we" are o What we know about ourselves o What we know about the world we live in (preserved in bardic recitations, Grandmother's wisdom passed down from her grandmother, etc -- 'Don't eat shellfish -- several generations ago there was a Red Tide... Don't eat the flesh of pigs...') o How we should behave within the social group o Some lore that gives explanations for the unexplainable (weather? earthquakes? disease?) One of the incidental aspects of this complex of behaviours is that, unlike the cases with our (now deceased) large-primate competitors, there is no practical upper limit to the size of a human war party. (Neandertals did not disappear because they were stupid. They were obligate carnivores and extremely efficient predators. Consequently they lived in small, geographically dispersed communities. None of that applied to us. When we became numerous enough to act upon their annoying habits of predation...)

Oh, and evidence. If there were a total gene pool of two people (actually, one: Eve was made from Adam's own flesh, the Bible insists, and therefore had his DNA) six thousand years ago, the genetic variation of modern humans would be - well, let's say it would be far less than it is. Same if there was a bottleneck four to five thousand years ago, and we were all descended from four couples then, with all the males descended from one. The evidence is that the human gene pool did take an alarming dip about 180K years ago, but it never went below 10 000 individuals.

In the face of this evidence against a literal Adam and Eve, FL can only invoke uncovenanted miracles. The human gene pool miraculously mutated at an enormous rate, and this happened because he says so. Not the writers of the Bible, who wouldn't know a gene pool from the Sea of Galilee. And not because Jesus said so, because he didn't.

FL's contention that evolution is incompatible with Christianity has been refuted.

Sylvilagus said:

arthuriandaily said: "For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species -- four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. "The universal common ancestor (models) didn't just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts," Theobald says." It's all BS, I guess.

Do you understand the difference between "in principle" and "in fact" ? You've been arguing "in principle" about reliance of evolution on a single ancestor; Theobald's work cited by you is a demonstration of universal common ancestor "in fact." Just because empirical evidence points to a universal common ancestor, does not mean that evolution requires it in principle as you have been arguing.

FL said: The fact is that the writer of Genesis clearly WROTE the Eden and Fall accounts as literal history, straight historical narrative.

I'll chance FL's answer, if you like. Genesis was written by Moses, at God's direct dictation. God was there. And other civilizations got some of the same information, but because their creation mythologies were not written at God's dictation, they got some of it wrong.

Dave Luckett said: I'll chance FL's answer, if you like. Genesis was written by Moses, at God's direct dictation. God was there. And other civilizations got some of the same information, but because their creation mythologies were not written at God's dictation, they got some of it wrong.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and evidence. If there were a total gene pool of two people (actually, one: Eve was made from Adam's own flesh, the Bible insists, and therefore had his DNA) six thousand years ago,

Dave Luckett said: I'll chance FL's answer, if you like. Genesis was written by Moses, at God's direct dictation.

stevaroni said: So why is Exodus written in the third person? I mean, what has more narrative power - "Pharoh said such and such" and "Moses said other stuff" or "And then I told Pharaoh to take his army and just try to chase me across the Red Sea - cause I knew we had the big guy watching our back!" ?

Dave Luckett said: Oh, and evidence. If there were a total gene pool of two people (actually, one: Eve was made from Adam's own flesh, the Bible insists, and therefore had his DNA) six thousand years ago, the genetic variation of modern humans would be - well, let's say it would be far less than it is. Same if there was a bottleneck four to five thousand years ago, and we were all descended from four couples then, with all the males descended from one. The evidence is that the human gene pool did take an alarming dip about 180K years ago, but it never went below 10 000 individuals.

harold said: .. I personally don't know what the relative populations of neanderthals and modern humans were at the time of overlap.

Dave Luckett said: It's obvious that some of it he could not have written, since it includes an account of his own death. The ascription is obvious arrant nonsense, of course, but I did say that this was what FL would say.

I’ll chance FL’s answer, if you like. Genesis was written by Moses, at God’s direct dictation. God was there. And other civilizations got some of the same information, but because their creation mythologies were not written at God’s dictation, they got some of it wrong.

The Lord (Marduk) trod upon the hinder part of Tiamat, And with unsparing club he split her skull. He cut the arteries of her blood And caused the north wind to carry it to out-of-the-way places. When his fathers saw this, they were glad and rejoiced And sent him dues and greeting-gifts. The Lord rested, examining her dead body, To divide the abortion and to create ingenious things therewith. He split her open like a mussel into two; Half of her he sat in place and formed the sky as a roof...

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. --Romans 1

FL said: Wow, a lot of comments there on a Monday afternoon. Interesting stuff.

Christianity is centered on CHRIST, not the BIBLE.

And exactly how much do we know of Christ's words and deeds and Atonement and Resurrection apart from the Bible, Dale? Hmm? (And that's on top of the fact that, in the New Testament, Jesus publicly and specifically affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Global Noahic Flood. There is no literature, no texts, that contradict this affirmation.)

You guys gotta come up with some serious actual evidence to support your "non-literal" claims of "parable, allegory, etc", or you'll lose the game as badly as you lost it at ATBC. FL

Atheistoclast said: There is certainly more to life than just physics and chemistry.

I am a vitalist, I make no apology for that.

Many creationists can be just as materialistic as those they oppose even though they presumably believe in an immortal soul. Vitalism is not a 19th century thing - it has been the dominant school of thought in biology until comparatively recent times. There have been vitalist biologists like Han Driesch who lived in the 20th century - he was, in fact, one of first developmental biologists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Adolf_Eduard_Driesch He understood that there was a "life-force" in a scientific, and not just a religious sense - he called it "entelechy".

Not only do the elementary calculations on populations rule out one or three couple bottlenecks, but that primitive ark could never have survived the energy surge in that amount of water appearing in 40 days whether it dropped down from a “canopy” or welled up from the earth.

These are simple calculations that even beginning students in physics chemistry, and biology can do. But the calculations are far, far over the heads of every YEC. They can’t even conceive of mechanisms that make any sense.

It is amazing to watch these charlatans waltzing through AiG, the ICR, the DI repeating this crap year after year; and not one of the rubes ever thinks to check it out. You can’t even get them to look.

And vitalism; sheesh!

When someone’s brain is that scrambled, there is no hope. These characters simply will not even think about the chemistry and physics. It simply doesn’t exist for them.

FL lied: in the New Testament, Jesus publicly and specifically affirmed the historicity of Adam and Eve and the Global Noahic Flood. There is no literature, no texts, that contradict this affirmation.

arthuriandaily said:

Sylvilagus said:

arthuriandaily said: "For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species -- four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. "The universal common ancestor (models) didn't just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts," Theobald says." It's all BS, I guess.

Do you understand the difference between "in principle" and "in fact" ? You've been arguing "in principle" about reliance of evolution on a single ancestor; Theobald's work cited by you is a demonstration of universal common ancestor "in fact." Just because empirical evidence points to a universal common ancestor, does not mean that evolution requires it in principle as you have been arguing.

Okay. So your clarification goes something like this: I have been arguing for a principle - which is a fact - but you are stating that just because something has empirical evidence does not indicate that it is - in fact - a principle?

Well, in all fairness, I did cal POE first.

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: So, let me get this right:

The way to do that is to study some real science. Go back to elementary school science, proceed through middle school science, then high school science (be sure to take chemistry, physics, and biology; preferably the Advanced Placement versions). With just that background alone, you just might begin to start asking some coherent and intelligent questions. And by the way; this thread is about the evolution of religion. Please take your off-topic taunts over to the Bathroom Wall. That thread was designed for off-topic rants.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Mike, indeed this thread is about the evolution of religion. So, why is religion so dominant in human culture? Because it has a survival advantage? This seems to be the standard talking point from neo-darwinians vis religion.

If this is in fact the case, then it stands to reason that religious concepts, regardless of where they are applied in human activity, are advantageous.

Following this reasoning to its logical end, ID (as creationism in a cheap tuxedo of course) would seem the preferred conceptual framework for doing such activities like science.

So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: So, let me get this right:

The way to do that is to study some real science. Go back to elementary school science, proceed through middle school science, then high school science (be sure to take chemistry, physics, and biology; preferably the Advanced Placement versions). With just that background alone, you just might begin to start asking some coherent and intelligent questions. And by the way; this thread is about the evolution of religion. Please take your off-topic taunts over to the Bathroom Wall. That thread was designed for off-topic rants.

Mike, indeed this thread is about the evolution of religion. So, why is religion so dominant in human culture? Because it has a survival advantage? This seems to be the standard talking point from neo-darwinians vis religion. If this is in fact the case, then it stands to reason that religious concepts, regardless of where they are applied in human activity, are advantageous. Following this reasoning to its logical end, ID (as creationism in a cheap tuxedo of course) would seem the preferred conceptual framework for doing such activities like science. So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'? SteveP

For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species – four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. “The universal common ancestor (models) didn’t just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts,” Theobald says.”

It’s all BS, I guess.

Throwing a crude stone-tipped spear at a huge, tusked mammal may once have had a survival advantage.

Therefore I should go to the zoo tomorrow and throw a crude, stone-tipped spear at an elephant.

harold said: Throwing a crude stone-tipped spear at a huge, tusked mammal may once have had a survival advantage. Therefore I should go to the zoo tomorrow and throw a crude, stone-tipped spear at an elephant.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said:

Mike Elzinga said:

arthuriandaily said: So, let me get this right:

The way to do that is to study some real science. Go back to elementary school science, proceed through middle school science, then high school science (be sure to take chemistry, physics, and biology; preferably the Advanced Placement versions). With just that background alone, you just might begin to start asking some coherent and intelligent questions. And by the way; this thread is about the evolution of religion. Please take your off-topic taunts over to the Bathroom Wall. That thread was designed for off-topic rants.

Mike, indeed this thread is about the evolution of religion. So, why is religion so dominant in human culture? Because it has a survival advantage? This seems to be the standard talking point from neo-darwinians vis religion.

If this is in fact the case, then it stands to reason that religious concepts, regardless of where they are applied in human activity, are advantageous.

Following this reasoning to its logical end, ID (as creationism in a cheap tuxedo of course) would seem the preferred conceptual framework for doing such activities like science.

So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'?

harold said: Throwing a crude stone-tipped spear at a huge, tusked mammal may once have had a survival advantage. Therefore I should go to the zoo tomorrow and throw a crude, stone-tipped spear at an elephant.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'? SteveP

Mike Elzinga said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'? SteveP

ID/creationism is a grotesque misrepresentation of physics, chemistry, geology, and biology. It is WRONG.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: If this is in fact the case, then it stands to reason that religious concepts, regardless of where they are applied in human activity, are advantageous. Following this reasoning to its logical end, ID (as creationism in a cheap tuxedo of course) would seem the preferred conceptual framework for doing such activities like science.

So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'? SteveP

stevaroni said:

Dave Luckett said: I'll chance FL's answer, if you like. Genesis was written by Moses, at God's direct dictation.

Yeah, I've heard that before. But I've always wondered why, if Moses sat down and wrote Genesis, you'd expect him to roll right through to Exodus, right? I mean as long as he was transcribing holy writ and everything, he might as well jot down it all, and really, who would be in a better place to record the events of the escape from Egypt and the wandering in the desert and such, right? So why is Exodus written in the third person? I mean, what has more narrative power - "Pharoh said such and such" and "Moses said other stuff" or "And then I told Pharaoh to take his army and just try to chase me across the Red Sea - cause I knew we had the big guy watching our back!" ?

Atheistoclast said:

harold said: The logical thing for you to do is to present me with a testable explanation of “design” by a “designer”, and the evidence that supports it. Not false analogies, not mere use of words like “nano-machine”, certainly not arguments against evolution - a mechanism and positive evidence for “design”.

Read the works of Dembski and Meyer. They have provided clear methods for inferring design from non-design. If you can't be bothered to understand them, then that is your problem. They are very similar to the techniques that SETI use.

Now get started with some positive evidence for “design”.

Start with the genetic code. It is the foundation of molecular biology and also the best evidence for design in Nature because, among other things, it is extremely improbable (there are 1.51*10^84 possible ways of mapping 64 codons to 20 amino acids and a stop site), extremely fault-tolerant and extremely elegant.

Sylvilagus said:

arthuriandaily said:

Sylvilagus said:

arthuriandaily said: "For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species -- four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. "The universal common ancestor (models) didn't just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts," Theobald says." It's all BS, I guess.

Do you understand the difference between "in principle" and "in fact" ? You've been arguing "in principle" about reliance of evolution on a single ancestor; Theobald's work cited by you is a demonstration of universal common ancestor "in fact." Just because empirical evidence points to a universal common ancestor, does not mean that evolution requires it in principle as you have been arguing.

Okay. So your clarification goes something like this: I have been arguing for a principle - which is a fact - but you are stating that just because something has empirical evidence does not indicate that it is - in fact - a principle?

More or less. I have brown hair with specks of gray "in fact," but I did not have to have this color hair "in principle." My hair color is contingent. You have been arguing all along that evolution requires a single common ancestor "in principle." The data you mention show that life probably did "in fact" have a single common ancestor (at least within the resolution of that data), but this does not mean that evolution required that there be a single ancestor. In fact, the data itself works against your claim because it shows that other configurations are/were possible though less probable given the existing data. You are confusing historical contingency with theoretical necessity.

harold said: Arthuriandaily... ...taking a break from his distasteful obsessions with virginity and flatulence, and in a desperate attempt to revive his silly "gotcha" game... ...blabbered...

For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species – four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. “The universal common ancestor (models) didn’t just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts,” Theobald says.”

Universal common ancestry is indeed strongly supported by all the evidence.

It’s all BS, I guess.

I learned long ago that when someone is smart enough to turn on a computer, open a web browser, deliberately choose a web page, and type a comment, yet simultaneously pretends not to understand very obvious logic, that person is at some level (possibly not quite consciously) "playing dumb" in the service of some agenda (often a hidden agenda, implying some sort of shame). I also learned that such people will never be persuaded. Indeed, they're more or less openly saying that, aren't they? To prevent anyone else from being confused - For whatever agenda-driven reason, arthuriandaily has set up a silly false dichotomy. He insists that either all life originated as a single, discreet, isolated cell, which he refers to as a "Virgin Birth"... Or else life doesn't share common ancestry. He has been told multiple times that, although everyone agrees with common descent, no-one agrees with a silly, oversimplified model of abiogenesis. His response has been to pretend that others don't agree with common descent. Here's a crude analogy to clarify things for others. This crude analogy deals with a far more simply situation than a good model of abiogenesis would, but it may be enlightening. A group of ten mice arrive on an island with no mice. They multiply and many generations there are 1000 mice. Then there is a natural disaster. There is a population bottleneck. Only one reproducing mouse, a pregnant female, survives, although several others who are past reproductive age or don't make it to reproductive age also survive. The pregnant mouse has alleles inherited from all ten members of the founding population, alleles which themselves originated in some other, larger mouse population. Her litter goes on to repopulate the island with mice. Who is the common ancestor? The single female? The ten founders? The population the founders were from? Cellular life has many strong commonalities and all evidence supports narrow common ancestry. Hell, there may even have been a single proto-cell that was the sole successful reproducer at some time in the distant past, although there does not need to have been. But none of arthuriandailies tiresome false claims (that life had to begin with one magically created cell, that any other model denies common ancestry, that evolution can't be studied unless we have a perfect model of abiogenesis, that commenters here support multiple distinct common ancestry lineages for the biosphere) is the least bit supported. When I say he belongs on the bathroom wall, I'm being generous. For a while I felt a little bad - I thought arhuriandaily was trying to learn and that I was being too tough. If he wants to associate the origin of life with some kind of mystical significance, of course I have nothing against that. Trolls always disappoint. He seems to be obsessed claiming that a straw man model of universal common descent via abiogenesis is the ONLY model of universal common descent via abiogenesis. Whether the agenda here is a "gotcha game" intended to terminate in standard evolution denial, or something else, I am not yet positive. Probably the former. Unoriginal, derivative trolls are far, far more common than original trolls. Also, Steve P. is openly using multiple accounts. That means he's banned, right?

arthuriandaily said: If there is a common ancestor, it had to be an ancestor with no other ancestors. The reason isn't logically hard to follow, really. If the common ancestor had ancestors, then the ancestors of commonality would actually be THE COMMON ANCESTOR. How would going back a generation EVER cease commonality? If the 10 mice you speak of were on the island, was there other life there? Was that unrelated life? Did that unrelated life procreate different species? In order for common descent of all living organisms, it does, necessarily, have to be the first life. As soon as several different types of organisms are living alongside of the common ancestor, you are necessitating that there are 'uncommon lives' thriving alongside commonality. Unless you are arguing common descent of man is not necessarily the common descent of every life form, there can be no 'fast forward' to common descent.

Remember, I called POE first.

phhht said:

arthuriandaily said: If there is a common ancestor, it had to be an ancestor with no other ancestors. The reason isn't logically hard to follow, really. If the common ancestor had ancestors, then the ancestors of commonality would actually be THE COMMON ANCESTOR. How would going back a generation EVER cease commonality? If the 10 mice you speak of were on the island, was there other life there? Was that unrelated life? Did that unrelated life procreate different species? In order for common descent of all living organisms, it does, necessarily, have to be the first life. As soon as several different types of organisms are living alongside of the common ancestor, you are necessitating that there are 'uncommon lives' thriving alongside commonality. Unless you are arguing common descent of man is not necessarily the common descent of every life form, there can be no 'fast forward' to common descent.

This sphincter grit wants to argue that the notion of a common ancestor is just, well, logically impossible.

arthuriandaily said:

Sylvilagus said:

arthuriandaily said:

Sylvilagus said:

arthuriandaily said: "For his analysis, Theobald selected 23 proteins that are found across the taxonomic spectrum but have structures that differ from one species to another. He looked at those proteins in 12 species -- four each from the bacterial, archaeal and eukaryotic domains of life. Then he performed computer simulations to evaluate how likely various evolutionary scenarios were to produce the observed array of proteins. Theobald found that scenarios featuring a universal common ancestor won hands down against even the best-performing multi-ancestor models. "The universal common ancestor (models) didn't just explain the data better, they were also the simplest, so they won on both counts," Theobald says." It's all BS, I guess.

Do you understand the difference between "in principle" and "in fact" ? You've been arguing "in principle" about reliance of evolution on a single ancestor; Theobald's work cited by you is a demonstration of universal common ancestor "in fact." Just because empirical evidence points to a universal common ancestor, does not mean that evolution requires it in principle as you have been arguing.

Okay. So your clarification goes something like this: I have been arguing for a principle - which is a fact - but you are stating that just because something has empirical evidence does not indicate that it is - in fact - a principle?

More or less. I have brown hair with specks of gray "in fact," but I did not have to have this color hair "in principle." My hair color is contingent. You have been arguing all along that evolution requires a single common ancestor "in principle." The data you mention show that life probably did "in fact" have a single common ancestor (at least within the resolution of that data), but this does not mean that evolution required that there be a single ancestor. In fact, the data itself works against your claim because it shows that other configurations are/were possible though less probable given the existing data. You are confusing historical contingency with theoretical necessity.

Well - in theory -the factual claims of which your assertions are based might be conjecture were it not capitulated that the essence of the fact was theoretical in nature, and that nature was an extension of the theoretical. It does not necessitate that the factual is true in theory nor does the theory mandate that the facts are theoretical. But when all the principles are extracted from your hair and the theoretical possibilities of your hair color were an abstract particle from the DNA strands of which you might be accumulating as the culmination of the factually based theory rears its inaccurate assessment from pontifications heretofore gone gander on the coattails of the strand of mention, in theory this could be fact, but in fact it is just a theory. Yes, in order for the theory to be fact. Feel better now?

arthuriandaily said: If the 10 mice you speak of were on the island, was there other life there? Was that unrelated life? Did that unrelated life procreate different species?

In order for common descent of all living organisms, it does, necessarily, have to be the first life.

As soon as several different types of organisms are living alongside of the common ancestor, you are necessitating that there are 'uncommon lives' thriving alongside commonality. Unless you are arguing common descent of man is not necessarily the common descent of every life form, there can be no 'fast forward' to common descent.

Sylvilagus said: Actually , no. I feel worse. Saddened by your attitude. Shaking my head in disbelief. And a bit angry at myself for having tried, despite abundant evidence suggesting that it would be a waste of time. I'll just stand by my previously posted advice to you and leave it at that.

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: If the 10 mice you speak of were on the island, was there other life there? Was that unrelated life? Did that unrelated life procreate different species?

Are you that unbelievably stupid to imply that a mouse can copulate with a hermit crab or a palm tree in order to produce a litter of more mice?

In order for common descent of all living organisms, it does, necessarily, have to be the first life.

And now you're extrapolating your own deliberate ignorance of refusal to understand basic biology and basic population biology in order to claim that abiogenesis is unfeasible.

As soon as several different types of organisms are living alongside of the common ancestor, you are necessitating that there are 'uncommon lives' thriving alongside commonality. Unless you are arguing common descent of man is not necessarily the common descent of every life form, there can be no 'fast forward' to common descent.

I take it you're also too arrogant in your own stupidity to even bother looking at websites like Wikipedia. A stunning, and depressingly typical example of the "Dunning-Kruger effect."

The only thing I can figure from his blog site is that this character’s brain has been damaged by high blood sugar.

I’m not sure what would make an adult become so juvenile unless it has always been his normal state.

arthuriandaily said: One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

arthuriandaily said: One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

Your question(s) betrays a profound, deliberate misunderstanding of evolutionary biology, a deliberate ignorance of basic population biology, as well as a deliberate conflation between evolutionary biology and abiogenesis. You were asked about a hypothetical island of a hypothetical population of mice. You then said that, because there were other life forms on that island, then the ancestry of those hypothetical mice were suspect. Please explain to me why you would assume that you know about science than actual scientists and actual students of science. It's quite obvious you do not even have a middle school level of science education.

arthuriandaily said: One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

arthuriandaily said: You are wrong. The misunderstanding is not deliberate, as profound as that may seem.

arthuriandaily said: Though the ad hominem responses must be serving some purpose, yes or no would suffice.

phhht said:

arthuriandaily said: One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

Yet another rectal itch. If that question isn't an Ibiggoid gotcha, I'll eat my hats.

apokryltaros said:

phhht said:

arthuriandaily said: One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

Yet another rectal itch. If that question isn't an Ibiggoid gotcha, I'll eat my hats.

Your porkpie or your derby?

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: You are wrong. The misunderstanding is not deliberate, as profound as that may seem.

If your misunderstanding is not deliberate, then why do you persist in not wanting to educate yourself, while simultaneously assuming you know more about science than actual scientists or actual students of science?

arthuriandaily said:

apokryltaros said:

arthuriandaily said: You are wrong. The misunderstanding is not deliberate, as profound as that may seem.

If your misunderstanding is not deliberate, then why do you persist in not wanting to educate yourself, while simultaneously assuming you know more about science than actual scientists or actual students of science?

I was under the impression there were folks here who were a whole lot smarter than I am,

and who could easily answer simple yes or no questions.

arthuriandaily said: I was under the impression there were folks here who were a whole lot smarter than I am, and who could easily answer simple yes or no questions.

phhht said:

arthuriandaily said: I was under the impression there were folks here who were a whole lot smarter than I am, and who could easily answer simple yes or no questions.

The problem with feigned stupidity is that it looks like the real thing.

eric said:

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Mike, indeed this thread is about the evolution of religion. So, why is religion so dominant in human culture? Because it has a survival advantage? This seems to be the standard talking point from neo-darwinians vis religion.

It is indeed one of the hypotheses, but not the only one. I personally think Gould's 'spandrel' concept is as strong or stronger in this case. I.e., generalized pattern-seeking behavior may be so valuable that even though we apply it too often and to inappropriate cases, on balance it's still more valuable than deleterious. Religion could be to pattern-seeking what allergies are to the immune system: the over-reaction of an exceedingly useful trait.

If this is in fact the case, then it stands to reason that religious concepts, regardless of where they are applied in human activity, are advantageous.

No, this is incorrect because we are not stone-age hunter gatherers any more. Even assuming that a belief in God was advantageous for them (and I don't agree that it is), it does not follow that it remains advantageous for us.

Following this reasoning to its logical end, ID (as creationism in a cheap tuxedo of course) would seem the preferred conceptual framework for doing such activities like science.

Again wrong, for the same reason. Even assuming belief in God is advantageous (and I don't agree that it is), it does not follow that because it improves hunting, gathering, tribal loyalty, or some other primitive survival activity, that it also improves one's ability to do modern science. I doubt very much that ability to conduct an unbiased CERN experiment factored into the natural selection of Joe vs. Bob as mammoth hunters.

So the obvious q is 'why would you diss IDC when it clearly has the conceptual advantage'?

Because you have not shown it gives a conceptual advantage to begin with, you have only asserted that it might. Granting that assertion, you still haven't shown it gives a conceptual advantage for modern humans. Granting THAT assertion, you still haven't shown it gives a conceptal advantage for modern humans doing science. And last but not least, even if you address all of these problems, you have not given any reason why your religion should be the one we cynically adopt as a placebo support tool. You are left with the Pascal's wager problem, in that your logic supports all religions equally and we have no reason to select yours over any of the others.

TomS said:

harold said: Throwing a crude stone-tipped spear at a huge, tusked mammal may once have had a survival advantage. Therefore I should go to the zoo tomorrow and throw a crude, stone-tipped spear at an elephant.

Perhaps a better example would be in our diet. At one time, it was to our advantage to seek out foods high in calories.

phhht said: The problem with feigned stupidity is that it looks like the real thing.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: 'How does Goddidit solve anything' is just a facile, bumper sticker, strawman, spitball. No one is saying Goddidit, okay wrap it up. Time to close the lab. No, we all want to know just how God did in fact do it. Thats what Newton was after. Thats what Kepler and numerous other scientists were after. ID has in fact done wonders for science in the past and will continue to do so in future.

apokryltaros said: We get the impression that you are a spamming, know-nothing troll who assumes he knows more than actual scientists and students of science. Why else would you spam us about with an inaccurate strawman of Abiogenesis, claiming that the totality of Evolution rests on your strawman, while also evading our questions to you?

and who could easily answer simple yes or no questions.

Your questions are not "simple yes or no questions," they are dishonest and loaded questions that betray your own deliberate, ignorant misunderstanding of basic science.

Arthuriandaily said September 9, 2011 at 4:26 PM Scientific proof of The Virgin Birth is taught in public schools: http://arthuriandaily.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/scientific-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/

You seem confused. Parthenogenesis does occur in a few species of animals, including some lizards, but there is NO evidence whatsoever that it ever happened or could happen among humans. As for the Big Bang Theory, it does not specify that the universe came out of nothing; that’s merely an assumption people make when they hear of it. In reality, there could have been a previous universe that collapsed into a Big Crunch that in turn triggered the next Big Bang. We don’t know and probably never will know. And faith is not a substitute for knowledge anyway. BTW, if Mary did give birth to Jesus as a virgin, then Jesus should have been a WOMAN.

I could write thousands of words but what's the use, they do not see through their scotoma. (Matt. 7:003) Makes me sad.

I have no interest in discussing weight-loss diets. I was just suggesting that our desire for certain foods may have been advantageous for our ancestors 100,000 years ago, but not today. You mention salt.

If there is a common ancestor, it had to be an ancestor with no other ancestors.

One question then: In a world where all life is derived from common descent, is it possible for any living organism to be unrelated to any other life form?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Eric, taking your points in order: 1. Bad analogy

2. Following your logic, we should see an inverse relationship between human knowledge and adherence to religious belief.

3. See my comment above regarding gpuccio's comments on UD. It is clear there is an advantage in interpreting our observations of what is happening in the genome from an ID standpoint. we are not content to say it is only physics and chemistry when we can clearly see it is not the case.

A refusal to understand the genome in terms of information as an independent entity having real effects is detrimental to our understanding of genomic activity.

5. Eric, I have never advocated for Catholism as a way to understand biology.

Thats why I dont get the anti-religious snark on this site.

No, we all want to know just how God did in fact do it. Thats what Newton was after. Thats what Kepler and numerous other scientists were after. ID has in fact done wonders for science in the past and will continue to do so in future.

Thats why I dont get the anti-religious snark on this site. It takes superior abstract thinking skills to do science. ID is simply pushing the envelope on abstract thinking and taking it where it logically goes. God is the ultimate abstraction. What is the palpable fear here?

‘How does Goddidit solve anything’ is just a facile, bumper sticker, strawman, spitball. No one is saying Goddidit, okay wrap it up. Time to close the lab.

No, we all want to know just how God did in fact do it. Thats what Newton was after. Thats what Kepler and numerous other scientists were after. ID has in fact done wonders for science in the past and will continue to do so in future.

We want to know how he is able to embed information in the genome. Does it lead to hypotheses like interactive dimensions as the command and control mechanism of information. Are quantum bits that BA77 likes to rave about the cause of information?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/pp5xXQ99k5zIiIdeYeJ0Do.CNJui0.p8EkA-#8a574 said: Thats why I dont get the anti-religious snark on this site. It takes superior abstract thinking skills to do science. ID is simply pushing the envelope on abstract thinking and taking it where it logically goes. God is the ultimate abstraction. What is the palpable fear here?

Thats why I dont get the anti-religious snark on this site. It takes superior abstract thinking skills to do science. ID is simply pushing the envelope on abstract thinking and taking it where it logically goes. God is the ultimate abstraction. What is the palpable fear here?

FL the hypocrite lied:

Thats why I dont get the anti-religious snark on this site. It takes superior abstract thinking skills to do science. ID is simply pushing the envelope on abstract thinking and taking it where it logically goes. God is the ultimate abstraction. What is the palpable fear here?

You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

FL said: You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

phhht said:

FL said: You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

Sorry, Flawd, but your delusions don't scare anyone. After all, if your gods could do anything about it, wouldn't they slap me down for my smart mouth? They aren't scary because they aren't real, Flawd. Your gods can't do shit in the real world. There's no reason to fear them, because they have no power.

You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

TomS said:

You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

Why are advocates of "Intelligent Design" afraid to identify their "Intelligent Designer(s)" with God? See "The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents" collected by Casey Luskin in his essay "Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341

TomS said:

You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

Why are advocates of "Intelligent Design" afraid to identify their "Intelligent Designer(s)" with God? See "The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents" collected by Casey Luskin in his essay "Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341

harold said:

TomS said:

You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

Why are advocates of "Intelligent Design" afraid to identify their "Intelligent Designer(s)" with God? See "The Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents" collected by Casey Luskin in his essay "Is Intelligent Design Theory Really an Argument for "God"" http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341

Exactly. FL, is that what you're saying now? That ID is specifically religious? (Incidentally, Casey mistakenly states that science can't study the supernatural. Actually, the possible impact of the supernatural on the natural has been studied many times. All rigorous studies are negative to date. For example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17487575.)

Just making sure you're awake, Stanton. Don't want'cha to git bored around here!!

FL said:

Thats why I dont get the anti-religious snark on this site. It takes superior abstract thinking skills to do science. ID is simply pushing the envelope on abstract thinking and taking it where it logically goes. God is the ultimate abstraction. What is the palpable fear here?

You said it yourself: "God." Scares 'em to death every time.

FL said: Just making sure you're awake, Stanton. Don't want'cha to git bored around here!!

Mike Elzinga said: You are not a Christian. Everybody can see that but you; but you are AFRAID to admit it. YOU are AFRAID. YOU are TERRIFIED of the truth.

Taunting and macho bravado are FEAR, FL, YOUR fear. We all know it. We keep reminding you. But you keep bluffing. We learn your sectarian pseudo-science because we are NOT afraid. YOU not only avoid learning REAL science; YOU even refuse to learn your own sectarian pseudo-science. Wanna go around again with that Dembski and Marks paper, FL? Wanna do the thermodynamics thing again, FL? Wannna get your ass kicked again, FL? Love it, don’tcha. Makes you a “martyr,” huh. Big hunkin’ hero for Jesus; monster-mashin’ through the “Garden of Infidels.” Macho man! Heap big swagger! We see who you are. We know. YOU fear US; and YOU fear your deity.

Love it, don’tcha. Makes you a “martyr,” huh. Big hunkin’ hero for Jesus; monster-mashin’ through the “Garden of Infidels.” Macho man! Heap big swagger!

Well, I think this thread has pretty much exhausted the topic(s). It's been ... erm ... instructive. Yeah, that's the word: "instructive." Thanks for your participation, folks. I'll be turning off comments as soon as I can get the editor loaded.