Does analytical thinking discourage religious belief?

Analytical thinking isn't kind to "critical analysis," either. Mostly because it isn't.

Glen Davidson

Thinking discourages religious belief; not thinking encourages religious belief (just look at our trolls).

Corollaries: Religious belief ("religion") discourages thinking; not-religious belief ("irreligion") encourages thinking.

b + (b + 1.00) = 1.10

Solve for b.

Considering the plasticity of the brain, this makes sense. It is possible that reinforcement of neural pathways is the key. If you reinforce analytical pathways, you are automatically less likely to accept the simple answer, more inclined to examine evidence and alternatives and more inclined to question simple answers. If you reinforce the pathways that don't utilize analytical methods, you are more inclined to accept the simple answers without questioning and never consider alternatives.

If this effect is real, it potentially explains a lot:

1) It explains why creationists are so desperate to stop science from being taught in public schools.

2) It explains why creationist never question their own beliefs and always use double standards when attempting to denigrate science.

3) It explains why some people who post here, (who shall remain nameless), seemingly never learn anything, despite years of posting the same nonsense and being corrected time after time after time.

4) It explains the fear and loathing that some people have towards science, while at the same time enjoying the benefits of science.

5) It explains why some people are so willing to accept "poof" as an answer even in the complete absence of any evidence and in the face of vast amounts of evidence to the contrary.

In the words of Woody Allen: "My brain, that's my second favorite organ."

DS said: Considering the plasticity of the brain, this makes sense. It is possible that reinforcement of neural pathways is the key. If you reinforce analytical pathways, you are automatically less likely to accept the simple answer, more inclined to examine evidence and alternatives and more inclined to question simple answers. If you reinforce the pathways that don't utilize analytical methods, you are more inclined to accept the simple answers without questioning and never consider alternatives. If this effect is real, it potentially explains a lot: 1) It explains why creationists are so desperate to stop science from being taught in public schools. 2) It explains why creationist never question their own beliefs and always use double standards when attempting to denigrate science. 3) It explains why some people who post here, (who shall remain nameless), seemingly never learn anything, despite years of posting the same nonsense and being corrected time after time after time. 4) It explains the fear and loathing that some people have towards science, while at the same time enjoying the benefits of science. 5) It explains why some people are so willing to accept "poof" as an answer even in the complete absence of any evidence and in the face of vast amounts of evidence to the contrary. In the words of Woody Allen: "My brain, that's my second favorite organ."

I think this confirms what many skeptics have suspected but I dont think that relatively minor correlations between religiosity and certain mental skills really matters much for the ongoing cultural debate. What matters more to most is what we are presented with when discussions on this come up: exceptionally intelligent deep analytical thinkers who are ALSO deeply religious.

Dawkins calls that kind of early neurological training "child abuse". Sometimes uncurable.

Flint said: Dawkins calls that kind of early neurological training "child abuse". Sometimes uncurable.

Maybe analytical thinking discourages creationist religious thinking (Kent Hovind), but encourages mainstream religious thinking (C.S. Lewis), or is at least neutral to it. The Great Divorce was pretty analytical! I wonder if the effect would be larger if the researchers separated out the kind of religious thinking going on? This is what harold has alluded to above.

I don't know if it's critical thinking or the mind of the true believer. I just read a mini-book called The Authoritarians. It very accurately describes the mind of people like Republicans, fundamentalist Christians and science deniers.

Basically, the subjects or followers of authoritarians are submissive followers, whatever they are told, they do. And one of the things that they specifically don't do is question their leader.

ogremk5 said: I don't know if it's critical thinking or the mind of the true believer. I just read a mini-book called The Authoritarians. It very accurately describes the mind of people like Republicans, fundamentalist Christians and science deniers. Basically, the subjects or followers of authoritarians are submissive followers, whatever they are told, they do. And one of the things that they specifically don't do is question their leader.

Robert Byers said: No. Analytical thinking doesn't hurt a conclusion where enough data is provided. Drawing conclusions only includes analysis. One must have basic data and more then that. Then bring careful analysis to bear on it. The bat and ball thing just shows careless observation especially since the mere mentioning of the question should hint against the first careless reply. In origin issues there is a lack of data for such great conclusions drawn. Creationists can invoke scripture but not nature either. Analysis of nature today about origin subjects is very difficult. This is why evolutionism was too quick to say it figured it out and the bible's wrong.

Is there no kind of auto-script that can just punt Byers to the Wall, where he belongs, as soon as he posts? Every single post on PT is used by Byers as an excuse to flog the putrid, rotting corpse of creationism, regardless of the relevance it has to the topic. Byers is an incoherent one-trick pony and shouldn't be tolerated.

"A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
The way the question is phrased, it cries out for the answer $0.10; that is the intuitive answer. The correct answer, the analytical answer, is $0.05".
Why is the answer so not what you see is what you get. Troll or no troll how can 0.10 be 0.5.
I can't see the maths in it.
All I can think is that analytical reckoning produces short measure and not the full valuation.

If you said the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would have to cost $1.10 to be $1.00 more than the ball. That comes to $1.20. But the total spend was only $1.10. Therefore the ball could not cost $0.10. The intuitive answer must be wrong.

If the ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs a dollar more, then the bat cost $1.05. Total spend, $1.10, as required. The correct answer then, is "The ball cost $0.05".

See?

mandrellian said: Is there no kind of auto-script that can just punt Byers to the Wall, where he belongs, as soon as he posts? Every single post on PT is used by Byers as an excuse to flog the putrid, rotting corpse of creationism, regardless of the relevance it has to the topic. Byers is an incoherent one-trick pony and shouldn't be tolerated.

Robert Byers

You're absolutely correct that creationists can only make a feeble attempt to invoke scripture - for the simple reason that the entirety of scientific endeavour over the past 500 years has conclusively demolished the possibility of reading Genesis as a literal, empirically accurate rendering of the natural world. This was already widely understood before Darwin's evolutionary synthesis. Here's a thing, though, you suggest that the amount of data that was used was insufficient, but I don't think that you've ever really grasped the sheer volume of work that has been done gathering, classifying and analysing data, and the ever more sophisticated analytical techniques that have been developed over the past 200 years. It's over 150 years since Darwin first published - how many work years across the relevant disciplines, including the post-Origin field of genetics, and subsequently, DNA analysis, do you think have been done? 150 years? 150,000 years? 1.5 million years? 15 million years? In all those work years can you actually point to anything that has fatally disconfirmed the basic insights of the evolutionary synthesis?

Seriously, if we were to take Copernicus and Vesalius as reasonable starting points, how many work years - much of it grindingly tedious grunt effort - across the disciplines of biology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, cosmology/astronomy, comparative anatomy, genetics etc do you think have been done? At what point would you consider there to be a sufficient volume of data collection, classification, analysis, re-analysis, discussion and debate amongst scientists about their efforts, etc to climb down off the epistemic window ledge? Do you really think that more data is going to turn anything in your favour, or are you really denying that ANY amount of data can ever be dispositive for you?

I'd go further and point out that the recovery of languages such as Ugaritic, Akkadian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian etc, the recovery of texts written in those languages that are either antecedent to or contemporaneous with the biblical texts, coupled with the demonstration that the Old Testament is in fact a collection of disparate texts that have clear and particular histories of editing, re-interpretation, revision and re-writing over an extensive period of time until a "definitive" Masoretic text was compiled in about the 2nd century BC, that the language that it was written in changed over that period of time, from an unpointed and unvowelled system to the very late version of the script that we currently have, that we can trace translation errors from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English, have accomplished much the same thing as the scientific endeavours of the naturalists.

When you claim that Genesis says what you say it says, you're simply repeating a very particular myth about its contents; in a non-trivial sense, Robert, you've NEVER ACTUALLY READ Genesis, or ever come to grips with how complicated and awkward the text that we have actually is. Robert, you can't even claim scripture, you can only claim a hopelessly wrong and error-filled, mythologised understanding of what scripture is and what it says. All you have left is the manifestly nihilistic position that you insist on, although you cannot explain it, which is that no matter how much effort, brains and time we put in, no matter how masterful the demonstrations to the contrary, we can in fact never know anything about anything.

Seeing as you neglected to respond before, could you please answer my question: will the laws of gravity change on Thursday, such that we'll all be able to fly?

Certainly you realize that Booby is incapable of comprehending even 5% (and I think I’m being extremely generous with that estimate) of the content of your post.

If he responds to it at all, it will be a mostly incomprehensible and totally incoherent babbling of BS. I’ll put $5.00 on it.

And there you have it folks. Two creationists who are the absolute epitome of a complete lack of analytical reasoning ability. Absolute proof of how shutting down the analytical pathways in your brain makes it virtually impossible for you to understand nearly any science, or even math apparently. Maybe there is something to this hypothesis after all.

Dave Luckett said: If you said the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would have to cost $1.10 to be $1.00 more than the ball. That comes to $1.20. But the total spend was only $1.10. Therefore the ball could not cost $0.10. The intuitive answer must be wrong. If the ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs a dollar more, then the bat cost $1.05. Total spend, $1.10, as required. The correct answer then, is "The ball cost $0.05". See?

Dave Lovell said:

Dave Luckett said: If you said the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would have to cost $1.10 to be $1.00 more than the ball. That comes to $1.20. But the total spend was only $1.10. Therefore the ball could not cost $0.10. The intuitive answer must be wrong. If the ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs a dollar more, then the bat cost $1.05. Total spend, $1.10, as required. The correct answer then, is "The ball cost $0.05". See?

Crickey Dave, you might finally have taught a creationist something!

I thought Marilyn must be Poe-ing this time. Sad, really.

DS said:

Dave Lovell said:

Dave Luckett said: If you said the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would have to cost $1.10 to be $1.00 more than the ball. That comes to $1.20. But the total spend was only $1.10. Therefore the ball could not cost $0.10. The intuitive answer must be wrong. If the ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs a dollar more, then the bat cost $1.05. Total spend, $1.10, as required. The correct answer then, is "The ball cost $0.05". See?

Crickey Dave, you might finally have taught a creationist something!

Somehow, I sincerely doubt it.

Ha. this one was good for a chuckle.

The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs.

Our current crop of self-styled analytical thinking, put-no-credence-in-gods scientists such as...lets se uh, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richaaard Dawkins... hmmm, what revolutionary discoveries have they made? How have they changed the world. I know, I know, step-by-agonizingly small step; so small its imperceptible. Yup. But there it is....in its gradual glory.

Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world.

If its a contest between God and atheism....

God.. ya dun even need to work up a sweat. Jus' sit back, relax, and crack open a Bodingers Ale. I know you wanna shake the can Lord, but I'd advise against it.

FYI,

Misreading the question to believe the bat costs a dollar and the ball $0.10 is not an intuitive answer. Its an ignorant one.

Different animals.

I wonder if you(pl) understand the difference.

Submitted for your consideration, example number three.

SteveP. said: Misreading the question to believe the bat costs a dollar and the ball $0.10 is not an intuitive answer. Its an ignorant one.

SteveP. said: The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs. [...]

Keelyn

Prompting RB into virtuoso displays of ignorance is sort of an end in itself.

Marilyn said: "A bat and ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? The way the question is phrased, it cries out for the answer $0.10; that is the intuitive answer. The correct answer, the analytical answer, is $0.05". Why is the answer so not what you see is what you get. Troll or no troll how can 0.10 be 0.5. I can't see the maths in it. All I can think is that analytical reckoning produces short measure and not the full valuation.

SteveP. said: Ha. this one was good for a chuckle. The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs. Our current crop of self-styled analytical thinking, put-no-credence-in-gods scientists such as...lets se uh, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richaaard Dawkins... hmmm, what revolutionary discoveries have they made? How have they changed the world. I know, I know, step-by-agonizingly small step; so small its imperceptible. Yup. But there it is....in its gradual glory. Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world. If its a contest between God and atheism.... God.. ya dun even need to work up a sweat. Jus' sit back, relax, and crack open a Bodingers Ale. I know you wanna shake the can Lord, but I'd advise against it.

If one drives the first half of a 60 mile distance at 30 miles per hour and the second half of the distance at 60 miles per hour, the average speed is NOT 45 miles per hour.

I am reminded of the Far Side cartoon that shows Hell's library ... containing nothing but collections of word problems ...

60 / ( (30/30) + (30/60) )

SWT said: I am reminded of the Far Side cartoon that shows Hell's library ... containing nothing but collections of word problems ...

Heh ... should have Googled before my last post:

Here it is ...

SteveP. said: Ha. this one was good for a chuckle. The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs. Our current crop of self-styled analytical thinking, put-no-credence-in-gods scientists such as...lets se uh, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richaaard Dawkins... hmmm, what revolutionary discoveries have they made? How have they changed the world. I know, I know, step-by-agonizingly small step; so small its imperceptible. Yup. But there it is....in its gradual glory. Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world. If its a contest between God and atheism.... God.. ya dun even need to work up a sweat. Jus' sit back, relax, and crack open a Bodingers Ale. I know you wanna shake the can Lord, but I'd advise against it.

1/((1/30 + 1/60)/2)

I deal with this exact problem several times a year.

SteveP. said: If its a contest between God and atheism....

Krauthammer: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs.

SteveP. said: Ha. this one was good for a chuckle. The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs. Our current crop of self-styled analytical thinking, put-no-credence-in-gods scientists such as...lets se uh, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richaaard Dawkins... hmmm, what revolutionary discoveries have they made? How have they changed the world. I know, I know, step-by-agonizingly small step; so small its imperceptible. Yup. But there it is....in its gradual glory. Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world. If its a contest between God and atheism.... God.. ya dun even need to work up a sweat. Jus' sit back, relax, and crack open a Bodingers Ale. I know you wanna shake the can Lord, but I'd advise against it.

harold said: ... and what is an example of something that wasn't designed by the designer?

Also ask what the heck the word "design" even means!

If it means they think something was engineered, then they should say that.

Dave Luckett said: If you said the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would have to cost $1.10 to be $1.00 more than the ball. That comes to $1.20. But the total spend was only $1.10. Therefore the ball could not cost $0.10. The intuitive answer must be wrong. If the ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs a dollar more, then the bat cost $1.05. Total spend, $1.10, as required. The correct answer then, is "The ball cost $0.05". See?

SteveP. said: FYI, Misreading the question to believe the bat costs a dollar and the ball $0.10 is not an intuitive answer. Its an ignorant one. Different animals. I wonder if you(pl) understand the difference.

Marilyn said:

Dave Luckett said: If you said the ball costs $0.10, then the bat would have to cost $1.10 to be $1.00 more than the ball. That comes to $1.20. But the total spend was only $1.10. Therefore the ball could not cost $0.10. The intuitive answer must be wrong. If the ball costs $0.05, and the bat costs a dollar more, then the bat cost $1.05. Total spend, $1.10, as required. The correct answer then, is "The ball cost $0.05". See?

No, but if the ball is .05 I've decided it's a bargain.

SteveP. said: The greatest scientists in the world held religious beliefs.

Our current crop of self-styled analytical thinking, put-no-credence-in-gods scientists such as...lets se uh, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins... hmmm, what revolutionary discoveries have they made? How have they changed the world. I know, I know, step-by-agonizingly small step; so small its imperceptible. Yup. But there it is....in its gradual glory.

Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world.

If its a contest between God and atheism....

Mike Elzinga said: If one drives the first half of a 60 mile distance at 30 miles per hour and the second half of the distance at 60 miles per hour, the average speed is NOT 45 miles per hour.

harold said: If that person drove the same amount of time at 30 MPH and 60 MPH, the correct answer would be 45 MPH. However, they drove the same distance at each speed, therefore, they spent longer traveling at 30 MPH, because it takes longer to drive the same distance at 30 MPH than at 60 MPH.

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: If that person drove the same amount of time at 30 MPH and 60 MPH, the correct answer would be 45 MPH. However, they drove the same distance at each speed, therefore, they spent longer traveling at 30 MPH, because it takes longer to drive the same distance at 30 MPH than at 60 MPH.

That is the key. Here is another problem that can be done at least a couple of different ways. Two trains are traveling toward each other on the same track. One train is traveling at a speed of 30 miles per hour, the other at a speed of 60 miles per hour. At the instant the trains are 90 miles apart, a super fly starts flying back and forth between the fronts of the trains at a speed of 120 miles per hour. How far does Superfly travel before the trains collide squashing Superfly between trains? (By definition, no flys were hurt in this story)

How far does Superfly travel before the trains collide squashing Superfly between trains?

Matt Young said:

How far does Superfly travel before the trains collide squashing Superfly between trains?

I haven't the foggiest idea, but in the version I heard, physicists solved the problem very quickly; von Neumann (?) doubted that was possible because no physicist could sum an infinite series that fast.

I refuse to discuss silly math problems. Poor insects always get it in the end in so many of them (my recent entomology teacher bemoaned that fact).

But at this link you'll see just what analytical thinking does to religion. http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80787/en/md.html?cid=425000010
That map shows the results of NC's votes on our constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and civil unions (voting was yesterday).

Save one, the counties against the amendment all contain universities. That analytical thinking seeps out a bit. The odd man out is Dare County to the east, the 7000 votes there were nearly split (that county's mostly water and vacation homes by the way). The county containing the University of North Carolina at Wilmington was blue for quite sometime.

This amendment was wholly due to religious pressure. I'm sad to be a North Carolinian today.

harold said:

Mike Elzinga said: If one drives the first half of a 60 mile distance at 30 miles per hour and the second half of the distance at 60 miles per hour, the average speed is NOT 45 miles per hour.

Let's do a formal breakdown of this one as well. Again, I saw the answer informally (I have seen a lot of this type of problem in my time), but the formal breakdown is worthwhile. If that person drove the same amount of time at 30 MPH and 60 MPH, the correct answer would be 45 MPH. However, they drove the same distance at each speed, therefore, they spent longer traveling at 30 MPH, because it takes longer to drive the same distance at 30 MPH than at 60 MPH. We know they drove a total of 60 miles, so all we have to do is figure out how long it took them, and we can figure out their average velocity. They drove "the first half of 60 miles at 30 MPH". Okay, half of 60 miles is 30 miles. So how long does it take to drive 30 miles at 30 MPH? It takes one hour; that's why they call it 30 miles per hour. ("Sir, you were driving 85 miles per hour". "That's impossible, officer, I've only been driving for ten minutes".) Okay so, the first half of the trip took one hour. The next half was driven at 60 miles per hour. How far was half of 60 miles again? That's right, 30 miles. How long does it take to drive 30 miles at 60 MPH? That's right, half an hour. So distance covered was 60 miles, time was 1.5 hours. 60/1.5 = 40 MPH. Average speed was 40 miles per hour.

mandrellian said:

Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world.

I don't know if anyone's completely dismissing intuition here. It's at the very least a valuable starting point for investigation. Darwin, for example, changed the world. His intuition - his first notions of how species arise - when pursued with scientific rigor, led to one of the most world-changing discoveries ever made; a discovery which continues to be refined and which continues to influence research in dozens of other scientific disciplines. What's more, his intuition that "Origin" would cause major societal upset - leading him to hold off publishing for 20 years - was correct. Creationists are living proof - it's been 153 years and you still can't get over your hubris and your arrogance and accept the fact that you're nothing more than a quite clever ape. ... The point? Intuition is valuable - almost invaluable as a starting point.

Grade school word problems typically say things like "the ball and bat cost $1.10, the bat costs $1.00, how much does the ball cost?" And just about everyone who's been through grade school education has questions just like this coming out their ears. Then we slip in a trick: The bat cost $1.00 more than the ball. In other words, we aren't told what the bat costs. We're not used to seeing that trick, so it's easy to misread the question.

It would be less tricky if we were to say "the bat costs $1.00 more than the ball, how much does the BAT cost." Suddenly we realize that we can't have been given the price of the bat directly, or there is no problem to solve. Flags go up: we are required to THINK.

**WARNING**Squashed bug story*

Me, I've never been able to see the answer to the problem of what happens when a fly heading directly north at a speed of 5 mph collides with the front of a superchief express heading directly south at a speed of 90 mph.

The fly, or the remains thereof, reverses direction, of course. It was moving north relative to the surroundings, at 5 mph, and in an instant is moving south at 90 mph. But that must mean that there was an instant when it was at rest relative to its surroundings.

So if the fly is at rest relative to its surroundings, how come the express train isn't?

SWT said:

mandrellian said:

Maybe intuitive thought has its advantages after all. You know, like uhmm, discovering something huge; changing the world.

I don't know if anyone's completely dismissing intuition here. It's at the very least a valuable starting point for investigation. Darwin, for example, changed the world. His intuition - his first notions of how species arise - when pursued with scientific rigor, led to one of the most world-changing discoveries ever made; a discovery which continues to be refined and which continues to influence research in dozens of other scientific disciplines. What's more, his intuition that "Origin" would cause major societal upset - leading him to hold off publishing for 20 years - was correct. Creationists are living proof - it's been 153 years and you still can't get over your hubris and your arrogance and accept the fact that you're nothing more than a quite clever ape. ... The point? Intuition is valuable - almost invaluable as a starting point.

Well stated. It's also worth noting that Darwin's intuition about the origin of species was based on looking at data. Lots of it. For a long time. Followed by analysis. Lots of it. For a long time.

Dave Luckett said: **WARNING**Squashed bug story* Me, I've never been able to see the answer to the problem of what happens when a fly heading directly north at a speed of 5 mph collides with the front of a superchief express heading directly south at a speed of 90 mph. The fly, or the remains thereof, reverses direction, of course. It was moving north relative to the surroundings, at 5 mph, and in an instant is moving south at 90 mph. But that must mean that there was an instant when it was at rest relative to its surroundings. So if the fly is at rest relative to its surroundings, how come the express train isn't?

Dave Luckett said: **WARNING**Squashed bug story* Me, I've never been able to see the answer to the problem of what happens when a fly heading directly north at a speed of 5 mph collides with the front of a superchief express heading directly south at a speed of 90 mph. The fly, or the remains thereof, reverses direction, of course. It was moving north relative to the surroundings, at 5 mph, and in an instant is moving south at 90 mph. But that must mean that there was an instant when it was at rest relative to its surroundings. So if the fly is at rest relative to its surroundings, how come the express train isn't?

prongs said:

Dave Luckett said: **WARNING**Squashed bug story* Me, I've never been able to see the answer to the problem of what happens when a fly heading directly north at a speed of 5 mph collides with the front of a superchief express heading directly south at a speed of 90 mph. The fly, or the remains thereof, reverses direction, of course. It was moving north relative to the surroundings, at 5 mph, and in an instant is moving south at 90 mph. But that must mean that there was an instant when it was at rest relative to its surroundings. So if the fly is at rest relative to its surroundings, how come the express train isn't?

In that instant how do you know the train was moving? It is only between two instants that you can discern movement. So, it is fair to say is it not, that in that one infinitesimal instant of time, the train was not moving either. It is also fair to say that the bug was deforming the entire time it's center of mass was reversing direction. But that's a minor detail. Another way to look at it is that there was never an interval between two instants when the bug was not moving. It is only at the one infinitesimal instant of time, between direction reversal, that we might say the bug was still. Ain't relativity wonderful? (IBUG doesn't believe in it. It ain't absolute!)

Along the lines of “what’s the next sequence?” 3 13 1113 3113 132113 …

Robert Byers said: I always respond to relevant questions relative to thread.

I have trouble however avoiding being tossed out of the right room.

Since you asked about volume of data. I am aware of the volume of research/papers since Darwin done to back up evolutionism. Yet like in any subject largely its a single or few people who establish the new idea. the idea is accepted on its merits by these few people's arguments. The rest is johnny come lately . I read a lot of geo morphology. Yet it all builds on a few presumptions and can't claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas. They just deal in a few points. There is in fact very little research , in the last 150 years, on evolution that is fresh or adding substance to presumptions. The foundations or great conclusions of evolution are not added to or subtracted from by later volume of research that deals with conclusions in biology even if including evolutionary presumptions. I don't see much data there to do analysis on. Speculating on one million fossils is not one million pieces of data on evolution that can be said to have been successfully examined.

So if the fly is at rest relative to its surroundings, how come the express train isn’t?

and can’t claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas.

"The claim is rather stupid, but it is obviously true that religious scientists have made incredibly important discoveries. Of course, this is not an argument against the theory of evolution. "

"If belief in God is indeed intuitive (consistent with propositions that the underlying beliefs spring to mind automatically or effortlessly,)this suggests that the extent to which one believes in God may be influenced by one’s tendency to rely on intuition versus reflection."

Henry J said:

Along the lines of “what’s the next sequence?” 3 13 1113 3113 132113 …

1113122113 ?

Robert Byers said:

Henry J said:

and can’t claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas.

Well of course every researcher doesn't recreate the entire theory from scratch each time they do a bit of research. Sheesh.

Thats right but further then that. They don't recreate or verify the hypothesis but presume its true and then add their own two cents on other lines of reasoning from it. Evolution is not supported by heaps of research but instead heaps of research is done with evolutionary biological assumptions.

Dave Luckett said: **WARNING**Squashed bug story* Me, I've never been able to see the answer to the problem of what happens when a fly heading directly north at a speed of 5 mph collides with the front of a superchief express heading directly south at a speed of 90 mph. The fly, or the remains thereof, reverses direction, of course. It was moving north relative to the surroundings, at 5 mph, and in an instant is moving south at 90 mph. But that must mean that there was an instant when it was at rest relative to its surroundings. So if the fly is at rest relative to its surroundings, how come the express train isn't?

Robert

You're vastly understating the amount of work that went on BEFORE Darwin's synthesis, which was the product of a good 2-300 years' worth of observation, data collection, classification, experiment, analysis, theorising and debate across a wide variety of disciplines. Darwin provides the mechanism - natural selection - that pulls things together into a coherent theory.

Do you really think that the post-Origin discoveries of radio-activity ( hence radiometric dating techniques ), of the genetic mechanisms of inheritance, of plate tectonics, in embryology, of the existence,structure and decoding of DNA - to name just 5 in a VERY, VERY long list of relevant FRESH items - contribute no substance to the issue? Do you think that the theory of evolution would have survived in any shape or form if, as a result of the Curies' initial breakthroughs, radio-active decay rates had demonstrated an extremely young earth?

Seriously, likewise, decoding DNA could have conclusively disproved evolution at a stroke - all it in fact did was to confirm ever-more elegantly the fundamental inter-relatedness and commonality of ancestry of all living things on the planet. Does this not give you some reason to question your assumptions? Or, are you actually suggesting that no amount of data, no fresh discovery, across a wide variety of investigative fields can ever satisfy you?

You don't see much data there to do analysis on? There's a whole world stuffed full of data - unimaginably RICH data - that has been, and continues to be, investigated in a bewildering, constantly refreshing, variety of ways.

Robert, the Natural History Museum in London has a collection of over 1 million fossils - that's just ONE institution among thousands which have substantial collections, and, more importantly, long histories of doing analytical work on them. More fossils get added to the global repository every single year. Fossils get analysed and re-analysed with ever greater degrees of refinement and precision, because our stock of investigative techniques keeps expanding.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 asked Byers a series of questions, the first two of which started with the words: Do you really think...?

Just Bob said:

harold said: ... and what is an example of something that wasn't designed by the designer?

I especially like that last bit. It seems to me that if EVERYTHING is 'designed', then the existence of a designer is irrelevant: design would be a property of everything and therefore useless for making any worthwhile distinctions. And it would mean that the results of all experiments, our own observations, and even our minds are designed. So we couldn't ever be sure we're observing reality: it all could be a designed delusion. On the other hand, if there are some things that are NOT designed, that too is a useless bit of non-knowledge unless there is a reliable way to distinguish non-designed from designed. And with an omnipotent designer, how could one possibly be sure that something was NOT designed? It could be designed to APPEAR non-designed. INTELLIGENT DESIGN: an absolutely useless 'science', even if its basic premise is right.

Dave

All too true. I'm just trying to get a formal statement from RB of his doctrine of evidential immunity.

SteveP. said: Harold really needs to reread the title of this blog post. My comment are right on topic. Here is evidence where it is harold who is actually trying to change the subject. Midly interesting, huh?

"The claim is rather stupid, but it is obviously true that religious scientists have made incredibly important discoveries. Of course, this is not an argument against the theory of evolution. "

See how Harold makes a claim I didn't make?. I am speaking to the post, where Harold is off grumbling about evolution. Save it for the right blog post. My simple claim is that being religious hardly makes your analytical skills go numb. The study did not evaluate based on education level. What's interesting is how they viewed intuition and connote rational thought with being 'reflective':

"If belief in God is indeed intuitive (consistent with propositions that the underlying beliefs spring to mind automatically or effortlessly,)this suggests that the extent to which one believes in God may be influenced by one’s tendency to rely on intuition versus reflection."

1) Can Steve P provide scientific evidence that will convince Christians who accept the theory of evolution that the theory of evolution is wrong?That’s scientific evidence, not claims that your interpretation of the Bible is better than their interpretation of the Bible. 2) Does Steve P agree that atheists existed before the birth of Darwin? And as always - who is the designer, what did the designer design, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that wasn’t designed by the designer?

Mike Elzinga said:

harold said: If that person drove the same amount of time at 30 MPH and 60 MPH, the correct answer would be 45 MPH. However, they drove the same distance at each speed, therefore, they spent longer traveling at 30 MPH, because it takes longer to drive the same distance at 30 MPH than at 60 MPH.

That is the key. Here is another problem that can be done at least a couple of different ways. Two trains are traveling toward each other on the same track. One train is traveling at a speed of 30 miles per hour, the other at a speed of 60 miles per hour. At the instant the trains are 90 miles apart, a super fly starts flying back and forth between the fronts of the trains at a speed of 120 miles per hour. How far does Superfly travel before the trains collide squashing Superfly between trains? (By definition, no flys were hurt in this story)

Mike Elzinga -

Here is the king of problems that drive people crazy.

I am a game show MC and you are the contestant. The game is that there are three doors. Behind one of them is a new car, behind each of the others is a donkey. In the context of this game, you want the new car (even if you'd rather have the donkeys, you can sell the car and buy more than two donkeys).

Step one, you randomly choose a door. Let's say you choose door A.

Step two, I will open one of the other two doors, either B or C, and the door I open will have a donkey behind it. Let's say I open door B and show you a donkey.

Okay, now you know that you can forget about door B.

Should you stick with door A, switch to door C, or is it the same whether you switch or not?

Robert Byers said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Robert Byers You're absolutely correct that creationists can only make a feeble attempt to invoke scripture - for the simple reason that the entirety of scientific endeavour over the past 500 years has conclusively demolished the possibility of reading Genesis as a literal, empirically accurate rendering of the natural world. This was already widely understood before Darwin's evolutionary synthesis. Here's a thing, though, you suggest that the amount of data that was used was insufficient, but I don't think that you've ever really grasped the sheer volume of work that has been done gathering, classifying and analysing data, and the ever more sophisticated analytical techniques that have been developed over the past 200 years. It's over 150 years since Darwin first published - how many work years across the relevant disciplines, including the post-Origin field of genetics, and subsequently, DNA analysis, do you think have been done? 150 years? 150,000 years? 1.5 million years? 15 million years? In all those work years can you actually point to anything that has fatally disconfirmed the basic insights of the evolutionary synthesis? Seriously, if we were to take Copernicus and Vesalius as reasonable starting points, how many work years - much of it grindingly tedious grunt effort - across the disciplines of biology, geology, paleontology, physics, chemistry, cosmology/astronomy, comparative anatomy, genetics etc do you think have been done? At what point would you consider there to be a sufficient volume of data collection, classification, analysis, re-analysis, discussion and debate amongst scientists about their efforts, etc to climb down off the epistemic window ledge? Do you really think that more data is going to turn anything in your favour, or are you really denying that ANY amount of data can ever be dispositive for you? I'd go further and point out that the recovery of languages such as Ugaritic, Akkadian, Babylonian, Hittite, Assyrian etc, the recovery of texts written in those languages that are either antecedent to or contemporaneous with the biblical texts, coupled with the demonstration that the Old Testament is in fact a collection of disparate texts that have clear and particular histories of editing, re-interpretation, revision and re-writing over an extensive period of time until a "definitive" Masoretic text was compiled in about the 2nd century BC, that the language that it was written in changed over that period of time, from an unpointed and unvowelled system to the very late version of the script that we currently have, that we can trace translation errors from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English, have accomplished much the same thing as the scientific endeavours of the naturalists. When you claim that Genesis says what you say it says, you're simply repeating a very particular myth about its contents; in a non-trivial sense, Robert, you've NEVER ACTUALLY READ Genesis, or ever come to grips with how complicated and awkward the text that we have actually is. Robert, you can't even claim scripture, you can only claim a hopelessly wrong and error-filled, mythologised understanding of what scripture is and what it says. All you have left is the manifestly nihilistic position that you insist on, although you cannot explain it, which is that no matter how much effort, brains and time we put in, no matter how masterful the demonstrations to the contrary, we can in fact never know anything about anything. Seeing as you neglected to respond before, could you please answer my question: will the laws of gravity change on Thursday, such that we'll all be able to fly?

I always respond to relevant questions relative to thread. I have trouble however avoiding being tossed out of the right room. Since you asked about volume of data. I am aware of the volume of research/papers since Darwin done to back up evolutionism. Yet like in any subject largely its a single or few people who establish the new idea. the idea is accepted on its merits by these few people's arguments. The rest is johnny come lately . I read a lot of geo morphology. Yet it all builds on a few presumptions and can't claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas. They just deal in a few points. There is in fact very little research , in the last 150 years, on evolution that is fresh or adding substance to presumptions. The foundations or great conclusions of evolution are not added to or subtracted from by later volume of research that deals with conclusions in biology even if including evolutionary presumptions. I don't see much data there to do analysis on. Speculating on one million fossils is not one million pieces of data on evolution that can be said to have been successfully examined.

"."
Forgot to end that last comment with a period. :)

jjm said:

Robert Byers said:

Henry J said:

and can’t claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas.

Well of course every researcher doesn't recreate the entire theory from scratch each time they do a bit of research. Sheesh.

Thats right but further then that. They don't recreate or verify the hypothesis but presume its true and then add their own two cents on other lines of reasoning from it. Evolution is not supported by heaps of research but instead heaps of research is done with evolutionary biological assumptions.

so scientist start out with the assumption that evolution is true. Based on that they make a prediction. They test that prediction and it is found to fit the resulting data. This has happened countless times and you don't think it supports the original assumption!! Great example of analytical thinking and religious belief right there. Thanks for the example!

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: Dave All too true. I'm just trying to get a formal statement from RB of his doctrine of evidential immunity.

harold said: Mike Elzinga - Here is the king of problems that drive people crazy. I am a game show MC and you are the contestant. The game is that there are three doors. Behind one of them is a new car, behind each of the others is a donkey. In the context of this game, you want the new car (even if you'd rather have the donkeys, you can sell the car and buy more than two donkeys). Step one, you randomly choose a door. Let's say you choose door A. Step two, I will open one of the other two doors, either B or C, and the door I open will have a donkey behind it. Let's say I open door B and show you a donkey. Okay, now you know that you can forget about door B. Should you stick with door A, switch to door C, or is it the same whether you switch or not?

Robert Byers said: I always respond to relevant questions relative to thread. I have trouble however avoiding being tossed out of the right room. Since you asked about volume of data. I am aware of the volume of research/papers since Darwin done to back up evolutionism. Yet like in any subject largely its a single or few people who establish the new idea. the idea is accepted on its merits by these few people's arguments. The rest is johnny come lately . I read a lot of geo morphology. Yet it all builds on a few presumptions and can't claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas. They just deal in a few points. There is in fact very little research , in the last 150 years, on evolution that is fresh or adding substance to presumptions. The foundations or great conclusions of evolution are not added to or subtracted from by later volume of research that deals with conclusions in biology even if including evolutionary presumptions. I don't see much data there to do analysis on. Speculating on one million fossils is not one million pieces of data on evolution that can be said to have been successfully examined.

Dave Lovell said: If I knew that you knew there was a donkey behind the door before you opened it I would switch. If your choice was random, it makes no difference.

Dave Lovell said: switch regardless.

A detailed discussion of this puzzle is presented at the Wikipedia article "Monty Hall problem".

And Jason Rosenhouse (mathematician and pro-evolution blogger) also wrote a whole book on the Monty Hall problem. Gratuitious plug: I thought it was a good read.

(Apologies if this is a repeat; I just experienced a browser hiccup.)

harold said: 2) This is a good example of cognitive psychology. I am sure I have had this problem presented to me, in the context of a long list of problems requiring extensive calculations, and screwed it up by attempting to do what Von Neumann did mentally*, although it can be done correctly in a much more complicated way. Right now I was cognitively primed to look for the trick in word problems that can be solved simply, even though they are tricky. I'm fairly sure I must have seen the answer to this somewhere before, but it occurred to me very rapidly in this cognitive context. *If we could read minds I'd bet that Von Neumann did it the simple way and then joked about mentally doing it by summing a series, and was taken seriously.

Dave Lovell said:

harold said: Mike Elzinga - Here is the king of problems that drive people crazy. I am a game show MC and you are the contestant. The game is that there are three doors. Behind one of them is a new car, behind each of the others is a donkey. In the context of this game, you want the new car (even if you'd rather have the donkeys, you can sell the car and buy more than two donkeys). Step one, you randomly choose a door. Let's say you choose door A. Step two, I will open one of the other two doors, either B or C, and the door I open will have a donkey behind it. Let's say I open door B and show you a donkey. Okay, now you know that you can forget about door B. Should you stick with door A, switch to door C, or is it the same whether you switch or not?

If I knew that you knew there was a donkey behind the door before you opened it I would switch. If your choice was random, it makes no difference. By the way, the net forward distance the fly covers is simply the distance from its start point to the collision. Again a simple linear calculation, no series summation required.

harold said:

Dave Lovell said: If I knew that you knew there was a donkey behind the door before you opened it I would switch. If your choice was random, it makes no difference. By the way, the net forward distance the fly covers is simply the distance from its start point to the collision. Again a simple linear calculation, no series summation required.

Correct in both cases. However, I have had reasonably intelligent people deny that the correct answer is to switch.

There has to be a driving force behind either evolution or creation, there has to be a movement in one direction or another, a spark to set things in motion and then for the movement to go in the right direction for the peg to fit in the right hole to make the right move forward or things just don't progress in the right direction to either work or function properly. And the right materials to form the end product.

Marilyn said: There has to be a driving force behind either evolution or creation, there has to be a movement in one direction or another, a spark to set things in motion and then for the movement to go in the right direction for the peg to fit in the right hole to make the right move forward or things just don't progress in the right direction to either work or function properly. And the right materials to form the end product.

Marilyn, had you ever thought of it this way?:

Suppose there's a continuous supply of pegs, and any peg doesn't fit gets thrown away and another peg tried until one fits. Sooner or later all the holes will be filled with pegs that fit them. The "driving force" is reproduction. It keeps producing "pegs". The "holes" are the environment. The selection is natural selection. None of them is "intelligent". Between them they do the job. And that's all that's needed.

Robert Byers said: this never happens in real life.

Robert Byers said: Predictionism is a minor thing in origin investigation.

Robert Byers said: Very little data exists for past and gone things and processes.

Robert Byers said: Yes i would insist evolutionary biology is a few received presumptions and then endless speculation paraded as biological investigation by the scientific method. I don't mean fraud but the way people sincerely misunderstand they are working upon received presumptions.

Keelyn said:

jjm said:

Robert Byers said:

Henry J said:

and can’t claim that every researcher has verified the basic ideas.

Well of course every researcher doesn't recreate the entire theory from scratch each time they do a bit of research. Sheesh.

Thats right but further then that. They don't recreate or verify the hypothesis but presume its true and then add their own two cents on other lines of reasoning from it. Evolution is not supported by heaps of research but instead heaps of research is done with evolutionary biological assumptions.

so scientist start out with the assumption that evolution is true. Based on that they make a prediction. They test that prediction and it is found to fit the resulting data. This has happened countless times and you don't think it supports the original assumption!! Great example of analytical thinking and religious belief right there. Thanks for the example!

And you know as well as everyone else that it flew right over his cerebrally empty head.

jjm said: so scientist start out with the assumption that evolution is true. Based on that they make a prediction. They test that prediction and it is found to fit the resulting data.

Byers responds> this never happens in real life.

Robert Byers

You're surprised that I brought up your point about MILLIONS of fossils? Well, you're a barefaced liar here. You actually stated that the analsyis of a million fossils was insufficient data, and I merely pointed out that you had radically underestimated the quantity of data that was, and is, available to paleontologists for analysis, and reanalysis as investigative techniques have developed. Let's be clear about this - you suggested that the data is and was insufficient, so I asked you to give me some idea of how much data would actually meet your sufficiency test. Instead, you've avoided the question and tried to move the football field. Very, very dishonest.

So let's be clear here, having suggested that there's not enough data to support the evolutionary hypothesis, you're now suggesting that no amount of data will ever be sufficient. In the real world, all that paleontological data can be reviewed and re-analysed in the light of new evidence to falsify the evolutionary hypothesis - can you show me the creationist paleontology that has done that in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Further to that, does your assertion of eternally insufficient data apply to all fields of human investigation? Or does it exclusively apply to the investigation of the history, nature and diversity of all living things on earth? If it only applies to the life sciences, can you explain to me why they are a special case?

I appreciate that it's inconvenient for you, but you cannot dismiss discoveries in chemistry, physics, geology and genetics as irrelevant when they have the potency to conclusively invalidate or falsify the evolutionary hypothesis. Your assertion that radiometric dating, geology or genetics have nothing to do with evolution is a dishonest evasion of the reality that subsequent discoveries across a variety of disciplines have continued to confirm the validity of the evolutionary hypothesis.

I asked you if the discovery of radio-activity and the development of radio-metric dating techniques had demonstrated a very young earth whether that would have falsified the theory of evolution? Are you really suggesting that if that had been the case that it would be irrelevant? I want an honest answer, Robert.

Likewise, I asked you if the decoding of DNA had disclosed that all, or most, of the various types of life we encounter on this planet share no genetic inheritance in common, that species were in fact different kinds, would that have falsified the theory of evolution? Again, are you suggesting that if that had been the case it would be irrelevant?

And again, I want a simple, honest answer from you Robert. No witless words are necessary here.

Dave Luckett said: Marilyn, had you ever thought of it this way?: Suppose there's a continuous supply of pegs, and any peg doesn't fit gets thrown away and another peg tried until one fits. Sooner or later all the holes will be filled with pegs that fit them. The "driving force" is reproduction. It keeps producing "pegs". The "holes" are the environment. The selection is natural selection. None of them is "intelligent". Between them they do the job. And that's all that's needed.

bbennett1968 said:

Marilyn said: There has to be a driving force behind either evolution or creation, there has to be a movement in one direction or another, a spark to set things in motion and then for the movement to go in the right direction for the peg to fit in the right hole to make the right move forward or things just don't progress in the right direction to either work or function properly. And the right materials to form the end product.

Wow man. Have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked at it? [exhales bong hit]

Marilyn said: Well it's not random selection, but it is only natural that human genes produce human and chicken produce chicken. It is if nothing else ingenious that human form is as it is and chicken form is as it is along with all other forms of life being as they are.

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Marilyn said: There has to be a driving force behind either evolution or creation, there has to be a movement in one direction or another, a spark to set things in motion and then for the movement to go in the right direction for the peg to fit in the right hole to make the right move forward or things just don't progress in the right direction to either work or function properly. And the right materials to form the end product.

Wow man. Have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked at it? [exhales bong hit]

I have looked at my hand and it has been said I have a long life line.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawld6XjD30FmqzNIw3L9LHbR4rkKphzUAn0 said: And again, I want a simple, honest answer from you Robert. No witless words are necessary here.

jjm said: Do you understand the scientific method? your comment is inconsistent, you say scientists use the scientific method, but that would require making predictions, which you say isn't happening. which is it? Do you understand what the scientific method is? If you are operating on a presumption and you make a prediction and that prediction fits the resulting data, it is consistent with you presumption and before you say that is circular reasoning, that would be incorrect, because it is outside new data that is used to test the prediction. As opposed to you, scientist test there assumptions, they try and prove them wrong, that's how the method works. In effect scientist have spent the last 150 years trying to prove evolutionary theory wrong and have not succeeded. Going back to analytical thinking, first you must determine the facts/observations. you fail at this first gate you don't even get all the facts. The response to my previous post clearly shows you haven't looked.

Dave Luckett said: When Neil Shubin wanted to find fossils of transitionals between amphibians and fish, he consulted evolutionary theory to see when this transition was predicted to have taken place. He then looked in the geological literature for reports of strata of the right type of that age, and it told him that it could be found on Ellesmere Island, in the high Canadian Arctic. Not by any means an easy site to investigate, but he went there and dug. And there he found the transitional: Tiktaalik.

DS

But will he deny me three times?

DS said: He is working on the assumption that anything that contradicts his preconceptions must be wrong. He can't read or understand any real science, so he just assumes that it must not be real science if it disagrees with him. After all real scientist can't test there assumptions can theys?

DS said:

Marilyn said:

bbennett1968 said:

Marilyn said: There has to be a driving force behind either evolution or creation, there has to be a movement in one direction or another, a spark to set things in motion and then for the movement to go in the right direction for the peg to fit in the right hole to make the right move forward or things just don't progress in the right direction to either work or function properly. And the right materials to form the end product.

Wow man. Have you ever looked at your hand? I mean, really looked at it? [exhales bong hit]

I have looked at my hand and it has been said I have a long life line.

Have you checked the line for intelligence. It seems to be a little short.

I agree, and her insistance [sic] in coming back as a PT creotard is ample confirmation of it IMHO.

Matt Young said:

I agree, and her insistance [sic] in coming back as a PT creotard is ample confirmation of it IMHO.

Marilyn is a sometime pen-pal of mine. I admit that she is somewhat unsophisticated, but she is very much more pleasant than some other commenters I could name.

... Marilynn is more pleasant than all other creationists who have ever commented here ...

Dave Luckett said:

Marilyn said: Well it's not random selection, but it is only natural that human genes produce human and chicken produce chicken. It is if nothing else ingenious that human form is as it is and chicken form is as it is along with all other forms of life being as they are.

Marilyn, that's right, it isn't random selection. That's what you call an oxymoron - two words that are opposed to each other. "Random" means it isn't selected. "Selection" means it isn't random. Human genes and chicken genes produce humans and chickens respectively, but have you ever noticed that they produce humans and chickens that are different from their parents? That they aren't the same? People and chickens get their traits from their parents, but they don't all get the same mix; they get different mixes, with some odd extras thrown in. That's the random part. Some of these mixes just naturally do better than others. That's the selection part. The ones that do better pass their traits on. The ones that do worse don't, so much. But here's the thing: if you change the natural conditions for some of those descendents, but not others, a different bunch of traits does better for one group than for the other. So two different sets of natural conditions "select" different bunches of traits, and these different bunches are then passed on in their turn. Now, all you got to do is walk away from it for, say, ten thousand generations or so. When you come back, what do you know? You have two different groups of descendents with different traits to suit the different conditions, and they longer interbreed. Maybe they still could, but they don't, pretty much. They've become different species. That's evolution. That's what it is. Nothing about chickens becoming humans or cats becoming dogs. It's about living things becoming a little different over maybe ten thousand generations. Think about it. It makes sense.

Matt Young said:

I agree, and her insistance [sic] in coming back as a PT creotard is ample confirmation of it IMHO.

Marilyn is a sometime pen-pal of mine. I admit that she is somewhat unsophisticated, but she is very much more pleasant than some other commenters I could name.

Marilyn said: OK then how about chosen directly with intent

The environment - all the conditions they live under - selects what works best

well, so long as you include the organisms within the population themselves as part of the environment too.

re: sexual selection

It could be that marilyn is jumping ahead to thinking about things like mate choice and social behavior in primates, like humans?

thomasjneal.nz said: The environment - all the conditions they live under - selects what works best well, so long as you include the organisms within the population themselves as part of the environment too. re: sexual selection It could be that marilyn is jumping ahead to thinking about things like mate choice and social behavior in primates, like humans?

Well, that adds in something that just isn’t needed.

Dave Luckett said:

Marilyn said: OK then how about chosen directly with intent

Well, that adds in something that just isn't needed. Lifeforms live in an environment. The environment - all the conditions they live under - selects what works best, simply by eliminating it if it works badly, and favouring it if it works very well. The environment doesn't have a mind, and it doesn't choose with intent. It doesn't need intent. The effect happens anyway. Sure, you can suppose that there's a mind under it all, and that mind set it up that way. It's just that the actual effect - that is, natural selection - doesn't need a mind. It works just fine without one.

Ah. An animist. Well, it's a point of view.

What does life or the environment use to select what works best?

Neither instinct nor knowledge. What it uses is death. Or at least, failure to reproduce.

If an organism fits its environment well, it thrives or survives. If it doesn't, it dies, most likely, or at least, does poorly, so that it can't attract mates.

It's as simple as that.

Matt Young said:

I agree, and her insistance [sic] in coming back as a PT creotard is ample confirmation of it IMHO.

Marilyn is a sometime pen-pal of mine. I admit that she is somewhat unsophisticated, but she is very much more pleasant than some other commenters I could name.

Matt Young said:

... Marilynn is more pleasant than all other creationists who have ever commented here ...

I was not necessarily thinking of creationists.

Marilyn said: Life can adapt to the environment but the environment can't adapt to life. The environment is a life form in it's self i.e. wind rain heat cold soil. What does life or the environment use to select what works best Instinct or Knowledge, Robots don't have a mind but they don't amalgamate Spirit and Opportunity don't feel the need to get together and they are both similar.

John said:

Matt Young said:

... Marilynn is more pleasant than all other creationists who have ever commented here ...

I was not necessarily thinking of creationists.

I think James Shapiro over at HuffPo has arrived at a similar conclusion with regards to me. Unfortunately, it isn't my problem that he's a fan of the Dishonesty Institute and that his Number One DI fan happens to be someone named David Klinghoffer.

Hi Marilyn --

There are lots of different types of selection. We have the conceit to set aside the label 'Artificial Selection' as the type of selection exerted on a species when humans are trying to choose what individuals get to breed and which do not -- truth is though, that this is just an example of selection where humans are a large part of the environment. If you'd like to examine selection pressures where we can be sure that planning minds are/were involved, then working dogs, race-horses, tastier cattle, and a multitude of other examples are available.

Jarod Diamond points out in his excellent "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that not all superficially similar species are equally easy to domesticate (see Zebras & Drupes, as two examples that spring to mind); so even determined minds can occasionally be stymied.

J. L. Brown said: Hi Marilyn -- There are lots of different types of selection. We have the conceit to set aside the label 'Artificial Selection' as the type of selection exerted on a species when humans are trying to choose what individuals get to breed and which do not -- truth is though, that this is just an example of selection where humans are a large part of the environment. If you'd like to examine selection pressures where we can be sure that planning minds are/were involved, then working dogs, race-horses, tastier cattle, and a multitude of other examples are available. Jarod Diamond points out in his excellent "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that not all superficially similar species are equally easy to domesticate (see Zebras & Drupes, as two examples that spring to mind); so even determined minds can occasionally be stymied.

SLC said: Here's another screed from a clown who thinks that Dumbski is the cat's meow. Not Jeffrey Shallit, the link to Mark. Baisley. http://recursed.blogspot.com/2012/05/note-to-slipglass-your-ceo-is-genius.html

Marilyn said:

J. L. Brown said: Hi Marilyn -- There are lots of different types of selection. We have the conceit to set aside the label 'Artificial Selection' as the type of selection exerted on a species when humans are trying to choose what individuals get to breed and which do not -- truth is though, that this is just an example of selection where humans are a large part of the environment. If you'd like to examine selection pressures where we can be sure that planning minds are/were involved, then working dogs, race-horses, tastier cattle, and a multitude of other examples are available. Jarod Diamond points out in his excellent "Guns, Germs, and Steel" that not all superficially similar species are equally easy to domesticate (see Zebras & Drupes, as two examples that spring to mind); so even determined minds can occasionally be stymied.

And in these instances sometimes the ethics of it is brought into question I suppose mainly when it's Humans that are the subject. Genetically modified food is also taken very seriously and opposed much.

Marilyn said: Genetically modified food is also taken very seriously and opposed much.

Wouldn't "genetically modified" mean directly modifying the DNA molecule itself, in contrast to selective breeding?

Henry J said: Wouldn't "genetically modified" mean directly modifying the DNA molecule itself, in contrast to selective breeding?

God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

John said: there are those like you, Marilyn, who seem incapable of distinguishing between metaphor and truth.

TomS said:

John said: there are those like you, Marilyn, who seem incapable of distinguishing between metaphor and truth.

There are very few who do not see metaphor in the Bible when the literal meaning conflicts with what they believe. It is nearly universal today for people to go along with the findings of modern astronomy and make accommodation with the scriptural statements about the Sun going around a fixed Earth.

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

I know this conversation if off topic, but this does seem to be prime example of the actual topic of the thread. Nevertheless, I will restrict future responses to the bathroom wall.

And I agree with you. But Augustine was not unusual in saying this. I recommend this book, which gives a sample of interpretations of the Bible from early times (a few centuries around the BCE-CE divide):

James L. Kugel

The Bible As It Was

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997

DS said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Robert, is that you? This has the same stench of incoherence that is your trademark. If I understand you correctly (and I'm pretty sure that's impossible), then what you are saying is that modern humans could not have evolved from Neanderthals without some intelligent intervention. Well, putting aside the fact that Neanderthals are not directly ancestral to modern humans, that isn't any more true than it is for horse evolution. Why would you think that? Got any evidence for this idea, or is it just and argument form personal incredulity? Why do you think it would have to occur in an "instant"? That's the creationism hypothesis and no real scientist believes that nonsense.

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn said: [...] what drives the direction that this change should take, adaptation to a change in the environment, or a definite preference of outcome to improve ability [...]

Regardless of whether you call it evolution or creation, they are just words that are used to term the events.

Marilyn said:

DS said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Robert, is that you? This has the same stench of incoherence that is your trademark. If I understand you correctly (and I'm pretty sure that's impossible), then what you are saying is that modern humans could not have evolved from Neanderthals without some intelligent intervention. Well, putting aside the fact that Neanderthals are not directly ancestral to modern humans, that isn't any more true than it is for horse evolution. Why would you think that? Got any evidence for this idea, or is it just and argument form personal incredulity? Why do you think it would have to occur in an "instant"? That's the creationism hypothesis and no real scientist believes that nonsense.

No I'm not Robert. I am just saying just as you can't make .10 into .05 without some sort of equation, you can't make modern man out of a Neanderthal with out some sort of genetic change, obviously, but what drives the direction that this change should take, adaptation to a change in the environment, or a definite preference of outcome to improve ability, whether that was achieved or not. Regardless of whether you call it evolution or creation, they are just words that are used to term the events. I realize there may not be a explainable answer to this but thought there would be no harm in mentioning possibilities. I can't rule out that it's possible rather than just evolving a definite processes was put in motion.

Marilyn said:

Dave Luckett said:

Marilyn said: OK then how about chosen directly with intent

Well, that adds in something that just isn't needed. Lifeforms live in an environment. The environment - all the conditions they live under - selects what works best, simply by eliminating it if it works badly, and favouring it if it works very well. The environment doesn't have a mind, and it doesn't choose with intent. It doesn't need intent. The effect happens anyway. Sure, you can suppose that there's a mind under it all, and that mind set it up that way. It's just that the actual effect - that is, natural selection - doesn't need a mind. It works just fine without one.

Life can adapt to the environment but the environment can't adapt to life.

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn, your comment implies, to me at least, that you believe God must have a human-like body or appearance. If a horse made in the image of a horse necessarily looks like a horse (your analogy), then a man made in the image of God must mean that the man LOOKS like God. Is that what you intended? For the record, I think that's EXACTLY what the writer(s) of Genesis (and other passages) meant when they wrote things like that. They LITERALLY meant that Man looks like God--and the converse. Not just having an 'eternal soul' or some such. So I'm curious, do you agree that that's the true meaning of that passage? And do YOU believe that God has a human-like appearance?

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn, your comment implies, to me at least, that you believe God must have a human-like body or appearance. If a horse made in the image of a horse necessarily looks like a horse (your analogy), then a man made in the image of God must mean that the man LOOKS like God. Is that what you intended? For the record, I think that's EXACTLY what the writer(s) of Genesis (and other passages) meant when they wrote things like that. They LITERALLY meant that Man looks like God--and the converse. Not just having an 'eternal soul' or some such. So I'm curious, do you agree that that's the true meaning of that passage? And do YOU believe that God has a human-like appearance?

I agree with what it says in the passages Bob.

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn, your comment implies, to me at least, that you believe God must have a human-like body or appearance. If a horse made in the image of a horse necessarily looks like a horse (your analogy), then a man made in the image of God must mean that the man LOOKS like God. Is that what you intended? For the record, I think that's EXACTLY what the writer(s) of Genesis (and other passages) meant when they wrote things like that. They LITERALLY meant that Man looks like God--and the converse. Not just having an 'eternal soul' or some such. So I'm curious, do you agree that that's the true meaning of that passage? And do YOU believe that God has a human-like appearance?

I agree with what it says in the passages Bob.

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said:

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn, your comment implies, to me at least, that you believe God must have a human-like body or appearance. If a horse made in the image of a horse necessarily looks like a horse (your analogy), then a man made in the image of God must mean that the man LOOKS like God. Is that what you intended? For the record, I think that's EXACTLY what the writer(s) of Genesis (and other passages) meant when they wrote things like that. They LITERALLY meant that Man looks like God--and the converse. Not just having an 'eternal soul' or some such. So I'm curious, do you agree that that's the true meaning of that passage? And do YOU believe that God has a human-like appearance?

I agree with what it says in the passages Bob.

Uh, then you agree that Man was created in God's PHYSICAL image--and that therefore God has a human-like PHYSICAL appearance?

Marilyn said: From what is said in Genesis man was made in His image and that could mean the physical appearance of God is human. They said they heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, so I assume something physical.

Think of all the sacred art that depicts God as an elderly MALE human.

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: From what is said in Genesis man was made in His image and that could mean the physical appearance of God is human. They said they heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, so I assume something physical.

OK then. I agree, and there are other passages that indicate that God has an actual physical body, and no indication that it is ever anything but human. Would you answer some questions that naturally follow? Is God male? Specifically, does he have human-like male genitals? If not, then "he" is not really male, and should perhaps be called "It". If he really is physically male, with proper equipment, then why, unless he has a use for said equipment? Has he ever used it for its intended purpose? If so, with whom? Is it possible that that's how he impregnated that alleged virgin?

Marilyn said: God may have had a physical appearance in the Garden of Eden but not outside it.

My point is that if you take things like "in our image" literally, then you have to expect questions like the above. And just dodging answers indicates that one either doesn't REALLY believe it, or one hasn't thought through what HAS to follow from such conclusions.

On the other hand, if one considers the "image" bit figurative (it doesn't REALLY mean what it plainly says), then it becomes hypocritical to defend other passages (like a 6-day creation or the "Fall") as absolutely literal.

Just Bob said:

Marilyn said: God said "let us make man in our image". Like a modern horse could say let us make horse in our image. To do that there would have to be some genetic engineering, if it was instant. This is if we have progressed from Neanderthal man and not been created an individual kind.

Marilyn, your comment implies, to me at least, that you believe God must have a human-like body or appearance. If a horse made in the image of a horse necessarily looks like a horse (your analogy), then a man made in the image of God must mean that the man LOOKS like God. Is that what you intended? For the record, I think that's EXACTLY what the writer(s) of Genesis (and other passages) meant when they wrote things like that. They LITERALLY meant that Man looks like God--and the converse. Not just having an 'eternal soul' or some such. So I'm curious, do you agree that that's the true meaning of that passage? And do YOU believe that God has a human-like appearance?

Paul Burnett said:

Marilyn said: God may have had a physical appearance in the Garden of Eden but not outside it.

Speaking of the Garden of Eden mythos, where do you stand on the credibility of talking snakes?

Just Bob said: My point is that if you take things like "in our image" literally, then you have to expect questions like the above. And just dodging answers indicates that one either doesn't REALLY believe it, or one hasn't thought through what HAS to follow from such conclusions. On the other hand, if one considers the "image" bit figurative (it doesn't REALLY mean what it plainly says), then it becomes hypocritical to defend other passages (like a 6-day creation or the "Fall") as absolutely literal.

Just Bob said: My point is that if you take things like "in our image" literally, then you have to expect questions like the above. And just dodging answers indicates that one either doesn't REALLY believe it, or one hasn't thought through what HAS to follow from such conclusions. On the other hand, if one considers the "image" bit figurative (it doesn't REALLY mean what it plainly says), then it becomes hypocritical to defend other passages (like a 6-day creation or the "Fall") as absolutely literal.

Rolf said: God is not out there talking to us, he is present in all of us, he is spirit.

Rolf said: Analytical thinking also suggest that the story about a Garden of Eden and the Fall is the story about man's transition from the innocent life as an animal to becoming self-aware to an extent no animal had ever experience before.

And a trollie recently asserted that different things have different amounts of "god" in them--but when asked to elucidate, refused to comment further (probably having been told by his handlers, "Drop it; that's stupid and unbiblical.")

Paul Burnett said:

Rolf said: Analytical thinking also suggest that the story about a Garden of Eden and the Fall is the story about man's transition from the innocent life as an animal to becoming self-aware to an extent no animal had ever experience before.

So you are saying there was literally no Garden of Eden? Literally no Adam and Eve? Literally no Fall? Literally no Original Sin?

So you are saying there was literally no Garden of Eden? Literally no Adam and Eve? Literally no Fall? Literally no Original Sin?

This book is primarily an attempt to show why religion is a universal human phenomenon, and to attempt to clarify its nature and function within a framework of biology, psychology and intellectual history. In order to accomplish this one needs to enlist the aid of research results from many fields of science: religions, psychology of religions, philosophy of religions, psychology, history, sociology, history of ideas, intellectual history, linguistics, biology, physiology, adult psychiatry, archaeology, child psychiatry, and last but not least, depth-psychology. No single individual can master all these disciplines. One therefore needs to have as solid and far reaching framework that one may hope to include the most important facets and perspectives with the required cross bearings of which life and existence needs to be seen – enabling us to capture the essential elements. *) The task facing the author then is to attempt to convey some of this collected knowledge related to religion and the nature of religion in a manner making it accessible; that it may engage the reader in order that the message of the book may have practical consequences, both individually and for the collective as well as its institutions engaged in propagation of religion and its purpose. *) See «Mephistopheles and Androgyne: Studies in Religious Myth and Symbol» (1965) by professor Mircea Eliade, dean of the religions-historical faculty at Chicago University.

Henry J said:

So you are saying there was literally no Garden of Eden? Literally no Adam and Eve? Literally no Fall? Literally no Original Sin?

Those concepts are all metaphors.

If souls are eternal, why do I have to buy new shoes every so often? ;)

Rolf said: ... wrt Christendom which is the only religon (and the best of them too) that I know anything about...

tomh said:

Rolf said: ... wrt Christendom which is the only religon (and the best of them too) that I know anything about...

If it's the only religion you know anything about, how can you possibly know that it is the best of them? For all you know it could be the worst.

Rolf said: Replacing 'anything' with 'much' would make more sense.