NationStates Jolt Archive

They've got one of those at the DC Zoo. They call it an "elephant."

behold the wonder of god!

Right. As Bottle pointed out, even though we can't actually poke our fingers into the patriarchy, we can still see evidence for its existence through such things as Superbowl commercials.

yeah. the issue is that we have no such evidence for the soul, and some pretty good philosophical reasons to think its existence would pose some serious difficulties

Job 40:15-24

That would mean that dinosaurs were contemporary to man. That would mean that the Bible would have to read much, much more awesomely than it does now.

John 6:11 And Jesus took the dead T- Rex; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the dead Stegasaurus as much as they would.
6:12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
6:13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve kajillion baskets with the fragments of the dead T-Rex and the dead Stegasaurus, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
6:14 And Jesus said, "So when you're hungry just kill a frick'n dinosaur and you're set for like 4 years."

Have we got our quota of four yet?

They've got one of those at the DC Zoo. They call it an "elephant."

Its not an elephant. When translating it, people couldnt translate the hebrew word behemoth. So they left it. People think that its an elephant or a hippo but keep reading till the end. 17) His tail sways like cedar....18) his bones are tubes of bronze.

If you havent realized, an elephant has a little fly swatter of a tail and so does a hippo. But no, his tail sways like cedar. Cedar is a massive tree and what animal is as massive as a tree that ( in verse 23) when he sits in the river, he isnt alarmed because of his massiveness, the rushing waters wont sweep him away.

Watch discovery or go to a museum. Dinosaur bones are just huge. (18) his bones are tubes of bronze, and his limbs are like rods of iron.

Its not an elephant. When translating it, people couldnt translate the hebrew word behemoth. So they left it. People think that its an elephant or a hippo but keep reading till the end. 17) His tail sways like cedar....18) his bones are tubes of bronze.

If you havent realized, an elephant has a little fly swatter of a tail and so does a hippo. But no, his tail sways like cedar. Cedar is a massive tree and what animal is as massive as a tree that ( in verse 23) when he sits in the river, he isnt alarmed because of his massiveness, the rushing waters wont sweep him away.

Watch discovery or go to a museum. Dinosaur bones are just huge. (18) his bones are tubes of bronze, and his limbs are like rods of iron.

So dinosaurs are made out of bronze and iron? Who knew.

his bones are tubes of bronze

wait, what?

That would mean that dinosaurs were contemporary to man. That would mean that the Bible would have to read much, much more awesomely than it does now.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/1528854492_2f303c65bf.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/1528854492_2f303c65bf.jpg

Holy Shit! Moses is HUGE!

Holy Shit! Moses is HUGE!

Man, you should see his staff!

Its not an elephant. When translating it, people couldnt translate the hebrew word behemoth. So they left it. People think that its an elephant or a hippo but keep reading till the end. 17) His tail sways like cedar....18) his bones are tubes of bronze.

If you havent realized, an elephant has a little fly swatter of a tail and so does a hippo. But no, his tail sways like cedar. Cedar is a massive tree and what animal is as massive as a tree that ( in verse 23) when he sits in the river, he isnt alarmed because of his massiveness, the rushing waters wont sweep him away.

It's true, an elephant's tail is only a puny 4 feet in length. However, the elephant's PENIS is six and a half feet long, and is prehensile. That's one hell of a "swaying cedar" if you catch my drift.

So maybe it's not that they couldn't translate "behemoth," it's that they mistranslated "tail."


Watch discovery or go to a museum. Dinosaur bones are just huge. (18) his bones are tubes of bronze, and his limbs are like rods of iron.
I don't know why, when you hear a description of bones being "like bronze" or "like iron," you assume this means they're big. Size is not an inherent attribute of metal. However, strength is, and usually when something is referred to as being "like iron" it's a way of saying that it's very strong.

Here's some fun science for you:

Elephant leg bones lack the normal marrow cavity that you'd find in other mammalian bones, and are instead a more solid form of bone structure that is specially adapted to help support their massive weight. The positioning of elephant bones relative to the body, as well as the shape of their joints, are all especially strong, as one would expect from an endoskeleton that has to support 6 tons of body weight!

Man, you should see his staff!

:eek:


:hail::hail::hail::hail:

yeah. the issue is that we have no such evidence for the soul, and some pretty good philosophical reasons to think its existence would pose some serious difficulties

Whatever. I was just using it as an example. My point was that the closest you can get to having science intrude on the field of religion is when people use science (incorrectly, in my mind) to make statements about things that science can't really discuss.

I think it's called materialism? The idea that only matter exists. Isn't that an example of taking a scientific viewpoint (we should only study that which can be observed) and applying it metaphysically (only that which we can observe exists)?

Man, you should see his staff!

Indeed-- it's almost always wooden. :wink:

Its not an elephant. When translating it, people couldnt translate the hebrew word behemoth. So they left it. People think that its an elephant or a hippo but keep reading till the end. 17) His tail sways like cedar....18) his bones are tubes of bronze.

If you havent realized, an elephant has a little fly swatter of a tail and so does a hippo. But no, his tail sways like cedar. Cedar is a massive tree and what animal is as massive as a tree that ( in verse 23) when he sits in the river, he isnt alarmed because of his massiveness, the rushing waters wont sweep him away.

Watch discovery or go to a museum. Dinosaur bones are just huge. (18) his bones are tubes of bronze, and his limbs are like rods of iron.
You've gotta be friken kidding me. You don't really believe dinosaurs and humans co existed during the Roman era do you? Please please tell me you don't.

Indeed-- it's almost always wooden. :wink:

But sometimes it's a snake. Literally. Like his staff turns into a poisonous viper. I mean that is just something you don't recover from the day after Moses picks you up at the bar. I mean consider your life over and fashion yourself a tinfoil hat and stick a pickle in your ear and wait for the men in white lab coats to come collect you.

In all seriousness, though, how can you NOT believe in Intelligent Design?

<snip>
Oh, it's easy. All I have to do is listen carefully to people who do believe in ID explain how it works and why I should buy into it, and that's enough to convince me it's just another load of malarkey.

My point was that the closest you can get to having science intrude on the field of religion is when people use science (incorrectly, in my mind) to make statements about things that science can't really discuss.

this can only be the case after religion has surrendered almost all of the ground it used to claim

People would do well to acquaint themselves with the work of the eminent russian-american geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky who showed that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.

My point was that the closest you can get to having science intrude on the field of religion is when people use science (incorrectly, in my mind) to make statements about things that science can't really discuss.

I think it's called materialism? The idea that only matter exists. Isn't that an example of taking a scientific viewpoint (we should only study that which can be observed) and applying it metaphysically (only that which we can observe exists)?
I think the issue is not that science presumes to discuss supernatural things, but rather that science takes the stance that what happens around us can be explained in terms of the natural world. In other words, science isn't saying boo about the supernatural, science is saying that the supernatural simply doesn't matter.

Think of it in terms of medicine. For centuries, religion said, "Your illness is caused by evil spirits." Eventually, science worked out that your illness can be completely explained by natural processes and natural phenomena.

Science never says, "There's no such thing as evil spirits," because science doesn't work that way. What science says is, "Who cares if evil spirits exist? This medication will work because of the natural, material nature of your body and your illness, and spirits are beside the point entirely."

Religions tend to get huffy over stuff like this. The more that science explains, the less need there is for superstition.

I think the issue is not that science presumes to discuss supernatural things, but rather that science takes the stance that what happens around us can be explained in terms of the natural world. In other words, science isn't saying boo about the supernatural, science is saying that the supernatural simply doesn't matter.

Think of it in terms of medicine. For centuries, religion said, "Your illness is caused by evil spirits." Eventually, science worked out that your illness can be completely explained by natural processes and natural phenomena.

Science never says, "There's no such thing as evil spirits," because science doesn't work that way. What science says is, "Who cares if evil spirits exist? This medication will work because of the natural, material nature of your body and your illness, and spirits are beside the point entirely."

Religions tend to get huffy over stuff like this. The more that science explains, the less need there is for superstition.

I totally agree with you. Science says nothing about the supernatural. So, when people claim that the supernatural doesn't exist because science says so, they are using science wrongly.

Just like your example above is an example of using religion wrongly.

I think the issue is not that science presumes to discuss supernatural things, but rather that science takes the stance that what happens around us can be explained in terms of the natural world. In other words, science isn't saying boo about the supernatural, science is saying that the supernatural simply doesn't matter.

Think of it in terms of medicine. For centuries, religion said, "Your illness is caused by evil spirits." Eventually, science worked out that your illness can be completely explained by natural processes and natural phenomena.

Science never says, "There's no such thing as evil spirits," because science doesn't work that way. What science says is, "Who cares if evil spirits exist? This medication will work because of the natural, material nature of your body and your illness, and spirits are beside the point entirely."

Religions tend to get huffy over stuff like this. The more that science explains, the less need there is for superstition.
This is entirely true, but in fact, it is not the loss of need for superstition that creates the conflict, in my opinion. It is the fact that some people don't seem to be able to adjust their thinking to include new information. They think that if the HOW of something is explained by science, then that means the WHY of it, which religion claims to answer, is somehow done away with. EDIT: Or more to the point, they don't want to adjust their thinking, and they seem to think that the HOW body of thought is trying to replace the WHY body of thought. /edit

To me, it is not really a matter of science and religion overlapping -- because they really don't. I think it is more a matter of who will dominate, who will hold the reins of education, approved knowledge, and thus social power. It's the same old same old fight that's been going on since the fucking Middle Ages, and it has nothing to do with either religion or science.

Even though science does not answer the same questions religion does and therefore does not lessen the usefulness of religion at all, the fact is, the modern world is giving the social prestige to science that it used to give to religion. Some people on the religion side of things don't like that. It's all about social status.

Think of it in terms of medicine. For centuries, religion said, "Your illness is caused by evil spirits." Eventually, science worked out that your illness can be completely explained by natural processes and natural phenomena.

Science never says, "There's no such thing as evil spirits," because science doesn't work that way. What science says is, "Who cares if evil spirits exist? This medication will work because of the natural, material nature of your body and your illness, and spirits are beside the point entirely."

i'm not sure i see a distinction between saying "we can completely explain this in terms of natural processes and phenomena" and "there just ain't any evil spirits around to blame for it". if something is completely explained by x, then y has no causal place to stand.

This goes back to the question - why were environmental conditions different enough to be hospitable to a process which has the odds stacked against it?

Were talking billions of years ago here. Try studying some geology.


In the time since medical science has been able to study it, there have been no mutations naturally occuring which could fundamentally change an organ or a complex system. In observable history, 15000 years, there has been no changes to the human body that anyone deemed worthy of recording. That sets the threshold for significant mutation at least at the rate of less than 1 every 15,000 years. More on that later.

lol really? Take a look at moths in england (pepper moths) they evolved within our lifetime.



Simple and complex creatures exist side by side today. Just because there were more species of simple creatures supporting an ecosystem with more species of complex organisms back then, does not make an increase in complexity, only an increase in the likelihood that more samples would be preserved for posterity. Also, simple organisms are much more likely to be preserved for the fossil record than complex ones which tends to skew your data. It's just the way fossilization works.

lol is it now? So do you actually know how fossilization occurs? cause that statement shows a remarkable amount of ignorance.


Ad hominem attack one. I've demonstrated that I have a very good understanding of the way evolution is supposed to work, according to other people in your field. Or are you going to change the rules everytime someone brings up something uncomfortable? Thought so.

Evolution takes time. Since we have never observed a beneficial and substantial mutation in the 15000 years we have been able to watch, and since mutations are random and not directed, it increases the odds of any progress occuring to a time frame which is simply impossible to fit the earths lifespan in unless you assign to the earth an arbitrarily high age. We'll address this below.

Again pepper moths in great Britain. They evolved from a primarily white species to a primarily dark colored species over a period of about a decade in response to the effect of soot on the environment. Look it up.
Another example? Ok antibiotic resistant bacteria who have, you guessed it, evolved to create species wide resistance to a change in THIER environment.


The fact that they can survive in a volcano is compelling evidence for something, but not evolution. Evolution would direct the organism to not settle in a harsh environ like a volcano before modifying it to survive. The first million (trillion?) microbes to be transported to the volcano would have died, having not adapted, so it seems more likely that someone created them and left them there.

lol so your assuming microbes were "transported to a volcano? and how exactly did that happen? more likely is that as an environment slowly changed those microbes able to survive in high heat environments survived (you can see where this is going) more important the volcano didn't just spring up fully formed. Volcanoes take a very long time to form. A flaw in your logic here to say the least. Also if a creator created them who created the creator?


Again, not really a compelling argument because you're saying that conditions changed to cause life and then that they randomly changed again to promote life. The odds against this sequence of events alone, even barring the complexity of the matter, are staggering. Also you are saying that harsh conditions would have made abiogenesis more likely to succeed (200+ chemicals required for life in a pool besieged by high winds - use your imagination.)

lmfao! you have gotta be kidding me! WHy would you assume that there were high winds? How the hell would you know anything about the environment then? More importantly do you know ANYTHING about thermodynamics? The planet didn't "randomly" cool. Cooling is a simple law of thermodynamics. Go look it up before you post crap like this.


Ad hominem attack two - you can't explain this aspect of your belief, so you say that I do not understand it. I do actually understand how mutations are supposed to work, but it's mathematically impossible for that process to have wrought what we see around us even in the inflated time span that geologists have assigned the earth.

no, its not. its mathematically extremely possible. Would you care to prove me wrong? perhaps with some proof?


Assuming steady progressions is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt. Because if we assume it has happened quickly in the past, the question is - why doesn't it happen quickly to complex organisms now?
If we assume a steady progression it gives evolution more time for adaptation through random mutation - but there still isn't enough time in the history of earth to account for all the "incremental revisions" we see in moden fauna.


bullshit . . .just genuinely bullshit. There is no need for "rapid evolution and I don't think anyone except you is claiming that there "Wasn't enough time for it to happen otherwise."


Ah, my favorite. I remember when evolutionists argued that the earth was 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 500 million years old, 1 billion years old, and now apparently six billion years old.

Here's a hint: Just because mathematicians show that your theory can't work in the time allotted, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily make the earth older.

To point #2 - logical fallacy. Evolution assumes abiogenesis, which states among other things that all life evolved from single celled organisms, which do not have organs. How were these organs developed through random mutation? Why? Just saying "animals have had organs for an exceedingly long time" is nothing more than a sidestep of the issue at hand, which is "how did evolution through random mutation develop a complex organ in the time allotted."

Read up on carbon dating and trying to claim you personally are over a hundred years old is silly (that 1 million year figure hasn't been used since before the first world war so you clearly don't remember it). No one has "arbitrarily changed" the age of the earth ever. Only someone who knows literally nothing about geology would assume that was the case. More importantly feel free to try to backup some of these entirely ridiculous claims that your pushing . . .maybe a citation?

Point two. Single celled organisms come together to create organs. If you want an example of how an organ could be formed from single celled organisms then simply look at any coral reef (thousands of independant organisms coming together to create something for mutual benefit). as to evolution of an organ lets see . . .how about a rudimentary eye? so a simple organism is "born" with a genetic "defect" that creates a fold somewhere in its outer membrane. That fold would allow the organism a "sense" of where a source of light was (one section of the"fold" would be hit with more light whether this was photosensitive or not heat alone would tell the organism where this source of light was). This confers an advantage. Thus the organism reproduces more than others. Eventually every organism in the species has this "fold" and a rudimentary organ is born. One of the species with this "eye" undergoes a second mutation that causes the fold to deepend into a crevice and a second cell to cver it, though the space covered is so large the cell is stretched thin. Not the organism can more easily pinpoint exactly where a light source is. Another genetic shift causes a nerve fiber to grow in an irregular place and suddenly you have sight. (i can do the same thing for a liver or kidney if you want? and yes, this is a very very rudimentary explanation but for me to explain further would take time I' don't think you want to spend. If you do I'm willing to explain it.)


Actually I was arguing the opposite, that for evolution to work, it should take a LOT of time, time which really isn't there. I have a very good understanding of natural selection, so I'll save everyone reading about the Squorts and move on.

Time wasn't there . . .so how old do you think the earth is exactly? And can you back that time up please?


There is no reason for evolution to exist without abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, the only alternative explanation is a supernatural creator. A creator would not use a method of creation which depends on random chance for success.

lol no its not there are a whole slew of other theories, I suggest you look them up. And so who created the creator?

There is also no reason for abiogenesis to exist apart from evolution. Abiogenesis is a thought experiment concocted to try to bolster the argument for evolution after the fact. That abiogenesis has never been proven or replicated is a major setback for evolutionary biologists, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is why so many posters on NSG try to deflect attention from it.

Bullshit. And we've been working on creating abiogenisis for about what? maybe 5 years? the earth had millions (if not billions) of years for the same thing to occur and it had the conditions that scientists are still trying to perfect. (more importantly there have been breakthroughs in abiogenisis including the evolution of membrane from abiotic material by natural processes and the evolution of naturally occurring chemicals such as lipids and basic organic acids from abiotic materials.)


Again, speaks more to a creator wishing to populate a barren spot on the earth than an organism choosing to reside in a place which other organisms cannot survive.

Organisms (most of them) don't Choose anything. An Species , separated from its previous environment, will evolve to fit that environment its been done in a lab . . .come on you can't really be this ignorant.


Billions of years of random chance
vs
An organism that is incapable of surving in the wild without all the complex organs being designed at once, when evolutionary theory specifically argues that all enhancements to the original one-celled organism were developed incrementally.
The odds against are staggering, and I believe I have consistently demonstrated why it takes more than once - in fact it would take thousands of times rolling the dice at impossibly long odds to manufacture the thousands of discrete systems in a mammal through random chance, and even then the organism would die in between the rolling of the dice because the systems are interdependent.

Assuming that six billion years of random chance was true, there should be mutations happening all the time and dead failed organisms lying everywhere right now. In fact, we should not even be having this conversation, since most likely our ancestors would just be lumps of incomplete organic matter on a barren, plantless plain.


oh please. Have you heard of cancer? thats a failed mutation. Heard of genetic disorders? guess what! they are too. it happens in everything we have observed both success and failure in evolution both in the lab and in the environment.


Why and how have conditions changed from a state where they could have supported an impossible sequence of events to a state where they can no longer support that impossible sequence? Article of faith that such a set of conditions ever existed.

If life was deposited here by aliens, who created the space aliens? Or are we to assume that they evolved on a planet more favorable to random mutation AND developed to the point where the could commence interstellar travel? The assumptions boggle the mind.

True to your word, Poliwanacraca, you did not engage in any ad hominem against me, so I will give you a gold star for putting some thought into your responses, but I can't agree with the assumptions you make.
not article of faith . . .article of geology specifically forensic geology. I suggest you look it up because frankly this argument is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!

All you wrote here was your personal beliefs without any sort of backing . . . The only assumptions here are those that you are making and this has gotta be the most Facepalmish thing I have ever read.

science does not answer the same questions religion does

in so far as this is true, it is because religion doesn't actually answer many questions at all. a number of the basic questions to be answered are the same - "how did we get here?", for example.

in so far as this is true, it is because religion doesn't actually answer many questions at all. a number of the basic questions to be answered are the same - "how did we get here?", for example.

And other questions like "why do we have these laws of physics" etc... which are very substantial questions. Even Dawkins admits that science would probably never be able to answer a question like that.

I totally agree with you. Science says nothing about the supernatural. So, when people claim that the supernatural doesn't exist because science says so, they are using science wrongly.

Just like your example above is an example of using religion wrongly.

except that it seems that most religious people use religion wrongly and attempt to make it say something about the real physical world at which point they run up against science and as bottle put it "Get huffy" :D

In the time since medical science has been able to study it, there have been no mutations naturally occuring which could fundamentally change an organ or a complex system. In observable history, 15000 years, there has been no changes to the human body that anyone deemed worthy of recording. That sets the threshold for significant mutation at least at the rate of less than 1 every 15,000 years. More on that later.

This is utterly untrue. GoG just offered you one example.


Simple and complex creatures exist side by side today. Just because there were more species of simple creatures supporting an ecosystem with more species of complex organisms back then, does not make an increase in complexity, only an increase in the likelihood that more samples would be preserved for posterity. Also, simple organisms are much more likely to be preserved for the fossil record than complex ones which tends to skew your data. It's just the way fossilization works.

...no, it's not. The things that preserve the best are things with hard parts, like, you know, vertebrates. Amoebae do not have any hard parts to fossilize.


Ad hominem attack one. I've demonstrated that I have a very good understanding of the way evolution is supposed to work, according to other people in your field. Or are you going to change the rules everytime someone brings up something uncomfortable? Thought so.

Saying your understanding appears to be flawed is not an ad hominem. It does appear to be flawed. That's why I took the time to try to explain it to you, and I'm rather frustrated that you chose to ignore that entire section of my post.

Evolution takes time. Since we have never observed a beneficial and substantial mutation in the 15000 years we have been able to watch, and since mutations are random and not directed, it increases the odds of any progress occuring to a time frame which is simply impossible to fit the earths lifespan in unless you assign to the earth an arbitrarily high age. We'll address this below.

It's not an "arbitrarily high age." It's what the evidence suggests.


The fact that they can survive in a volcano is compelling evidence for something, but not evolution. Evolution would direct the organism to not settle in a harsh environ like a volcano before modifying it to survive.

No, it most certainly would not. Evolution does not "direct" anything. It really sounds like you did not read my explanation of how evolution works. Could you, please? I went to a fair amount of effort to write that up.

The first million (trillion?) microbes to be transported to the volcano would have died, having not adapted, so it seems more likely that someone created them and left them there.

You presume that the first trillion microbes were identical, and none had any qualities that would make them slightly more likely to reproduce before dying. There is no basis for that assumption.



Again, not really a compelling argument because you're saying that conditions changed to cause life and then that they randomly changed again to promote life. The odds against this sequence of events alone, even barring the complexity of the matter, are staggering. Also you are saying that harsh conditions would have made abiogenesis more likely to succeed (200+ chemicals required for life in a pool besieged by high winds - use your imagination.)

The "conditions" have changed many times over the course of the history of the earth. That in itself is in no way a strange or controversial proposition. As for your odds argument, I already addressed that.



Ad hominem attack two - you can't explain this aspect of your belief, so you say that I do not understand it. I do actually understand how mutations are supposed to work, but it's mathematically impossible for that process to have wrought what we see around us even in the inflated time span that geologists have assigned the earth.

No, it's not. I mean, I don't really know what else to say here. Do you know how many times a prokaryote like a bacterium - something more complex than the first organisms - can reproduce in just a day? Multiply that by several billion years, and you'll see it's very far from mathematically impossible.


Assuming steady progressions is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt. Because if we assume it has happened quickly in the past, the question is - why doesn't it happen quickly to complex organisms now?
If we assume a steady progression it gives evolution more time for adaptation through random mutation - but there still isn't enough time in the history of earth to account for all the "incremental revisions" we see in moden fauna.

It does happen quickly to complex organisms now, but perhaps you misunderstand what "quickly" means in evolutionary terms. Evolution isn't measured in days or weeks or years, but in generations. Because the generations for very complex animals like humans are exceedingly long, something that takes 100 generations to produce a noticeable change in the population as a whole seems "slow" to us. But something that takes 100 generations in a simple microorganism might require all of a few hours, and that is so blazingly fast that it seems intuitively ridiculous to expect major changes in that time.


Ah, my favorite. I remember when evolutionists argued that the earth was 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 500 million years old, 1 billion years old, and now apparently six billion years old.

....were you born several hundred years ago? That would seem to be the only way you could "remember" some of those figures. Yes, our methods of measuring the earth's age have advanced in the past few centuries. This is hardly evidence of dishonesty. For what it's worth, I slipped, though. I was tired when I typed that up and mistakenly said the Earth was about 6 billion years old. It is not. It is about 4.5 billion years old. My apologies. As I said, I was tired.

Here's a hint: Just because mathematicians show that your theory can't work in the time allotted, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily make the earth older.

This is not the way the age of the Earth was determined at all, and it is frankly silly to suggest a giant conspiracy theory between geologists and evolutionary biologists. We have found rock samples that date to about 3.9 billion years old, containing minerals that date to about 4.2 billion years old. The Earth necessarily must be older than any of its component parts.

To point #2 - logical fallacy. Evolution assumes abiogenesis

No, it does not. I addressed this already.

, which states among other things that all life evolved from single celled organisms[/quote]

No, it does not. This is evolutionary theory again. They are unrelated. Please do not mix them together.

, which do not have organs. How were these organs developed through random mutation? Why? Just saying "animals have had organs for an exceedingly long time" is nothing more than a sidestep of the issue at hand, which is "how did evolution through random mutation develop a complex organ in the time allotted."

That was not the question you asked. You asked about "a major redesign of complex organs every 1500 years." That is what I answered.

If you would like to read my explanation of natural selection instead of skipping over it, it may help you understand how a complex organ could develop.

Actually I was arguing the opposite, that for evolution to work, it should take a LOT of time, time which really isn't there.

Except it IS there, and I don't really know how to help you if you won't acknowledge the evidence that exists instead of concocting some sort of conspiracy theory in which all biologists and geologists got together to trick you.

I have a very good understanding of natural selection, so I'll save everyone reading about the Squorts and move on.

As I said, I really wish you wouldn't.


There is no reason for evolution to exist without abiogenesis. Without abiogenesis, the only alternative explanation is a supernatural creator. A creator would not use a method of creation which depends on random chance for success.

This is, frankly, your silliest argument yet. The idea that evolution must exist for a "reason" is itself nonsensical, and as Dubsy pointed out, it is absolutely ridiculous for you to dictate to God what he would and would not do.


There is also no reason for abiogenesis to exist apart from evolution. Abiogenesis is a thought experiment concocted to try to bolster the argument for evolution after the fact.

This is nonsense, as I already addressed. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution exists whether life began by chance, because God told it to, because aliens put it there, or because an invisible pink unicorn took a dump. It does not matter, any more than it matters to that bowling ball who started it rolling.

That abiogenesis has never been proven or replicated is a major setback for evolutionary biologists, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is why so many posters on NSG try to deflect attention from it.

No, it's not. No one is "deflecting attention" from it. I specifically addressed the issue, but it is necessary to point out that it is not connected in any way, shape, or form with evolutionary theory.


Again, speaks more to a creator wishing to populate a barren spot on the earth than an organism choosing to reside in a place which other organisms cannot survive.

There is no "choice" involved. Please, seriously, read what I wrote about the squorts. They did not "choose" to be in an area where the predators climbed trees, right?

Billions of years of random chance
vs
An organism that is incapable of surving in the wild without all the complex organs being designed at once, when evolutionary theory specifically argues that all enhancements to the original one-celled organism were developed incrementally.

The odds against are staggering, and I believe I have consistently demonstrated why it takes more than once - in fact it would take thousands of times rolling the dice at impossibly long odds to manufacture the thousands of discrete systems in a mammal through random chance, and even then the organism would die in between the rolling of the dice because the systems are interdependent.

Which is why they were not developed through random chance, but trough evolution.

Assuming that six billion years of random chance was true, there should be mutations happening all the time and dead failed organisms lying everywhere right now. In fact, we should not even be having this conversation, since most likely our ancestors would just be lumps of incomplete organic matter on a barren, plantless plain.

There are dead failed organisms lying everywhere right now. What do you think fossils are?


Why and how have conditions changed from a state where they could have supported an impossible sequence of events to a state where they can no longer support that impossible sequence? Article of faith that such a set of conditions ever existed.

Who says they can't support that "impossible" sequence?

If life was deposited here by aliens, who created the space aliens? Or are we to assume that they evolved on a planet more favorable to random mutation AND developed to the point where the could commence interstellar travel? The assumptions boggle the mind.

There are no assumptions. I am not arguing that life was deposited here by aliens; it seems most unlikely. I am pointing out that who or what started the process is not relevant to the existence of the process. The bowling ball rolls no matter who threw it.

This is entirely true, but in fact, it is not the loss of need for superstition that creates the conflict, in my opinion. It is the fact that some people don't seem to be able to adjust their thinking to include new information. They think that if the HOW of something is explained by science, then that means the WHY of it, which religion claims to answer, is somehow done away with.

But the thing is, very often science DOES answer why things happen, and religion doesn't.

Science explains how we came to be, in far greater detail than all the religions of the world combined, and by explaining how we happened science is also telling us a great deal about why we happened.

By describing the processes that have led to our existence as a species, science simultaneously helps us to understand why we have our human form, why we perceive the world the way we do, why we have the drives and the feelings that we have, why we do some of the stupid things we do, why a lot of people like chocolate and relatively few people like rotten eggs, and so on and on. The "why" is inextricably linked to the "how."

This is why the religious answers to the "why" questions actually DO become obsolete.


To me, it is not really a matter of science and religion overlapping -- because they really don't. I think it is more a matter of who will dominate, who will hold the reins of education, approved knowledge, and thus social power. It's the same old same old fight that's been going on since the fucking Middle Ages, and it has nothing to do with either religion or science.

This I certainly agree with you about.


Even though science does not answer the same questions religion does and therefore does not lessen the usefulness of religion at all, the fact is, the modern world is giving the social prestige to science that it used to give to religion. Some people on the religion side of things don't like that. It's all about social status.
But this I don't agree with.

I think science absolutely does take over the questions that religions purport to answer.

Once upon a time, when people got sick they would ask, "Why me, Lord, why?" Nowadays, it's medicine that answers them. You got sick because of this virus, because of this inherited condition, because of this accident, because of this natural and material event.

Once upon a time, when disasters befell people, they would ask, "Why us, Lord?" Nowadays, scientists explain why that hurricane formed, why that earthquake hit, why that flood swept away your home.

And for time out of memory people have been asking why we are here and what our purpose is. Science has provided more answers to that question in the last 50 years than religion has provided in 5000 years.

Please be clear: I'm not saying science is all-knowing or all-powerful. Science is something that PEOPLE do, and people are finite and imperfect mortal critters. Science isn't always right, and science certainly doesn't have all the answers we want yet. My point is simply that there's not a single question that religion can answer which science can't answer BETTER, and that's why there's so much tension.

*snip*
Arguing against that guy is . . . gratingly annoying.

Oh, it's easy. All I have to do is listen carefully to people who do believe in ID explain how it works and why I should buy into it, and that's enough to convince me it's just another load of malarkey.

. . .

. . .

Are you serious?

Once upon a time, when people got sick they would ask, "Why me, Lord, why?" Nowadays, it's medicine that answers them. You got sick because of this virus, because of this inherited condition, because of this accident, because of this natural and material event.

Once upon a time, when disasters befell people, they would ask, "Why us, Lord?" Nowadays, scientists explain why that hurricane formed, why that earthquake hit, why that flood swept away your home.



You're totally missing the point of why people ask questions like that. When people ask "why do I suffer", that is regarding essentially the problem of evil, a very difficult moral dilemma, it has nothing to do with 'how' they got sick, but why God allowed them to do so. Science has nothing to do with questions like that.

You're totally missing the point of why people ask questions like that. When people ask "why do I suffer", that is regarding essentially the problem of evil, a very difficult moral dilemma, it has nothing to do with 'how' they got sick, but why God allowed them to do so. Science has nothing to do with questions like that.

But witch burning does.

. . .

. . .

Are you serious?
Wait you we're joking about the whole you believing in ID thing right?

you're totally missing the point of why people ask questions like that. When people ask "why do i suffer", that is regarding essentially the problem of evil, a very difficult moral dilemma, it has nothing to do with 'how' they got sick, but why god allowed them to do so. Science has nothing to do with questions like that.

qft

. . .

. . .

Are you serious?

I would say so, and I must say I agree with him.

Arguing against that guy is . . . gratingly annoying.

Sorry. I'm a born teacher, and I did promise to address any point he cared to raise.

Sorry. I'm a born teacher, and I did promise to address any point he cared to raise.

oh I'm not blaming you . . .I did it first and gah . . .

You're totally missing the point of why people ask questions like that. When people ask "why do I suffer", that is regarding essentially the problem of evil, a very difficult moral dilemma, it has nothing to do with 'how' they got sick, but why God allowed them to do so. Science has nothing to do with questions like that.
That's an amazingly circular argument. It's the absolute definition of begging the question.

Somebody asks, "Why did I get sick?" Science says, "Here's why." Person replies, "No, I mean why did God let me get sick?" Science replies, "Your illness is explainable completely in natural terms. God does not enter into the picture." Person replies, "But I think God did have something to do with it, so explain THAT!"

"Why did God allow me to get sick" is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. But, more importantly, the religious "answer" to this question isn't an answer! Every religion will give you a totally different answer based on their own personal opinions, and none of them will give you any way to test whether they are right or not.


Sorry, but I think science answers the "why" quite completely, and you're just arguing that people want to believe there's a supernatural component which is totally unnecessary.

Cripes, it's Bottle! Hullo!

Wait you we're joking about the whole you believing in ID thing right?

My God.

Okay, 1) I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. 2) I believe that the initial matter was created by a Supreme Being, and like to believe that said Supreme Being was an All-Loving God.

That said.

Holy fucking shit. I defended ID with the AWESOMENESS OF BOOBIES AND PENISES. Why is ANYONE arguing that? I mean, asexuals may disagree (although even if they don't find them arousing, I think most people find them at very least aesthetically pleasing), and someone responded with a serious post!

What in God's name has happened here?!

I don't know how I could have made it more obvious that the post was a joke without ending it with a disclaimer reading "This post is a joke." So either Mury totally missed my humor, or she continuing to joke by point out how the defense is all malarkey (I can only hope) and *I* missed *her* humor.

Dear God, please let it be the latter, because if NSG can't recognize an obvious joke when it sees one, we're all doomed to impenetrable walls of text and ceaseless, pointless debating.

I dont understand why they call evoulution a theory. For instance the new case of Salmonella has become more drug resistant. This means it must have evolved
It's a science thing.

I would say so, and I must say I agree with him.

1) I thought Mura was a she?
2) Did you READ my post? Please tell me you didn't read it. Please. Because, like, I'd hate to have just started getting back into NSG and have to flee again just to preserve me intelligence and humor.

It's a science thing.

I really wish it were legal at times to bitch slap people who state "It's just a theory" about evolution (or any science, really).

That's an amazingly circular argument. It's the absolute definition of begging the question.

Somebody asks, "Why did I get sick?" Science says, "Here's why." Person replies, "No, I mean why did God let me get sick?" Science replies, "Your illness is explainable completely in natural terms. God does not enter into the picture." Person replies, "But I think God did have something to do with it, so explain THAT!"

"Why did God allow me to get sick" is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. But, more importantly, the religious "answer" to this question isn't an answer! Every religion will give you a totally different answer based on their own personal opinions, and none of them will give you any way to test whether they are right or not.


Sorry, but I think science answers the "why" quite completely, and you're just arguing that people want to believe there's a supernatural component which is totally unnecessary.
You think science explains completely and totally human suffering?

That's an amazingly circular argument. It's the absolute definition of begging the question.

Somebody asks, "Why did I get sick?" Science says, "Here's why." Person replies, "No, I mean why did God let me get sick?" Science replies, "Your illness is explainable completely in natural terms. God does not enter into the picture." Person replies, "But I think God did have something to do with it, so explain THAT!"

"Why did God allow me to get sick" is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. But, more importantly, the religious "answer" to this question isn't an answer! Every religion will give you a totally different answer based on their own personal opinions, and none of them will give you any way to test whether they are right or not.


Sorry, but I think science answers the "why" quite completely, and you're just arguing that people want to believe there's a supernatural component which is totally unnecessary.

Well, except that the question is really "Why did I get sick?" As in, how come, for example, this genetic disorder happened to be passed down to me and not my brother? And to that, the only real scientific answer is "he just got lucky and got the nicer genes." I can see why a belief in some sort of higher power deciding these things would be comforting - "this is a test so you can prove your merit" is a nicer thought than "just your shitty luck."

Sorry. I'm a born teacher

can I come over later for some...help on my homework?

My God.

Okay, 1) I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. 2) I believe that the initial matter was created by a Supreme Being, and like to believe that said Supreme Being was an All-Loving God.

That said.

Holy fucking shit. I defended ID with the AWESOMENESS OF BOOBIES AND PENISES. Why is ANYONE arguing that? I mean, asexuals may disagree (although even if they don't find them arousing, I think most people find them at very least aesthetically pleasing), and someone responded with a serious post!

What in God's name has happened here?!

I don't know how I could have made it more obvious that the post was a joke without ending it with a disclaimer reading "This post is a joke." So either Mury totally missed my humor, or she continuing to joke by point out how the defense is all malarkey (I can only hope) and *I* missed *her* humor.

Dear God, please let it be the latter, because if NSG can't recognize an obvious joke when it sees one, we're all doomed to impenetrable walls of text and ceaseless, pointless debating.

NSG has sadly, to some extent, become srs bsness.

Well, except that the question is really "Why did I get sick?" As in, how come, for example, this genetic disorder happened to be passed down to me and not my brother? And to that, the only real scientific answer is "he just got lucky and got the nicer genes."

and how is that not an answer?

No, it's not. I mean, I don't really know what else to say here. Do you know how many times a prokaryote like a bacterium - something more complex than the first organisms - can reproduce in just a day? Multiply that by several billion years, and you'll see it's very far from mathematically impossible.


Indeed, since 1988 a project has been going on at Michigan State University to study the evolution of E Coli bacteria (since we know a lot about it). And they have observed evolution in action on these - so much so it would appear that one of these samples may have even evolved into a completely separate species of bacteria (more testing needed to confirm this, but it's looking likely).

(was just reading a great article on it in BBC focus, but I can't access that online so the New Scientist* should do linky (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)


* The New Scientist one is more recent that the NY Times one I originally posted, but for those wanting both: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?_r=1&ex=1184299200&en=72de3b507cf9d4c6&ei=5070

I really wish it were legal at times to bitch slap people who state "It's just a theory" about evolution (or any science, really).

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s165/SpaghettiSawUs/gravity-just-a-theory.jpg

It's a science thing.

More specifically it's called a theory because scientists are aware of their own limitations and open to the possibility that new evidence may come along to make them alter their theory. That's the main difference between science and dogma.

My God.

Okay, 1) I accept evolution as a valid scientific theory. 2) I believe that the initial matter was created by a Supreme Being, and like to believe that said Supreme Being was an All-Loving God.

That said.

Holy fucking shit. I defended ID with the AWESOMENESS OF BOOBIES AND PENISES. Why is ANYONE arguing that? I mean, asexuals may disagree (although even if they don't find them arousing, I think most people find them at very least aesthetically pleasing), and someone responded with a serious post!

What in God's name has happened here?!

I don't know how I could have made it more obvious that the post was a joke without ending it with a disclaimer reading "This post is a joke." So either Mury totally missed my humor, or she continuing to joke by point out how the defense is all malarkey (I can only hope) and *I* missed *her* humor.

Dear God, please let it be the latter, because if NSG can't recognize an obvious joke when it sees one, we're all doomed to impenetrable walls of text and ceaseless, pointless debating.

I think the most likely explanation is that Mur saw the beginning of your post, went "graargh" and skipped over the rest. :p

Well, except that the question is really "Why did I get sick?" As in, how come, for example, this genetic disorder happened to be passed down to me and not my brother? And to that, the only real scientific answer is "he just got lucky and got the nicer genes." I can see why a belief in some sort of higher power deciding these things would be comforting - "this is a test so you can prove your merit" is a nicer thought than "just your shitty luck."

True, but since when has niceness equated to truth, or even had any bearing on truth?

"To say that religion makes one happy is no more to the point than to say that a drunk man is happier than a sober one."

To slightly botch George Bernard Shaw.

Indeed, since 1988 a project has been going on at Michigan State University to study the evolution of E Coli bacteria (since we know a lot about it). And they have observed evolution in action on these - so much so it would appear that one of these samples may have even evolved into a completely separate species of bacteria (more testing needed to confirm this, but it's looking likely).

(was just reading a great article on it in BBC focus, but I can't access that online so the NY Times should do: Fast-Reproducing Microbes Provide a Window on Natural Selection (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26lab.html?_r=1&ex=1184299200&en=72de3b507cf9d4c6&ei=5070)

oh but that's just MICRO evolution, not MACRO evolution. Macro evolution is a whole different thing....

By which, of course, I mean that I accept that 1+1 = 2 and 2+2 = 4, but I just can't accept that 1+1+1+1 = 4

And other questions like "why do we have these laws of physics" etc... which are very substantial questions. Even Dawkins admits that science would probably never be able to answer a question like that.

i don't know, it seems to me that there is progress to be had on exactly that sort of question, at least in principle

can I come over later for some...help on my homework?

Yes. :tongue:

I really wish it were legal at times to bitch slap people who state "It's just a theory" about evolution (or any science, really).
You should visit when my mother-in-law's friends are over... The theory of evolution is just another 'theory'... "Not even proved, you know".

It's a lot easier to bite my tongue, or develop a coughing fit, than it is to try and explain about science. But I like her friends, so it's one of those things that one must just tolerate.

Well, except that the question is really "Why did I get sick?" As in, how come, for example, this genetic disorder happened to be passed down to me and not my brother? And to that, the only real scientific answer is "he just got lucky and got the nicer genes." I can see why a belief in some sort of higher power deciding these things would be comforting - "this is a test so you can prove your merit" is a nicer thought than "just your shitty luck."

Actually, I think its discomforting.

"I'm an Omnipotent Supreme Being, and I'm going to kill you now, despite have children, a husband, lots of friends, and consistently helping your community."

Personally, I prefer "Just your shitty luck." Because at the end of the day, you have to decide if your God 1) Does not exist 2) Is not all powerful or 3) is not all loving.

And the thought of an Omnipotent, Unloving Supreme Being really does make me want to just stop, well, everything.

But some people like to think that all things happen for a reason. Maybe they do. But I doubt it. I, for one, think God deals in things like Passion and Love, and lets the physical world run its course.

Can't we just give, the people who don't believe in evolution, those antibiotics that no longer work, next time they are sick?

and how is that not an answer?

...it is an answer. Hence why I called it, you know, an answer.

Sorry, but I think science answers the "why" quite completely, and you're just arguing that people want to believe there's a supernatural component which is totally unnecessary.

So, what exactly is the scientific answer as to why God didn't step in to intervene in the suffering, and stop the earthquakes and prevent people from being infected by virus's. Why did he create these germs? Again, it has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, in any way, to do with HOW they physically got sick. It has everything to do with WHY God doesn't help them, WHY god created these hostile conditions in the first place, and WHY God didn't prevent it (assuming God exists, another reason science has nothing to do with the problem of evil, since you have to assume he exists first). The problem is how an all loving God can be reconciled with a God that allows suffering, since the two seem to conflict.

Edit: And I didn't say religion answered it either.

Yes. :tongue:

sweet. Because there's a significant chance I'm going to have to do some work over the weekend...

What do you know about the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970?

Holy fucking shit. I defended ID with the AWESOMENESS OF BOOBIES AND PENISES. Why is ANYONE arguing that? I mean, asexuals may disagree (although even if they don't find them arousing, I think most people find them at very least aesthetically pleasing), and someone responded with a serious post!

What in God's name has happened here?!

I don't know how I could have made it more obvious that the post was a joke without ending it with a disclaimer reading "This post is a joke." So either Mury totally missed my humor, or she continuing to joke by point out how the defense is all malarkey (I can only hope) and *I* missed *her* humor.

Dear God, please let it be the latter, because if NSG can't recognize an obvious joke when it sees one, we're all doomed to impenetrable walls of text and ceaseless, pointless debating.

lol Sorry I just hadda be sure :D I was fairly sure it was but that guy threw me for a loop.

NSG has sadly, to some extent, become srs bsness.

I don't know if I should continue to try to lighten the mood, or just flee and save myself?

So, what exactly is the scientific answer as to why God didn't step in to intervene in the suffering, and stop the earthquakes and prevent people from being infected by virus's.

That probably God doesn't exist.

More specifically it's called a theory because scientists are aware of their own limitations and open to the possibility that new evidence may come along to make them alter their theory. That's the main difference between science and dogma.
That's not an answer I would accept. It's wrong for two reasons.

1. Proper scientists do not accept that they have limitations -- not Georgia Tech grads, anyway, and more appropriately,

2. Not the proper definition of a scientific theory.

I don't know if I should continue to try to lighten the mood, or just flee and save myself?

no no continue to be funny! please!

and how is that not an answer?

"Because I said so" is an answer children frequently are subject to, and yet, they will tell you, in truth, it answers NOTHING.

Actually, I think its discomforting.

"I'm an Omnipotent Supreme Being, and I'm going to kill you now, despite have children, a husband, lots of friends, and consistently helping your community."

Personally, I prefer "Just your shitty luck." Because at the end of the day, you have to decide if your God 1) Does not exist 2) Is not all powerful or 3) is not all loving.

And the thought of an Omnipotent, Unloving Supreme Being really does make me want to just stop, well, everything.

But some people like to think that all things happen for a reason. Maybe they do. But I doubt it. I, for one, think God deals in things like Passion and Love, and lets the physical world run its course.

Well, then we get into what I call the "Moby-Dick question" - essentially, when bad things happen to you, is it worse to believe that there is some larger purpose behind those bad things, or that the bad things are just entirely random? That's a question to which there is no correct or universal answer, but I can understand both sides of it.

You should visit when my mother-in-law's friends are over... The theory of evolution is just another 'theory'... "Not even proved, you know".

It's a lot easier to bite my tongue, or develop a coughing fit, than it is to try and explain about science. But I like her friends, so it's one of those things that one must just tolerate.

I wish I had your patience. I tend to go off on people the first opportunity I get when things like this are brought up. It's rarely appreciated.

sweet. Because there's a significant chance I'm going to have to do some work over the weekend...

What do you know about the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970?

Someone's setting himself up for corporal punishment.

That probably God doesn't exist.

Firstly, the question assumes Gods existence, so what you're saying is redundant. Secondly, any hypothesis regarding the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s165/SpaghettiSawUs/gravity-just-a-theory.jpg

Bookmarking that.

I don't know if I should continue to try to lighten the mood, or just flee and save myself?

No! Stay! Save uuuuusssss....

sweet. Because there's a significant chance I'm going to have to do some work over the weekend...

What do you know about the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970?

It was passed in 1970 and protects securities investors. *nod*

I think the most likely explanation is that Mur saw the beginning of your post, went "graargh" and skipped over the rest. :p

I so hope so!

Remember, children, reading is FUNDAMENTAL! and if you are going to reply to something, perhaps you could at least consider reading it. I mean, would you randomly click on a topic and reply without reading the thread title? Well, Ruffy might. I mean, I know I'm a committed spammer, but, like, seriously! At least I SAY that I don't know what I'm talking about when responding to threads and random drivel.

More specifically it's called a theory because scientists are aware of their own limitations and open to the possibility that new evidence may come along to make them alter their theory. That's the main difference between science and dogma.

Dogma changes.

See: Vatican II

i don't know, it seems to me that there is progress to be had on exactly that sort of question, at least in principle

Not through strictly scientific discourse, you can't use experimentation and empirical data to answer a question like that for instance.

It was passed in 1970 and protects securities investors. *nod*

. . . . good enough!

Firstly, the question assumes Gods existence, so what you're saying is redundant. Secondly, any hypothesis regarding the existence of God is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific.

So the second sentence of your answer completely contradicts the first - unless your point is that you were asking a completely unscientific question and expecting science to answer it.

unless your point is that you were asking a completely unscientific question and expecting science to answer it.

That's exactly the point, the question is completely unscientific, so science can't answer it.

Edit: and I was never expecting science to answer it.

...it is an answer. Hence why I called it, you know, an answer.
Problem is, the question is more subtle than the words indicate. It's like that scene in Pinnochio when his dad is telling him to go to bed and he keeps asking "But why."

Why did I get sick?
Well this virus . . .
But why *ME*
Well your immune system . . .
But why does the virus exist in the first place?
Well it evolved. . .
But why did it evolve that way?
Well, environmental factors. . .
But why were they what they were?

For me, it isn't "Why did I experience this tragedy?" It's "Why does anyone experience tragedy?" And for some, there are acceptable answers ("He didn't see the stop sign, and the car coming in the other direction couldn't stop.") But for lots, there simply aren't.

Of course, Kushner and Lewis do a lot better job of this than I do.

no no continue to be funny! please!

If my public demands! :tongue::fluffle:

It's true, an elephant's tail is only a puny 4 feet in length. However, the elephant's PENIS is six and a half feet long, and is prehensile. That's one hell of a "swaying cedar" if you catch my drift.

So maybe it's not that they couldn't translate "behemoth," it's that they mistranslated "tail."


I don't know why, when you hear a description of bones being "like bronze" or "like iron," you assume this means they're big. Size is not an inherent attribute of metal. However, strength is, and usually when something is referred to as being "like iron" it's a way of saying that it's very strong.

Here's some fun science for you:

Elephant leg bones lack the normal marrow cavity that you'd find in other mammalian bones, and are instead a more solid form of bone structure that is specially adapted to help support their massive weight. The positioning of elephant bones relative to the body, as well as the shape of their joints, are all especially strong, as one would expect from an endoskeleton that has to support 6 tons of body weight!

wow, a 6 and a half foot penis can compare to a 50 foot tree?
behemoth is the word describing the animal, not the tail. its talking about the brachiosaurus (or of that family of dinosaurs that happened to be next to job)
His tail sways like cedar. His tail, not his reproductive organ -_-,

And look up pictures of their bones. your elephant bone is nothing but a chicken wing compared to that of a dinosaur. its not referring to the size of the metal, but the strength. Read the verses . it gives alot more detail ( job 40:15- 24)

in so far as this is true, it is because religion doesn't actually answer many questions at all. a number of the basic questions to be answered are the same - "how did we get here?", for example.
So what? If there is only one question in the entire universe that science does not answer but religion does, then science does not render religion redundant. Also, I notice that, in response to a post that specifically states that science answers "how" questions whereas religion answers "why" questions, you come back talking about a "how" question. :rolleyes: Science answers "how did we get here?" Religion answers "why are we here?"

Well, then we get into what I call the "Moby-Dick question" - essentially, when bad things happen to you, is it worse to believe that there is some larger purpose behind those bad things, or that the bad things are just entirely random? That's a question to which there is no correct or universal answer, but I can understand both sides of it.

*hasn't read Moby Dick*

I just personally prefer the "random" answer, because the "purpose" answer implies that the ends justify the means, and even if the ends were enormous, that doesn't make the means less heinous. I did go through a "purpose" stage, but now it just bugs me. I don't think things happen for a reason, I think shitty things happen and God could not control them and continue to be God (Lewis goes into this, sort of) and instead God gives us Grace to deal with all the bullshit. But that's just my personal belief.

wow, a 6 and a half foot penis can compare to a 50 foot tree?
behemoth is the word describing the animal, not the tail. its talking about the brachiosaurus (or of that family of dinosaurs that happened to be next to job)
His tail sways like cedar. His tail, not his reproductive organ -_-,

And look up pictures of their bones. your elephant bone is nothing but a chicken wing compared to that of a dinosaur. its not referring to the size of the metal, but the strength. Read the verses . it gives alot more detail ( job 40:15- 24)

The word sway in the original text could also be translated as extends ie becoming erect.

So a brachiosaur's bones are made of bronze then? Or is the tail like a cedar not a metaphor but the bones of bronze are, and you are the only person who gets to decide?

That's exactly the point, the question is completely unscientific, so science can't answer it.

Edit: and I was never expecting science to answer it.

Were you expecting anyone to answer it in any meaningful way?

Were you epecting anyone to answer it in any meaningful way?

On NSG? No, not really. The only point I was trying to say is that the question "why God am I suffering" is a loaded question, so scientific discourse cannot answer it, since science does not concern itself with the paranormal.

wow, a 6 and a half foot penis can compare to a 50 foot tree?
behemoth is the word describing the animal, not the tail. its talking about the brachiosaurus (or of that family of dinosaurs that happened to be next to job)
His tail sways like cedar. His tail, not his reproductive organ -_-,

And look up pictures of their bones. your elephant bone is nothing but a chicken wing compared to that of a dinosaur. its not referring to the size of the metal, but the strength. Read the verses . it gives alot more detail ( job 40:15- 24)

Except that what you're stating here is special pleading. That they HAD to have mistranslated "behemoth" due to language difficulties, but "tail" very definitely was "tail."

Nothing in this post really helps your case at all.

Statements like "legs like bronze" and a "tail like cedar" are qualitative and don't provide enough descriptive detail to support a claim that it was an extraordinary animal. Nothing in the description suggests it to be a brachiosaurus in particular. After all, no mention is made of the enormously long necks common among brachiosaurs.

So, what exactly is the scientific answer as to why God didn't step in to intervene in the suffering, and stop the earthquakes and prevent people from being infected by virus's. Why did he create these germs? Again, it has absolutely nothing, whatsoever, in any way, to do with HOW they physically got sick. It has everything to do with WHY God doesn't help them, WHY god created these hostile conditions in the first place, and WHY God didn't prevent it (assuming God exists, another reason science has nothing to do with the problem of evil, since you have to assume he exists first). The problem is how an all loving God can be reconciled with a God that allows suffering, since the two seem to conflict.

Edit: And I didn't say religion answered it either.

Its all in the bible. Do you decide when you get up from bed? do you decide where to work at or where you want to spend your free time? do you have the decision to buy a gun and kill a person? of course. You and I have whats called free will and im sure you know this too.
Now answer this, why do you exercise your free will and then expect God to control our decisions or our circumstances? He Gave us free will. Were contradicting Him. God is all loving and wants to intervene for the better, but your not meeting His condition. 1 John 4:8 God IS love. The bible has the answers to all our solutions to all the problems we will ever face.

I wish I had your patience. I tend to go off on people the first opportunity I get when things like this are brought up. It's rarely appreciated.
It takes practice, oh, and you haven't seen that look my wife gives me.

Except that what you're stating here is special pleading. That they HAD to have mistranslated "behemoth" due to language difficulties, but "tail" very definitely was "tail."



And cedar means in every way exactly like the tree...but bronze is a metaphore.

It takes practice, oh, and you haven't seen that look my wife gives me.

Aye, I can imagine that would help. :p

Its all in the bible. Do you decide when you get up from bed? do you decide where to work at or where you want to spend your free time? do you have the decision to buy a gun and kill a person? of course. You and I have whats called free will and im sure you know this too.
Now answer this, why do you exercise your free will and then expect God to control our decisions or our circumstances? He Gave us free will. Were contradicting Him. God is all loving and wants to intervene for the better, but your not meeting His condition. 1 John 4:8 God IS love. The bible has the answers to all our solutions to all the problems we will ever face.

god is all loving, as long as you do exactly what he says. Sorta "all loving" in the same way an abusive spouse is all loving, no?

And cedar means in every way exactly like the tree...but bronze is a metaphore.

Not to mention that brachiosaur tails were nowhere near 50 feet. The entire length of the dino was something like 80, and most of that was its neck.

Not to mention that brachiosaur tails were nowhere near 50 feet. The entire length of the dino was something like 80, and most of that was its neck.

but, how do you explain all the contemporary art work of the time clearly depicting dinosaurs?

Its all in the bible. Do you decide when you get up from bed? do you decide where to work at or where you want to spend your free time? do you have the decision to buy a gun and kill a person? of course. You and I have whats called free will and im sure you know this too.
Now answer this, why do you exercise your free will and then expect God to control our decisions or our circumstances? He Gave us free will. Were contradicting Him. God is all loving and wants to intervene for the better, but your not meeting His condition. 1 John 4:8 God IS love. The bible has the answers to all our solutions to all the problems we will ever face.

god is all loving, as long as you do exactly what he says. Sorta "all loving" in the same way an abusive spouse is all loving, no?

Not to mention instances of NOT allowing free will (a la hardening Pharaoh's heart) in that very same book.

but, how do you explain all the contemporary art work of the time clearly depicting dinosaurs?

Twas, the aliens, man. ALIENS!!!1!1!

Not to mention instances of NOT allowing free will (a la hardening Pharaoh's heart) in that very same book.

kinda love the "the bible has ALL THE ANSWERS!" I'm trying to figure out my itemized deductions, can you point me to the section of the bible that deals with this?

god is all loving, as long as you do exactly what he says. Sorta "all loving" in the same way an abusive spouse is all loving, no?

You know you are arguing about the nature of God with the kid who said dinosaurs were chillin with Job, right?

Also, I notice that, in response to a post that specifically states that science answers "how" questions whereas religion answers "why" questions, you come back talking about a "how" question. :rolleyes: Science answers "how did we get here?" Religion answers "why are we here?"

why do people get sick?
why do dogs walk on four legs rather than two?
why is the sky blue?
why do planets orbit in ellipses?

why? is the fundamental question of all explanatory enterprises.


and unless we are willing to say that any response constitutes an answer, it is difficult to hold that religion answers anything at all.

kinda love the "the bible has ALL THE ANSWERS!" I'm trying to figure out my itemized deductions, can you point me to the section of the bible that deals with this?

Render to Caesar what is Caesars.

kinda love the "the bible has ALL THE ANSWERS!" I'm trying to figure out my itemized deductions, can you point me to the section of the bible that deals with this?
That's the corollary. If it's not in the Bible, we shouldn't be doing it. Now taxes are certainly covered, but not income taxes and not in a good way.

Render to Caesar what is Caesars.

Give him his salad back

Except that what you're stating here is special pleading. That they HAD to have mistranslated "behemoth" due to language difficulties, but "tail" very definitely was "tail."

Nothing in this post really helps your case at all.

Statements like "legs like bronze" and a "tail like cedar" are qualitative and don't provide enough descriptive detail to support a claim that it was an extraordinary animal. Nothing in the description suggests it to be a brachiosaurus in particular. After all, no mention is made of the enormously long necks common among brachiosaurs.

How is it mistranslated?? Behemoth IS the original hebrew word. Behemoth is the dinosaur itself in verse 15. In verse 17, He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together The following verses describe it. READ the verses. Your failing to take it in as a whole and picking on what i say verse 20- Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. ( as in the immense trees where it eats its food while all the other wild animals are beneath the shade playing)

Render to Caesar what is Caesars.
I like your answer better.

Not to mention instances of NOT allowing free will (a la hardening Pharaoh's heart) in that very same book.

Man, that is hands down my least favorite verse in all the bible verses I've ever read and I do NOT understand it.

kinda love the "the bible has ALL THE ANSWERS!" I'm trying to figure out my itemized deductions, can you point me to the section of the bible that deals with this?

It's probably somewhere in the "begats." No one ever reads all of them, anyway, so who knows what treasure troves of information might be stuck in there. "And Joe begat Bob, who begat Dave, who begat Tom and George, who begat TOMORROW'S LOTTERY NUMBERS ARE 4 8 15 16 23 42 Roger, who begat Steve..."

Give him his salad back

With blue cheese dressing. More calories than a big mac you know.

It's probably somewhere in the "begats." No one ever reads all of them, anyway, so who knows what treasure troves of information might be stuck in there. "And Joe begat Bob, who begat Dave, who begat Tom and George, who begat TOMORROW'S LOTTERY NUMBERS ARE 4 8 15 16 23 42 Roger, who begat Steve..."

If I write a Holy Book, I'm totally doing this. And then, all I have to do is wait until the numbers come up, and claim that you were supposed to read that bit the day before.

Render to Caesar what is Caesars.

yes, but god damn it what does Caesar WANT! am I allowed to deduct travel costs for pro bono work as work expenses?

Answer me jesus!

How is it mistranslated?? Behemoth IS the original hebrew word. Behemoth is the dinosaur itself in verse 15. In verse 17, He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together The following verses describe it. READ the verses. Your failing to take it in as a whole and picking on what i say verse 20- Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. ( as in the immense trees where it eats its food while all the other wild animals are beneath the shade playing)

Except that you have yet to show that "behemoth" means "Dinosaur" and not just "generic large animal" or "elephant." And that last line has nothing to do with eating plants out of immense trees.

Eh? I am not sure what you mean? Why a theory?

Building up tolerances is not evolution.

I have allergies. They were bad at one point so I started a shot regiment. Now they are not so bad. Did I evolve?

This is what gets me - people who speak to evolution should know what it is. Things do not mutate in microevolution. What happens (and how bacteria builds up tolerances, how moths adapt to polluted environments, etc) is this:

Let's say you put an anti-bacterial soap on your hands once a day. The first time you do it, you are going to kill whole swaths of bacteria. But there will still be some bacteria that exist because they weren't killed by the disinfecting agents. If you notice on the bottle, it will say "Kills 99% of Germs!" because it would be disingenuous to claim to kill all the bacteria when that won't ever happen. So the bacteria that remain are genetically predisposed to not be killed by the sanitizer. These bacteria create more bacteria, and since the trait is hereditary, these new bacteria are also not effected by the sanitizer. These bacteria have evolved to not be effected - they did not mutate in order for this to happen, they simply were different. This is what "survival of the fittest" means, not whatever popular definition people like to use. When I say evolution is non-directional, I mean it. Evolution is a natural response to changes in the environment.

I'm sorry, but breasts don't just evolve to be simultaneously fun, sexy, and nourishing. They are the ultimate toy! The odds of random chance coming up with boobies is absolutely ridiculous!
Boobs are so appealing for strictly evolutionary reasons. As a child we have to be drawn to them since they are our source of nutrition, and we never grow out of this fascination. Also, it doesn't hurt our motivation to procreate to be so attracted to them.

Except that you have yet to show that "behemoth" means "Dinosaur" and not just "generic large animal" or "elephant."

not at all. You see, behemoth means dinosaur, because they're describing a dinosaur when they called it a behemoth, and we know they're describing a dinosaur, because they called it a behemoth, and behemoth means dinosaur, because they're....

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa249/a_mozart/CircularReasoning.gif

yes, but god damn it what does Caesar WANT! am I allowed to deduct travel costs for pro bono work as work expenses?

Answer me jesus!

Caesar doesn't have to tell you that, it's up to your interpretation of the holy texts. The IRS is a lot like god, it gives you very fuzzy guidelines and then if you screw up it comes down on you like a tonne of bricks.

and how is that not an answer?

It is. It's just not a complete answer.

But the thing is, very often science DOES answer why things happen, and religion doesn't.
Really? Science answers the question of "why do conscious beings exist?" or "why does life exist?"

Note, not "how did life come into existence/what is the process by which life processes began?" but "WHY did this happen?"

Or questions like "why do some living things seem not to have conscious self awareness while others do?"

I would love to see the papers detailing those explanations or the reproducible experiments that provided the data that answer those questions.

Science explains how we came to be, in far greater detail than all the religions of the world combined, and by explaining how we happened science is also telling us a great deal about why we happened.

By describing the processes that have led to our existence as a species, science simultaneously helps us to understand why we have our human form, why we perceive the world the way we do, why we have the drives and the feelings that we have, why we do some of the stupid things we do, why a lot of people like chocolate and relatively few people like rotten eggs, and so on and on. The "why" is inextricably linked to the "how."
No. Understanding that the physical forms of our bodies and physical functions of our brains dictate certain behavioral and mental patterns does not in any way answer questions that may actually be generated by those very functions. Questions like: Why did conscious self-awareness evolve at all? Understanding the processes by which we generate our thoughts does not answer the question, "why these thoughts and not others?"

This is why the religious answers to the "why" questions actually DO become obsolete.
This assumption is faulty for two reasons:

1) If thought is a natural result of brain function (rather than brain function being a medium of thought processing), then religious thought is also a natural result of brain function. If brain function produces thoughts like altruism, anger, jealousy, love, etc, for various reasons, then it also produces religious thought for a reason. Unless you are going to argue that one set of brain functions renders another brain function obsolete, then you cannot say that science renders religion obsolete, because they are both thought processes that arise out of (in my view) or are generated by (in your view as I understand it so far) by the same brain.

2) You ignore the fact that science can only work with what data it has available to it, and not all the data possibly in the universe has yet been discovered by science. Therefore, science cannot know everything. However, the imagination (a natural brain function) can envision and base systems and plans on things that are not included in the current data bank available to science. In many, possibly all ways, science lags behind imagination and follows the direction of imagination.

But the further from the currently available bank of known data the imagination strays, the less it can be expressed by the language or methods of science. That is when expression moves into art and, yes, religion. You think that the history of scientific advancement replacing religious and artistic descriptions of the natural world is proof that science is replacing religion (but not art?). I would say that, instead, it goes to show that religion, like art, is out on the edges of thought, beyond the reach of science, in places where imagination is pushing the envelope on expressible thought.

Science will not make religion obsolete because religion talks about things the imagination can encompass but which science is not equipped to express yet. As long as imagination continues to expand, then there will always be a place for religion, out beyond the reaches of science.

This I certainly agree with you about.


But this I don't agree with.

I think science absolutely does take over the questions that religions purport to answer.

Once upon a time, when people got sick they would ask, "Why me, Lord, why?" Nowadays, it's medicine that answers them. You got sick because of this virus, because of this inherited condition, because of this accident, because of this natural and material event.
That is "how this condition?," not "why me?"

Once upon a time, when disasters befell people, they would ask, "Why us, Lord?" Nowadays, scientists explain why that hurricane formed, why that earthquake hit, why that flood swept away your home.
That is "how this destruction?", not "why us?"

And for time out of memory people have been asking why we are here and what our purpose is. Science has provided more answers to that question in the last 50 years than religion has provided in 5000 years.
Now we're back to the beginning of this post. Science has provided answers as to what the purpose of humanity is? Really? Shit, I must have missed a whole slew of memos. CC me?

Please be clear: I'm not saying science is all-knowing or all-powerful. Science is something that PEOPLE do, and people are finite and imperfect mortal critters. Science isn't always right, and science certainly doesn't have all the answers we want yet. My point is simply that there's not a single question that religion can answer which science can't answer BETTER, and that's why there's so much tension.
The bolded part reveals a bias. I would think that as one who values the scientific method, you would question and examine that bias. I look at it and I see the flip side of the religionist's argument that religion is better than science. Both seem to me to be making claims for their preferred school of thought, that the schools cannot match up to.

yes, but god damn it what does Caesar WANT! am I allowed to deduct travel costs for pro bono work as work expenses?

Answer me jesus!
That's why God created CPAs.

Not through strictly scientific discourse, you can't use experimentation and empirical data to answer a question like that for instance.

i'm not so sure. suppose it turns out that we actually can experimentally demonstrate the existence of the multiverse, and that various universes each wind up with their own set of physical laws and such. then the answer to questions like "why do we have these laws of physics?" could be determinable by some combination of chance and initial conditions.

granted, there presumably is eventually a wall, beyond which there are no more fundamental explanations to be had. though at that point, the best anybody could offer for why this and not something else will be a shrug of the shoulders (provided it isn't ultimately somehow a feature of necessity, of course)

That's why God created CPAs.

I'm pretty sure that was the devil.

I'm pretty sure that was the devil.
NO. When I was running my business, my account kept me out of so much trouble... Even now, she makes sure I understand the pitfalls of making certain investments that I start out infatuated with. They really are a godsend. Maybe not literally, but ...

Except that you have yet to show that "behemoth" means "Dinosaur" and not just "generic large animal" or "elephant." And that last line has nothing to do with eating plants out of immense trees.

Behemoth (actually behemot) is usually the plural of 'behema', which mostly in modern Hebrew refers to animals like cows, sheep, goats, etc'... But the wording is kind of weird in the referred sentence, so it might refer to a specific animal at that point after all.

Edit: Further research indicates that the proper Hebrew name for the Hippopotamus (usually referred to as a 'hippopotam') is 'behemot'. So perhaps that could be it.

. . .

. . .

Are you serious?
Yes, I am.

Were you?

(I thought you were joking.)

Really? Science answers the question of "why do conscious beings exist?" or "why does life exist?"

yes. or at least attempts to.

"science doesn't answer 'why?' questions" ranks up there with "you can't prove a negative" and "evolution is only a theory" in terms of poorly thought out cliches that crop up in these arguments.

Sorry. I'm a born teacher, and I did promise to address any point he cared to raise.
If I followed the Catholic religion, I'd nominate you for sainthood for it. :D

NO. When I was running my business, my account kept me out of so much trouble... Even now, she makes sure I understand the pitfalls of making certain investments that I start out infatuated with. They really are a godsend. Maybe not literally, but ...

That, or Satan's watching your back. :p

But you're right, they're not bad.

1) I thought Mura was a she?
2) Did you READ my post? Please tell me you didn't read it. Please. Because, like, I'd hate to have just started getting back into NSG and have to flee again just to preserve me intelligence and humor.
Yes, Mura is a she, and yes, I did know you were joking, but I was still serious -- or as serious as I get about ID. :D

Yes, I am.

Were you?

(I thought you were joking.)

Of course I was joking, hence my confusion and fear at a serious response!

Yes, Mura is a she, and yes, I did know you were joking, but I was still serious -- or as serious as I get about ID. :D

Oh Praise the Lord!

I think the most likely explanation is that Mur saw the beginning of your post, went "graargh" and skipped over the rest. :p
No, no, I knew he was joking!!! Gah!!! Now I'm in all kinds of trouble. How did I get into this bramble bush?

Well, then we get into what I call the "Moby-Dick question" - essentially, when bad things happen to you, is it worse to believe that there is some larger purpose behind those bad things, or that the bad things are just entirely random? That's a question to which there is no correct or universal answer, but I can understand both sides of it.
That point, I think, is too deep for a lot of people nowadays.*

But it is very true. Many people will experience a violently unpleasant emotional reaction to the idea that there is no rhyme or reason to the events of life. Other people will feel an equally violently unpleasant emotional reaction to the idea that there is some purpose to the bad shit that happens to them.

For myself, I don't really care either way. Perhaps it is easier to live with an uncaring universe if one is equally indifferent. Likewise, perhaps it is easier to live with the thought of a malicious god, if one does not care about that god. In any event, it seems to be much easier to reconcile such questions if one does not happen to be a follower of the Abrahamic god.


(*Reveals bias: I think most people are idiots.)

why do people get sick?
why do dogs walk on four legs rather than two?
why is the sky blue?
why do planets orbit in ellipses?

why? is the fundamental question of all explanatory enterprises.


and unless we are willing to say that any response constitutes an answer, it is difficult to hold that religion answers anything at all.

You musnt think that i dont like science. I love science and i am fascinated by it. Because everything that ever was, is and will ever be already exists. We just have yet to discover it. ex) in 1970, you would never believe that you could have a wireless cell phone wherever you go. You said that and people would have laughed at you. now we can't live without it.

People get sick mainly because of germs. The slow deterioration of all matter caused by the fall of man. dogs walk on all 4 because that is their genetic make up. They were made that way. Im pretty sure no one has ever seen an upright dog.The sky is blue because the light reflecting off the ocean gives our sky a hue of blue. Planets orbit because electromagnetic fields created with in the planets ( N and S pole) and tht of the sun and the moons.
God made everything. Science is just our way of understanding things around us. Religion kills, Jesus saves. Jesus didnt die to make a religion. Jesus died to save us from our transgressions and ressurected. So what a true christian is, is not a religion but a relationship with God. Had Jesus stayed dead, then its a religon but i assure you the end times are here, and like a thief in the night, Jesus is coming.

sky is blue because the light reflecting off the ocean gives our sky a hue of blue.

Wait, what?

Planets orbit because electromagnetic fields created with in the planets ( N and S pole) and tht of the sun and the moons.

Wait, what?

Jesus is coming.

Quick, everybody look busy!

The sky is blue because the light reflecting off the ocean gives our sky a hue of blue.

I thought the sky was blue because the blue wavelength is shorter, and so refracts from particles in the air, and that the seas are blue because they reflect the sky?

No, no, I knew he was joking!!! Gah!!! Now I'm in all kinds of trouble. How did I get into this bramble bush?

Dubsy is a she, too!

Also, more important question, how can I get into your bush? (Sans brambles, if it's all the same. . . )

why do people get sick?
why do dogs walk on four legs rather than two?
why is the sky blue?
why do planets orbit in ellipses?

why? is the fundamental question of all explanatory enterprises.


and unless we are willing to say that any response constitutes an answer, it is difficult to hold that religion answers anything at all.
Okay, then point me to the scientific answers for some the "why" questions I posited.

However, if all you're going to do is play your usual version of "gotcha" by pouncing on the fact that there are some "why" questions that science obviously answers (like "why is the sky blue?") and suggest that this invalidates my statement that religion answers "why" questions (because obviously, it doesn't answer ALL possible "why" questions), then you can go...do something with that.

I thought the sky was blue because the blue wavelength is shorter, and so refracts from particles in the air, and that the seas are blue because they reflect the sky?

No no no. Water is naturally blue - haven't you ever gotten a glass from the tap before?

What's that you say? I shouldn't drink tap water in Somalia?

(*Reveals bias: I think most people are idiots.)

Unfortunately, this is something you can't really "Believe" in, per se, as observation clearly proves it to be true.

Man, I'm sure that parallels with something

I actually must thank Jhapo, because while searching for confirmation of what I thought was true I finally found out why the sky looks purple-ish when I look at it from underwater.

You musnt think that i dont like science. I love science and i am fascinated by it. Because everything that ever was, is and will ever be already exists. We just have yet to discover it. ex) in 1970, you would never believe that you could have a wireless cell phone wherever you go. You said that and people would have laughed at you. now we can't live without it.

People get sick mainly because of germs. The slow deterioration of all matter caused by the fall of man. dogs walk on all 4 because that is their genetic make up. They were made that way. Im pretty sure no one has ever seen an upright dog.The sky is blue because the light reflecting off the ocean gives our sky a hue of blue. Planets orbit because electromagnetic fields created with in the planets ( N and S pole) and tht of the sun and the moons.
God made everything. Science is just our way of understanding things around us. Religion kills, Jesus saves. Jesus didnt die to make a religion. Jesus died to save us from our transgressions and ressurected. So what a true christian is, is not a religion but a relationship with God. Had Jesus stayed dead, then its a religon but i assure you the end times are here, and like a thief in the night, Jesus is coming.

1) Wrong. It's actually the result of the Rayleigh scattering of sunlight off the particles in the earth's atmosphere.

2) Wrong. The planets orbit the sun because of the gravitational well created by the mass of the Sun.

You are scientifically illiterate.

yes. or at least attempts to.

"science doesn't answer 'why?' questions" ranks up there with "you can't prove a negative" and "evolution is only a theory" in terms of poorly thought out cliches that crop up in these arguments.
Waiting for the link to the peer reviewed data.

No no no. Water is naturally blue - haven't you ever gotten a glass from the tap before?

What's that you say? I shouldn't drink tap water in Somalia?

Water IS blue, QI said so, don't argue with Stephen Fry, or he'll kill you with his mind.

No no no. Water is naturally blue - haven't you ever gotten a glass from the tap before?

What's that you say? I shouldn't drink tap water in Somalia?

Water actually is blue.

Water IS blue, QI said so, don't argue with Stephen Fry, or he'll kill you with his mind.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~etrnsfer/water.htm

I'm not sure you're wrong.

Watched a great show that Nova on PBS had on about the evolution vs creationism fight in US schools.

Judgement Day Intelligent design on Trial

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~etrnsfer/water.htm

I'm not sure you're wrong.

I didn't follow that link, but I can assure you at least 2 people have been killed by Mr. Fry's mind, and several more infected with Teh Gay.

Dubsy is a she, too!

Also, more important question, how can I get into your bush? (Sans brambles, if it's all the same. . . )
I'll mail it to you when I'm done using it. :p

Unfortunately, this is something you can't really "Believe" in, per se, as observation clearly proves it to be true.

Man, I'm sure that parallels with something
It does sound familiar.... hm...

I thought the sky was blue because the blue wavelength is shorter, and so refracts from particles in the air

Broadly correct, yes. One also must take into account our eyes are far more sensitive to blue than to violet, which in fact is the most scattered visible wavelength.

Or to rephrase: when we limit ourselves to the visible specrum, the sky is not blue but purple. But our eyes discriminate and refuse to see it that way.

I'll mail it to you when I'm done using it. :p


It does sound familiar.... hm...

Oh...oh my. Rawr. I'll be checking my mailbox.


Oh man, innuendo potential for "mailbox" is KILLING me.

. But our eyes discriminate and refuse to see it that way.

RACISTS!
And what do we do with racists?
BURN THEM!
And on what do we burn them?
MORE RACISTS!

Let's say you put an anti-bacterial soap on your hands once a day. The first time you do it, you are going to kill whole swaths of bacteria. But there will still be some bacteria that exist because they weren't killed by the disinfecting agents. If you notice on the bottle, it will say "Kills 99% of Germs!" because it would be disingenuous to claim to kill all the bacteria when that won't ever happen. So the bacteria that remain are genetically predisposed to not be killed by the sanitizer. These bacteria create more bacteria, and since the trait is hereditary, these new bacteria are also not effected by the sanitizer. These bacteria have evolved to not be effected - they did not mutate in order for this to happen, they simply were different. This is what "survival of the fittest" means, not whatever popular definition people like to use. When I say evolution is non-directional, I mean it. Evolution is a natural response to changes in the environment.


Of interest... http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070919_tw_clean_bacteria.html

In NASAs OWN ultra clean room "About 193 unique sequences--indicating 193 different bacterial "species"--were discovered, at least 13 of which were not known to science before."

Broadly correct, yes. One also must take into account our eyes are far more sensitive to blue than to violet, which in fact is the most scattered visible wavelength.

Or to rephrase: when we limit ourselves to the visible specrum, the sky is not blue but purple. But our eyes discriminate and refuse to see it that way.
My reality is much easier to live in. In my reality, the correct answer to "Why is the sky blue?" is "What the fuck are you asking me for? Do I look like a Public Answer Kiosk? Get a job, pest."

That is also the correct answer to "What color is water?"

It's the answer to quite a lot of questions, actually.

I always thought the sky was blue because it consists primarily of nitrogen which absorbs the other colors of the spectrum and reflects the blue spectrum. No clue why i thought that but sounded good enough to me at the time.

My reality is much easier to live in. In my reality, the correct answer to "Why is the sky blue?" is "What the fuck are you asking me for? Do I look like a Public Answer Kiosk? Get a job, pest."


http://cectic.com/comics/005.png

Source: http://cectic.com/005.html

Assuming steady progressions is giving evolution the benefit of the doubt. Because if we assume it has happened quickly in the past, the question is - why doesn't it happen quickly to complex organisms now?

Looks like someone's never heard of punctuated equilibrium.

Ah, my favorite. I remember when evolutionists argued that the earth was 1 million years old, 100 million years old, 500 million years old, 1 billion years old, and now apparently six billion years old.

I remember when McDonald's gave me a wrong order. This means fast food restaurants are incompetent and wrong on all things.

Here's a hint: Just because mathematicians show that your theory can't work in the time allotted, doesn't mean you can arbitrarily make the earth older.

Burn, strawman, burn.

To point #2 - logical fallacy. Evolution assumes abiogenesis

This is clearly much more ridiculous than assuming the magic sky fairy did everything.

, which states among other things that all life evolved from single celled organisms, which do not have organs. How were these organs developed through random mutation?

Looks like someone just doesn't know what evolution is. This surprises me, it does.


Actually I was arguing the opposite, that for evolution to work, it should take a LOT of time, time which really isn't there.

Geology is just a trick by Satan.

There is no reason for evolution to exist without abiogenesis.

Ah, my favorite. The "inventing little rules that supposedly prove me right" phase.

Without abiogenesis, the only alternative explanation is a supernatural creator.

I think Bigfoot did it.

A creator would not use a method of creation which depends on random chance for success.

1. Unless he was omnipotent. But that's a silly attribute to assign to, you know, God.
2. Again you apparently don't know what evolution is or how it works.
3. You'll whine ad hominem, but it's just an observation, not an argument. Contrary to public belief, "ad hominem" does not mean "you hurt my feelings."

There is also no reason for abiogenesis to exist apart from evolution. Abiogenesis is a thought experiment concocted to try to bolster the argument for evolution after the fact.

After the fact, as opposed to before. Scientists are now guilty of not using time travel.


Billions of years of random chance

Someone still thinks "evolution" is a synonym for "random chance."

Someone is practically inviting mockery.


vs
An organism that is incapable of surving in the wild without all the complex organs being designed at once, when evolutionary theory specifically argues that all enhancements to the original one-celled organism were developed incrementally.

The odds against are staggering, and I believe I have consistently demonstrated why it takes more than once - in fact it would take thousands of times rolling the dice at impossibly long odds to manufacture the thousands of discrete systems in a mammal through random chance

Once again.

Assuming that six billion years of random chance

and again.

there should be mutations happening all the time and dead failed organisms lying everywhere right now.

You have now made a strawman out of your own lack of understanding. Burning it is not very impressive.

In fact, we should not even be having this conversation, since most likely our ancestors would just be lumps of incomplete organic matter on a barren, plantless plain.

Ah, the old "We exist, therefore God created the universe" argument.

Why and how have conditions changed from a state where they could have supported an impossible sequence of events

Burn, baby, burn.


If life was deposited here by aliens, who created the space aliens?

God did! Oh wait, shit. I meant, Random Chance. Your penetrating logic and cunning false dichotomies have trapped me!

Or are we to assume that they evolved on a planet more favorable to random mutation AND developed to the point where the could commence interstellar travel? The assumptions boggle the mind.

Luckily the idea of God has never boggled anyone's mind or anything.

Source: http://cectic.com/005.html
Yeah, pretty much. My thinking on it is that if you make questioners go out and find their own answers, you can quickly tell the smart ones from the stupid ones just by watching how they try to find the answer.

EDIT: Also, it's entirely realistic that if Dada is your dad, you'll get three different answers to the same question. ;)

"Believe" in evolution, huh?

As in, do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in electricity? Do you believe in photosynthesis?

It's not a believe, it's a scientific theory. There's nothing to "believe" in.

You are 100% correct. To my mind the term "believe in" implies some degree of faith. The primary definition of "believe," according to Webster, is "to have a firm religious belief" and evolution is not a religion.

I think more proper would be to use the terms "accept" or "reject." "I accept the Theory of Evolution" strikes me as a more proper statement than "I believe in the Theory of Evolution."

Besides, whenever "believe" is used in relation to evolution it invariably leads someone to spout the creationist nonsense that evolution is a "religious world view" so teaching it violates the 1st Amendment as much as teaching creationism.

You are 100% correct. To my mind the term "believe in" implies some degree of faith. The primary definition of "believe," according to Webster, is "to have a firm religious belief" and evolution is not a religion.

I believe you are wrong because I believe you're using the obviously wrong definition instead of the one that actually fits the context.

Once again, to believe, (as in, "Do you believe in evolution") means "to accept as true, genuine or real."

Okay, then point me to the scientific answers for some the "why" questions I posited.

However, if all you're going to do is play your usual version of "gotcha" by pouncing on the fact that there are some "why" questions that science obviously answers (like "why is the sky blue?") and suggest that this invalidates my statement that religion answers "why" questions (because obviously, it doesn't answer ALL possible "why" questions), then you can go...do something with that.

its not about gotcha, its about rejecting a clearly false way of dividing science and religion. if anything, religion spends most of its time answering hows - how should we treat each other?, how do i get to the good afterlife?, etc. it only has one answer to why, and it's stupid. 'because the gods say so' is a fucking terrible answer, if we are even willing to count it as one at all.

scientific answers to "why do conscious beings exist?" and "why does life exist?" are still fairly tentative, but mainly center around chance, evolutionary advantages, and such.

Perhaps we could hold off the juvenile attacks on religion? They're quite unneccessary.

For the record, I'm a Christian and I believe solidly in evolution. There's no reason why any sort of deity couldn't do things logically.

That, or Satan's watching your back. :p

But you're right, they're not bad.
Now there's a scary thought. Wonder what he could possibly want. My first born? Or maybe that I keep suppressing the secret to cold fusion.

Okay. I'm quitting now. I just got a weird call on the voice-mail with no voice, only a bunch of whistly-howly sounds.

Maybe if I play it backwards, I'll find out that Paul really isn't dead.

I believe you are wrong because I believe you're using the obviously wrong definition instead of the one that actually fits the context.

whatever, the existence of definitions 1b and beyond is an abomination.

Job 40:15-24


15Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

Dinosaurs don't have navels.

Oh, and paleontological evidence suggests that sauropods avoided bodies of water.

I believe you are wrong because I believe you're using the obviously wrong definition instead of the one that actually fits the context.

Once again, to believe, (as in, "Do you believe in evolution") means "to accept as true, genuine or real."

You're correct that is a secondary definition. Note that I never said using "believe" is wrong, simply that "accept" is more proper. In fact, "believe" and "accept" are, in the definition you quote, synonyms. But I'm talking about "impressions;" specific words carry with them specific "impressions."

One of the first rules of propaganda is to get your side associated with what are known as "glittering generalities" or "virtue words" and the other side associated with "negative images." "Pro-choice" instead of "Pro-abortion" is a perfect example.

To my mind, while technically "believe" or "accept" could be used, "accept" implies "because of the facts" more than does "believe." Like I said before, "believe" implies faith. "I believe in God and the Bible and you believe in evolution so our beliefs are equal" is not where I want to start a conversation about evolution vs. creationism. Nor is it an accurate place to start the conversation.

A belief in God and the Bible is based upon faith; an acceptance of evolution is based upon evidence and "confidence" in the scientific method (or at least it should be). I never say "faith" in science or the scientific method either, I always use "confidence."

Precision matters and I find "accept" more precise than "believe." You are free to disagree.

Like I said before, "believe" implies faith.

not in normal conversation. it is only in one specific context that it even comes close.

You're correct that is a secondary definition. Note that I never said using "believe" is wrong, simply that "accept" is more proper. In fact, "believe" and "accept" are, in the definition you quote, synonyms. But I'm talking about "impressions;" specific words carry with them specific "impressions."

One of the first rules of propaganda is to get your side associated with what are known as "glittering generalities" or "virtue words" and the other side associated with "negative images." "Pro-choice" instead of "Pro-abortion" is a perfect example.

To my mind, while technically "believe" or "accept" could be used, "accept" implies "because of the facts" more than does "believe." Like I said before, "believe" implies faith. "I believe in God and the Bible and you believe in evolution so our beliefs are equal" is not where I want to start a conversation about evolution vs. creationism. Nor is it an accurate place to start the conversation.

A belief in God and the Bible is based upon faith; an acceptance of evolution is based upon evidence and "confidence" in the scientific method (or at least it should be). I never say "faith" in science or the scientific method either, I always use "confidence."

Precision matters and I find "accept" more precise than "believe." You are free to disagree.

"Believe" is perfectly valid and "proper." But I take it your point is that Americans in general don't know this and answered the way they did as a result.

Doesn't really do a lot to restore my "belief" in humanity.

EDIT: Also, it's entirely realistic that if Dada is your dad, you'll get three different answers to the same question. ;)

Hehe, yup, I was going to make a joke about a fourth panel with "Dada dad" in which the answer was, "Squiggle bonk sheep noodle," but I see you beat me to the punch. :p

Hehe, yup, I was going to make a joke about a fourth panel with "Dada dad" in which the answer was, "Squiggle bonk sheep noodle," but I see you beat me to the punch. :p

you, check your TGs.

...and like a thief in the night, Jesus is coming.

Great. Like I didn't have enough to worry about, some dusty hippy is now gonna try and nick my shit.

You're correct that is a secondary definition. Note that I never said using "believe" is wrong, simply that "accept" is more proper. In fact, "believe" and "accept" are, in the definition you quote, synonyms. But I'm talking about "impressions;" specific words carry with them specific "impressions."

Correct. Hence why I strongly favour changing the word "theory" when used for a scientific theory into something else (And at the same time get rid of the word "law" as well). I do not know what yet though.

Correct. Hence why I strongly favour changing the word "theory" when used for a scientific theory into something else (And at the same time get rid of the word "law" as well). I do not know what yet though.

I strongly favor not dumbing-down the language just because our children is no longer learning it properly.

I strongly favor not dumbing-down the language just because our children is no longer learning it properly.

Well, in the case of removing "law" from the non-math science vocabulary it would not be "dumbing down" - but making things more accurate.

I however fear that the meaning of the word theory in scientific theory, despite it being quite accurate, unfortunately is not known by the overwhelming majority of people. No evidence for that - just a feeling.
While we can blame education, we need a solution.

you, check your TGs.

Checked and replied. :)

Well, in the case of removing "law" from the non-math science vocabulary it would not be "dumbing down" - but making things more accurate.

I however fear that the meaning of the word theory in scientific theory, despite it being quite accurate, unfortunately is not known by the overwhelming majority of people. No evidence for that - just a feeling.
While we can blame education, we need a solution.

The solution is education. If the majority of people are that ignorant, it is the one and only solution. Indulging their ignorance would be the wrong thing, and would just invite more. And really, once they find out "We're changing the use of the word 'theory' in science" the Creationist crowd would scream, "Aha! See? See? They're changing the word because they know we're right" and proceed to proclaim victory.

The solution is education. If the majority of people are that ignorant, it is the one and only solution.

But creationists are already, and as it seems quite succesfully, directing education in a different direction. How do you propose we stop them ?

But creationists are already, and as it seems quite succesfully, directing education in a different direction. How do you propose we stop them ?

Tasers.

Tasers.

http://prnewser.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/donttasemet.jpg

It won't be God they plead to in their final moments.

But creationists are already, and as it seems quite succesfully, directing education in a different direction. How do you propose we stop them ?

By mocking their ignorance of language. If you change the definitions to accompany their ignorance you take away our ability to mock them for it.

By mocking their ignorance of language. If you change the definitions to accompany their ignorance you take away our ability to mock them for it.

That is being done. It does not work - the mocking even creates sympathy for the poor, mocked creationists.

By mocking their ignorance of language. If you change the definitions to accompany their ignorance you take away our ability to mock them for it.

You're going to correct the actions of people who believe in the superiority of old books over wealths of evidence.... by mocking their ignorance?

Are you going to start a charity where people have sponsored sex, to promote virginity?

That is being done. It does not work - the mocking even creates sympathy for the poor, mocked creationists.

What you propose however, is legitimizing and validating their 'cause.' It's still not a good idea.

its not about gotcha, its about rejecting a clearly false way of dividing science and religion. if anything, religion spends most of its time answering hows - how should we treat each other?, how do i get to the good afterlife?, etc. it only has one answer to why, and it's stupid. 'because the gods say so' is a fucking terrible answer, if we are even willing to count it as one at all.

scientific answers to "why do conscious beings exist?" and "why does life exist?" are still fairly tentative, but mainly center around chance, evolutionary advantages, and such.
Actually, in your case, I think it's more about being a prick towards me -- when you're talking to me, that is. I can think of no other reason in either science or religion for why you consistently post responses that are not actually responsive to what I say, why you constantly sidestep my points and then pretend to have defeated them, and why you so consistently fall to berating and insulting me just because I'm more interested in the points I actually made than the ones you wish I had made. Since I am anticipating, based on other recent conversations with you, that you are gearing up to doing that again here, I think I'll just say this:

Your response, above, is nothing more than a paraphrased repetition of what you said before. It adds nothing nor does it counter what I said. Therefore, I conclude you have nothing further to say in response to my points. I'm going to talk to other people and address their counter arguments now.

If you do come up with something additional or more responsive that actually moves the conversation forward, I will address that.

Hehe, yup, I was going to make a joke about a fourth panel with "Dada dad" in which the answer was, "Squiggle bonk sheep noodle," but I see you beat me to the punch. :p
There was one Dadaist -- dammit I can't remember his name right now -- who would have just pulled out his WW1 service revolver and started shooting at the kid. He was rumored to have done that at the theater once. :D

Well, in the case of removing "law" from the non-math science vocabulary it would not be "dumbing down" - but making things more accurate.

I however fear that the meaning of the word theory in scientific theory, despite it being quite accurate, unfortunately is not known by the overwhelming majority of people. No evidence for that - just a feeling.
While we can blame education, we need a solution.
I think the entire evolution/creationism debate is evidence that people who are not scientists don't understand what scientists mean by the word "theory."

I think the entire evolution/creationism debate is evidence that people who are not scientists don't understand what scientists mean by the word "theory."

I think the entire evolution/creationism debate is evidence that people who are not scientists don't understand science in general.

I think the entire evolution/creationism debate is evidence that people who are not scientists don't understand science in general.
*reads some posts in current thread* Very true.

*reads some posts in current thread* Very true.

did you know that the earth orbits the sun due to electromagnatism?

Although, according to GUFT, this may, technically, be true....

So 75% of Americans either accepts evolution as a factual explanation of the means by which life developed on Earth (which it is) or is presently not informed enough to commit either way. Not too bad...I think that figure is considerably improved from polls in the past which is a good sign. Personally, I think a lot of religious people are starting to realize a God that creates through a process as amazing as evolution is a lot more majestic and awe-inspiring than the half-assed God parroted by the Creationist movement.

did you know that the earth orbits the sun due to electromagnatism?

Although, according to GUFT, this may, technically, be true....

Only by the most stretched of definitions of GUFT. Even if it were all one unified force, the poster was clearly referring to a single particular manifestation of that force, one that we've known from pretty much the beginning of astronomy and E&M has fuckall to do with planetary orbits.

did you know that the earth orbits the sun due to electromagnatism?

Although, according to GUFT, this may, technically, be true....
Nor did I know that humans evolved from chimpanzees or that the sky is blue because it reflects the water.

Sigh.

You musnt think that i dont like science. I love science and i am fascinated by it.


People get sick mainly because of germs.

pathogens but close enough


The slow deterioration of all matter caused by the fall of man.

Three laws of thermodynamics I'm afraid

dogs walk on all 4 because that is their genetic make up.

true

They were made that way.

not true, actually fairly impossible.

Im pretty sure no one has ever seen an upright dog.

true

The sky is blue because the light reflecting off the ocean gives our sky a hue of blue. Planets orbit because electromagnetic fields created with in the planets ( N and S pole) and tht of the sun and the moons.

not true. you need to work on that


God made everything.

impossible. God would have had to make god. see the issue?

Science is just our way of understanding things around us. Religion kills,

true

Jesus saves. Jesus didnt die to make a religion. Jesus died to save us from our transgressions and ressurected.

debatable

So what a true christian is, is not a religion but a relationship with God. Had Jesus stayed dead, then its a religon but i assure you the end times are here, and like a thief in the night, Jesus is coming.
. . . ifn you say so.

Only by the most stretched of definitions of GUFT. Even if it were all one unified force, the poster was clearly referring to a single particular manifestation of that force, one that we've known from pretty much the beginning of astronomy and E&M has fuckall to do with planetary orbits.

although it is interesting to wonder what the effect of E&M from the sun would have on the earth's magnetism.

You musnt think that i dont like science.

i don't recall addressing you in the post you responded to at all, actually

Actually, in your case, I think it's more about being a prick towards me -- when you're talking to me, that is. I can think of no other reason in either science or religion for why you consistently post responses that are not actually responsive to what I say, why you constantly sidestep my points and then pretend to have defeated them, and why you so consistently fall to berating and insulting me just because I'm more interested in the points I actually made than the ones you wish I had made. Since I am anticipating, based on other recent conversations with you, that you are gearing up to doing that again here, I think I'll just say this:

Your response, above, is nothing more than a paraphrased repetition of what you said before. It adds nothing nor does it counter what I said. Therefore, I conclude you have nothing further to say in response to my points. I'm going to talk to other people and address their counter arguments now.

If you do come up with something additional or more responsive that actually moves the conversation forward, I will address that.

and i think a significant amount of our online relationship is entirely in your head.

yes, i respond to the silly things you say by pointing out that they are silly (in this case, by pointing out the existence of how questions that religion concerns itself with and why questions that drive science, which fatally undermines the idea that science and religion can be distinguished on the basis of how vs. why). but i do likewise to the silly things a large number of people say.

although it is interesting to wonder what the effect of E&M from the sun would have on the earth's magnetism.

Indirectly a shit ton. The sun's solar winds have a noticeable effect on the earth's magnetic field, and can actually be measured with a sensitive enough magnetometer in an area that is electromagnetically quiet enough not to pick up the background.

My lab actually runs a mag out in northwest NJ for just that very reason, measuring the earth's magnetic field over time, and matching this up with known solar activity.

Indirectly a shit ton. The sun's solar winds have a noticeable effect on the earth's magnetic field, and can actually be measured with a sensitive enough magnetometer in an area that is electromagnetically quiet enough not to pick up the background.

My lab actually runs a mag out in northwest NJ for just that very reason, measuring the earth's magnetic field over time, and matching this up with known solar activity.
big enough solar flare can cause electronic disruptions in sun ward side cities

dogs walk on all 4 because that is their genetic make up. They were made that way. Im pretty sure no one has ever seen an upright dog.
You've never seen a dog that hurt both its front legs?

I strongly favor not dumbing-down the language just because our children is no longer learning it properly.

Evolutionary Theorem, perhaps?

tbh, I don't "believe in the theory of evolution". I KNOW about the theory of Evolution.
I KNOW it's been 'proven' to my satisfaction.
as far as I'm concerned. Evolution is how God created life. and NO, I am NOT a Bible Literalist.

tbh, I don't "believe in the theory of evolution". I KNOW about the theory of Evolution.
I KNOW it's been 'proven' to my satisfaction.

to know something necessarily involves believing it

to know something necessarily involves believing it

I 'know' that Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate, but I certainly don't 'believe' it...

"Darkness over the surface of the deep."

How can there be a SURFACE to something that doesn't exist?

Doesn't matter. It's just a creation myth, no more or less credible than the idea that I, Trostia, created the universe by farting loudly. Which is true, I did.
Edit: That or it could be interpreted as being still part of a nebula, and thus a gas.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

As I said - reading the first page of the good Book is such hard work.

Very well then, what was the light he created and separated early in the chapeter?

I 'know' that Jesus is supposed to be God incarnate, but I certainly don't 'believe' it...

yes you do. as a necessary condition of knowing that jesus is supposed to be god incarnate, you believe that jesus is supposed to be god incarnate. this in no way implies that you believe he actually is, of course.

yes you do. as a necessary condition of knowing that jesus is supposed to be god incarnate, you believe that jesus is supposed to be god incarnate. this in no way implies that you believe he actually is, of course.

I know that evolution is supposed to be the mechanism that science considers most likely , but that doesn't mean I believe it actually IS the mechanism...

Right?

I know that evolution is supposed to be the mechanism that science considers most likely , but that doesn't mean I believe it actually IS the mechanism...

Right?

i think so, if i follow your meaning. basically, if i know that x, then i believe that x. i cannot know that x without believing it.

i think so, if i follow your meaning. basically, if i know that x, then i believe that x. i cannot know that x without believing it.

I know that OTHERS might 'believe'. That doesn't mean I believe.

The post you were responding to said that someone knows about the theory, and has seen sufficient evidence to 'prove' it - that doesn't mean that person believes it.

I know that OTHERS might 'believe'. That doesn't mean I believe.

The post you were responding to said that someone knows about the theory, and has seen sufficient evidence to 'prove' it - that doesn't mean that person believes it.

your reading makes J's statement insane

your reading makes J's statement insane

No, your idea that belief and knoweldge are intimately connected makes.... everything... insane.

In my experience, people 'believe' things because they DON'T know something.

Belief is part of the definition of knowledge. While there are some quibbles over the full definition, there are two basic components that are not argued. Simply,

X knows that Y is true if
1. Y is true
2. X believes Y is true

Belief is part of the definition of knowledge. While there are some quibbles over the full definition, there are two basic components that are not argued. Simply,

X knows that Y is true if
1. Y is true
2. X believes Y is true

I think your 'definition' is horseshit, sorry.

One can 'know' something is 'true'... without it BEING true. So - your definition falls down on it's first condition. Being 'true' is not a condition of knowledge. And I don't believe it intrinsically follows that 'x must believe y' to know it, and you certainly don't support it.

Deduction allows us to have knowledge of things that can be both not-true AND not-believed. I think your definition is an orphan.

You musnt think that i dont like science. I love science and i am fascinated by it. Because everything that ever was, is and will ever be already exists. We just have yet to discover it. ex) in 1970, you would never believe that you could have a wireless cell phone wherever you go. You said that and people would have laughed at you. now we can't live without it.

People get sick mainly because of germs. The slow deterioration of all matter caused by the fall of man. dogs walk on all 4 because that is their genetic make up. They were made that way. Im pretty sure no one has ever seen an upright dog.The sky is blue because the light reflecting off the ocean gives our sky a hue of blue. Planets orbit because electromagnetic fields created with in the planets ( N and S pole) and tht of the sun and the moons.
God made everything. Science is just our way of understanding things around us. Religion kills, Jesus saves. Jesus didnt die to make a religion. Jesus died to save us from our transgressions and ressurected. So what a true christian is, is not a religion but a relationship with God. Had Jesus stayed dead, then its a religon but i assure you the end times are here, and like a thief in the night, Jesus is coming.

That's it, I'm calling Poe on this one. No one can make that many false statement's straight faced.

One can 'know' something is 'true'... without it BEING true. So - your definition falls down on it's first condition. Being 'true' is not a condition of knowledge.

bullshit. one can mistakenly believe something to be true - mistakenly claim to know it. but if it isn't true, then they don't actually know it.

tbh, I don't "believe in the theory of evolution". I KNOW about the theory of Evolution.
I KNOW it's been 'proven' to my satisfaction.


As in, the amount of proof sufficient for you to believe the theory to be true.

One can 'know' something is 'true'... without it BEING true. .

Show one example.

bullshit. one can mistakenly believe something to be true - mistakenly claim to know it. but if it isn't true, then they don't actually know it.

Bullshit.

My mother in law knows that Jesus was God, incarnate.

She knows this - even though it may not be true. Truth has never been a condition of knowledge.

My mother in law knows that Jesus was God, incarnate.


No she doesn't, unless you literally speak a different language.

Bullshit.

My mother in law knows that Jesus was God, incarnate.

She knows this - even though it may not be true. Truth has never been a condition of knowledge.

billy knows that 2+2=19

really?

As in, the amount of proof sufficient for you to believe the theory to be true.

My guess - no.

I, personally, don't believe that the theory of evolution is 'true'. I happily admit it looks supported by the evidence, but could be competely wrong... and it just really LOOKS like it's right.

I don't 'believe' the theory to be true - but the amount of proof is sufficient for me to accept it as though it were. It's an assumption, and it's open to change.

billy knows that 2+2=19

really?

I think you're trying to suggest that knowledge is a condition of truth, now?

big enough solar flare can cause electronic disruptions in sun ward side cities

Yup. And even small scale solar activity can be picked up by sensitive enough equipment. The ideal case is to have satellites measuring this as well, and seeing the effects on the earth's magnetic field at every level.

Sadly, satellites cost a shit ton of money.

My guess - no.

I, personally, don't believe that the theory of evolution is 'true'. I happily admit it looks supported by the evidence, but could be competely wrong... and it just really LOOKS like it's right.

I don't 'believe' the theory to be true - but the amount of proof is sufficient for me to accept it as though it were. It's an assumption, and it's open to change.

You believe it's currently the most likely to be true then.

I think you're trying to suggest that knowledge is a condition of truth, now?

suppose billy tells you that he knows 2+2=19. what the hell do you say to him?

No she doesn't, unless you literally speak a different language.

Unless I speak a different language?

She's told me she knows it to be true - and I have to say, she's not unusual among Christians I've talked to, or heard speaking. I was listening to... Jack Graham, I think?...yesterday, on my way to work, and he was preaching the same thing to an audience of thousands.

Apparently, YOU are speaking the different language.

You believe it's currently the most likely to be true then.

No, and that's not contained in my post.

I think you're trying to suggest that knowledge is a condition of truth, now?

Knowledge is, at a basic level, a subset of belief that relates to things that we hold to be true within a high degree of certainty.

However, what we hold to be true and what is true for everyone else doesn't always mesh.

*nod*

Unless I speak a different language?

She's told me she knows it to be true - and I have to say, she's not unusual among Christians I've talked to, or heard speaking. I was listening to... Jack Graham, I think?...yesterday, on my way to work, and he was preaching the same thing to an audience of thousands.

Apparently, YOU are speaking the different language.

You're missing the point. Just because someone SAYS they know something to be true, doesn't mean they actually do.

suppose billy tells you that he knows 2+2=19. what the hell do you say to him?

That rather depends. If 'Billy' is a metaphor for my own kid, I do the math with him.

If 'Billy' is an adult, claiming it as a statement of faith, I tell him 'whatever'.

I think the answer you're LOOKING for, is that I tell him he's wrong. Which is exactly what I've been saying - being 'true' is not a condition of being 'known'.

No, and that's not contained in my post.

Well it's still a little ambiguous what your position is, but I'm betting I can apply belief to it, whatever it is. How about this - you believe it is pragmatic to accept the theory as true.

You're missing the point. Just because someone SAYS they know something to be true, doesn't mean they actually do.

You're right. None of us really 'knows' anything.

You're right. None of us really 'knows' anything.

Sure we do. We know tautological truths for instance.

Well it's still a little ambiguous what your position is, but I'm betting I can apply belief to it, whatever it is.

I bet you WILL apply belief to it, whatever it is.

But again, that isn't a reflection of any degree of truth.

Sure we do. We know tautological truths for instance.

I was just trying to agree with your insane 'people don't know what they know' assertion.

I bet you WILL apply belief to it, whatever it is.

But again, that isn't a reflection of any degree of truth.

What other options are there? There's belief, there's knowledge, or there is no knowledge or belief. You surely don't KNOW that accepting the theory as true is pragmatic (unless you have proof), so we are only left with you believing it to be pragmatic.

I was just trying to agree with your insane 'people don't know what they know' assertion.

They know what they think, doesn't mean what they think is true.

What other options are there? There's belief, there's knowledge, or there is no knowledge or belief. You surely don't KNOW that accepting the theory as true is pragmatic (unless you have proof), so we are only left with you believing it to be pragmatic.

I accept the theory of evolution as rational, well-supported, and a good assumption.

Which implies neither 'knowledge' nor 'belief'.

I accept the theory of evolution as rational, well-supported, and a good assumption.

Which implies neither 'knowledge' nor 'belief'.

The definition of belief is to 'accept as true'.

They know what they think, doesn't mean what they think is true.

Which I said before (truth is not a required condition for knowledge), no?

Which I said before (truth is not a required condition for knowledge), no?

Yes it is. It is true that they think x, thus they know they think x. But it does depend on how you define knowledge.

I accept the theory of evolution as rational, well-supported, and a good assumption.

Which implies neither 'knowledge' nor 'belief'.

yes, it does. belief is just a cognitive state of accepting some proposition.

The definition of belief is to 'accept as true'.

Is this another one of your definitions? Or is this a real one?

Regardless - I didn't say I 'accept as true'. I use the assumption.

Is this another one of your definitions? Or is this a real one?

Regardless - I didn't say I 'accept as true'. I use the assumption.

Ok, you accept that it is rational. Therefore, you accept the fact that it is rational, as true, for instance.

yes, it does. belief is just a cognitive state of accepting some proposition.

And this sounds like more monkeynuts, I'm afraid.

I can 'accept the proposition' that Jesus was God, Incarnate, without coming even CLOSE to believing it.

And this sounds like more monkeynuts, I'm afraid.

I can 'accept the proposition' that Jesus was God, Incarnate, without coming even CLOSE to believing it.

Accepting for the sake of argument, is different from categorical acceptance.

This is the kind of argument that should be easily settled by looking at a dictionary.

This is the kind of argument that should be easily settled by looking at a dictionary.

Quite.

Yes it is. It is true that they think x, thus they know they think x. But it does depend on how you define knowledge.

Amusing:

"They know what they think, doesn't mean what they think is true" seem familiar?

This is the kind of argument that should be easily settled by looking at a dictionary.

indeed. or even just thinking about the math example.

Amusing:

"They know what they think, doesn't mean what they think is true" seem familiar?

Let me put it this way then. Just because someone thinks they know something, doesn't mean they actually know something.