Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 12-14-2001, 01:33 AM

Thanks for saying it for me IesusDomini

Of course they’re not mutually exclusive, though that is how they seem to have been portrayed. I wasn’t aware how verified PE now is -- perhaps under Gould’s influence, it seems to have received less coverage outside the States (or as Dawkins would doubtless put it, as a possible bit of extra theory, of no great consequence). As a criticism of constant-speedism, it’s valid, but I’m not sure anyone thought evolution worked at a constant speed anyway, certainly not recently.

Under Dawkins’s influence, I’m inclined to say that PE is neither really here nor there. I’m not sure it’s really an explanation of anything new: when you look closely enough, the smooth changes are still there; allopatric speciation is (was?) thought to be the principal sort (cf sympatric) anyway, and this automatically entails a punk eek type pattern in the record if the new species invades its ancestral territory. Maybe our numerous US experts can link me to some up-to-date info on how relevant PE is? The main article I’ve seen suggesting it's more than a superfluous addendum is <a href="http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196explorations.html" target="_blank">this SciAm article</a>. (Note it’s in an American publication

.)

Cheers, Oolon

wdog · 12-14-2001, 01:55 AM

Douglas,

In your post you said
" If one accepts that God...."

the point is we don't, and neither does science, so if you are going to offer us any reasonable explainations there can be no punting to god. Also accpeting that god did it IS a great leap of faith, but you are right once you accept that then one can accept almost anything...their lies the problem.

If you can just say that god did it and never mind the rest, I have a much simpler (therfore better?) belief. I know of a powerful dog that created all the universe 100 years ago. And he did so that everything would appear just as is does now to make us think it was untrue. My god trumphs yours since mine told me that he wants
you think what you do. Can you prove me wrong?

ok, ok so maybe that was a little out of line. But that is an example of unfalsifiable belief like yours.

aside to all,

I am new here and I can say that I am pleasantly surprised by the level of intellectual discussion in here. Not sure what I expected but this was on the high end. reading all the posts is an education in itself.

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Optics Guy ]

Secular Pinoy · 12-14-2001, 03:00 AM

Various DJB quotes.

Quote:

Maybe. Is there only one kind of plant that koalas can eat, or is it that they only strongly prefer one kind of plant? In any case, what would prevent a year's supply for two koalas on the Ark?

Can carnivores survive on fruits and vegetables, or are their bodies such that they cannot digest those foods? In any case, if one assumes that God created all the animals in the first place, then certainly He could cause all the animals to experience an extended "hibernation" during the Ark's journey, in which case they would not need much food or care at all.

How do I know that it is indigenous solely to the upper Amazon rain forest? Even if so, is it not true that the seeds of many plants can survive long periods, and great drought or floods, before germinating/sprouting/growing?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Wow, talk about total ignorance of biology. This is gonna be a slaughter. I can't look, I don't like the sight of blood. Who brought up the Ark anyway? Have you no pity! This is just overkill!

Jack the Bodiless · 12-14-2001, 03:16 AM

Quote:

...if one accepts that God created the animals in the first place, and that there actually was a global Flood, and that God directed all the animals to the Ark, then it is no great leap of imagination or faith to assume...

...that there should be at least SOME evidence of this!

Douglas, please THINK about what you're saying.

Sudden recent creation, followed by a recent worldwide Flood which left no geological trace, and an undisturbed fossil record which clearly shows common descent, with not a single fossil out of place...

There was no Flood. There was no Ark.

Therefore all discussion of these is fantasy. And irrelevant to any scientific debate.

hezekiah jones · 12-14-2001, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Douglas J. Bender:
Well, God said to Abraham that He would make his descendants as numerous as the stars, and also as numerous as the "sand of the sea". I'd say that the Israelites were not so blind as to think there were only a "couple thousand" grains of sand in the sea. In fact, in both cases, it is said that they "cannot be numbered for multitude".

Nice bit of doggerel, "God." And makes my point all the more. Not only were the Israelites unaware of stellar objects beyond those available to their unaided sight, they were too unsophisticated, or uninterested, or lazy, to count them. Great science text, that "Bereshit."

Quote:

Maybe; maybe not. So what?

"So what," there were no kangaroos on the ark? Okay.

Quote:

Two, since koalas are "unclean". They are "unclean" (they cannot be eaten, according to the restrictions in Leviticus).

Yet "God" didn't see fit to reveal these "restrictions" to anyone until long after the flood myths supposedly took place? Are you telling us Noah had access to the Book of Leviticus too? If so, I hope he and his wife had separate bedrooms on the ark so he could get away from her during her menstrual cycle.

Quote:

Maybe. Is there only one kind of plant that koalas can eat, or is it that they only strongly prefer one kind of plant? In any case, what would prevent a year's supply for two koalas on the Ark?

"Not all eucalypt species are suitable for Koala food - they feed from about 50 of the 500 or so species."

Not only do they exclusively prefer eucalyptus leaves, they prefer only 10% of the available species! Show us how Noah would have been aware of this particular zoological tidbit please, and that the proper species were selected, and how they were sustained on board a giant wooden boat for a year. Unless of course you consider "So what" an appropriate response to this as well.

Quote:

Can carnivores survive on fruits and vegetables, or are their bodies such that they cannot digest those foods? In any case, if one assumes that God created all the animals in the first place, then certainly He could cause all the animals to experience an extended "hibernation" during the Ark's journey, in which case they would not need much food or care at all.

And how exactly were the animals' metabolisms artificially induced to anticipate this extended hibernation? Another "miracle"? If your answer is "goddidit" then why this extended cock and bull flood myth at all? Why not just *poof*? Basically all you're doing is justifying all these alleged "miracles" with yet another schedule of increasingly absurd and nonsensical "miracles."

Quote:

How do I know that it is indigenous solely to the upper Amazon rain forest? Even if so, is it not true that the seeds of many plants can survive long periods, and great drought or floods, before germinating/sprouting/growing?

It matters not whether you know what species are indigenous to the Amazon rain forest. The question is: How did Noah know what is indigenous to the Amazon rain forest? So now you're saying that Noah gathered the seeds for all the species indigenous to everywhere else on earth aside from his local area? Do you have some evidence for this? Even a Bible verse will do. (Preferably a Bible verse that does not appear chronologically later than the alleged flood myth.)

Quote:

If you mean, "manure", then the 800-year-old Noah was not "mucking out" any on any basis, since he was only 600 years old when the Flood came.

Oh, good answer. Not quite up to your regular standard of cleverness though, even though you've completely sidestepped the question.

Quote:

However, as I mentioned earlier, if one accepts that God created the animals in the first place, and that there actually was a global Flood, and that God directed all the animals to the Ark, then it is no great leap of imagination or faith to assume that God caused all the animals to experience an extended period of "hibernation", in which case there would have been little or no care necessary for them during the year-long journey of the Ark.

No, that doesn't take a leap of imagination at all. Plus, your suggestion has the decidedly added benefit of being excellent science.

Quote:

Yes. An "Enquiring" mind. But not willing to consider the answers sincerely.

I've considered them sincerely. Each one raises more questions than it answers. Exponentially, in fact. Did Jesus believe all this stuff too? Do your examples therefore represent the extent of Jesus' critical thinking ability? If so, he's about the dumbest divine being I've ever heard of.

calvaryson · 12-14-2001, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:

...that there should be at least SOME evidence of this!

Douglas, please THINK about what you're saying.

Sudden recent creation, followed by a recent worldwide Flood which left no geological trace, and an undisturbed fossil record which clearly shows common descent, with not a single fossil out of place...

There was no Flood. There was no Ark.

Therefore all discussion of these is fantasy. And irrelevant to any scientific debate.

I want to know what science you've been ignoring? The evidence clearly points to a world wide flood. Just close your eyes and breath and maybe it will go away.

hezekiah jones · 12-14-2001, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by calvaryson:
The evidence clearly points to a world wide flood.

Out with it, Sonny Boy.

Ransom1 · 12-14-2001, 04:59 AM

Quote:

The evidence clearly points to a world wide flood.

And if you chant this while clicking your heels three times, the Kent Hovind fairy will appear and give it to you.

-brett

RufusAtticus · 12-14-2001, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by calvaryson:
The evidence clearly points to a world wide flood.

Would you care to enlighten us to this evidence, sources and all? Extradordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

-RvFvS

Oolon Colluphid · 12-14-2001, 05:14 AM

I've opened a <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001532" target="_blank">new thread</a> for Flood / Ark-related discussions. Please continue this there, since it doesn't belong here, at least till it's directly raised in the formal debate.

Oolon

[Another bloomin' tyop

]

[ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

12-14-2001, 01:55 AM	#112
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	Douglas, In your post you said " If one accepts that God...." the point is we don't, and neither does science, so if you are going to offer us any reasonable explainations there can be no punting to god. Also accpeting that god did it IS a great leap of faith, but you are right once you accept that then one can accept almost anything...their lies the problem. If you can just say that god did it and never mind the rest, I have a much simpler (therfore better?) belief. I know of a powerful dog that created all the universe 100 years ago. And he did so that everything would appear just as is does now to make us think it was untrue. My god trumphs yours since mine told me that he wants you think what you do. Can you prove me wrong? ok, ok so maybe that was a little out of line. But that is an example of unfalsifiable belief like yours. aside to all, I am new here and I can say that I am pleasantly surprised by the level of intellectual discussion in here. Not sure what I expected but this was on the high end. reading all the posts is an education in itself. [ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Optics Guy ]</p>

12-14-2001, 05:14 AM	#120
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	I've opened a <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001532" target="_blank">new thread</a> for Flood / Ark-related discussions. Please continue this there, since it doesn't belong here, at least till it's directly raised in the formal debate. Oolon [Another bloomin' tyop ] [ December 14, 2001: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2001, 01:33 AM	#111
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Thanks for saying it for me IesusDomini Of course they’re not mutually exclusive, though that is how they seem to have been portrayed. I wasn’t aware how verified PE now is -- perhaps under Gould’s influence, it seems to have received less coverage outside the States (or as Dawkins would doubtless put it, as a possible bit of extra theory, of no great consequence). As a criticism of constant-speedism, it’s valid, but I’m not sure anyone thought evolution worked at a constant speed anyway, certainly not recently. Under Dawkins’s influence, I’m inclined to say that PE is neither really here nor there. I’m not sure it’s really an explanation of anything new: when you look closely enough, the smooth changes are still there; allopatric speciation is (was?) thought to be the principal sort (cf sympatric) anyway, and this automatically entails a punk eek type pattern in the record if the new species invades its ancestral territory. Maybe our numerous US experts can link me to some up-to-date info on how relevant PE is? The main article I’ve seen suggesting it's more than a superfluous addendum is <a href="http://www.sciam.com/explorations/072196explorations.html" target="_blank">this SciAm article</a>. (Note it’s in an American publication .) Cheers, Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.