Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bubba · 07-01-2002, 05:27 PM

Why in the F*** do these morons keep making this stuff up?? Don't they understand how silly this makes them really look? I can understand how some people, myself FORMERLY included, could be confused by creationist arguements. But this is the dumbest one yet.

Thanks, Oolon for your post. I didn't take Biology in high school and I'm having a lot of fun reading this stuff. I think I'm going to re-read a few of the books by the Leakys (sp?)

Bubba

Oolon Colluphid · 07-02-2002, 12:59 AM

And of course, ref A africanus being simply really old H sapiens, I somehow forgot the most obvious counter point: the �Taung child� skull, found by Dart in 1924:

The fact that its first molars had just started to erupt shows that it was a juvenile. And the position of its foramen magnum, where the spine joins the skull, is positioned forward relative to chimpanzees�, indicating that it was not an immature chimp, but an obligately bipedal creature.

Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 07-02-2002, 03:23 AM

Oh, and if anyone's wondering how we know what the back of that skull was like, it's because it came with a natural endocast (where the contents of the skull were replaced by minerals during fossilisation).

Oolon

Duvenoy · 07-02-2002, 04:00 AM

"This looks similar to Kent Hovind's claim that reptiles never stop growing so "dinosaurs" (scare quotes) are just lizards who lived a really long time by the grace of god before the flood."
-----------------------------

For once, Hovind is correct. Reptiles do indeed grow throughout their lives, although it slows to only slightly more than nothing as the animal ages.

Good for Kent, although he lost it all on 'dinos=lizards' and flood codswallop.

Well, I guess it's like the old sayin' sez: "Even a blind hog'll find an acorn once in a while."

doov

Ergaster · 07-02-2002, 06:10 AM

I'm here!

But it's been hot, muggy, and the computer has been undergoing "upgrades" (read--innards strewn all over the floor while hubby tries to figure out why nothing ever goes as smoothly as the manuals pretend they do). I haven't been able to get on the internet much lately.

Anyway, from what I can tell, you've done just fine. Although I'm not sure what a list of primitive traits will accomplish--you'll then just get a variation of "Lucy was a chimp" argument, I'm sure.

It looks as though your correspondent has been reading Jack Cuozzo,a creationist orthodontist who argues that Neanderthals are just really old Homo sapiens because human faces don't stop growing. Since the Bible (the last word on matters scientific) clearly states that humans did live to be several centuries old, it follows that Neanderthals are just old humans.

Or something like that (Cuozzo does not address the Neanderthal postcranial skeleton at all).

It does seem that your correspondent is otherwise completely clueless about human evolution, and likely does not even realize that Mrs. Ples is not even Homo, let alone Neanderthal.

I have no idea whatsoever where Cuozzo got this idea that human faces do not stop growing. From what I understand, he is not an incompetent orthodontist, and in a review of his book Buried Alive Colin Groves actually praises his anatomical knowledge and descriptive abilities, so it is a mystery how he comes to this conclusion. I suspect that he is confusing (either accidentally or deliberately) bone *remodelling* (which does continue throughout life) with "growth".

I've seen a lot of skulls of elderly Homo sapiens. None of them look remotely like the skulls of Neanderthals.

IIRC there is no sign of arthritis in the temporomandibular joint of Mrs. Ples (which is where you'd find it on a skull), although many Neanderthal skulls do show such degenerative changes. And FYI, there are osteophytic changes in the vertebrae of "Lucy" (lipping), but probably not arthritis.

Oolon Colluphid · 07-03-2002, 05:25 AM

Well I�ve had a reply, thought you�d all be interested. (I�ve added the paragraph breaks -- there were none in the original -- for ease of reading, hope they�re in the �intended� places

.)

Quote:

Dear [Oolon],

Thankyou so much for the info. web addresses, interesting thoughts ext. Not to be rude and I admit I've only ever read a post and an e-mail from you but you seem to be quite unhappy or perhaps irratable would be the better word. Your obviously very smart so perhaps you can afford to be a bit rude for lack of a better word, at least with me. On the other hand you must have considered my "in His Love" to be rude also. So for that I appologize.

It is quite interesting evolution vs creationism. I must confess I never would have thought anyone could seriously hold to evolution as the basis for life until I found the infidels web site. The good thing I've concluded however is that anyone who could seriously hold to this theory could just as easily and some would say more easily belive in God. More Specificly Christ. That's just my opinion though I'm sure you feel quite diffrently about it, so again I appologize.

You won't like this at all but I belive there is often enough a moral reason for beliveing in this theory. You must admit it conveniently frees you up to do what you like, dosen't it. Please don't let me sound like I'm putting you all down. We love you very much, and you for instance are probably a much better person than I am. But that dosen't matter, it really dosen't. I know you hate to hear this but you are dealing with a Christian so you can almost expect it. The only thing that matters is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ for which in the case that he does exist and in the case that He dosen't I will never regret, especially when this body dies.

A good argument against evolution except maybe theistic, I'm not sure, would be the life, death and resurection of Jesus Christ. I am a little better prepared to meet you on those grounds. What would you like to know? I am already writting another evolutionist from the web site to ask my questions about the theory or else I'd ask you. That and I think you would be kind of hard on me, the reason I picked her was because of the polite answeres I've seen her give people. Please remember I am a person just like you and we both have feelings. I have tried to keep yours in mind.

About the bible and I must make this quick because I don't type very fast and this is taking me forever. The three tests that you put a book of antiqity such as the bible under are the bibliografical test, the Internal evidence test and the external evidence test. Apply these to the bible and you will see that if you reject the its accuracy you must reject all documents of antiquity. The bible is far and beyond anything even close as far as these tests go. For example Homer(Illiad) written in 900 B.C./ earliest copy 400B.C. /Timespan: 500 yrs. Now hears the bible: new testament written in A.D.40-100 / Earliest copy A.D.125/Timespan: 25 yrs. Pretty neat a, also the # of copies for Homer is 643, the NT has 24,000. 5300 of those are from the original Greek! I would love to say morebut I need to go for now as far as the Bibles' inspiration. You can look into proficies fulilled, the assurity of Jesus that what was written about the law and the profets had to be fullfilled and not one letter should pass from the law till all be fullfilled. You should look into the evidence for a historical Jesus.

I would love to send you some tapes and maybe even a video or book if you want to give me your snail-mail address. I'm sorry I don't have the internet sites to give you like you did for me, I don't spend alot of time on the computer(been building a cabin in my spare time) but maybe you could look into William Lane Craigs' work or Ravi Zackarias(whom I adore). Sorry I must go for now and I belive I've written enough for one night.

Take good care of yourself, [Name].

Discuss.

Cheers, Oolon

Oolon Colluphid · 07-03-2002, 05:33 AM

Hotmail is refusing to send my reply, so until it does, here it is, maybe he�ll see it here

Hi [Name]

> Thankyou so much for the info. web addresses,
> interesting thoughts ext.

You�re welcome. :-) Thanks for your reply.

> Not to be rude and I admit I've only ever read a post
> and an e-mail from you but you seem to be quite
> unhappy or perhaps irratable would be the better word.

Yup, having heard just about every creationist argument (that�s all they have, arguments, not evidence) innumerable times on Infidels and in other correspondence, I�m pretty fed up with hearing complete crap talked -- often with sincerity, but if so, it�s the sincere repetition of lies they�ve been fed. So (a) I�m angry at having to refute rubbish, time and time again, and (b) I�m very saddened that people so lacking in basic understanding so often breeze in to hawk such nonsense: criticising something without understanding it, and totally failing to use the same standard of scepticism about their own beliefs.

If you do not understand this, hang around the Infidels E/C forum some more to see it happen.

> Your obviously very smart so perhaps you can afford to
> be a bit rude for lack of a better word, at least with me.

Sorry if it came across as rude. �Rude� was not intended, though �terse� perhaps was. I was assuming, maybe wrongly, that you were more familiar with the forum than perhaps you are.

And I�m not smart, particularly. I just know stuff, and if I don�t, I look it up. See, with science, you can look stuff up, check how good the evidence is, and judge it for yourself. This is possible because that�s how science works, and it�s how we can be confident in its findings.

> On the other hand you must have considered my "in His
> Love" to be rude also. So for that I appologize.

Not rude, exactly. It�s just a bit too similar to the �In Christ� we�ve heard constantly as the sign-off of one of our regular slippery creationists, Douglas J Bender. And my point about the sort of love on offer from a being that�d create Rickettsia prowazeckii still stands.

> It is quite interesting evolution vs creationism.

I guess so. Most scientists just ignore it though. No point rehashing a long-since done deal, you see.

> I must confess I never would have thought anyone
> could seriously hold to evolution as the basis for life
> until I found the infidels web site.

Are you serious??? I suppose it depends on the circles in which one moves. Evolution, meaning common descent, is a fact, and one that is not disputed by just about ALL practising scientists and the vast majority of religious organisations. It�s the way, if you like, that god did what he did. People don�t BELIEVE in evolution; they accept it as being what EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence from the natural world says is so. Those who disagree are simply ignorant of the evidence. (Ignorance is no sin; but refusing to look at evidence is unutterably stupid ;-) And to claim something that runs counter to the evidence, without knowing what the evidence is, is extremely rude!)

If you�d like to go into details, to air what you�ve been told and discuss whatever criticisms of it you have, do please register and post on the forum. There�s lots of knowledgable folks there who can explain stuff, and there�ll be no rudeness (unless you start it, which you clearly don�t seem likely to ;-) ).

> The good thing I've concluded however is that anyone
> who could seriously hold to this theory could just as
> easily and some would say more easily belive in God.
> More Specificly Christ.

Huh? Sure, many of the Infidels regulars have no belief in your Big Sky Friend, but that�s cos it�s the INFIDELS. One thing you need to be clear on though is that evolution, like any element of science, makes ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS WHATSOEVER about the existence or absense of gods. It�s about finding explanations purely in terms of the natural world around us. By being by definition SUPERnatural, gods and their ilk are not included, needed or relevant for any scientific explanation. Science is simply silent on the subject. To repeat: evolution need not conflict with faith. On this, you really really must read this page:

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</a>

> That's just my opinion though I'm sure you feel quite
> diffrently about it, so again I appologize.

Don�t apologise, justify! ;-)

> You won't like this at all but I belive there is often
> enough a moral reason for beliveing in this theory.

There may be, for some. But if so, they are commiting the �naturalistic fallacy�, whereby how the world IS is taken as a guide for our actions. When a male lion takes over a pride, it usually kills the cubs fathered by the previous top male. This makes good evolutionary sense. But I�ll be buggered if I think it is what step-parents ought to do.

> You must admit it conveniently frees you up to do
> what you like, dosen't it.

Nope, not to do what (implied: whatever) I like.

Though it depends on what you�re getting at. If you mean not necessarily following the moral code of a group of bronze-age goat herders, then maybe. As a specific example, I would not feel guilty, if I were gay, for homosexual activity. I don�t consider homosexual acts a stoning offense (as laid down in Leviticus), and yes, that�s partly down to scientific knowledge about what causes it (they have no more control over their tendencies than tall people have over their height). This does not mean that homosexual rape -- or any other sort -- is permissable or condoned.
> Please don't let me sound like I'm putting you all down.
> We love you very much

Gee, thanks. I wish I could say the same about spreaders of ignorance (include yourself if the cap fits ;-) ). How can you possibly claim to love someone you do not know?

> and you for instance are probably a much better person
> than I am.

What�s that got to do with the price of fish? (ie anything at all)?

> But that dosen't matter, it really dosen't.

Sorry, no idea of the relevance of that.

> I know you hate to hear this but you are dealing with a
> Christian so you can almost expect it.

(a) I know you hate to hear this but you are dealing with a scientific rationalist so you can almost expect it.

(b) I know you hate to hear this but evolution has, as I�ve said, nothing at all to do with Christian faith or lack of it. Science is only the enemy of unreason and ignorance, and in particular here, of claims that are utterly false (Genesis 1&2, literally interpreted).

> The only thing that matters is a personal relationship
> with Jesus Christ for which in the case that he does
> exist and in the case that He dosen't I will never regret,
> especially when this body dies.

Huh? Is this Pascal�s Wager again?
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html</a>

> A good argument against evolution except maybe
> theistic, I'm not sure, would be the life, death and
> resurection of Jesus Christ.

Sorry, but I�ve no idea how that is in the slightest relevant to biology, palaeontology, geology and the rest. Please explain further!

> I am a little better prepared to meet you on those
> grounds. What would you like to know?

Erm, �what the hell you�re talking about� would be a good starting point. How, exactly, does Jesus�s life, death and hypothetical resurrection explain why lemurs are only found on Madagascar, why the panda�s �thumb� is a modified wristbone, why things like Australopithecus africanus and Archaepoteryx are found, why birds possess (usually unused) genes for making reptile-like legs and teeth, why the laryngeal nerve passes under the aorta by the heart on its way from one side of the neck to the other, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, why creatures as diverse as marsupial moles and thylacines have (had) marsupial pouches, why the same framework of bones is used to make a dog�s leg, a man�s hand and a bat�s wing, why the wings of birds, bats and pterosaurs are made differently, why mitochondria have their own separate genome, which just happens to be very similar to that of certain bacteria... and so on in a near-endless list? Do please explain.

> I am already writting another evolutionist from the web
> site to ask my questions about the theory or else I'd ask
> you. That and I think you would be kind of hard on me

Moi? ;-)

> the reason I picked her was because of the polite
> answeres I've seen her give people.

Ah, that�s probably Scigirl then. Yeah, she is nice, generally more tolerant of nonsense than I am ;-)

> Please remember I am a person just like you and we
> both have feelings. I have tried to keep yours in mind.

Fine, fine... erm, don�t talk rubbish (ie repeat the tired old creationist stuff yet again) and you�ll find me quite amenable.

> About the bible and I must make this quick because
> I don't type very fast and this is taking me forever.
> The three tests that you put a book of antiqity such
> as the bible under are the bibliografical test, the
> Internal evidence test and the external evidence test.
> Apply these to the bible and you will see that if you
> reject the its accuracy you must reject all documents
> of antiquity.

Absolutely. When it comes to discussing biology, I do indeed reject documents of antiquity. In fact, any textbook older than 1980 is suspect. Science, you see, moves on as new stuff is discovered. It clings to NO old document as its ultimate source. It constantly re-examines things in light of the new. It works, in other words, not on authority, but on evidence.

> The bible is far and beyond anything even close as
> far as these tests go. For example Homer(Illiad) written
> in 900 B.C./ earliest copy 400B.C. /Timespan: 500 yrs.
> Now hears the bible: new testament written in
> A.D.40-100 / Earliest copy A.D.125/Timespan: 25 yrs.
> Pretty neat a, also the # of copies for Homer is 643,
> the NT has 24,000. 5300 of those are from the
> original Greek!

Erm, Homer wrote in Mandarin Chinese, yeah?

And, what language did first century CE Hebrews speak? NT Greek... or Aramaic?

> I would love to say morebut

�...it has nothing whatever to do with evolution, so I�ll stop there...�?

> I need to go

Oh. It�s the second door on the right past the water cooler.

> for now as far as the Bibles' inspiration. You can look
> into proficies fulilled,

What, like these?
<a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html</a>

> the assurity of Jesus that what was written about the
> law and the profets had to be fullfilled and not one
> letter should pass from the law till all be fullfilled.

Ah, Matthew 5:18 etc.

(a) You mean stuff like Leviticus 20? Sure, great bloke that Jesus, lamb of god, prince of peace...

(b) Could you have a look at Luke 16:16, Romans 7:4, 7:6 and Ephesians 2:15 for me please and see if we�ve got this straight...

(c) How does that demonstrate the bible�s inspired source?

> You should look into the evidence for a historical Jesus.

Yeah, and...? This has what to do with biology...?

> I would love to send you some tapes and maybe
> even a video or book if you want to give me your
> snail-mail address.

That�s very sweet. Honestly. I wish I had the time to indulge your kindness. But I don�t, thanks all the same :-).

> I'm sorry I don't have the internet sites to give you like
> you did for me

But you did read them though, yeah? No comments?

> I don't spend alot of time on the computer(been building
> a cabin in my spare time) but maybe you could look
> into William Lane Craigs' work or Ravi Zackarias(whom
> I adore).

I�ll have a look.

> Sorry I must go for now and I belive I've written enough
> for one night. Take good care of yourself, [Name].

You too! :-) I really think this should be continued on the E/C boards though. There�s a thread already on this (names deleted, naturally). Here�s the link:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001008" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001008</a>
Stop by and chat!

Best wishes, [Oolon]

Bubba · 07-03-2002, 06:20 PM

By the way, I wish to apologize if my earlier response on this thread was rude or inconsiderate. I just get really upset with wild ad hoc arguements.

Oolon, I understand your frustrations ...

Bubba

Starspun · 07-03-2002, 09:19 PM

That person reminds me of my brother-in-law. He is a good person and a wonderful mathematics teacher whom the kids really dig.
With his logical mind, I wondered how he could still hold onto his religious beliefs, which, run very deep. For example, he and my wife hung a few pictures in his classroom, thus making the room look more presentable to the public. After the endeavour and during the survey of the finished project, he immediately began thanking gawd out loud for making it look so nice in the room (my wife of course was thinking, 'well, call me what you want, but most people just call me (real name).

I asked her how he could be so logical and still believe in an obvious lie. Her reply was simple: 'He doesn't question his belief's and if a situation arises that may lead to questioning, he will walk away.'
I don't understand this, but, the person writing you seems to be doing the same thing. Bypassing the 'uncomfortable' and making a B-line straight to her comfort zone without questioning or searching for answers to the questions you present. A most unfortunate way to live, imho.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

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

07-01-2002, 05:27 PM	#11
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	Why in the F*** do these morons keep making this stuff up?? Don't they understand how silly this makes them really look? I can understand how some people, myself FORMERLY included, could be confused by creationist arguements. But this is the dumbest one yet. Thanks, Oolon for your post. I didn't take Biology in high school and I'm having a lot of fun reading this stuff. I think I'm going to re-read a few of the books by the Leakys (sp?) Bubba

07-02-2002, 12:59 AM	#12
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	And of course, ref A africanus being simply really old H sapiens, I somehow forgot the most obvious counter point: the �Taung child� skull, found by Dart in 1924: The fact that its first molars had just started to erupt shows that it was a juvenile. And the position of its foramen magnum, where the spine joins the skull, is positioned forward relative to chimpanzees�, indicating that it was not an immature chimp, but an obligately bipedal creature. Oolon

07-02-2002, 03:23 AM	#13
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Oh, and if anyone's wondering how we know what the back of that skull was like, it's because it came with a natural endocast (where the contents of the skull were replaced by minerals during fossilisation). Oolon

07-02-2002, 04:00 AM	#14
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	"This looks similar to Kent Hovind's claim that reptiles never stop growing so "dinosaurs" (scare quotes) are just lizards who lived a really long time by the grace of god before the flood." ----------------------------- For once, Hovind is correct. Reptiles do indeed grow throughout their lives, although it slows to only slightly more than nothing as the animal ages. Good for Kent, although he lost it all on 'dinos=lizards' and flood codswallop. Well, I guess it's like the old sayin' sez: "Even a blind hog'll find an acorn once in a while." doov

07-02-2002, 06:10 AM	#15
Ergaster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 506	I'm here! But it's been hot, muggy, and the computer has been undergoing "upgrades" (read--innards strewn all over the floor while hubby tries to figure out why nothing ever goes as smoothly as the manuals pretend they do). I haven't been able to get on the internet much lately. Anyway, from what I can tell, you've done just fine. Although I'm not sure what a list of primitive traits will accomplish--you'll then just get a variation of "Lucy was a chimp" argument, I'm sure. It looks as though your correspondent has been reading Jack Cuozzo,a creationist orthodontist who argues that Neanderthals are just really old Homo sapiens because human faces don't stop growing. Since the Bible (the last word on matters scientific) clearly states that humans did live to be several centuries old, it follows that Neanderthals are just old humans. Or something like that (Cuozzo does not address the Neanderthal postcranial skeleton at all). It does seem that your correspondent is otherwise completely clueless about human evolution, and likely does not even realize that Mrs. Ples is not even Homo, let alone Neanderthal. I have no idea whatsoever where Cuozzo got this idea that human faces do not stop growing. From what I understand, he is not an incompetent orthodontist, and in a review of his book Buried Alive Colin Groves actually praises his anatomical knowledge and descriptive abilities, so it is a mystery how he comes to this conclusion. I suspect that he is confusing (either accidentally or deliberately) bone remodelling (which does continue throughout life) with "growth". I've seen a lot of skulls of elderly Homo sapiens. None of them look remotely like the skulls of Neanderthals. IIRC there is no sign of arthritis in the temporomandibular joint of Mrs. Ples (which is where you'd find it on a skull), although many Neanderthal skulls do show such degenerative changes. And FYI, there are osteophytic changes in the vertebrae of "Lucy" (lipping), but probably not arthritis.

07-03-2002, 05:33 AM	#17
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Hotmail is refusing to send my reply, so until it does, here it is, maybe he�ll see it here Hi [Name] > Thankyou so much for the info. web addresses, > interesting thoughts ext. You�re welcome. :-) Thanks for your reply. > Not to be rude and I admit I've only ever read a post > and an e-mail from you but you seem to be quite > unhappy or perhaps irratable would be the better word. Yup, having heard just about every creationist argument (that�s all they have, arguments, not evidence) innumerable times on Infidels and in other correspondence, I�m pretty fed up with hearing complete crap talked -- often with sincerity, but if so, it�s the sincere repetition of lies they�ve been fed. So (a) I�m angry at having to refute rubbish, time and time again, and (b) I�m very saddened that people so lacking in basic understanding so often breeze in to hawk such nonsense: criticising something without understanding it, and totally failing to use the same standard of scepticism about their own beliefs. If you do not understand this, hang around the Infidels E/C forum some more to see it happen. > Your obviously very smart so perhaps you can afford to > be a bit rude for lack of a better word, at least with me. Sorry if it came across as rude. �Rude� was not intended, though �terse� perhaps was. I was assuming, maybe wrongly, that you were more familiar with the forum than perhaps you are. And I�m not smart, particularly. I just know stuff, and if I don�t, I look it up. See, with science, you can look stuff up, check how good the evidence is, and judge it for yourself. This is possible because that�s how science works, and it�s how we can be confident in its findings. > On the other hand you must have considered my "in His > Love" to be rude also. So for that I appologize. Not rude, exactly. It�s just a bit too similar to the �In Christ� we�ve heard constantly as the sign-off of one of our regular slippery creationists, Douglas J Bender. And my point about the sort of love on offer from a being that�d create Rickettsia prowazeckii still stands. > It is quite interesting evolution vs creationism. I guess so. Most scientists just ignore it though. No point rehashing a long-since done deal, you see. > I must confess I never would have thought anyone > could seriously hold to evolution as the basis for life > until I found the infidels web site. Are you serious??? I suppose it depends on the circles in which one moves. Evolution, meaning common descent, is a fact, and one that is not disputed by just about ALL practising scientists and the vast majority of religious organisations. It�s the way, if you like, that god did what he did. People don�t BELIEVE in evolution; they accept it as being what EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence from the natural world says is so. Those who disagree are simply ignorant of the evidence. (Ignorance is no sin; but refusing to look at evidence is unutterably stupid ;-) And to claim something that runs counter to the evidence, without knowing what the evidence is, is extremely rude!) If you�d like to go into details, to air what you�ve been told and discuss whatever criticisms of it you have, do please register and post on the forum. There�s lots of knowledgable folks there who can explain stuff, and there�ll be no rudeness (unless you start it, which you clearly don�t seem likely to ;-) ). > The good thing I've concluded however is that anyone > who could seriously hold to this theory could just as > easily and some would say more easily belive in God. > More Specificly Christ. Huh? Sure, many of the Infidels regulars have no belief in your Big Sky Friend, but that�s cos it�s the INFIDELS. One thing you need to be clear on though is that evolution, like any element of science, makes ABSOLUTELY NO CLAIMS WHATSOEVER about the existence or absense of gods. It�s about finding explanations purely in terms of the natural world around us. By being by definition SUPERnatural, gods and their ilk are not included, needed or relevant for any scientific explanation. Science is simply silent on the subject. To repeat: evolution need not conflict with faith. On this, you really really must read this page: <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html</a> > That's just my opinion though I'm sure you feel quite > diffrently about it, so again I appologize. Don�t apologise, justify! ;-) > You won't like this at all but I belive there is often > enough a moral reason for beliveing in this theory. There may be, for some. But if so, they are commiting the �naturalistic fallacy�, whereby how the world IS is taken as a guide for our actions. When a male lion takes over a pride, it usually kills the cubs fathered by the previous top male. This makes good evolutionary sense. But I�ll be buggered if I think it is what step-parents ought to do. > You must admit it conveniently frees you up to do > what you like, dosen't it. Nope, not to do what (implied: whatever) I like. Though it depends on what you�re getting at. If you mean not necessarily following the moral code of a group of bronze-age goat herders, then maybe. As a specific example, I would not feel guilty, if I were gay, for homosexual activity. I don�t consider homosexual acts a stoning offense (as laid down in Leviticus), and yes, that�s partly down to scientific knowledge about what causes it (they have no more control over their tendencies than tall people have over their height). This does not mean that homosexual rape -- or any other sort -- is permissable or condoned. > Please don't let me sound like I'm putting you all down. > We love you very much Gee, thanks. I wish I could say the same about spreaders of ignorance (include yourself if the cap fits ;-) ). How can you possibly claim to love someone you do not know? > and you for instance are probably a much better person > than I am. What�s that got to do with the price of fish? (ie anything at all)? > But that dosen't matter, it really dosen't. Sorry, no idea of the relevance of that. > I know you hate to hear this but you are dealing with a > Christian so you can almost expect it. (a) I know you hate to hear this but you are dealing with a scientific rationalist so you can almost expect it. (b) I know you hate to hear this but evolution has, as I�ve said, nothing at all to do with Christian faith or lack of it. Science is only the enemy of unreason and ignorance, and in particular here, of claims that are utterly false (Genesis 1&2, literally interpreted). > The only thing that matters is a personal relationship > with Jesus Christ for which in the case that he does > exist and in the case that He dosen't I will never regret, > especially when this body dies. Huh? Is this Pascal�s Wager again? <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html</a> > A good argument against evolution except maybe > theistic, I'm not sure, would be the life, death and > resurection of Jesus Christ. Sorry, but I�ve no idea how that is in the slightest relevant to biology, palaeontology, geology and the rest. Please explain further! > I am a little better prepared to meet you on those > grounds. What would you like to know? Erm, �what the hell you�re talking about� would be a good starting point. How, exactly, does Jesus�s life, death and hypothetical resurrection explain why lemurs are only found on Madagascar, why the panda�s �thumb� is a modified wristbone, why things like Australopithecus africanus and Archaepoteryx are found, why birds possess (usually unused) genes for making reptile-like legs and teeth, why the laryngeal nerve passes under the aorta by the heart on its way from one side of the neck to the other, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, why creatures as diverse as marsupial moles and thylacines have (had) marsupial pouches, why the same framework of bones is used to make a dog�s leg, a man�s hand and a bat�s wing, why the wings of birds, bats and pterosaurs are made differently, why mitochondria have their own separate genome, which just happens to be very similar to that of certain bacteria... and so on in a near-endless list? Do please explain. > I am already writting another evolutionist from the web > site to ask my questions about the theory or else I'd ask > you. That and I think you would be kind of hard on me Moi? ;-) > the reason I picked her was because of the polite > answeres I've seen her give people. Ah, that�s probably Scigirl then. Yeah, she is nice, generally more tolerant of nonsense than I am ;-) > Please remember I am a person just like you and we > both have feelings. I have tried to keep yours in mind. Fine, fine... erm, don�t talk rubbish (ie repeat the tired old creationist stuff yet again) and you�ll find me quite amenable. > About the bible and I must make this quick because > I don't type very fast and this is taking me forever. > The three tests that you put a book of antiqity such > as the bible under are the bibliografical test, the > Internal evidence test and the external evidence test. > Apply these to the bible and you will see that if you > reject the its accuracy you must reject all documents > of antiquity. Absolutely. When it comes to discussing biology, I do indeed reject documents of antiquity. In fact, any textbook older than 1980 is suspect. Science, you see, moves on as new stuff is discovered. It clings to NO old document as its ultimate source. It constantly re-examines things in light of the new. It works, in other words, not on authority, but on evidence. > The bible is far and beyond anything even close as > far as these tests go. For example Homer(Illiad) written > in 900 B.C./ earliest copy 400B.C. /Timespan: 500 yrs. > Now hears the bible: new testament written in > A.D.40-100 / Earliest copy A.D.125/Timespan: 25 yrs. > Pretty neat a, also the # of copies for Homer is 643, > the NT has 24,000. 5300 of those are from the > original Greek! Erm, Homer wrote in Mandarin Chinese, yeah? And, what language did first century CE Hebrews speak? NT Greek... or Aramaic? > I would love to say morebut �...it has nothing whatever to do with evolution, so I�ll stop there...�? > I need to go Oh. It�s the second door on the right past the water cooler. > for now as far as the Bibles' inspiration. You can look > into proficies fulilled, What, like these? <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html" target="_blank">http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/prophecy.html</a> > the assurity of Jesus that what was written about the > law and the profets had to be fullfilled and not one > letter should pass from the law till all be fullfilled. Ah, Matthew 5:18 etc. (a) You mean stuff like Leviticus 20? Sure, great bloke that Jesus, lamb of god, prince of peace... (b) Could you have a look at Luke 16:16, Romans 7:4, 7:6 and Ephesians 2:15 for me please and see if we�ve got this straight... (c) How does that demonstrate the bible�s inspired source? > You should look into the evidence for a historical Jesus. Yeah, and...? This has what to do with biology...? > I would love to send you some tapes and maybe > even a video or book if you want to give me your > snail-mail address. That�s very sweet. Honestly. I wish I had the time to indulge your kindness. But I don�t, thanks all the same :-). > I'm sorry I don't have the internet sites to give you like > you did for me But you did read them though, yeah? No comments? > I don't spend alot of time on the computer(been building > a cabin in my spare time) but maybe you could look > into William Lane Craigs' work or Ravi Zackarias(whom > I adore). I�ll have a look. > Sorry I must go for now and I belive I've written enough > for one night. Take good care of yourself, [Name]. You too! :-) I really think this should be continued on the E/C boards though. There�s a thread already on this (names deleted, naturally). Here�s the link: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001008" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001008</a> Stop by and chat! Best wishes, [Oolon]

07-03-2002, 06:20 PM	#18
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	By the way, I wish to apologize if my earlier response on this thread was rude or inconsiderate. I just get really upset with wild ad hoc arguements. Oolon, I understand your frustrations ... Bubba

07-03-2002, 09:19 PM	#19
Starspun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 334	That person reminds me of my brother-in-law. He is a good person and a wonderful mathematics teacher whom the kids really dig. With his logical mind, I wondered how he could still hold onto his religious beliefs, which, run very deep. For example, he and my wife hung a few pictures in his classroom, thus making the room look more presentable to the public. After the endeavour and during the survey of the finished project, he immediately began thanking gawd out loud for making it look so nice in the room (my wife of course was thinking, 'well, call me what you want, but most people just call me (real name). I asked her how he could be so logical and still believe in an obvious lie. Her reply was simple: 'He doesn't question his belief's and if a situation arises that may lead to questioning, he will walk away.' I don't understand this, but, the person writing you seems to be doing the same thing. Bypassing the 'uncomfortable' and making a B-line straight to her comfort zone without questioning or searching for answers to the questions you present. A most unfortunate way to live, imho. [ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.