Yesterday was a long day, starting in the operating room and finishing at a dinner reception for our visiting speaker today. As a result, when I arrived home, I was sawing the proverbial logs within five or ten minutes of hitting the couch, more or less without realizing it. I was going to just skip today, making it a rare weekday where I don't provide you, my loyal readers, with a dose of the Insolence, be it Respectful or not-so-Respectful, to which you have become accustomed. But then I saw an article that reminded me of a topic that I haven't revisited for quite a long time. I'm referring to a topic that I used to discuss fairly often. View it as a subtopic of Medicine and Evolution. I'm referring to the question of why there are so many doctors who deny evolution. We've met many of them before over the last decade, although probably Dr. Michael Egnor is the one whose creationist nonsense I've discussed and refuted the most. He's a neurosurgeon, and apparently he's still at it.
Well, there's another creationist neurosurgeon in town, and unfortunately he's running for the Republican nomination for President. I'm referring, of course, to Dr. Ben Carson, a guy who was a really brilliant neurosurgeon in his day but in his retirement appears to have embraced multiple forms of right wing pseudoscience, including, of course, evolution denial. His ascent led a reporter to wonder why some doctors reject evolution and even publish a story about it in Pacific Standard, entitled, appropriately enough, Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution? The article is a good primer on the topic, and not just because it features some quotes from someone who is near and dear to this blog. It's worth reading in full, and (I hope) discussing here. It also reminds me that I really should revisit the topic of evolution in medicine and physicians denying evolution. Apparently I've become so wrapped up in discussing quackery like antivaccine pseudoscience, alternative cancer "cures," homeopathy, and quackademic medicine (the infiltration of pseudoscience into medical academia) that I've neglected other interesting areas of the interface between science and medicine and pseudoscience.
And, thus, Orac demonstrates his logorrhea by using over 400 words just to link to an article he likes. Truly, it does take me nearly 500 words just to "clear my throat," so to speak. In any case, maybe I'll have to talk about evolution denial in medicine again sometime soon. It's one of those topics that keeps popping up and irritating me, but somehow other things manage to distract me, much like Dug the Dog.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I wish Pope Francis luck with reform, but I don't hold any hopes. He did after all make George Pell the 'treasurer'.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/africa/ethiopia-fossil-hominin-ancestor/i…
Someone's ark is full of holes.
See, we can only explain things to you. We can't understand them for you as well.
If you don't understand the content of an abstract or article, I suggest you don't offer it in the blind hope it will support your argument.
If you don't understand the meaning of a word like "phosphatized" or a term like "observant Jew", I suggest you look them up before skipping over them or assigning them some idiosyncratic meaning.pulled from your nether regions.
Now, back to Lindsay: simply identify specific problems you have with the content on his website without any further prompting.
Do so within your next 3 posts, or I'll have to conclude that the ONLY problem you have with the content is that it doesn't support your preferred and predetermined conclusion that the biologically diverse living populations we observe could not have arisen as a result of evolution.
He's literally a shanda fur die goyim.
It's my very strong opinion that a person who did not intend to suggest that Jews were baby-killers would say so when asked, were the suggestion inadvertent.
So absent a disavowal, I think it's more like he thinks he's so intellectually superior that he can insult JGC to his face without risk of detection.
Humilitas homines sanctis angelis similes facit, et superbia ex angelis demones facit, though. Either way.
That is Catholic dogma, to be fair.
To a person of good faith and understanding, it might mean something quite lovely, in fact.
Clearly in most of the articles about dinosaur soft tissue preservation they are talking about structural preservation, but there is some evidence of survival of proteins or protein fragments - collagen for example. Even so, I don't get SN's obsession with preserved soft tissue. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that conditions may, very occasionally, be amenable to soft tissues surviving chemically intact for long periods without decomposition. We are just talking biological contamination, chemicals and temperatures here, after all. Why couldn't fragments of rapidly freeze-dried muscle survive a hundred million years in dry enough, sterile, oxygen-free, dark, (partially) cosmic-ray-shielded conditions?
I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that the tissue isn't as old as multiple other dating methods tell us it is. There's a massive body of evidence that supports evolution and its chronology; a whole raft of interlocking, mutually supportive evidence from disparate scientific fields. Not even a living apatosaurus found in a swamp in the Congo is going to overthrow all that.
Oh look, a statement by one of the Evolution Establishment members!
- Who happened to go by the name Pope John Paul II.
IANAC*, but I figure it's quite possible to believe that the teaching of the RCC on faith and morals is infallible, even if the Church itself totally sucks at following that teaching.
*Though I do speak as someone who is quite intimately familiar with the damage that, say, a particularly stupid and draconian form of Christianity can do to a person, a family, etc.
Further to the hypothesis that SN believes that he's being exceptionally clever and subtle, when in fact he's simply being exceptionally vile:
^^That's not a distinction that means anything, from a Catholic perspective. (Because conversion.)
But if you're a racial anti-Semite that's not an option. People who are born Jewish are Jews, immutably and forever, just as crocodiles are crocodiles and ducks are ducks.
And from that perspective, if Jews are a problem, there's only one solution and it's final.
But possibly SN has another reason for caring whether or not JGC was born Jewish, and I'm just not smart enough to think of it.
I'm sure he'll tell me if I owe him an apology, though.
Ann, as sn has made comments on other blogs that the "right" people aren't having enough babies and the evil Moslems are trying to take over the world by having many babies, I think your suspicions about his views are on solid ground.
It is always these "Johnny-come-lately" religious apostles that seem to espouse the most radical and vitriolic of beliefs....so, I'm not surprised.
@#507 --
More or less. Infallibility is doctrinally specific to the Sacred Magisterium.
IANAC, either, btw. Jewish, in fact. Born that way.
@#509 --
Really? Well, there you go.
Scruple compels me to observe that just about every contemporary "-ism" there is has adherents who think their belief system entitles them to master-race status and/or privileges, whether effectively or actually.
Not excluding skepticism, sadly.
But it's a catholic rather than Catholic thing. Is my point.
@ann:
It's kind of a thing, unfortunately, among certain segments of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches - usually among converts, for whatever reason.
Possibly it's because a lot (not all) of the people who convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy do so because they're looking for a more "traditional" church because OH NO TEH GAYZ and the CULTURAL DECLINE or whatever.
Found it. It was on a discussion of why (in the view of sn) same sex marriage is wrong, will lead to all sorts of moral problems (he never specifies exactly what), and then this (it ends with a link to a bigoted/racist video I won't include here)
@ JP:
Wasn't Evelyn Waugh one of those?
@Denice Walter --
Honestly, that was such a common, unexamined belief in his day that by itself it wouldn't necessarily mean much more than that he was a part of his culture, if so.
Not that it was admirable or inevitable. But it was kind of like wallpaper. Many people accepted it without thinking about what it meant. So to judge them by contemporary standards might be misleading.
Same for Roald Dahl. It's just what they grew up on. What it meant to them is another question.
@JP --
I don't know about that. The Orthodox Church still has blood libel saints, IIRC. It's not just a convert's tradition
But again, it doesn't necessarily have the same import or implications for every individual.
@Denice:
Yeah. See also Rod Dreher. (His last name is pronounced "drear." I kid you not.)
@ ann:
I didn't mean about gay people-
actually, I don't know exactly what he felt about them although he created gay characters.
I think he was ore of a general decline fellow, no?
one of THE general decline FELLOWS
@ann:
Well, it depends on a lot of things. The Serbian Orthodox Church, for instance, is very much concerned about the Muslims taking over, etc., though that is wrapped up in a lot of history and cultural baggage. Not that it excuses the way the Church, especially in the diaspora, tries to rewrite recent Balkan history to make the Serbs out to be the REAL victims. (I mean, it's true that the Croats were pretty heinous during WWII, but that also doesn't change what happened during the more recent Yugoslav Wars.)
I could go on at length about my problems with the Russian Orthodox Church and the way it's sidled right up to Putin. A lot of the Russian Orthodox folks I personally know, though, are basically intellectuals of a certain age who pretty much became Christian as a way of sticking it to the man, and they tend to be pretty liberal on a lot of issues.
In general, the Orthodox Churches, taken together as a whole, tend to be fairly well educated and left-leaning, slightly moreso than Roman Catholics. There are certainly certain groups which are pretty draconian, like ROCOR, for example, but by and large they are pretty chill, and from what I've seen, anti-semitism is really not tolerated, although that might be different within some diaspora communities.
Islamophobia is a slightly different story, though, and it is often a convert thing. (Converts tend to be generally super into being as conservative as possible, and often annoy the pants of the "cradle Orthodox.") I don't have any data at hand to show, but I could tell you numerous anecdotes.
^ The Orthodox Churches within America, taken together as a whole, I had meant to specify.
To Julian Frost #497:
“I’m a cradle catholic, and you’re embarrassing me.”
Join the horrified herd, including Gray Falcon #444, #449, shay #452.
Thanks for the disclosure, but saying you’re a “cradle Catholic” tells me nothing other than you started well. Are you a true Catholic now? That is, do you believe in and strive to follow ALL that the Church has taught and required on faith and morals?
“As for the “world created in six days”, the church had this discussion over a millennium and a half ago. The “six days” is regarded as an allegory for what really happened.”
Perhaps you can help me here. I’ll repeat what I posted earlier:
I’ve been trying to get an answer on this for years, but without success. It’s Genesis 1:14. “And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for SEASONS and for DAYS and YEARS.” I’ve been trying to see how this relates to the six “days” of Genesis 1. Specifically, since the author is already acknowledging names for periods of much greater than a day (i.e. seasons, years), why wouldn’t he use these longer periods for the creation sequence (e.g. ‘So God created the beasts of the field over MANY YEARS, a fifth SEASON’.)? Why would the author use “fifth DAY”, instead, and go out of his way to define “day” six times (i.e. “And there was evening and there was morning, a X day.”)?
Have you seen any scholarly work on this specific question regarding Gen 1:14 vis-à-vis the other Gen 1 verses?
Hmm.
Well. Assuming that SN's failure to respond means he so lacks the courage of his convictions that he can't acknowledge them openly, he's also apparently a sad hypocrite who can't respect himself.
Why, only nine days ago, as he posted elsewhere:
FWIW, Catholicism holds that when the hypocrite is motivated by an end that's incompatible with the love of God and his/her neighbor, hypocrisy is a mortal sin.
But who's counting?
To ChrisP #498:
“My real intention was to point out that See Noeveo had a dogmatic position that was easily illustrated by their comment that the teaching of the Catholic Church on faith and morals was infallible. I find such a position hard to square with recent events.”
I don’t know what you’re talking about because your link is for subscribers only.
I’ll ask you a favor:
Would you please provide here just ONE “EVENT” which you think contradicts the Church’s infallibility? Your favorite, most heinous one. But just ONE.
Please?
Hey, See. I'll bite. Find me the mid-eastern culture the Genesis stories were ripped off from (I know which, but wonder if you do, or if you think the Bible was born with 56 books, etc).
Then we'll discuss translations, language mutations, and storytelling. And I'll discuss with you how mankind really came from a cow licking on a salt lick.
SN: Let me help you out here.
According to your statement, your church is infallible on matters of faith and belief.
Your church says your concerns about Genesis 1:14 are misplaced. It is allegory, nothing else. Case closed, if one is to accept your premise that the church is infallible.
Or does your continued questioning reflect your doubts about the infallibility of the church?
Because it's been rewritten during the numerous translations and updates?
More importantly, why should we be concerned about something that is merely a myth, without basis in reality?
Well, given that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs or amended core principles over the centuries, I'm not quite sure how you can even begin to make that statement.....
That doesn't even scratch the surface of the various scandals over the centuries either - the Anti-Popes, the wars, the Crusades, the politics, the assistance to the Nazis, etc.
Certainly doesn't put a lot of faith in the whole "infallibility" concept.
Oh, and that whole belief that the Universe revolved around the Earth? Yeah, not so much.
Or better yet, stories that were told and written (the Story of Gilgamesh, for example) long before they were put into the Old Testament which were copied almost verbatim from the earlier civilizations......
Or the historical findings of the Black Sea flooding that would account for the original "Flood" stories told by numerous Middle Eastern early civilizations.
This is where the learned individual passes well beyond the fanatic. Since you lack context, you cannot appreciate the development and nurturing of these myths as a panacea to these young societies - and as I said before, religion was a means for the ruling class (or just ruler) to justify his / their positions and add legitimacy.
On the face of it, it's an excessively narrow question that has little if any potential for illuminating any conflict of great moment and import to Catholic faith and doctrine. So I wouldn't imagine there's a great deal of it.
I mean, Ecclesiasticus 8:1 says that creation occurred in an instant. Always has. Always will. So I don't know why you or anyone would think the definitive answer to the question of how long it took was in Genesis 1:14.
Assuming your reason for asking is both faith-based and Catholic. I can see an ex Cathedra -- ie, a creationist -- reason. Obviously;
It's an article of faith, as you know. Why are you even asking, if you profess it?
Did you miss my response @388?
That's post # 1 without addressing the content of the Lindsay website, by the way (or as Narad would likely say "Strike 1").
And your post @ 524 would be strike 2...
BTW, I note that you're speaking as if Genesis was the work of a single author--are you really unaware that isn't the case?
@JGC - isn't there about 4 different creation stories within Genesis, if you actually parse out the text?
There is also the various differences in the Talmud vs. the Old Testament as well.
Re: falsification of infallibility with respect to ffaith and morals, i'll offer Pope Honorius I (625 to 638), who affirmed as a matter of faith the doctrine of monothelitism (that Jesus had only one will). Monothelitism was declared heretical about 50 years later by the Council of Constantinople, where the newly appointed pope,Leo II (682 to 683), publicly condemned Honorius II for undermining the faith of the Church.
So we're talking one pope making a supposedly infallible pronouncement on a matter of faith (i.e.,the true nature of Jesus) and a later Pope condemning that pronouncement as heresy.
@See Noevo:
Yes.
It's an easy way to simplify. There's a joke that explains it best.
A man was praying and asked, "God, how long to you is a thousand years?"
To his surprise, God answered "A moment."
Startled, but encouraged, the man asked "And how much to you is a million dollars?"
Once again God replied, saying "A penny."
The man then asked"In that case, may I have a million dollars, God?"
"In a moment" replied God.
No.
Genesis offers two different creation accounts, one in chapter 1 and 1 in chapter 2, that disagree about the order in which entities were created. For example, in Chapter 1 godc reates animals first, then Adam and simultaneously (male and female created him both"), etc. while in chapter 2 god creates Adam first, animals next and Eve days later.
But you're correct that the first 5 books of the Torah were created by redacting and combining elements of at least 4 separate sources authored over a period of about 450 years known as ( from oldest to youngest) the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly sources.
Oh, look, a self-appointed ecclesiastical judge. Perhaps the Seenod should review the Summa.
I note that you’re speaking as if Genesis was the work of a single author
Not to mention the multiple, multiple translations.
See,
If you go up a bit from your excessively narrow demand wrt Genesis, you will see a statement by the Pope on the subject of evolution. Do you consider yourself a better or more authoritative source on Catholic doctrine than John Paul II?
To ann #508:
Yes, you owe me an apology.
…….
To ann #504:
“It’s my very strong opinion that a person who did not intend to suggest that Jews were baby-killers would say so when asked, were the suggestion inadvertent. So absent a disavowal, I think it’s more like he thinks he’s so intellectually superior that he can insult JGC to his face without risk of detection.”
This is rich. I’ll make several points:
In the post you’re referencing (#443), I never used the words “baby-killer.” I used the word “abortion”.
I used the stark example of abortion to show how very different two people can be with the same “label” (e.g. observant Jew, Constitutionalist). As a further example, Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic”, but she’s not really Catholic, because she supports abortion and abortion rights. She has effectively excommunicated herself.
I definitely do NOT believe, nor did I suggest, that “Jews were baby-killers.” I can’t believe any sane person on earth would think that.
I am very confident, however, SOME Jews support abortion, just as some self-identified Catholics support abortion.
I never said or suggested that JGC supports abortion. Because I really don’t know whether JGC supports abortion.
HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?
To Krebiozen #505:
“It seems perfectly reasonable to me that conditions may, very occasionally, be amenable to soft tissues surviving chemically intact for long periods without decomposition.”
Yes, if you’re not a geologist or taphonomist AND have no common sense.
Just don’t read up too much on it, and stay in your bubble, free of trouble.
The fossilization bubble is quite like the evolution bubble. Both are not concerned with conflicting details or scientific contradictions. There, it’s safe to say “It just happened” or “We just KNOW it evolved.” And “Details to be worked at later. Or never.”
Quite like the so-called “God of the gaps”.
But it’s “Evolution of the gaps.” Or “65 million year inexplicable preservation of the gaps.”
It's like, whatever. Just so you agree evolution is true.
Pretty pathetic, coming from someone whose "reading up" consists of no more than barfing up ICR, etc., propaganda without so much as bothering to examine the actual material that's being "invoked."
I see that SeeNoevo didn't respond to my example of "medical things you need evolution for" (animal models), so See Noevo must agree with me! (Or doesn't have a snappy comeback.)
Here's another bit of evolution in medicine: the function of the immune system and the balance between auto-immune disease and cancer.
As a side note, See, do you categorize Episcopalians and Anglicans as Protestants, or semi-Catholics? Because they don't have problems with evolution, just like the RCC.
Cross-out test cross out test.
And with posts @ 541 and 542, we have four posts where you've failed to identify the problems you have with the content on David Lindsay's "Eye" website.
I must therefore conclude the only problem you have with the content is that it doesn’t support your preferred and predetermined conclusion that the biologically diverse living populations we observe could not have arisen as a result of evolution.
What authority do you presume you possess to determine who does and does not represent a 'real' Catholic?
To Opus #526:
Let me help you out here, while at the same time I’ll try out the new internet slang thing I learned here – “FTFY”.
“According to your statement, your church is infallible on matters of faith and **belief** morals.” FTFY. (Cross-out not working. The ** ** will have to serve in lieu of cross out.)
“Your church says your concerns about Genesis 1:14 are misplaced. It is allegory, nothing else. Case closed, if one is to accept your premise that the church is infallible. Or does your continued questioning reflect your doubts about the infallibility of the church?”
I have no doubts about the "infallibility of the **church** Church." FTFY.
I’m not aware of the Church declaring infallibly that Genesis is “allegory”, that Catholics MUST consider it ONLY allegorically. Virtually all of the Church Fathers, as well as virtually all Christians for the first 1800 years after Christ, considered Genesis historical.
However, EVEN IF the word is used, “allegory” does not necessarily exclude the use of actual, historical people and events. The real people and events would simply carry greater meaning, far beyond the immediate impact to those particular people and events. The Church says, for example, that the original sin of Adam and Eve actually happened, and that the Genesis account “affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man.”
To multiple addressees…
To Lawrence #528:
“Well, given that the Catholic Church has changed its beliefs or amended core principles over the centuries, I’m not quite sure how you can even begin to make that statement…”
One example, please. Ideally, your best, most compelling example. Just one.
…
To ann #530:
“I mean, Ecclesiasticus 8:1 says that creation occurred in an instant.”
What verse do you mean?
I’m pretty sure the actual Ecclesiasticus (aka “Sirach” or “Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach”) 8:1 is “Do not contend with a powerful man, lest you fall into his hands.”
And Ecclesiastes 8:1 is “Who is like the wise man? And who knows the interpretation of a thing? A man's wisdom makes his face shine, and the hardness of his countenance is changed.”
…
To JGC #532:
Me: “I’ve been trying to get an answer on this for years, but without success.”
You: “Did you miss my response @388?”
No, I didn’t miss it.
BTW, “the text uses the Hebrew word **‘yod’** ‘yom’ modified by an ordinal…”
FTFY.
“… That’s the reason we find two separate and contradictory accounts of creation, for example, present in Genesis.”
There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.
No one, however, is saying "We just know it evolved", are they? Instead what's being said is "A very, very large body of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry (the fossil record; fossil transitional series; nested hierarchy of species; genetic and peptide homologies; convergence of independent phylogenies; conserved retroviral insertions, transposons, psuedogenes; SNAP's; homologous anatomical features; atavisms; vestigial structures; patterns of biogeographic distribution...etc) best supports the conclusion that the biological diversity we observe arose as a result of evolution.
And there's also the fact that we've directly observed evolution to create new species populations by descent from pre-existing ancestral ones, in real time, both in laboratory settings and uncontrolled in the wild. Please note that by definition these observations represent macro-evolution.
There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.
The fact that you believe that to be true speaks volumes about your level of delusion.
I strongly suspect that mere speciation is also inadequate in the view of the Office of the Holy Seenod, because it would allow one to get away with, e.g., this whereas they're still bacteria.
See, was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) states or before</i all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?
Were Adam and Eve created at the same</i time (Gen 1:25-27) or at different</i times (Gen 2:18-22)?
<blockquoteThere is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.
See, was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) or before all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?
Were Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen 1:25-27) or atdifferent times (Gen 2:18-22)?
..
One example, please. Ideally, your best, most compelling example. Just one.
There's that reading comprehension problem of his, again. Although, I suppose if he refuses to read it then he can keep claiming that it doesn't exist.
Do you consider yourself a better or more authoritative source on Catholic doctrine than John Paul II?
This is not a problem for Sedevacantists.
See Noevo has also fallen into the No True Scotsman pit.
One can only be a 'True Catholic'TM if one agrees with See Noevo on everything. Which makes the 'True Catholics'TM a very small minority.
I find it hard to take the infallibility of an organisation seriously when their response to internal complete moral failure is to try and hide it by moving the perpetrators so they can do it all again. This is not just one or two individuals, but seems to have gone right to the top of the Catholic Church in Australia.
I am aware that this is not the Catholic Church as a whole and most Catholics are appalled at the goings on, but it is impossible for an organisation to claim any sort of moral high ground when the hierarchy is so corrupt. Rather like FIFA actually.
Aside from the small issue of Humani Generis.
Yes, I know. I don't think anyone was confused about that.
That's not your call to make. She hasn't been excommunicated. You and she therefore share a mystical union with one another, Christ, and the Church, in fact.
Per Catholic teaching. I mean, you can reject it if you wish. But according to you, you then wouldn't be a real Catholic.
I very sincerely apologize for briefly concluding otherwise earlier today.
A lot of people think that, as they have for centuries. It's one of the marquee beliefs of Christian anti-semitism, historically. And if you don't agree with it, it really can't hurt to be sensitive to that. Or at least aware of it.
Nevertheless. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you.
@ Justatech
Speaking of cancer, several years ago oncologists renewed the topic about how cancer cells themselves are subject to evolution by debating about cancer stem cells and clonal evolution.
I found it a fascinating topic, although it's slightly outside my own scientific field.
But too dense to figure out the typo, apparently.
@ ChrisP
From what I have learned, it has been on-going for more than 4 decades.
At some point in the last years, some Catholic officials tried to shift the blame to these sex-crazy hippies in the 60's. It didn't take well. To start with, hippies generally weren't that open-minded (with a few exceptions, I guess).
Please :-) The people at FIFA were just playing with money. They didn't try to hide that Jo the Coach was bumping a 7-year old poussin in the showers. Repeatedly.
(although, as the FIFA situation is just starting to develop, I'm not sure what else will be discovered under the mud)
Coming from people who spit fire at the idea of two adult men living together, the active protection of child abusers is really hypocrite, to say the least.
TBH, the whole idea of celibacy for parish priests is really stupid and should be abolished. Well, it never should have been instituted a thousand years ago - it's a shame the Latin Church got cheap and decided not to support priests' wives anymore.
I mean, pedophiles tend to be attracted to "pillar-of-the-community" type roles anyway, but I can't see how the celibacy requirement doesn't add fuel to the fire, and dissuade people with healthy sexualities from joining the priesthood. There's nothing specifically Catholic about it - the Eastern Rite Churches have married priests.
^ It is absolutely heinous the way the Church has protected pedophile priests, of course. It is also heinous and really dumb that they don't seem to be terribly open to serious structural changes that might be in order.
@549 --
Sorry, typo. I meant Ecclesiasticus 18:1, "He that liveth forever created all things together."
It looms large in hexameral literature, as central to Sts. Ambrose and Augustine, who taught that it meant creation was instantaneous and simultaneous, and who are -- incidentally -- two of the foremost scholars to have examined the question of how long creation took, if it's scholarship you're looking for.
However, it's kind of a moot point, since from your POV, their teachings on morals and faith are infallible, according to you.
@ See Neovo
ChrisP and myself were talking about these events.
Again, just to be clear: there will be sexual deviants in every community.
The fact which is irking me, ChrisP, and I hope the vast majority of Catholic people, is that leaders of the Catholic church did a less than sterling work at keeping these deviants away from children.
I can not accept taking moral lessons from these types of people. I have higher expectations of people whose moral opinion I should trust.
Meaning: They were both bishops in communion with the pope. Their teachings on morals and faith are authentic teachings of the Church.
@ JP
I suspect there could be some sample bias here, yes.
@#567 --
I understand what you're saying. But...Yikes! What I just said was in error. BRB.
One can only be a ‘True Catholic’TM if one agrees with See Noevo on everything. Which makes the ‘True Catholics’TM a very small minority
That excludes every pope since Pius XII.
Sorry, wasn't thinking. Their teachings on morals and faith require religious submission of intellect and will from you.
Is what I meant to say.
That excludes every pope since Pius XII.
There are nominally-catholic loons who make that exclusion.
http://www.novusordowatch.org/the_chair_is_still_empty.htm#.VWfFraLTSPs
Some of them are even creationists.
@#567 --
As I was saying when interrupted by my own stupidity:
The infallibility only applies to authentic teachings of the Church on morals and faith, the power to dispense which is uniquely and exclusively vested in the pope and bishops in communion with him.
But that doesn't mean everything they say and/or do in connection with morals and faith is infallible. There are rules, procedures, and criteria.
Most of it is just authoritative, which still doesn't mean that if SN has other ideas about who is or isn't really a Catholic or what is and isn't really Catholicism, he gets to overrule it all on his owns-y.
It just means that a subsequent authority might.
^^That's kind of reductive. But my basic point is that the doctrine of infallibility doesn't mean that they're globally morally infallible as a matter of doctrine.
To multiple addressees…
To JGC #535:
“So we’re talking one pope making a supposedly infallible pronouncement on a matter of faith (i.e.,the true nature of Jesus) and a later Pope condemning that pronouncement as heresy.”
“Supposedly” is the key word, though probably not in the way you intended. Honorius’ pronouncement was NOT infallible teaching.
I don’t have the time now to go through this. I haven’t read through all of this but you can give it a try: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10502a.htm
.....
To Julian Frost #536:
Me: “Have you seen any scholarly work on this specific question regarding Gen 1:14 vis-à-vis the other Gen 1 verses?”
You: “No.”
I thought so.
To JGC #537:
You: “… That’s the reason we find two separate and contradictory accounts of creation, for example, present in Genesis.”
Me: “There is NO contradiction between Genesis 1 & 2.”
You: “Genesis offers two different creation accounts, one in chapter 1 and 1 in chapter 2, that disagree about the…”
Oy vey! I’m getting a headache!
I need to take a break, and get my mind off all this stuff. Get away from all this heavy religious and scientific and morality stuff.
Before I go for something to eat, I’d like to broach something completely different, and personal. And maybe get some advice from you.
I may be considering writing a biography of Eli Manning. You know, the quarterback for the New York Giants. I have a rough outline for the first two chapters. Please tell me what you think.
Chapter 1:
Eli was born 1/3/81.
Seven years later he began to take a keen interest in playing football.
Seven years after that, he began to excel in the game at Isidore Newman High School.
Seven years after this, he was well on his way to building an impressive college career at Ole Miss.
Seven years later, he had already won the first of his two Super Bowl rings!
Chapter 2:
Eli Manning quarterbacked the New York Giants to Super Bowl Championships in 2007 and 2011.
He’s definitely a candidate for eventual Hall of Fame status. What a professional football career!
Now, Eli learned many valuable lessons about football and about life in high school.
And then, he had a brother, Peyton, who also had a great influence on him.
That’s all I have so far. I’ve never written a book before, so I could use some advice.
I was wondering, does anyone out there think I should re-order the Chapter 2 stuff? I mean, you don’t think anyone would misread it and think Eli went to high school and received a sibling AFTER he won the two Super Bowls do you? No way. Maybe I’m just being paranoid. Hey, gimme a break. I’m just a novice at this.
Anyway, I'd appreciate your (or anyone's) feedback.
Now I got to feed my hunger.
Once again, I don't think Sin Novitas would find any refuge there, either.
You're right. There is no such teaching.
That's wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right, and a disservice to both tradition and understanding, to boot.
It seems like you can't imagine anything or anybody greater than yourself doing anything. Including (specifically) making divine revelations.
That's kind of a handicap.
I'm torn between invoking the Tischreden and the triteness of Arkell v. Pressdram, but I'm also not interested enough to expend any creative effort in service of this sham.
Once you concede simul in this fashion, though, there's not much left of the simultaneity-as-contradiction position.
How do you figure? I can't really see how "all things" could be created "together" unless they were also created "at once."
I mean, I personally find the past tense in the passage to be pretty much nonsensical, but IA definitely NAC.
Are there any decent attestations of κοινός having such a temporal sense?
To JGC #547:
Me: “As a further example, Nancy Pelosi is a “practicing Catholic”, but she’s not really Catholic, because she supports abortion and abortion rights.”
You: “What authority do you presume you possess to determine who does and does not represent a ‘real’ Catholic?”
I don’t have the authority and don’t need to have the authority. I just need to read - read FROM the authority, the Catholic Church. It’s quite objective, and it’s not rocket science (e.g. CCC paragraphs 2271, 2272).
It’s kind of like a person named Nancy saying she’s a “Phillies fan”, but you find out Nancy actually will root for other Major League teams. Sometimes Nancy will even root for the other team when they’re playing the Phillies! Nancy may say she’s a “Phillies fan”, but she’s not a real Phillies fan.
It’s not rocket science.
To JGC #550:
“No one, however, is saying “We just know it evolved”, are they? Instead what’s being said is “A very, very large body of evidence from multiple fields of scientific inquiry…
“(the fossil record; fossil transitional series…”
Everyone agrees we have fossils. It’s the INTERPRETATION of fossils that gets rocky. And the term “transitional” is ridiculous. As I wrote recently:
[I think the evolutionary community needs to do a better job of word choice. To denote a fossil as “transitional” adds nothing to the conversation. Because in evolution, EVERY fossil, and indeed every living thing, is “transitional”. That is, everything is or was in the process of becoming something else. For evolutionists, YOU are a transitional species. (They just don’t know with certainty what human beings transitioned FROM and have no clue what humans are transitioning TO.) “Intermediate” is just as inadequate. A ’tweener or in-between’er? In any case, the term requires it be coupled with the specific pre and post things.]
“… nested hierarchy of species…”
Nested hierarchy: “Common ancestry is conspicuous. Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies…” http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml
“…genetic and peptide homologies…”
Homology, per Merriam-Webster: “1. a similarity often attributable to common origin. 2. A likeness in structure between parts of different organisms…due to evolutionary differentiation from a corresponding part in a common ancestor.”
“… convergence of independent phylogenies…”
Phylogeny, per M-W: “1. the evolutionary history of a kind of organism. 2. the evolution of a genetically related group of organisms as distinguished from the development of the individual organism.”
“… pseudogenes…”
Pseudogene: “A pseudogene is a DNA sequence that resembles a gene but has been mutated into an inactive form over the course of evolution. A pseudogene shares an evolutionary history with a functional gene and can provide insight into their shared ancestry.” http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/glossary=pseudogene
“… vestigial structures…”
Vestigial structure: definition: I’ll give you one guess.
Do you see a pattern here, JGC?
Do you understand why many people besides yourself would see the above as “We’re certain evolution is true because we find things that evolved, by definition”?
It’s begging the question/tautological/circular reasoning. It’s not science.
“Please note that by definition these observations represent macro-evolution.”
Oy! Get some rest, JGC.
To multiple addressees…
To ann #566:
“I meant Ecclesiasticus 18:1, “He that liveth forever created all things together.”
My Bible (RSV-CE) reads “He who lives forever created the whole universe.”
Other translations are similar or identical: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Sirach%2018%3A1
I don’t see anything in conflict with Genesis 1. But I’m not a Scripture scholar, or a scholar of ancient Biblical languages.
I know Augustine posited an instantaneous creation, or one day instead of six. (Most, perhaps all, other Church Fathers went with six 24-hour days.) Augustine also had some rather unorthodox ideas regarding life in the womb, as I recall. Neither of these Augustinian views are infallible teaching.
And frankly, the idea of allowing one verse, especially the innocuous Sirach 18:1, to trump all those in Gen 1 & 2 seems ludicrous. (St. Augustine, pray for me and us anyway!)
....
To Helianthus #567:
“ChrisP and myself were talking about [Catholic Church sexual abuse cases]."
OK. But that does not change the infallibility of the Church's teaching.
“The fact which is irking me, ChrisP, and I hope the vast majority of Catholic people, is that leaders of the Catholic church did a less than sterling work at keeping these deviants away from children.”
I agree. In fact, I’m fairly confident I’m much more irked than you on this.
“I can not accept taking moral lessons from these types of people. I have higher expectations of people whose moral opinion I should trust.”
This strikes me as not too dissimilar from a person who decides never to call 911 in an emergency, and, in fact, would do away with police departments and law enforcement in general. Because he read about corrupt cops, some at the highest levels.
I'll wait for you to read through all of it and present a coherent argument why Honorius' affirmation of the doctrine of monothelitism can not be considered to represent a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith.
Re: your proposed autobiography, if you're attempting an analogy for Genesis Chapters 1 and 2, you've failed. A valid analogy would have the first two chapters of your biography presenting the same information while stating they occurred in two different and contradictory sequences of events.
Something like:
Chapter 1:
Eli was born 1/3/81.
Seven years later he began to take a keen interest in playing football.
and
Chapter 2
Eli began to take a keen interest in playing football on
1/3/81.
Seven years after that, he was born.
So you don't forgot the questions you've been asked to answer to while you take that 'break', I'll repeat them:
Was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) or before all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?
Were Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen 1:25-27) or a tdifferent times (Gen 2:18-22)?
You owe me a new irony meter, see.
Funny, you had to be dragged through the freaking woods to get to this proclamation.
No, I was just doing a lazy Indo-European thing in my head.
In fairness to the church, it wasn't cheapness that led to this but concerns about possible nepotism. The pope feared that priests would favour their own children for elevation to the priesthood and promotions. While I see the point, I agree that celibacy is a dreadful solution.
Well, if the local cops are corrupt, up and including their bosses, would you really hope they will help you?
More precisely, would you trust them to give you or your kids good advice on how to behave properly and honestly?
That's a charitable interpretation of things, but given that 4/5 of the Church was doing just fine with married priests who had kids and all at the time the decision was made, I don't buy it.
There might be some possible explanations behind the decision besides just the financial matter of supporting wives (or even concubines) and children of priests, like the fact that people who don't boink just seem a little "holier," which lends them an additional aura of power. Call me cynical, but I have a very hard time believing that there was anything actually high-minded that went into the decision. I mean, concern that married priests having families might lead to nepotism doesn't make any logical sense when you consider that it was a change to nearly a thousand years of traditional practice with Biblical precedent.
^ The tradition (of married priests) had Biblical precedent, that is, not the change. (1 Timothy 3:2)
As does the Roman church, so long as they're converts.
Well, the Eastern Rite Churches are also Roman, just not Latin Rite.
But yeah, pedantry aside, I once met one of the priests who was "grandfathered in" from the Episcopal Church, so to speak, and his wife.
To JGC #587:
“I’ll wait for you to read through all of it and present a coherent argument why Honorius’ affirmation of the doctrine of monothelitism can not be considered to represent a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith.”
The bad news is I still haven’t read that newadvent article.
The good news is I read your sentence above and can declare your wait is over!
Because “a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith” is not what defines infallibility.
“Re: your proposed **autobiography** biography…” FTFY.
“Was Adam created after all other animals (Gen 1: 25-27) or before all other animals (gen 2:18-19)?”
I think he was created after the animals and on the same day as the animals. Gen 2 is a reflection on the creation with different emphases (e.g. Gen 2:7-8; Gen 2:15), emphases other than the ordinal.
Hey, I can imagine someone developing a new theory. Call it the “two Lords/two Adams/two gardens theory.” Here’s why:
The first of the two: “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed.” [Gen 2:7-8]
Then, seven full verses later, the second of the two: “The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.” [Gen 2:15]
So two different Lords, Adams and gardens.
Have you heard anyone espousing this theory?
“Were Adam and Eve created at the same time (Gen 1:25-27) or a tdifferent times (Gen 2:18-22)?”
Different times. Adam first.
To Julian Frost #591:
“I agree that [priestly] celibacy is a dreadful solution.”
Some old bachelors might disagree:
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." [Mat 19:12]
“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” [1 Corinthians 7:32-35]
Priestly celibacy is a DISCIPLINE of the Church, NOT a dogma. A discipline CAN be changed, although this one is unlikely to. The Catholic Church does have some married priests. Currently though, a man may not marry AFTER he is ordained.
Given that everybody else is well ahead of you, perhaps you could get back to addressing your pile of earlier failings rather than further noising up the joint with cut-and-paste blobs.
Thanks for the correction; I remembered that earlier, but my attention had shifted to working on something for my own church.
Since JPII and Benedict took an active hand in developing procedures to protect the guilty, with the higher motive of protecting what the church really favors, money, "less than sterling work" is one of the largest understatements in history (I know you were not downplaying anything relating to the pedophile coverups the leadership engaged in)
Pope Francis was more or less elected purely because he was about the only man they could find that wasn't connected to the scandal.
That is very, very wrong. Shockingly so. You do not have the authority.
Interesting how proper doctors are now using Bechamp's work instead of Pasteur's with the new hyjack a virus to kill cancer. Soon they will realise that all those clever attempts to prevent childhood viruses is what is behind the increases in cancer.
SNE quoted approvingly:
"And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit . . ."
Human nature never changes - all one has to do is look at Facebook or twitter to realize young teenage women are primarily interested in the affairs of the Lord.
/sarcasm off/
Actually, the bad news is that you believe providing a citation to an article you haven’t even read constitutes a valid defense of a claim you’ve made.
So you reject the Catholic Church's doctrine of papal infallibity when speaking on matters of morals and faith??
I.e., that the account in chapter 1 is correct and the account in chapter 2 is incorrect.
I.e., the account in chapter 1 is incorrect and the account in chapter 2 is correct.
Clearly you can only believe that the two accounts are not only contradictory but that neither account is accurate.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I'll address your problems with biology @585 once hI've had sufficient caffiene.
That's flatly wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right.
Additionally, since they're all equally authoritative and no one reading is infallible, what that unambiguously means is that it's the authentic teaching of the Church that Genesis cannot be construed as decisive proof of a singular set of historical and/or scientific facts about creation.
That doesn't mean you can't give it a go if you feel like it. But you're not God. Nor are you the Church. And you're therefore not in a position to lay down the law about anything as if you were either just because you can read.
Especially when you haven't evidently actually bothered reading most of what Catholic authority has to say on the subject you're discussing.
Please make a note of it.
No, but Jewish midrash resolve the problem of the separate and contradictory accounts of the creation of Adam's wife by positing God created two different wives for Adam, Lilith first according to chapter one and Eve in chapter 2 after Lillith proved unacceptable (because she had the temerity to consider herself -gasp!-Adam's equal).
Poor johnny, someone else has stolen the spotlight.
The viruses strains used in cancer therapies are vaccine strains and other strains modified from the wild forms.
Wild viruses may be occasionally good at killing cancer cells, but they are unfortunately also very good at killing healthy cells. After all, there are usually more of the latter in the average host.
And the notion to use viruses to kill cancer cells is in no way a refutation of Pasteur's work. Quite the contrary, as again it's the micro-organisms which are responsible for the deeds, here killing tumor cells.
(I would have put something about evolution here, but someone else will get upset)
Hello, SN. Try -- eg, CCC, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 4.
It's pretty important.
Also, btw:
All right. If it seems so to you, you don't have to agree with it.
But if it's okay to dismiss one part of a sacred text as "innocuous," why isn't it okay for all or any parts? Exactly?
Additionally, while it's not rocket science, it is reading. And unless you know something that I don't, neither of those applies to Nancy Pelosi, per a plain reading of not-difficult-to-comprehend words.
I mean, has she procured a completed abortion or had one, to your knowledge?
(I thought you were talking about 2273.)
Just to anticipate.
Yes, I know it says that "formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense,"
But here's the thing. This:
is not formal cooperation in an abortion. It's formal cooperation in the legislative process.
And yes, that is a meaningful distinction. As the CCC makes plain with all the singular nouns in "a person who procures a completed abortion," when it says "formal cooperation in an abortion," that's what it means -- ie, there has to be an abortion imminent.
EG.
Fossils aren’t interpreted, see: they seem are. What you appear to trying to argue is that conclusions drawn from fossils are invalid, but if that’s the case you’ll need to provide examples where specific features found in fossils are not compatible to evolution.
"The viruses strains used in cancer therapies are vaccine strains and other strains modified from the wild forms.
Wild viruses may be occasionally good at killing cancer cells, but they are unfortunately also very good at killing healthy cells. After all, there are usually more of the latter in the average host." Heliboor
Nice medical anecdotes there, thing is other studies have showed that wild measles prevents atopy in adulthood, mumps protects against ovarian cancer, That is two that have slipped through the net. I wouldn't trust medical peer review to flag up too much Bechamp, we don't want apples on the floor, do we.
Don't expect a discourse, the grand O has decided I need a panel of moderation for every post, all I can do is sit and watch you lot swimming in medical waste and LOL.
I can only assume that this doctors and evolution thread is a bit of an own goal, ripe for picking and I suppose I was keeping it on the top!
See Noevo,
What precisely in geology and/or taphonomy says that this is not possible? Why does this contradict common sense? If a dinosaur died, its body was rapidly cooled, dried and mineralized, why could some of its proteins not survive for a million years in the right conditions? It may happen more frequently than we think:
That, "really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about", is what you apparently call "common sense".
I am quite confident I have read more about evolution and natural selection than you. It wouldn't surprise me if I have read more creationist and ID stuff too, having taken an interest in the area a few years ago. BTW, you might find this explanation of soft tissue preservation useful.
What "conflicting details or scientific contradictions"? We aren't sure how long soft tissues can be preserved for, and our understanding of that is changing. We have only had modern science for a few decades, so figuring out if, how or and something can be preserved for millions of years may take a while. That doesn't conflict with or contradict anything.
I think you are getting confused; it's the Creationists who claim “It just happened” literally by fiat. Scientists are interested in figuring out the details of exactly how 'it' happened. Natural selection doesn't just show us how it might have happened, it shows us that evolution was inevitable given the circumstances on Earth over the past few millions years.
I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.
Do you expect scientists to have figured out how everything happened all at once in every detail? If not, we must surely build up a picture that gets more and more accurate over time, with more and more details. Some things we don't understand, some things we probably misunderstand, many things we don't even know we don't know.
An entirely accurate model of the universe would have to be the same size and take up the same space-time as the real universe, which is obviously impossible, so unless someone figures out a way around this we are stuck with imperfect models. Science is an ongoing process groping towards an ever elusive 'truth'. "Science doesn't know everything therefore God" is just a lazy cop-out, essentially.
Infallible Holy Writ, conversely, saves you from having to work out any details. Very few scientists today believe in the kind of interventionist God you appear to believe in, thankfully.
Again you seem to be confused. The term “God of the gaps” refers to the use of supernatural explanations for things we are currently unable to explain, things which have been disappearing under the onslaught of science.
Fresh from re-reading 'A Brief History of Time' think it's fair to say that we no longer require an interventionist God to explain our observations of the universe, as there are no longer any real gaps that require one. There are things we cannot yet explain and may never be able to explain (like what happened before the Big Bang) but a supernatural explanation is no longer necessary for either the universe in general of life in particular.
Seriously, why couldn't some fragments of collagen survive inside a piece of fossilized dinosaur bone for 65 million years? What makes this so inexplicable that the existence of a supernatural deity is the only possible explanation?
The only alternative explanation seems to be ridiculous on its face, evolution so far explains everything we have encountered in the fossil record and is supported by multiple scientific fields. What else would a rational person believe? An inconsistent explanation thought up by some illiterate pastoralists in the Middle East a few thousand years ago?
You appear to believe in evolution but are unwilling to believe in speciation, which I find that amusing given your recent comment claiming that we are all transitional. I agree with you to an extent:, but you seem to have missed the next logical step which is to realize that taxonomies are not natural, they are human constructions, not nature's (or God's). Speciation is an artefact of human classificatory systems; nothing magical happens when one species evolves to become different far enough that it becomes a different species, it just becomes convenient to classify it differently.
If you believe in evolution within a species, there is nothing at all to prevent you from believing in speciation. All it requires is time, environmental pressure and some reproductive isolation. Here's how Darwin put it in 'The Origin of Species':
That reminds me, here's a little conundrum for you. If you look at herring gulls living in Britain, you will see they are distinct from lesser black-headed gull, a separate species, also living in Britain. They are very similar to herring gulls living in North America, which are similar to those living in Siberia. However (from Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' ) :
Natural selection and evolution explain this perfectly. As Wiki points out:
How does Creationism explain this odd phenomenon?
L-gulonolactone oxidase (GULO) is the final enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway for vitamin C in most plants and many animals, allowing them to produce vitamin C from glucose or galactose. There are a animals, however, that can no longer synthesize their own vitamin C and are dependent on dietary sources to provide it (which is why humans can develop scurvy).
The GULO-P gene found in humans, chimpanzees, orangutans and macaques is no longer functional, rendering it a pseudogene. What’s notable is that in all these the functional gene is no longer functional due to the 164 nucleotide sequence of exon X exhibiting the same single nucleotide deletion.
That s, not only do humans, apes and old world monkeys all possess a GULO-P pseudogene rather than a functional GULO-P gene, the pseudogene is broken in exactly the same way in all three, as a consequence of a random mutational event.
Evolution explains this observation as being the result of these primates all arising by descent form a sahred common ancestor in which the GULO-P gene had already undergone the single nucleotide deletion, such that they inherited the non-functional GULO pseudogene instead of a functional copy.
How does whatever model you prefer to evolution explain this instead, See?
How does whatever model you prefer to evolution explain this instead, See?
And God said: "let there be a 164 bp deletion in the GULO-P" gene". Amen.
lowercase johnny:
[citation needed]
To multiple addressees…
To Narad #600:
“…my attention had shifted to working on something for my own church.”
Which church is that?
….
To JGC #606:
"So you reject the Catholic Church’s doctrine of papal infallibity when speaking on matters of morals and faith??"
No I reject your false definition of it (“a sitting pope speaking with regard to an issue of Christian faith”).
“Clearly you can only believe that the two accounts are not only contradictory but that neither account is accurate.”
Clearly an objectively false statement.
To ann #603:
Me: “I don’t have the authority [to determine the truth of Nancy Pelosi’s Catholicity] and don’t need to have the authority. I just need to read – read FROM the authority, the Catholic Church.”
You: “That is very, very wrong. Shockingly so. You do not have the authority.”
Jesus:
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mat 18:15-18]
Paul:
“But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one.
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?
God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you." [1 Cor 5:11-13]
To ann #608:
Me: “(Most, perhaps all, other Church Fathers went with six 24-hour days.)”
You: “That’s flatly wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right.”
Flatly wrong? Well, you certainly can’t prove me wrong.
Would you provide just a couple citations from the Church Fathers that support (not necessarily prove) your contention?
See, we caught you lying to us repeatedly. You have no moral high ground to take.
To ann #611:
“Try — eg, CCC, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article 4. It’s pretty important.”
I tried it. I believe it. Do you see something there that goes against anything I’ve said? If so, what specifically?
“But if it’s okay to dismiss one part of a sacred text as “innocuous,” why isn’t it okay for all or any parts? Exactly?”
I don’t dismiss ANY part of Scripture. When I said Sirach 18:1 was “innocuous”, I did not mean it should be ignored. I meant that it was harmless, could cause no trouble, IN THE CONTEXT OF the interpreting/understanding the true timing of creation. Similarly, I find John 1:3 “innocuous” in this context.
To ann #612, 613:
“…is not formal cooperation in an abortion. It’s formal cooperation in the legislative process. And yes, that is a meaningful distinction.”
No, I think not. Try CCC 1868.
Better yet, take to heart (and mind) what this bishop said about Nancy:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/nicklesspelos.htm
I think many, if not most, of the RIgulars are aware of that; why do you want to know?
Except, of course, when you just have to, because of internal contradictions in the text (like when you dismiss the part of Genesis chapter 1 that states Adam and Eve were created together, after all other animals had been created.)
Not at all: you've explictly rejected parts of both chapter's accounts.
"No, I think not."
Well, as usual, you're little statement is wrong. But why should anyone care what your quoted bishop says - can a bishop's words be taken as infallible? If not, per you, they don't mean shit.
Lots of talk above about sexual abuse by clergy.
Especially, and perhaps exclusively, about abuse by Catholic clergy. Of course.
More sad, late-breaking news here:
“The UK's Methodist Church has made a public apology after an investigation uncovered reports of nearly 2,000 alleged abusers - including 914 allegations involving sexual abuse.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32909444
If anything positive can be gained from this from a PR point of view, it might be that at least the Methodist church doesn’t claim its teachings are true,
and they have married shepherds.
sn, your church has looked the other way at abuses by its priests for centuries, and had at least two of its most recent leaders actively involved in hiding the guilty simply to protect the church's assets - never mind the devastation of the victims.
The fact that the methodist church has its own problems (no surprise there - religions are all about telling others how to live without requiring the same of its officials) in no way absolves your choice of church from being considered a horrid organization.
JGC @618 re GULO-P - could you point me to some reference material on the single nucleotide deletion? It seems like an interesting example illustrating multiple points.
JGC,
The same gene in guinea pigs is broken in a different way IIRC. Interestingly, humans, apes and old world monkeys have the necessary machinery to produce vitamin C given a working version of the gene despite these species not having had one for 40 million years. I think that also illustrates the way that evolution doesn't discard anything it doesn't need: it just hangs around until it becomes a liability, or just gradually atrophies into something economical and innocuous through mutation. It's all contingency and happenstance.
I thought that a functional GULO gene turns one into a wolverine.
I did start writing a novel with a similar premise, titled 'Homo Ascorbicus', with a modified hepatitis B virus delivering functional copies of the gene. It got bogged down in dialog but might dig it out and dust it down.
I think you need a rapid mutant healing factor, pop-up claws, an adamantium laced skeleton, a Canadian accent, and a bad attitude to be a Wolverine.
I guess it would have to be a retrovirus to permanently affect the genome...
Don't forget the sideburns. Very important.
Or, as in the case of the adaptive immune system, backs itself into a Red Queen corner.
Chemomom, I'd start with two article's by Nikishima's lab
"Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis" PMID:10572964
and
"The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene--the gene responsible for scurvy--and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon", PMID:14703305
GF,
I see that Phildo has idiotically (and predictably) put himself in the position of having to rely on "studies" of the sort that he routinely claims are intrinsically without merit.
The reported mumps inverse correlation with ovarian cancer is well known (and again relies upon things that Phildo doesn't "believe in"). However, that Cynthia Parker–esque fave cuts both ways.
Rats, I just put in three links when replying to GF.
I'm going to skip your citations, because your ability to read those doesn't give you the authority to say who is or is not a Catholic any more than your ability to read anything else does, and that's not according to me, it's according to the teachings of the Church on morals and faith.
E-effing-G, Dei Verbum does not say:
Rather, it says:
More in a moment.
I've been looking for an exegesis of the seasons things for you, btw. No luck.
Nice deflection See Noevo. I am unsurprised. Pedophiles gravitate to places where they have access to potential victims. Indeed, the Anglican Church in Australia has had significant issue with pedophile priests as well. The main difference between them and the Catholic Church has been the fact that they have publicly apologised, have not tried to silence victims with intimidation or bribes, have not protected pedophile clergy by moving them from parish to parish, have not tried to cover up the activities at the highest level, have rooted out those in the church hierarchy that turned a blind eye to these activities and have not claimed that despite all this, the church's teachings on morals are infallible.
To JGC:
#607: “I’ll address your problems with biology @585 once hI’ve had sufficient caffiene.”
… which led to…
#614.
Oy vey.
You better lay off the caffeine, do some meditation (or better yet, some thinking), and get a proof-reader, or at least utilize spell-check.
Hey, in #550 you missed one of the multiple fields of scientific inquiry. It’s a pretty new confirmation of evolution, so it’s understandable you haven’t heard of it yet.
It’s “aquageny” (a.k.a. “homoaqualogy”)
Aquageny: definition:
1.a similarity often attributable to common origin.
2.likeness in water content between parts of different organisms (as the water content of a watermelon and that of the watermelon man) due to evolutionary differentiation from the corresponding water content in a common ancestor.
Of course, watermelon’s 92% water content vs. the watermelon man’s 60% lets us know that their common ancestor was probably not in the recent past.
Aquageny.
Dig it, Watermelon Man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bjPlBC4h_8
JGC: thank you. It will take me a while to sort through the biologoy (note my nym), but, hey, I have all summer.
When you have nothing of substance to offer, See, suggest you heed proverbs 17:28 (most often paraphrased as "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt.").
Yes, I think so.
Try CCC 1869, which plainly states that the consequences of the cooperation mentioned moments earlier in CCC 1868 are:
And decidedly does not say that they include excommunication latae sententiae.
Moreover, CCC 2272 specifies "formal cooperation."
Still yet further, as a matter of common sense, the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae cannot be said to have been incurred except with very detailed reference to a specific abortion and its procurement, since it might not even apply to the person who had one and therefore can only be considered on a case-by-case basis.
See, e.g., canon law generally.
Right back atcha. Because even he doesn't go further than describing her as someone "who claims to be Catholic." He certainly doesn't say that she isn't one. And still less does he say that she's effectively excommunicated herself. So you still don't have the authority to.
There's nothing like invoking Muphry's law as a lead-in to frank gibbering, all wrapped up with a Second Coming of Herbie Hancock. Perhaps the next pathetic evasion insight will come from Rockit.
To Kreboizen #617:
“What precisely in geology and/or taphonomy says that this is not possible?”
I suppose ANYTHING is possible. I mean, with an act of, well… (cf. Mat 17:20).
To get a better feel for your ideas about possibilities, I’ll change topic briefly and ask:
Do you believe it’s possible that all the universal constants not only exist but are also at their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance?
“There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Yes. And in dating methodologies, too.
Me: “[Evolutionists basically are saying] We just KNOW it evolved.”
You: “I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.”
That’s very encouraging! Very refreshing.
So, you’d say “We just DON’T know it evolved.”
I might possibly be OK with evolution being taught in science classes (I’m already OK with it being taught in philosophy classes) IF the texts and the teachers would clearly make your disclaimer to the students: “We just DON’T KNOW it evolved.”
Do you foresee that happening soon? If not, why not?
“Infallible Holy Writ, conversely, saves you from having to work out any details.”
Really? Children of God don’t have to work and attend to details?
Because I read
“… fill the earth and SUBDUE it; and HAVE DOMINION OVER over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth…
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to TILL it and KEEP it…
So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would CALL them; and whatever the man CALLEDcalled every living creature, that was its NAME. The man GAVE NAMES to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field…”
And after the Fall, even more WORK and DETAILS:
“… cursed is the ground because of you; in TOIL you shall eat of it all the days of your life… In the SWEAT of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground…”
And God doesn’t just ordain man’s hard work and attention to detail. He ENCOURGES our CURIOSITY about Him and His works:
“One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after;
that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the LORD, and to INQUIRE in his temple.” [Psalm 27:4]
And please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Please? You’re applying to me the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I’ve been saying when you write:
“You appear to believe in evolution but are unwilling to believe in speciation…”
No. By all appearances I do NOT believe in evolution but I AM willing to believe in “speciation” (i.e. variation within kinds of organisms).
“which I find that amusing given your recent comment claiming that we are all transitional”.
No. I CLEARLY believe organisms are NOT transitional. When I said ‘all things are transitional’, I was paraphrasing the spiel of evolutionists. That should have been crystal clear given the context of the remarks and who was making the remarks (i.e. me, an anti-evolutionist).
…….
“That reminds me, here’s a little conundrum for you. If you look at herring gulls …How does Creationism explain this odd phenomenon?”
Genesis 1:21.
@SN, #624 --
In re: The CCC. I'm just pointing out how considerable the scope of mercy that the Church isn't restricting in 2272 really is, that being another of the things that you're not authorized (or, ftm, qualified) to dispense, withhold, or legislate all by yourself, based on nothing more than your ability to read.
In re: The use of the word "inoccuous":
OK. So stipulated. However.
In re: Your argument as a whole and your assertions about early medieval exegeses of Genesis in particular, it really does seem to me that you're kind of overlooking, eg, CCC III, 109 - 119. Especially this:
From my point of view, you're just unreasonably depriving yourself of the full treasury of teachings on morals and faith available to you But I don't mean that in a mean way. I just mean that it makes me sad to see.
Speaking of which:
No, I don't think I will. Because for personal reasons, unrelated to faith, I just don't feel like it. But again, I don't mean that in a mean way. So I hope you'll forgive me for it. And you should really read them yourself anyway, if you haven't.
FWIW, I particularly recommend Confessions and The City of God. The former, especially, is a pure pleasure to read, imo. But de gustibus non est disputandum. I have to admit.
Oh! Hey! That reminds me. I can actually provide an on-point citation from Augustine, since it happens to have been sitting right there in the CCC, being a part of ordinarily magisterial and therefore infallible teachings on morals and faith. To wit:
It's from his exposition of Psalms, though. So I guess you might not think that was applicable.
I do. But while I'll freely admit to being very opinionated, I don't pretend to be an authority. And am not.
That's not a "change," it's a point of screaming ignorance that has has already been ridiculed.
To Narad #626:
Me: “Which church is that?”
You: “I think many, if not most, of the RIgulars are aware of that; why do you want to know?”
Because I’m curious, like a scientist! I want to know for the simple joy of discovery.
But you’re obviously hesitant to tell me.
If you’re afraid to tell me, perhaps the other “RIgulars” will help me out, and show you there’s nothing to fear.
Transparency’s a good thing, yes? Or do you work at the White House currently?
No.
When you've got "Aquageny" sitting right there, you've got no excuse for not going with something a little more Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloopical, imo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6RIs2fj8to
Speaking of unreasonably depriving yourself of a full treasury of riches.
But again, de gustibus etc.
To ann #643:
“I’m going to skip your citations, because your ability to read those doesn’t give you the authority to say who is or is not a Catholic…”
Please don’t skip those citations, or at least THESE citations, because I have some questions on them.
In the citation I gave of Mat 18:15-18, how does a believer KNOW when “your brother SINS against you” and how would he have the capability to DEFINE and “TELL him his FAULT”?
In the citation of 1 Cor 5:11-13, how can Paul tell the believers to JUDGE those inside the church, and how would they have the BASIS for this REQUIRED judging?
P.S.
You never responded to a question of mine. I had used some CAPS in it to make it more noticeable, but apparently you missed it. I’ll repost it:
“HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?”
No, Chuckles, I want a genuine explanation, not some stupid, diversionary horseshіt about "the joy of discovery." Your random, petulant demands have already proved themselves to be utter time-wasters, so I suggest you come the fυck up with one.
Remember when you were busy making an ass of yourself inquiring whether people were atheists? Trying to substitute yourself for a beit din? No? Time to pretend it never happened, like all the rest of your fυcking pratfalls?
Well, here's your chance to shine, babycakes.
See Noevo: you wrote,
Me: “[Evolutionists basically are saying] We just KNOW it evolved.”
You: “I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.”
That’s very encouraging! Very refreshing.
So, you’d say “We just DON’T know it evolved.”
Thank you for providing such an outstanding example of how deeply dishonest you are. This sad attempt to support your position through lying serves a wonderful purpose: it shows readers that you've realized you cannot rely on truth to make your case, and that you must resort to this sort of desperate and laughable -- and starkly dishonest -- tactic to press your cause.
You have exposed your total lack of character better than anyone else could have. Thank you.
To ann #648:
“Try CCC 1869, which plainly states that the consequences of the cooperation mentioned moments earlier in CCC 1868 are: “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.””
You must have overlooked the full paragraph of CCC 1869. The first two sentences are:
“Thus sin MAKES MEN ACCOMPLICES OF ONE ANOTHER and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins GIVE RISE TO social situations and INSTITUTIONS that are contrary to the divine goodness.”
No, Nancy didn’t perform the abortions, and didn’t directly fund the abortions. But this dear practicing Catholic legislator WORKED and VOTED to allow the INSTITUTIONS (i.e. abortion clinics) to LEGALLY fulfill their very charter (i.e. perform ABORTIONS).
And she gets a little mammon kickback, I’m pretty sure. (Or do you think Planned Parenthood doesn’t contribute to Nancy’s and other Dem’s campaigns?)
It's a shame there's no <redletter> markup to allow S.N. to skip the full caps and really let it all hang out.
Oh man, maybe that explains my problems.
To ann #651:
“@SN, #624 — In re: The CCC. I’m just pointing out how considerable the scope of mercy that the Church isn’t restricting in 2272 really is, that being another of the things that you’re not authorized (or, ftm, qualified) to dispense, withhold, or legislate all by yourself, based on nothing more than your ability to read.”
I’m really not sure I understand this. Would you like do-over? Try a re-write, and I might see clearly what you’re saying.
And don’t read too much into “read” (“…based on nothing more than your ability to read.”). “Read” includes “hearing”, “learning”, “knowing” what the Church teaches. "Reading" so you can abide by Mat 18:15-18, 1 Cor 5:11-13, etc.
“From my point of view, you’re just unreasonably depriving yourself of the full treasury of teachings on morals and faith available to you But I don’t mean that in a mean way. I just mean that it makes me sad to see.”
I’m sorry you’re sad. Clearer thinking can help with that. On the bright side, I’m happier and more joyful than ever (and I’m 59!).
Me: “(Most, perhaps all, other Church Fathers went with six 24-hour days.)”
You: “That’s flatly wrong, as well as too simplistic to be right.”
Me: “Would you provide just a couple citations from the Church Fathers that support (not necessarily prove) your contention?”
You: “No, I don’t think I will. Because for personal reasons, unrelated to faith, I just don’t feel like it.”
I forgive you.
P.S.
Do you feel like answering one of my other questions, namely the following?
“HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?”
P.P.S.
I’ve read St. Augustine’s “Confessions”, liked it, and can certainly understand why it’s a classic of literature, let alone of Catholic literature.
Omnia Extares!
To Narad #656:
Boy oh boy!
I’ve REALLY got you worked up, haven’t I, daran?
Looks as though the moderator here expunges comments with a third hyperlink, but not those with profanity.
Just as well, for the moderator. He/she/it is probably fine with your #656.
"Expunged." It does not mean what you think it means.
You know the moderator has things to do other than sit on the board all day and approve comments.
Unless you abuse it most 3+ links or profanity laced comments eventually get approved.
I just want to know why G-d is such a nickname for Richard.
I mean either for some reason he needed to make the DNA and so many other things line up with evolutionary predictions but doesn't give any indication of it or he did it to deliberately lead people astray.
There are so many ways he could have stuck a signature in here or there that would be so obviously the hand of God that we'd all give up on the evolution thing, but no he couldn't do that. He'd rather fool a lot of people than give them a reason to believe.
@#658 --
No, I saw and read the whole text, which is, after all, not very long.
But since (a) being an ACCOMPLICE to a crime does not, ipso facto, mean formally cooperating in its commission, per the plain meaning of the pertinent words; and (b) the penalty for GIVING RISE to social situations and INSTITUTIONS that are contrary to divine goodness is not excommunication latae sententiae, per the CCC, it just underscores and emphasizes the existence of the meaningful distinction I was pointing out in the first place, anyway.
So I can't say that I'm at all sure of what, exactly, you're accusing me of having overlooked. But given that IANA(canon)L and neither are you, I'm also not at all sure that it matters. By which I mean:
There is nothing in the whole body of authentic teachings on morals and faith that authorizes you to say who's a Catholic and who's not or to decide who has and hasn't effectively excommunicated themselves. Because you don't have that authority.
I mean, self-evidently, it wouldn't be a very universal faith if being a literate Catholic was all it took to go around expelling people from it. Please be serious.
I didn't think you were suggesting that JGC supported abortion. I thought you might be suggesting that Jewish observance included kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in religious rituals.
But you've already said that you weren't. And I've already apologized. So I'm not suggesting it again now. I'm just answering your question. I should hasten to add.
.
I see no evidence that G-d rewards Its* servants with a clean bill of mental health, let alone the absence of all sadness.** The fact that you think It does, though, suggests that you wouldn't have any idea about that.
*( )
**I have to wonder if you've ever really read the Gospels, or if Holy Week services have ever struck a chord with you.
That's telling. But no, I can quite calmly compose insults to press cringing, evasive shіtwits such as yourself into either following through or doubling down on cringing evasion.
At least you have made it quite clear what the choice at the core of your apparition is.
Nice work you're doing with that thing G-d sprouted upon your neck-stalk.
No, you're just so filled with pride and stupidity that you can't be bothered to figure out that Wordpress doesn't behave according to your Divine Expectations.
Now, are you going to get around to addressing the growing pile of on-point questions, or just keep rolling around in the corner?
C'mon, do you need help? Being limited by written expression, I don't have readily to hand the repertoire of sounds that usually help in attracting various animals.
Would it get you to expound upon "all the universal constants" in your own words (given that you brought it the fυck up in the first place) if I asked really nice?
It didn't seem to work with the last grossly pompous fraud, so don't worry about my holding my breath or anything.
To ann #666:
What a strange coincidence. #666.
Anyway, I’m trying to figure this out.
Me: [Earlier you [JGC] wrote that “but to answer [my] question I’m an observant Jew.” ... I don’t know what YOU mean by “observant Jew.” Could you explain what an “observant Jew” is?
I have a feeling it’s like someone telling me he “observes” (i.e. believes in and seeks to uphold) the Constitution. That comforts me, but briefly. Because pretty soon I may discover he understands the Constitution very differently than me. For example, he may discern in it a right to privacy which morphs into a right to abortion. And I don’t.]
Ann:
[I think it’s more like [See Noevo] thinks he’s so intellectually superior that he can insult JGC to his face without risk of detection.]
Me:
[I never said or suggested that JGC supports abortion. Because I really don’t know whether JGC supports abortion. HOWEVER, EVEN IF I HAD suggested JGC supports abortion, WHY do you think that would be an “INSULT”?]
Ann:
[I thought you might be suggesting that Jewish observance included kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in religious rituals.]
…
You thought I might be suggesting that Jewish observance included kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood in religious rituals?
How could you possibly think that the ….
Never mind.
P.S.
A Scripture verse for the day:
“After THIS many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.”
John 6:66
Low comedy coming from a self-appointed Torquemada.
Offering a fuller explanation is OK by me.
Actually. I'm a little surprised it's such a shock. I used the words "blood libel" in my very first response. In my follow-up I pointed out that what "People who are pro-abortion" and "People who are observant Jews" have in common is that "Some Say They're Baby-killers!" And as I've explained once already, it's an accusation that has centuries of not-at-all obscure history as the mainstay of Christian anti-semitism.
So I don't really know whence the confusion at this stage of the game. However.
Because a lot of people do think it, even still. Because it has a very long history in Catholic thought. And because as I understand the word "like" as you used it here...
...what it means is that while you're not saying that being an observant Jew equates to being pro-abortion, you are saying you have a feeling it's comparable. And that made no sense to me, except as an accusation of blood libel.
It's really not all that far-fetched. People think it.
" Your random, petulant demands have already proved themselves to be utter time-wasters, so I suggest you come the fυck up with one." Narad - the voice of reason
So I am guessing now that you have buried my exposure of germ theory and its holes - you would rather some religious nutter helped that process! It is rather funny that you are more scared of me than the catholics - I suppose you guys are fairly similar with your fallacy belief systems. How is the total overhaul of medical peer review coming on?
To ann #671:
Thanks for the explanation.
But you were way, way wrong about me. (BTW, in my near 60 years I can’t recall even hearing about this ‘Jew/blood libel/kidnapping/murdering/blood religious ritual’ stuff. Sheltered life I guess.)
No. I was poking at possible posturing.
When I see someone, PARTICULARLY on a website like this, proclaim that he/she/it is an “observant Jew” or “practicing Catholic” or “cradle Catholic” or “orthodox Christian” or “respecter of the Constitution” or, hell, just “good person”, I’ve found I need to poke. Or better yet, PEEK under the hood. To see what kind of engine his/her/its “car” really has. And I’ve found a lot of “lemons.” Bitter fruit, as it were (cf. Deut 29:18).
To my mind, and that of the Church, abortion is a real “lemon” (and it has been a “lemon” in virtually all societies throughout history, until recent times). And while my perceptions about possible posturing are not infallible, they are very often right.
As far as the taste for “lemons” of JGC the “observant Jew”, and you, well, I certainly can’t say that I know.
Silence can be golden. And silence can be deadly.
Anyway, if you need a job and like politics, you should consider applying for a position on Nancy Pelosi’s staff. You might have a good shot, because you share a great interest and, apparently, great knowledge, of all things Catholic. Nancy considers herself such a scholar of Catholic morality and history that she sometimes just about teaches the Church itself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8FmLCm2CiI&feature=related
And to put you over the top, you can convince her that you’ll always be there to support and comfort her. Like “Nancy, your strong pro-abortion agenda is just fine. It’s absolutely nothing for you to be concerned about, in this life (i.e. public excommunication) or in the next (i.e. hell). Don’t even listen to those *****, they have no authority anyway.
Now, let’s get back to the important stuff. Re-election!”
You go, girls!
And for johnny's next trick....... drumroll....... there are no stars, just holes poked in a black silk bag surrounding the Earth. Obvious when you think about it. Astronomers are far less intelligent than johnny so it's no wonder they don't understand what they see through the telescope.
And as you've ably demonstrated in your posts, apparently ignorance really can be bliss.
See Noevo,
Sorry, I don't regard the Bible or any other religious text as good evidence of what is possible. Do you have enough faith to stop me believing in evolution?
Surely, by definition something has to be possible by random chance, unless it's impossible. Our universe exists, so it clearly isn't impossible, therefore it must be possible for it to exist by random chance. QED.
The idea in science is to identify what assumptions you are making in your hypothesis and test them. That's why a scientific discovery isn't set in stone, and why some dates are undoubtedly wrong. We just don't know which ones yet. However, I do think it's safe to say the Earth has been around since long before 4004 BC, or whenever you think it was created.
No, because “We just DON’T know it evolved”, is not the opposite of, "We just KNOW it evolved” (and now it has rattled around my head a couple of dozen times I 'm not even sure I can parse it accurately). Off the top of my head I would say something like, "there is a huge raft of interlocking evidence from multiple disciplines that supports natural selection and evolution as the primary causes of the diversity of life on this planet".
That's very decent of you. I'm in the the UK, and you probably have no idea how archaic your attitudes seem to me. It's illegal to teach Creationism as scientific fact here. I might possibly be OK with Creationism being taught in religious education classes, in the 'nonsense some religious whackaloons believe' section.
So why are you so set against us figuring out how evolution works, when God has apparently told us to do so?
The problem is you don't understand what "evolution" and "speciation" mean. Evolution is, to adopt JGC's definition, "change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations". Speciation is the emergence of a new species from those changes in the frequency of alleles, usually accompanied by either extinction or reproductive isolation of the ancestor species. If you believe that variation can occur withing organisms due to random mutations, I don't see how you can deny possibly speciation. All you need is enough changes and reproductive isolation and you have a new species.
It isn't at all clear to me what you were claiming there, since you have stated that you believe in "variation within kinds of organisms" which strongly implies that that organisms change over time. The evolutionist view is that those small changes over long periods of time have led to the diversity we see in living things today. That means that all organisms (that reproduce) are in a transitional form between their parents and their offspring. I don't see how even a Creationist could deny that: if there were no changes we would all look exactly like our parents, unless there is some algorithm that comes into play when a species wanders too far from its divine template.
You really believe God created herring gulls and less black-backed gulls as ring species that look like very strong evidence for evolution and speciation through natural selection, just to fool us into not believing in Him? Seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
That's just a step away from the landscape, but I'm waiting to see just how poorly Sin Novitas chooses when selecting a source to barf up his "understanding" from.
I believe you. FWIW, I was actually expecting a swift denial, initially. I apologize again for reading more into your non-response than I ought to have done. And thank you for your understanding. I'm very happy to have been wrong.
It's never had a lot of currency in the United States, for both good reasons (ie -- thank goodness for the first amendment) and bad (ie -- historical anti-Catholic bigotry). Plus it's lost a lot of audience share everywhere to the Protocols model, which is a much better fit with contemporary sensibilities.
So again, I believe you.
I doubt there's a person alive who doesn't think that, at least privately. So there's certainly no shame in admitting it, per se. But fwiw, in my experience and observation, when you just leave it at "my perceptions about possible posturing are not infallible," you get better stats.
That's where I went wrong wrt the blood libel, in fact.
As far as the taste for “lemons” of JGC the “observant Jew”, and you, well, I certainly can’t say that I know.
I'm not observant.
WRT to knowledge of Catholicism, I'm just a blowhard, really. WRT Pelosi, thanks, but no thanks. And.../off-topic.
Stupid blockquote tags.
The proper reverse of "We just KNOW it evolved" is "We don't just KNOW it evolved", not "We just don't KNOW it evolved." In the erroneous statement, the modifier "just" affects the phrase "don't KNOW". Example:
I just don't know what to make of this.
That usage says you don't know. Whereas in:
I don't just know what to make of this, I know what do do about it.
You know?
Hey Jews in London want to ban women from driving their kids to school, how''s that for progress?
"Sorry, I don’t regard Pubmed, or any other religious text as good evidence of what is possible. Do you have enough faith to stop me believing in evolution?" The Kreb
Well Pasteur had no idea about where germs come from, he thought that they just 'appeared'.
When I see someone, PARTICULARLY on a website like this, proclaim that he/she/it is an “observant Jew” or “practicing Catholic” or “cradle Catholic” or “orthodox Christian” or “respecter of the Constitution” or, hell, just “good person”, I’ve found I need to poke
Because in his little world, no one who believes in the science behind evolution is a good person, or belongs to a church, or is a good American. Did I parse that correctly?
Whereas I just KNOW that See Noevo doesn't know how to use a dictionary, an encyclopedia, or a search engine, any of which would have told him what "observant Jew" means.
Between the refusal to look things up, and his insistence on trying to redefine terms that are basic to this discussion, I just KNOW that See is not trying to learn anything, is in fact trying to confuse everyone so that he doesn't risk learning about science, philosophy, or anything else other than the contents of his pockets.
I just KNOW that See Noevo is trying not to learn anything.
Or, better still, I KNOW that See Noevo is just trying to not learn anything.
Should've skipped Watermelon Man in favor of Rainbow Man.
To JGC #676:
I think abortion is gravely wrong in ALL cases.
Do you, an observant Jew, think abortion is gravely wrong in ALL cases?
Do you support the right to abortion?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.
Don’t be hesitant or embarrassed or fearful to answer.
In this day and age, especially, this is a subject on which people voice their opinions just about every day (and just about ALL day, if you watch MSNBC). Plus, you have the added protection of internet anonymity. Not that you’d need it, again, especially these days.
So which is it?
To Kreboizen #677:
Long post. I’ve read only the first couple lines. Will look at the rest later.
Me: “Do you believe it’s possible that all the universal constants not only exist but are also at their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance?”
You: “Surely, by definition something has to be possible by random chance, unless it’s impossible. Our universe exists, so it clearly isn’t impossible, therefore it must be possible for it to exist by random chance.”
I recall reading that all scientists, even the atheist ones, agree that it’s effectively IMpossible. That impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as “multiverse theory”.
It’s not hard to see why it’s impossible. But you believe it IS possible and, apparently, that it all DID happen by chance. Really?
Do we really need to go over the numbers? (It gets pretty bizarre right from the start, and then gets much, much worse.)
Your catastrophic ignorance is duly noted.
Did you miss the part where you've been requested more than once to identify what you think are "universial constants"? Quit evading and start Shining The Light.
See Noevo:
Why should I give a rat's ass what a collection of old fables has to say about the origin and development of life and the earth? Why should I take your delusions more seriously than the delusions of some drunk with the DTs in the ER?
JGC:
Although I may have used the phrase, I'm not much of a fan of the "ultimatum question."
To Kreboizen #677 (continued)
Me: “[Evolutionists basically are saying] We just KNOW it evolved.”
You: “I have never seen anything remotely resembling that claim in any reputable book about evolution.”
Me: “That’s very encouraging! Very refreshing. So, you’d say “We just DON’T know it evolved.”
You: “No, because “We just DON’T know it evolved”, is not the opposite of, “We just KNOW it evolved” (and now it has rattled around my head a couple of dozen times I ‘m not even sure I can parse it accurately).”
You’ve never seen anything REMOTELY like “We just know it evolved” in the literature? Never seen something like “Evolution is a fact”? Because I have.
I did some quick Googling and found "Evolution is a fact" or "Evolution is true" declared by Stephen J. Gould; Theodosius Dobzhansky; R. C. Lewontin; Neil A. Campbell; Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes; Douglas J. Futuyma; H. J. Muller; National Academy of Sciences; Jerry A. Coyne. Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html
3rd url = amazon page for Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution Is True”
“I’m in the the UK… It’s illegal to teach Creationism as scientific fact here.”
I’m OK with that. I just think it should likewise be illegal to teach Evolution as scientific fact.
Me: “And God doesn’t just ordain man’s hard work and attention to detail. He ENCOURGES our CURIOSITY about Him and His works.”
You: “So why are you so set against us figuring out how evolution works…?”
Firstly, I am so set against the unscientific, illogical nature of your sentence and sentiment. Read it again.
You’ve assumed the truth of a conclusion (i.e. “evolution is a fact”) before completing the “figuring” that is supposed to prove the conclusion. It’s about as silly as saying “So why are you so set against us figuring out how unicorns work…?”
Such presumption is pervasive throughout ALL pro-evolution literature. For example, see the definitions in #585 (e.g. for “Pseudogene”).
I do NOT find the so-called evidence for evolution to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt. And I am far from alone.
And we ALL (pro AND anti evolution) agree evolution can NOT be proven.
“It isn’t at all clear to me what you were claiming there, since you have stated that you believe in “variation within kinds of organisms” which strongly implies that that organisms change over time.”
I’ll keep this short. I believe in Dachshunds and Great Danes, and believe they’re both dogs which will never “become” cats.
But they aren't wolves anymore, are they?
Precisely. The idiocy of arguing that evolution doesn't run in reverse (up to some arbitrary threshold, since, e.g., attenuated viruses can revert to virulence) somehow demonstrates that it never happened eludes the cowardly pseudophysicist.
Apropos...
What's your position on the historicity of Exodus?
See Noevo,
The universe we are living in is impossible? Perhaps you have been reading different scientific literature to that I have been perusing.
I'm struggling, frankly, with the concept that my existence is not possible.
It clearly is possible because, well, here we are having this discussion. I have no way of saying whether it definitely happened by chance or not, but natural selection and evolution over long periods of time seem to me to offer an adequate explanation, certainly a more parsimonious one than divine creation. If something can happen at all, can't it happen by chance? It may be very unlikely, but the fact that it can happen at all makes it possible, by definition.
That might be amusing - go for it. A warning - most of the knots I have seen Creationists tie themselves in in this area are the result of their denial of the durations involved. Something very unlikely indeed can, indeed will, happen if you wait long enough.
“We just know it evolved” strongly implies a dismissive attitude that expects people to accept the statement uncritically without supporting evidence. I would challenge you to find a text book about evolution that tells the reader to just accept it without any attempt at an explanation of how the evidence supports natural selection and evolution.
The statement, "Evolution is a fact" is not the same thing at all. Evolution most certainly is a fact as it, and speciation, has been directly observed. Whether evolution is the cause of the diversity of life we observe is a slightly different question, as we haven't been around for long enough to directly observe this, but we can be very confident that is is by extrapolating from what we have been able to observe in multiple scientific fields.
Strictly speaking, in science we try not to make categorical statements like "Evolution is a fact" in this way, but when there is so much evidence from so many different fields all supporting evolution as the primary explanation for life's diversity, it seems extremely unlikely that we will find any serious problems with it and we can accept it as a scientific theory, i.e. for all intents and purposes as a fact as used in common parlance.
Why, when there is overwhelming evidence to support this? You boggle my mind.
As far as I can tell you are exhorting us to accept the Bible as an objective account of how life on Earth came to exist. I struggle to see how blindly accepting a pre-scientific creation myth is more scientific and logical than using our brains to try to figure out what really happened. Why would God encourage our curiosity and expect us to uncritically accept Holy Writ?
That just isn't true, as you must surely know by now. Darwin's theories have been thoroughly tried and tested for 150 years. Almost everything his theories predicted has been found to be correct, and I'm unaware of any observations that contradict evolutionary theory, despite the best efforts of Creationists to find some. Unicorns, conversely...
I don't see any such presumption. We have to define our terms and explain what we mean by them and how they relate to each other. The definition of a pseudogene makes perfect sense to me, as do the other terms you mentioned.
I'm amazed that anyone can look at the literature and come to that conclusion. I don't see how it is even possible to deny evolution and natural selection given what we know about the way inheritance works.
That depends what you mean. We can certainly prove that "there is a change in the frequency of alleles in living populations over generations" beyond any reasonable doubt. You seem to be stuck in denying the possibility that evolution can result in a new species. If you take a species, split it into two groups, isolate each group in different areas with very different environments and then leave them for long enough, you will end up with different species that have adapted to their new environments and who have drifted apart far enough genetically that they can't interbreed. Why wouldn't you?
Of course they won't become cats, since both they and cats are descended from a common ancestor about 40 million years ago (I hate to link to the Daily Fail but it's the best article I can find). Evolution doesn't have a reverse gear.
I assume that you don't accept the diagram of the family tree in that article, but I do wonder how you see it. Presumably each species has its own little shrub that has stood alone disconnected from the rest of life since God breathed life into it in 4004 BC. That's sad.
I am intrigued by your dogged insistence that one species cannot change into another. What quality does a species have that makes it impregnable in this way? What barrier is there to this? If a breed of dog started getting too similar to cats, what would happen to stop this process? What is this Platonic essence of catness and dogness that is mutually exclusive? Surely dogs and cats are all made of nucleic acids and proteins, and their differences are hugely outnumbered by their similarities.
Again I come back to time. What you refer to as "common sense" appears to refer to what we can observe from a human time scale. We rarely see evolution or speciation happen, because human and geological time scales are so different. The imperceptibly slow process of natural selection is invisible to us, but its results are not. They look like design, but they are not. You are only seeing the survivors, the successes, not the billions of failed 'experiments'*.
I'm reminded of something I was reading recently about race: it doesn't exist, as there is a continuum from every human being to every other human being, there are no boundaries between races. Species don't have boundaries either. It's often hard to decide just where one species ends and another begins. In fact we can only define a species in retrospect, we can't see speciation while it is happening, only recognize it when it has happened (this is from Dennett BTW). How anyone can claim that such vague entities cannot change one to another beats me.
* They aren't even really experiments, because natural selection doesn't learn from its mistakes. The same lethal mutation can happen over and over again as long as some survive.
See -
Would it be correct to say that it's your position that all species that exist today, and all species that are now extinct, were all created some number of years ago, and that the number of species here on earth has only gone down, and never up?
How many years ago do you believe this happened? Just exactly how old, or young, do you think the earth is?
See, Genesis 1:21 doesn't> explain herring gulls or ring species. Genesis doesn't explain anything: it simply avoids the necessity of deriving a meaningful explanation by writing everything that isn't understand off to "magic".
See, I'm not interested in enabling your attempt to switch topics.
So assign me whatever position re: abortion which to your mind is most unfavorable, have your fun, and return to the topic at hand (the body of evidence supporting biological evolution and falsifying the world's various creation mythologies).
He was here still "talking about" the "universal constants" that he's so far unwilling to identify so that he can "go over the numbers."
See, you do realize that evolutionary theories predict we would not see dogs become cats, don't you?
Which, BTW, is something which demonstrably can happen as it's been observed directly in real time. I provided examples in my post at 397.
Not only does that not resemble actual human history, it's fairly recent historically speaking that infanticide (the premeditated murder of very young children after they are born) became ' a “lemon” in virtually all societies'. (And if I recall correctly it's still considered ok in some small areas of the world.)
As a matter of fact, in medieval Europe the fetus was not considered separate from the body of the mother until it "quickened," or started moving, four or five months into the pregnancy.
To Krebiozen #699:
“The universe we are living in is impossible? Perhaps you have been reading different scientific literature to that I have been perusing… I’m struggling, frankly, with the concept that my existence is not possible.”
No. As I said, what is impossible, what the scientists agree is impossible, is that the universal constants, without whose particular exact settings are universe would not exist, have their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance.
Me: “But you believe it IS possible and, apparently, that it all DID happen by chance.”
You: “It clearly is possible because, well, here we are having this discussion.”
Essentially, just like your “So why are you so set against us figuring out how evolution works…?” [See again my response in #694 on why this is unscientific, illogical.]
Except this time you’re saying essentially “So, why are you so against us figuring out how the randomly-generated universe works…?”
I guess you just can’t help yourself.
Perhaps you could join U.I.A.
You know, Unscientific Illogical Anonymous.
(I think they have even fewer than the Twelve Steps.)
Me: “Do we really need to go over the numbers? (It gets pretty bizarre right from the start, and then gets much, much worse.)”
You: “That might be amusing – go for it… Something very unlikely indeed can, indeed will, happen if you wait long enough.”
If you wait long enough?
You can’t wait at all!
You’ve got a microsecond and ONE shot to get it right.
Allow me a mixed metaphor: You get just ONE roll of the “dice”, when the starter’s pistol issues “The Big Bang.”
And let’s take just one of the more familiar universal constants: gravity. The gravitational constant formula apparently is (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2).
The scientists agree that if ANY of the formula's variables was just a little different, then all hell would break loose, so to speak. They say our universe would not exist.
Now, for the formula variables above, what is the number of POTENTIAL OTHER values that the dice might have settled on? By my way of thinking, and the scientists’, those are dice with not six sides but rather an INFINITE NUMBER of sides. But ONLY ONE number/side will “work” (i.e. allow the universe to exist).
What does one (1) divided by Infinity equal, Krebiozen?
Oh, and this applies not just for the gravitational constant but rather for ALL the universal constants.
So, the probability of our universe existing by “ONE ROLL of the dice” = [one (1) divided by Infinity] to the X power, where X = the number of universal constants.
That’s a big number, or rather, a “very small probability”, to be kind.
I guess that’s why when you read about “multiverse theory” you often won’t hear about how big “multi” is. Is “multi” a couple? No it’s something like 10 to the 500th power. I guess they figure with that many randomly-generated universes the probability is SLIGHTLY more palatable (but it still makes the atheist scientists sick) that one of them might have randomly occurred like ours.
As I said, it all gets pretty bizarre pretty quickly, and then just gets worse.
I’ll try to take a look at the rest of you post later.
As Sarah A. sagely observed some time ago, this is barking up the wrong squirrel:
Finally! And it's oh, so, sweet: you're batting .000.
^ The ironic part is that I was thinking about offering you an extraordinarily simple hint, but I realized that it reduced – in the sense of computational complexity – in such a fashion that it would deprive me of the possibility of watching you squirm around in the stinking midden that your idiotically pompous ass thinks waving toward grants you Profound Passing Insight.
Dance, monkey, dance.
BTW, has the One True Church evolved, or is it simply a question of successive approximations to a Universal Constant?
Are we (tinw) there yet?
Perhaps the Great Schism can be regarded as a kind of speciation.
" Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear. " the Kracked one
It does, it is called entropy. As we started living of processed crap food, believing that doctors can cure us of stupid habits we return to the microzymal pool.
To Krebiozen #699 continued:
Me: “You’ve never seen anything REMOTELY like “We just know it evolved” in the literature? Never seen something like “Evolution is a fact”? Because I have.”
You: ““We just know it evolved” strongly implies a dismissive attitude that expects people to accept the statement uncritically without supporting evidence.”
And then they dismissively presume you’ll find their explanation and evidence convincing. But their explanation and evidence is NOT convincing. Not to me, and not to many others, including many scientists.
“Evolution most certainly is a fact as it…has been directly observed.”
Obviously false. If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.
“Whether evolution is the cause of the diversity of life we observe is a slightly different question, as we haven’t been around for long enough to directly observe this, but we can be very confident that is is by extrapolating from what we have been able to observe in multiple scientific fields.”
Extrapolating from? Why, yes.
That’s why I wrote earlier “I would say evolutionary theory is built NOT on facts, but rather on interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts. (Assuming we can even agree on what the “facts” are.)”
"Strictly speaking, in science we try not to make categorical statements like “Evolution is a fact” in this way, but when there is so much evidence from so many different fields all supporting evolution as the primary explanation for life’s diversity, it seems extremely unlikely that we will find any serious problems with it and we can accept it as a scientific theory, i.e. for all intents and purposes as a fact as used in common parlance.”
Similarly speaking, in our jury system, we try not to make categorical statements like “That guy’s the killer is a fact” in this way, but when there is so much evidence from so many different places all supporting that fact as the primary explanation for all the evidence, it seems extremely unlikely that we will find any serious problems with the guilty verdict and we can accept it. (Even though sometimes 30 years later the poor guy is exonerated based on incontrovertible new evidence. And, unfortunately, that’s “dealing with the facts” and “justice” as used in common parlance.)
“As far as I can tell you are exhorting us to accept the Bible as an objective account of how life on Earth came to exist. I struggle to see how blindly accepting a pre-scientific creation myth is more scientific and logical than using our brains to try to figure out what really happened. Why would God encourage our curiosity and expect us to uncritically accept Holy Writ?”
The Bible is not a science textbook, as everyone knows. I believe it is history, parable, poetry, theology. But I do not accept it as Holy Writ blindly. I accept it as Holy Writ ONLY because I use the critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity.
“I don’t see any such presumption… The definition of a pseudogene makes perfect sense to me, as do the other terms you mentioned.”
Now understand, I believe in the observed DNA sequence called “pseudogenes”. I just don’t buy the presumptions in the definition (“A DNA sequence that resembles a gene but has been mutated into an inactive form over the course of EVOLUTION. A pseudogene shares an EVOLUTIONARY history with a functional gene and can provide insight into their SHARED ANCESTRY.”)
“I’m amazed that anyone can look at the literature and come to that conclusion. I don’t see how it is even possible to deny evolution and natural selection given what we know about the way inheritance works.”
You don’t have to tell me. I already knew you were amazed at my stance.
Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to these PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many others universities (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660) who are, at a minimum, skeptical of evolution theory’s claims.
Start a letter writing campaign! Surely they’ve never heard of all the stuff you’re saying. Maybe visit them? Dress up in a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle around your waist, and bring some snacks of locusts and wild honey. You can be Krebiozen the Evolutionary Evangelist. Or rather Krebiozen the BS Baptist.
“Of course they won’t become cats, since both they and cats are descended from a common ancestor about 40 million years ago (I hate to link to the Daily Fail but it’s the best article I can find).”
That’s a cute drawing of Dormaalocyon latouri. It’s amazing what an artist can do with some teeth and ankle bones!
I’ve never looked at the Help Wanted ads the evolution establishment may have. There’s probably several openings for "Evolution Artist." Job requirements include “Self-starter; fertile imagination.”
“Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear.”
But it does have Neutral. In fact, I think it has ONLY Neutral.
“I assume that you don’t accept the diagram of the family tree in that article, but I do wonder how you see it. Presumably each species has its own little shrub that has stood alone disconnected from the rest of life since God breathed life into it in 4004 BC. That’s sad.”
What’s sad is that you don’t even realize the scientists have given up on the trees, or at least on the iconic Tree of Life, long ago. Too problematic for them. You mockingly mention “shrubs” (plural), but sadly, that’s what the scientists have been gravitating to. Multiple shrubs. Almost beginning to sound like a…a…Garden or something. I remember reading an evolution article which leaned more toward a mangrove swamp. I’m not kidding.
“I am intrigued by your dogged insistence that one species cannot change into another.”
But I’m not dogged on, say, dogs. New breeds come out every year. They probably call the new breed of dog a new species of dog. Just like they probably call the new antibiotic-resistant bacteria a new species of bacteria.
“What is this Platonic essence of catness and dogness that is mutually exclusive?”
I’m not going to try to define “catness” and “dogness”. Maybe it’s like that old definition of “pornography” – “You know it when you see it.”
But if no mutual exclusivity exists between “X” and “not-X”, then “X” = “not-X”. And every “one” and every “thing” is.. “everyone” and “everything”.
Then everyone, including Plato, can rest easy, knowing we have achieved true, politically-correct “inclusiveness.” And true, politically correct “diversity.” Wait, scratch that last part. We won’t have “diversity” because there are no differences. We’re all the same! Alleluia!
“They look like design, but they are not.”
And virtually every piece of pro-evolution literature uses design language. Sometimes they’ll use quotation marks so we don’t get the wrong idea (e.g. Organism X was “designed” to do blah blah; the organism’s Y system “manufactures” blah blah.).
“I’m reminded of something I was reading recently about race: it doesn’t exist, as there is a continuum from every human being to every other human being, there are no boundaries between races.”
There are no boundaries between “races” because “races” don’t exist. There is only one race – the human race.
“Species don’t have boundaries either.”
No boundaries? If that’s true, then I guess you’ll have to withdraw you’re earlier statement that “Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear.” In other words, the species of cats COULD revert back to that artist’s rendering of that supposed species Dormaalocyon latouri.
Whew!
That may be all for now.
SN
You are not the only one to have problems with complex philosophical issues like probabilities, laws, and causation, so I reiterate my simple question: do you believe that all the species have been created in two days?
In retrospect, I am disappointed that the audience didn't rise as a single man when this double entendre was inadvisably delivered:
^ Which should not dimish its being a double standard as well.
^^ And, to jump to obvious logical possibility, what would it mean if Roman Catholicism went extinct? Or if it were necessary for those future Men who finally discovered its fossilized remains had to try to clone something from the fragments?
There must be some sort of finitely bounded Divine Timescale for the process, because the possibility of with enough time has been strictly excluded on the grounds of self-consistency.
Correction to my #708, regarding the formula for the gravitational constant:
My original paste from a website was not formatted properly.
It displayed incorrectly as (6.673×10−11 N · (m/kg)2).
In fact, right now, I don't how to display it correctly on THIS website. Because this website seems to force the improper formatting.
You can view the actual formula here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
Thanks for looking out for me, Daran!
To Daniel Corcos #715:
“I reiterate my simple question: do you believe that all the species have been created in two days?”
That sure sounds silly to you, doesn’t it?
Do you believe that the very first plants on earth randomly mutated this system in ONE DAY?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
(Take your time. It’s about 20+ pages long.)
That sure sounds silly to me.
To SN
Then, I understand from your answer that you do believe that all the species have been created in two days. So, all these fossils should be part of a conspiracy originating in the 18th century, and I am part of this conspiracy, too.
I've been working on a longer response, given the now fantastically target-rich environment, but I'm going to have a hectic day starting before too long,* so I'm going to promote something that was a maybe-footnote:
Then follows a digression in which S.N. compares the statement that one is an observant Jew to whether one submits to his imaginary understanding of constitutional law, or something.
But now we're (tinw) down to the Octave of the Nativity? WTF kind of self-respecting Torquemada would try to pull numerology?
* And the perceived world has just suggested in delightfully illuminated, frequency-modulated letters that this is correct, *zzm-wise.
Oh, dear, your Protestant handlers have left you desperately ill-equipped, haven't they? C'mon, dance. What's the next "universal" embarrassment that you're going to fumble out of your pants?
To Daniel Corcos #721:
“Then, I understand from your answer that you do believe that all the species have been created in two days. So, all these fossils should be part of a conspiracy originating in the 18th century, and I am part of this conspiracy, too.”
Daniel, Daniel.
Lighten up! “Conspiracy” is such a harsh word.
Have a croissant instead. In France you must be close to some great bakeries.
Mmmm, mmmm, good on this, the Lord’s Day, May 31, 2015 A.D.
And speaking of dates and designations of time, it really is ALL ABOUT TIME, isn’t it, Daniel? I mean, with the fossils, and with the Evolution story.
Nobody has any problem with the fossils themselves. There they are, for all to see.
But all of evolution falls apart without time, that is, without the “deep time” of millions and billions of years. As I wrote earlier, time is really the last “best” support for evolution, because the other supposed pillars (e.g. biology, genetics, paleontology) have been militating against evolution for decades (e.g. biological systems to assure stasis, genetic mutations found to be almost invariably harmful, the confounding Cambrian Explosion).
It’s just such a shame that dating methodologies are not infallible.
Or do you believe in infallibility?
Uh-oh, somebody also didn't get the reference to the Tischreden.
In this context, there's nothing like granting oneself an Ablass.
See Noevolution declaims:
It does not follow. It a world without the likes of you, Ken Ham, and others, more people would have the intellectual honesty to observe the evidence and evaluate it without myth-based, arrogant presupposition.
Granted, Wordpress does corrupt HTML text containing <sup> markup (as well as some other tags). However, it usually handles direct text entry:
depending on the reader's browser.
If worse comes to worst, you can always use a common, informal (programming-language-looking) markup like:
(possibly using ⍐,▲,⬆ or △ instead of ↑)or
or even
Of course, there is no Proper Catholic Authority to tell you how to do this, and independent thinking is not allowed.
One more that's too easy not to mention:
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Yes, the Metaphysical Obstacle is that this Wordpress install doesn't support <sup> tags.
Christmas has come early.
My original paste from a website was not formatted properly.
I like to think that if my on-line existence could be summed up in so few words, I would find a different hobby.
^ Beaten to the punch, I see. There is still the accidentally invoked problem of the diagonalization lemma, though.
I risk putting words in Ozzie Guillen's mouth (and S.N. oddly seems to comment on a "GMT" broadcast sked anyway), but this is the part where it's fung, mang.
Secular gravity? Pff.
Don't you know that Einstein recanted on his deathbed?
It's a little-known fact that APL was based on divine revelation, which of course is mirrored in its providing access to the mysteries of the Created Matrices.
O RLY? I'm pretty sure there are a lot of facts that not everyone "believes in." There are various genocides, engineered famines, etc., that lots of people don't "believe in." Some people don't believe in the moon landing. Some people don't believe that vaccines don't cause autism. Some people actually still believe the work is flat.
The mere fact that something is true does not guarantee that people will accept it.
SNE said:
To my mind, and that of the Church, abortion is a real “lemon” (and it has been a “lemon” in virtually all societies throughout history, until recent times).
Oddly enough, you Magick Book of Faxx does not support this hypothesis. Your deity made it quite clear that children are not human until they are a month old. In fact, said deity did so more than once.
When one looks, this deity seemed to the quite fond of the lemonade produced by these 'lemons.'
Of course, you knew that already.
SN
Congratulations, you are in progress. Yes, evolution is all about time. Are you still comfortable with two days?
Obviously, thinking in terms of hundreds of millions & billions of years is too hard for our Creationist troll, therefore it's easier to believe that a sky fairy did it all.......
I'm a doctor living in the middle east.Generally , Medical school graduates in the middle east doesn't take any courses in math , science , philosophy or business. The coursework consists of anatomy , physiology etc Not even general biology is offered in medical school in Egypt. All the education in medical school is a shit load of pure stupid memorization. The textbooks used are as stupid as it can get.The situation is not good for science and Engineering majors either. Science majors typically are not even interested in science at all. They majored in science because they didn't get high enough grades in high school to be eligible for getting into medical , dentistry or pharmacy school. Personally , I have been always really interested in science. But I got into medical school because of very wrong reasons including family pressure , job security etc and because of the fact that I was 16 when I applied to this fucked up medical school.
Which scientists believe this, See? Be specific: provide citations to the journal articles they've authored stating this.
hat's you're problem right there--there's no evidence demonstrating that all-caps ONLY ONE one number/side will work(i.e., generate a universe where life might arise).
In fact, the values for constants such as the weak and strong atomic force, mass of the electron, proton, etc., can vary over multiple orders of magnitude and still result in universes where stellar lifetimes are long to allow for stellar evolution and heavy element nucleosynthesis neccessary to allow for carbon based life. See http://www.talkreason.org/articles/anthro_philo.pdf
Damn! That's another irony meter you owe, See.
Fundamentally, what would be the difference if the speed of light was 1 mile per second faster or slower?
Of course, we see the laws of the Universe break down completely in a Black Hole, for instance, or how warped space-time can get around quasars or other interesting interstellar phenomena.
Again, it appears that our sky fairy troll was completely daunted by the size and complexity of the Universe (or just life in general), so he felt it was easier to believe in stories told (and plagiarized) by nomadic tribes a few thousand years ago.
We (tinw) are DEVO!
(D-E-V-O)
If it weren't for this thread -- or, more specifically, #695 and #696 -- I might never have realized that there have been works of art and music for longer than there have dogs.
What are the odds?
More seriously this time, a little text recently published on Slate by a woman raised in a Creationist family.
Narad @732 -- It's been quite a while since I saw a reference to APL, and Its Prophet, Ken Iverson.
You mean these guys?
They're not all PhDs, or scientists, or even skeptical about evolutionary theory. So you are, at a minimum, inadvertently repeating an untruth.
Come on, people, that's another non–fundamental constant that he could have embarrassed himself with.
See Noevo,
Doesn't that amount to the same thing? If it is impossible for the conditions necessary for our universe to exist to exist, then our universe cannot exist. It does therefore they do.
I believe in the principle of parsimony, as reflected by Occam's Razor. If a phenomenon could have happened through random chance then random chance becomes my working hypothesis for what happened, until something more compelling comes along. That would include evidence to support the existence of supernatural beings.
Apologies for blockquote fail. It should be intelligible, even to See.
@ Lawrence:
Despite our long history of agreement on most issues @ RI, I only now learn that you are amongst my own brethren and sisterhood.
Denice @749 -- I always thought it was 'brethern and cistern'.
Narad @746 -- I always thought the speed of light was fundamental, though at this point it's been shuffled over into the definition of the meter. Was that your point?
In all fairness to those tribes, plagiarism wasn't really a thing in the ancient world, and they didn't really have the cultural set-up to come up with better explanations for things, what with being Bronze Age goatherds and all; and as myth, Genesis is pretty fascinating, and myths do have a certain truth to them.
(I should probably note that I obviously do not find those myths literally and factually true. At a party, once, I was drunkenly philosophizing about the Cain and Abel story, and somebody was like "something something fairy tale something" and I was like "no, it's a true story." I'm afraid I may have given him the wrong impression.)
SN, though, lacks any of the "excuses" that the ancient Hebrews had. He also has all the historical, philosophical and religious nuance of yer typical Lecture on Scientific Atheism. (I have a transcript of one from the early 1980s sitting in my office; maybe I'll translate it one of these days. It's dreck, of course, but amusing in a certain sense.)
Since the cat is pretty much out of the bag, nothing that has units is fundamental. It wouldn't make a lick of difference if c had varied over cosmic time.
S.N.'s entire, shockingly clueless trip about physics could be boiled down to insisting that the value of pi proves the existence of G-d.
"Apologies for blockquote fail. It should be intelligible, even to See."
It won't be. You have to have a shred of honesty to read through it, and there are no remnants of honesty In sn.
To multiple addressees…
To Daniel Corcos #735:
“SN
Congratulations, you are in progress. Yes, evolution is all about time. Are you still comfortable with two days?”
No, I’m not comfortable with two days for the evolution of photosynthesis (ref #721).
Are you?
/////////////////////
To JGC #738:
Me: “…what is impossible, what the scientists agree is impossible, is that the universal constants, without whose particular exact settings are universe would not exist, have their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance.”
You: “Which scientists believe this, See? Be specific: provide citations to the journal articles they’ve authored stating this.”
No time now to Google all that. But I got this quickly. And videos are more fun anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk
////////////
To JGC #740:
Me: “I accept it as Holy Writ ONLY because I use the critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity.”
You: “Damn! That’s another irony meter you owe, See.”
Darn! An observant Jew who is pro-abortion and anti-Holy Writ.
Oy vey! Who knew?
////////////
To ann #745:
“They’re not all PhDs, or scientists, or even skeptical about evolutionary theory. So you are, at a minimum, inadvertently repeating an untruth.”
You’ve already admitted you’re just a blowhard on one subject, Catholicism (#679). I know you are on this one as well. I look forward to another humble disclosure from you.
Ah, watch it squirm. You can't just "G—le" something when you don't understand what you're talking about in the first place.
Because nobody watches them when they're trotted out in lieu of actually writing something?
C'mon, keep humiliating yourself. The fact that you couldn't even successfully identify a single one of the "universal constants" that you've been devoting second-hand prattle to is just the beginning.
See, there should have been no need to google anything, quickly or otherwise: elementary intellectual integrity would require you have had the names and publications available before you made the statement.
FTFY.
.
Obviously false. If it were true, everybody would believe it.
Like the current President's place of birth?
The great thing is you now have two self-deployed anchors to AGW denialism: An "Oregon Petition" and this:
Sound familiar?
BTW, I for one am eagerly awaiting you answer to Ann's question:
BTW, I for one am eagerly awaiting you answer to Ann’s question:
Don't hold your breath.
Upon reflection, it appears that SNE worships the God of the Asterisks:
1. The Church is infallible*
2. There are no contradictions in the Holy Writ**
3. God hates abortion.***
4. Bearing false witness is a sin****
* Except when it's not.
** If one ignores certain 'innocuous' passages.
*** With certain exceptions, as noted in the Holy Writ.
**** Except in defense of points one through three
That doesn't mean I'm wrong. Or even unreliable, necessarily.
But moot point. Because It's not like I was asking you to take my word for it. I provided a link to full, detailed, documentation of the untruth you were repeating. It's either valid or it's not.
So. If you want to ignore that, feel free. But the untruth would no longer be inadvertent. And there's no amount of unpleasant I could possibly be that would alter that.
When you know I'm a blowhard?
How very paradoxical of you.
Thanks.
I had tentatively concluded that it was kind of like Anselm's ontological argument, except in drag and minus the ontological argument. But I wasn't very confident about that. Sooner or later, I would have had to ask.
To Krebiozen #747:
“Doesn’t that amount to the same thing? If it is impossible for the conditions necessary for our universe to exist to exist, then our universe cannot exist. It does therefore they do.”
No, it does not amount to the same thing at all. You just can’t see what’s right in front of you.
I’ll say this for the THIRD time. (Maybe the third time is the charm.)
What is IMPOSSIBLE is that our universe exists BY CHANCE. For some help, try watching the Youtube I posted in #755.
“I believe in the principle of parsimony, as reflected by Occam’s Razor. If a phenomenon could have happened through random chance then random chance becomes my working hypothesis for what happened, until something more compelling comes along.”
The POINT is that this phenomenon could NOT have happened through RANDOM CHANCE. If you watched the linked video above, then watch it again, and pay better attention.
Also, and perhaps equally important, is the point YOU IGNORED. Namely, you DON’T HAVE FOREVER to keep rolling the dice in hopes of getting that particular 1 in 10 to the hundredth-something power. You have JUST ONE ROLL, in the microsecond our universe came into existence after the alleged Big Bang.
You: “Evolution most certainly is a fact as it…has been directly observed.”
Me: “Obviously false. If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.”
You: “What a very odd non sequitur. Do you think the only things that are true are those that everyone believes in?”
What a very odd statement.
The truth is the truth regardless of anyone’s beliefs. The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or no one believes it. But science does not deal with truth, in the sense that SCIENCE never claims to PROVE anything. What science deals with is OBSERVATIONS and theories about observations. Confidence in the “truth” of observations is always greater than confidence in the “truth” of theories ABOUT the observations. For example, we have universal confidence in the “truth” of fossils and of gravity, but we have less confidence in the “truth” of THEORIES ABOUT fossils and gravity. With Evolution it’s a double-whammy: 1) Never observed, 2) Suspect theory about what’s never observed.
“Our entire system of knowledge is built “interpretations, extrapolations, and theories involving facts”. What else could we possibly build it on?”
But systems of knowledge are kind of like opinions and a******s, everybody’s got one. Perhaps you believe all opinions are created equal. I don’t. (And I think Evolution Theory is an A**.)
“You are seriously comparing science with the jury system…”
Yes, I seriously am.
“How can you accept anything as Holy Writ if you have your “critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity” intact?”
Fairly easily.
BTW, are you going to reverse your earlier statement about “reverse gear”? Remember, you said “Species don’t have boundaries either” but then “Evolution doesn’t have a reverse gear”, and I responded that if there are no boundaries then the species of cats COULD REVERT back to that artist’s rendering of that supposed species Dormaalocyon latouri.
So, are you going to withdraw your statement (or statements)?
Me: “What’s sad is that you don’t even realize the scientists have given up on the trees, or at least on the iconic Tree of Life, long ago.”
You: “No, they haven’t (url). You have missed the point.”
Yes, they have: “The tree of life is being politely buried – we all know that. What's less accepted is our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of…
Also, Google “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” from NewScientist 1/21/2009.
Me: “[The Tree of Life is] too problematic for them. You mockingly mention “shrubs” (plural), but sadly, that’s what the scientists have been gravitating to. Multiple shrubs.”
You: “I don’t think evolutionary science is gravitating towards that, is it?”
Yes, it is. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.00…
Also, Google 6/26/2007 NYT article “The Human Family Tree Has Become a Bush With Many Branches”.
“You may not be kidding, but you are deeply confused. The topology of whatever we use to represent related organisms isn’t important, the fact that all are interrelated and how, is.”
Sounds very similar to a quote I read somewhere years ago. It was from a scientist or science educator who was asked whether he had misgivings about teaching students something (i.e. the Tree of Life) which has since been abandoned as false or at least unworkable. I’ll have to paraphrase: ‘No, I have no regrets or misgivings. The point is that the Tree of Life concept helped us scale the walls of the castles of their minds. It helped us get them to buy-into the theory of evolution. And now they DO believe.’
In other words, the ends justify the means; get them to believe in the big E even if you have to lie to do so.
No kidding.
Me: “But if no mutual exclusivity exists between “X” and “not-X”, then “X” = “not-X”. And every “one” and every “thing” is.. “everyone” and “everything”.”
You: “It isn’t about exclusivity, it’s about every living thing on Earth being related to every other living thing.”
Well, I’d say every human being on Earth is related to every other human being. But YOU are saying a Non-human being one second can be a human being the next second. That’s different.
“How does having no boundaries mean that evolution does have a reverse gear?”
Because having no boundaries means being able to go in any direction, including backward.
This is fυcking comedy gold.
Obviously false. If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution.
The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or no one believes it.
Make up your mind.
See Noevo, what gives you the authority to decide who's a proper Christian and who isn't? Were you crucified? Were you resurrected? Was I baptised in your name? Why should I take you as an authority?
See's video link says that the cosmological constant must be exactly what it is "otherwise the universe would be so drastically different, that it would be impossible for us to evolve" (at about 2:03). (Yah, it says we evolved, big deal.)
Not that some version of the universe wouldn't exist, but only that it wouldn't be this exact one, and we wouldn't be here to see it.
But this exact universe does exist, and we are here to see it.
Therefor, an invisible wizard created the universe.
It's perfectly logical.
Of course, there is some debate about the whole thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
I’ll say this for the THIRD time. (Maybe the third time is the charm.)
Ah, Bellman logic. That always works.
To ann #762:
Me: “Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to these PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many others universities (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660) who are, at a minimum, skeptical of evolution theory’s claims.”
You: “They’re not all PhDs, or scientists, or even skeptical about evolutionary theory. So you are, at a minimum, inadvertently repeating an untruth…I provided a link to full, detailed, documentation of the untruth you were repeating. It’s either valid or it’s not.”
In an effort to remedy what you call my untruths, how about this revision, with the new wording in BOLD?
“Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to THE PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many other universities WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LISTING (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660)
OF SIGNATORIES who are, at a minimum, skeptical of CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPEXILTY OF LIFE.”
Is that better, more truth-y? Would you give your imprimatur on this revision?
To Gray Falcon #767:
“See Noevo, what gives you the authority to decide who’s a proper Christian and who isn’t? Were you crucified? Were you resurrected? Was I baptised in your name? Why should I take you as an authority?”
Forget about me.
Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?
That's an even more stupid attack on the "anthropic principle" (the specification of whose, which version, and why anyone but SUSY apologists would care is apparently above S.N.'s pay grade) than I had imagined: the cosmological constant is the least of anyone's problems, given that it's not coupled to anything.
This of course is leaving aside the giant honking problem that these nitwits are invoking "the" fυcking anthropic principle – which is, ah, asymptotically isomorphic to Divine Creation in the first place.
Any non–brain-dead approach to making a stink about the actual parameters that are only known empirically would immediately recognize that one has a choice between* directly equating mathematics with G-d – obviating any need to babble about the big bang, but obviously distateful by symmetry arguments, not to mention the Pythangoreans – and just skipping straight to George Hammond.
* I deliberately omit the third, correct one.
@SN, #764
OK. If, when Krebiozen says...
...it means he's saying that a non-human being one second can be a human being the next second, why does this...
...not mean that every human being can be him/herself one second and somebody else the next?
(Assuming that's not what you mean.)
See Noevo:
Yes.
An “impossible” post:
In #690 I wrote that “I recall reading that all scientists, even the atheist ones, agree that it’s effectively IMpossible. That impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as “multiverse theory”.
And in #708: “… what is impossible, what the scientists agree is impossible, is that the universal constants, without whose particular exact settings are universe would not exist, have their exact and necessary settings by chance – natural random chance.”
I thought it was common knowledge, at least common among those at all familiar with the subject.
For the various statements I make, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready. I don’t always have comprehensive, copy-n-paste-able listings of “the names and publications” when I make statements.
Perhaps the rest of you do.
JGC #757 surely must.
But probably not ann #651.
But I don’t.
However, I did manage to do a little Googling tonight about atheists saying it’s impossible for the universal constants to be by chance. And darn it, I’m not having any luck yet finding the word “impossible”. But I did find this:
This quotes several scientists and at least two of them, Faber and Krauss, are atheists.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine…
“… Faber [astronomer and professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz] declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer. “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.” … This “anthropic principle” infuriates many physicists, for it implies that we cannot really explain our universe from first principles. “It’s an argument that sometimes I find distasteful, from a personal perspective,” says Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, author of A Universe From Nothing. “I’d like to be able to understand why the universe is the way it is, without resorting to this randomness.”
…..
Here’s an article supporting the Anthropic Theory (which I find to be a ridiculously non-scientific theory which basically states that the universal constants HAD to be at their exact settings because otherwise we wouldn’t be here to say so).
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-evidence-anthropic-theory-fundamental-phys…
Anyway…
“Stephen Hawking [a famous atheist you may have heard of] … asks: "Why did the universe start out with so nearly the critical rate of expansion that separates models that recollapse from those that go on expanding forever, that even now, ten thousand million years later, it is still expanding at nearly the critical rate?... If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million," he explains, "the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size."”
Maybe I’ll Google some more later. Maybe not. Maybe, like ann, I just won’t “feel like it.”
To Gray Falcon #774:
Me: “Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?”
You: “Yes.”
OK.
But I thought you were a Christian?
I don't have one. But if you're asking for my opinion, it's that it's still the same lie of omission that it was before. It's just more carefully phrased.
See--
Grey Falcon has already won the thread, and today's internet, at 767, but I'll give you a hint: try googling "priesthood of all believers." (Were I a Christian, I would suspect you of quoting scripture on the devil's behalf; as an atheist, I give you full credit for all your misdirections, confusion, and prevarication.)
778 comments and counting.
To ann #777:
Wow. Ann’s 666, and now 777.
Anyway…
Me: “Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to THE PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many other universities WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LISTING (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660)
OF SIGNATORIES who are, at a minimum, skeptical of CLAIMS FOR THE ABILITY OF RANDOM MUTATION AND NATURAL SELECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE COMPEXILTY OF LIFE.”
You: “… it’s still the same lie of omission that it was before. It’s just more carefully phrased.”
What did I omit?
That's not an unreasonable surmise, but it's wrong. I had the citations. It was just that the prospect of trotting Origen, Basil, and Ambrose around the ring like they were anti-creationist show-ponies was distasteful to me. I didn't feel like doing it.
I do reiterate my earlier recommendation about reading them yourself, though. It had been a long time since I had. I enjoyed it.
Vicki: "Were I a Christian."
Yesterday I was bumming around YouTube and came upon this gem with Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) at the Mutter Museum. Just before the six minute I learned to religious term: Hinjew. The whole video and the others accompanying it were hilarious.
Aargh... since I was still laughing, I mucked it up: "learned to a new religious term"
Seeomebody apparently doesn't understand that Oregon Petitions are as common as dirt.
Narad, your two links go to the same thing.
I haven't read Origen in a long time, but I recall being a fan in college. Universal reconciliation had a big appeal, as I always found the idea of eternal torment in hell to be just appalling, barbaric, and not worthy of any G-d deserving of the title.
In fact, lack of belief in hell is one of the few things I can appreciate about the Jehovah's Witnesses.
I'll consider telling you after you answer my question about Exodus and get back to JGC about Lindsay.
Perhaps you’ll make more progress by expressing your incredulity to THE PhDs in chemistry, physics, biology, and other sciences from Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, Stanford, and many other universities WHO ARE INCLUDED IN THIS LISTING
Oh, dear, a belt-high slider down the middle.
Dagnabit: Common.
@ SN
"No, I’m not comfortable with two days for the evolution of photosynthesis"
My question can be understood, by any honest person, as "two days" for the appearance of the species. You don't want to answer, because of your fear of going to hell.
I'm tired and the browsers are fighting for swap; have I already asked why G-d would design the One True Church* with such a shocking flaw as a wholesale inability to produce anything even vaguely of the "kind" of earnest popular music?**
* Not that I view S.N.'s "credentials" any more favorably than your average bouncer, mind you.
** Videos obviously not "are more fun anyway," but they can be more appropriate.
@palindrom:
To ann #787:
Me: “What did I omit?”
You: “I’ll consider telling you after you answer my question about Exodus and get back to JGC about Lindsay.”
Gosh, here I thought the Lindsay thing was a matter just between JGC and me.
And I think I may not have answered some of Daran’s questions, and probably some other folks’, too.
Are you sure you wouldn’t like to add all of their unanswered questions to your list?
Anyway, stick to your guns, annie.
You go, girl!
The breadth of your cluelessness has already been amply demonstrated, so this statement is superfluous.
Never managed to figure out this one, eh? And only two possible values at that. Four out of five dentists SCIENTISTS agree, THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
Another thing I don't understand with a certain class of believers*.
Even if the premise is real - that the FSM's creation is so well-done that us "little weaklings" will be unable to destroy it, no matter what, it doesn't follow that we should do our best to destroy it.
It's a childish argument and it's a plain contradiction of the main teachings of most organized religions, which are about being held responsible of one own's acts.
* Actually, I understand full well. It's deadly pride disguised as humility.
one own's act
sorry
one's own acts
3rd time is a charm. Need coffee badly.
Heh. Nothing like a little CPT violation to end an exhausting day.
That impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as “multiverse theory”
I can only suppose that time travel was involved, propagating back to inspire Hugh Everett's thesis in 1956 long before any speculation about 'fundamental constants'.
But please go on, I love the sight of numpties and dweebs dumbsplaining about what All Physicists Believe.
See: "But I thought you were a Christian?"
I am, because I believe as Jesus Christ taught. And Jesus did not teach literalism, no matter how many out-of-context quotes you provide.
@See Noevo, I've been reading this comment thread for days and I must say that I am disappointed in you.
You said days ago that you had been an evolution "believer" for thirty years and an "apostate" for twelve. This is a common claim by creationists, as in religious circles the testimony of a former believer is thought to be more convincing than that of one who never believed at all. At least, that is my understanding for the purpose of this pretense.
But of course you yourself are not pretending to have been an evolution "believer" because to do so you would have to lie and lying you know is a sin. However, your performance as a former evolution "believer" is, as I said, deeply disappointing.
No scientist studying evolution has ever said that a non-human became a human one second later; the science of evolution has always been about population changes over generations. The notion of individuals evolving in their own lifetime is a science fiction notion (e.g., "The Man Who Evolved"), not part of evolutionary theory.
Likewise, evolutionary theory does not predict that dogs turn into cats but rather that different populations that were originally one species can become more and more different over vast time until they are as different as dogs and cats. But of course as a thirty-year "believer" in evolution, you know that.
So why do you bring these things up? As an apostate trying to convince current believers, why do you claim that your former belief system includes something that it never has included? This is like a Christian apostate claiming that Christian theology is silly because it claims that the Virgin Mary was impregnated by a swan and laid eggs from which four children hatched, one being Jesus. Your claims are simply absurd, the sort of things an ignorant creationist would bring up while pretending to have once accepted evolution. So why are you making these claims?
Frankly, I could do a more convincing imitation of an evolution "apostate" than you have. But of course you're not pretending, are you? Because that would be lying.
And like so much else you believe to be self-evidently true, you clearly were wrong to think so.
Maybe the following will help you udnerstand why you're wrong:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
No, but it's an interesting question.
Well. I think that Gregorian chant was almost certainly earnest popular music when it originated. But I can't come up with a more recent counter-example than that. Catholicism leads to super-syncopated illicit dance rhythms, not earnestness, seemingly. So maybe G-d just loves mambo.
That's not really satisfactory. But it's the best I can do.
"Heh. Nothing like a little CPT violation to end an exhausting day.". NobRed on helmet polishing
You'll go blind. Which you all have to the issue about evolution below the microscope. Funny that, all unpleasant about the God thing above the microscope, but below we suddenly all become sponteseparatists.
@ ann:
" maybe G-d just loves mambo"
Ha ha.
Seriously! I attend latina dance classes and REALLY!
Most of the stuff is pretty d-amned good:
salsa, samba, cha cha, bachata ( sp?) and various South American rhythms.
See Noevo,
It's been a long time since I argued with a Creationist, and I am beginning to remember why.
I have watched the video. Like others you have linked to it appears to have been randomly edited and annotated with non-sequiturs and untruths by an idiot with no understanding of the subject at all, which is a bit distracting. I do not agree with the physicists who claim that universal constants are evidence of the existence of God. I don't believe that the fact that most weeks someone wins the UK lottery with odds of 13 million to 1 is evidence of the existence of God either.
I have watched it again, and the only conclusions I can come to are that the person who edited and annotated it is a moron (upgraded from 'idiot' after careful consideration) and that you (possibly the same person) don't understand what you are talking about.
How do you know how many times the dice has rolled? We don't know for sure how many times the universe has expanded and contracted, if at all, or how many other worlds without life exist, if any, what happened before the Big Bang, if we are heading towards a Big Crunch or infinite expansion, to name just a few major uncertainties that mathematicians and physicists are still arguing about. Trying to claim that something could not have happened by chance and inventing a massive literal deus ex machina in the midst of such uncertainty is simply foolish, in my view.
Incidentally, I'm not clear about your beliefs. You claim that God created the universe, the Earth and life fully formed. You also claim that God created the universe with all the physical constants and conditions necessary for life to evolve. Why did God need to do the latter if he was going to do the former? Why bother making evolution possible, and creating fossils to deceive people, if you can just do it by fiat anyway? I would be more impressed by God creating life in a universe in which it categorically could not have evolved. That would be a neat trick. I can only conclude that God does not want me to believe in Her/Him/It.
Conversely, people's beliefs are people's beliefs regardless of the truth, as you will be reminded every day if you spend any time reading this blog. You stated that if evolution had been observed, which it indisputably has, everyone would believe in it ("If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution"). What has the fact that not everyone believes in evolution have to do with the truth of the matter? Lots of people believe in things that aren't true.
In some areas we can be sure enough that something is true that for all practical purposes it is proven to be true.
That isn't true at all, and is the main reason we had to develop the scientific method. There are many examples of people seeing what they believe, instead of what is in front of their eyes. That's why we need replication and large numbers of observations.
Given the number of hoaxed fossils around, I disagree. Even observations of gravity can be affected by people's beliefs; Eddington's observations of light being bent by gravity may (or may not) have suffered from confirmation bias.
We have a huge amount of confidence in the truth of both, since they have stood up to centuries of people constructing experiments designed to disprove them. The theories built up around both are built on very solid foundations. We aren't going to find that dogs and cats are not descended from a common ancestor, for example, there's just too much supporting evidence for that to happen. There are many fine details we don't understand, of course.
That's a flat lie, as we have established.
Evolution is an elegant theory that is supported (I repeat again, sigh) by a vast interlocking network of data from multiple fields. Both evolution and speciation have been observed. Repeatedly lying about this isn't going to help you.
That is up there among the most stupid things I have seen anyone claim. Well done. I had thought that the, "it's just a theory", canard had been played to death long ago, but thanks for a Le Pétomane variation which smells just as expected.
Oh wait, another contender. I'm not even going to start pointing out the differences.
I would be fascinated to know how. You seriously believe that a supernatural being created the universe, including humans, and including a raft of misleading evidence that suggests it all happened by chance, explained what he had done to some nomadic pastoralists in the Middle East who (eventually) wrote it down. This supernatural being then disappeared and never interacted or communicated with us again (except perhaps by curing the occasional ill person) leaving us to argue about what s/he meant by it for the next few thousand years? It must take some serious mental gymnastics to believe that.
No.
OK, if you insist, I'll explain. If random chance were all that is in operation, perhaps it could, but it isn't, natural selection is operating too. Each mutation back towards the common ancestor would have to carry some reproductive advantage to it for the offspring to out-compete the other, which is effectively impossible.
No, the concept of all life being interrelated and being portrayed on a diagram similar to a tree is not being given up.
That isn't what I'm talking about at all. The shrubs I referred to are separate creations of life, not related to the rest of life at all, referring to what I think is the model you are working from. It is the separate creation of these species that I think makes you believe that one species cannot evolve into another.
I'm stating that life emerged just once (probably) on Earth, and (almost) all living things are descended from that original life form. It is very difficult indeed to argue against that given the fossil record and the DNA evidence. So, we can represent all living things on a family tree diagram showing that interrelatedness. The discussions you have linked to are about what shape that diagram might be, about interbreeding, horizontal DNA transfer and epigenetics, it's about fine-tuning our understanding of how natural selection and evolution work, not about questioning their existence entirely.
Is there a word for that sinking feeling when you realize you had made an error of an order of magnitude or more estimating the intelligence of a person you are discussing something with? There should be.
Human definitions do not always reflect divisions in nature. If we could resurrect every common ancestor of dogs and cats we could form a line of animals leading from cats to dogs, through their common ancestor, with each animal being indistinguishable from the ones either side. There is no point at which a cat is next to a non-cat, or a dog to a non-dog. We could similarly arrange descendants from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, and we would find something similar: no obvious boundaries or jumps.
Tell that to someone trying to canoe up the Niagara Falls. There is a difference between something being logically possible and it being physically possible. It is logically possible for cats to evolve into dogs, but I doubt it's ever going to happen; I doubt it is physically possible. As I wrote before, once a step has been taken in evolution it may well not be possible to reverse that step - think of a ratchet. Or if it is possible, it is so unlikely that for all intents and purposes it will never happen. Remember that evolution isn't about random changes; to persist, each of those changes must come with a reproductive advantage, or at the very least no disadvantage.
For a cat to evolve into a dog, each of the mutations on the way must happen in the right order, and the environment must also change in order to make that mutation an advantageous change. If a mutation replaced the function of another gene, that gene must be restored before this mutation is reversed. At each step a stable breeding population must be maintained.
Once back at the common ancestor stage it would then have to evolve into a dog, following the same path that dogs really have followed. All that is far, far more unlikely than a cat evolving in the first instance.
It's really not a worldview I had encountered before except among low-rent Fundagelicals - but then, SN seems to be getting most of his beliefs, opinions, etc., from low-rent Fundagelicals, so I suppose I'm not terribly surprised.
Interestingly, it seems that "belief" in evolution is positively correlated with support for environmental regulations among religious believers.
RE Narad @791
I prefer this version by John Hurt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLc8YeXP8FY
A man, his guitar, and nothing else.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
I could be wrong about this. But if the odds of something happening in a single microsecond are 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power to one, you just need 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power microseconds to make it probable that it happened once, don't you?
I'm never comfortable with a notion of direction in evolution. Populations vary, the environment selects for some traits over others. Eventually (assuming the entire population doesn't die out) some of the population is distinguishable as significantly different from the original population, resulting in at least one new species.
If dogs were ruthlessly selected for cat traits over a sufficiently long period, I'm sure they could be bred to look and act like cats. They very likely would not be cats genetically. They probably would not be dogs either, making a new species that is neither cat nor dog.
^^Of it happening by chance, when those are the only terms.
His problem is in his repeated inssitence that only one single "die roll" would be capable of resulting in a universe which could allow living organisms to arise. As pointed out in the Stenger article I linked to above that isn't the case.
A useful analogy is that of a megabucks lottery--See's trying to frame the argument in terms of "What is the likelihood that this particular sequence of numbers would have been drawn by random chance such that the lottery ticket I'm holding would have won?" when the relevant question is instead "What is the likelihood that some sequence of numbers would have been drawn such that some ticket, held by someone, would have won?"
MWI – which is quite pedestrian* – and the landscape are quite different things.
S.N.'s assertion that "that impossibility is one of the reasons, probably the primary reason, for the birth of the science fiction known as 'multiverse theory'" is just more demonstration that his knowledge of the subject is completely nonexistent.
* "Just a way of talking about the emergent behavior of the classical approximation," as Peter Woit has put it.
To Gray Falcon #800:
Me: “Are you saying NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has authority to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is?”
You: “Yes.”
Me: “OK. But I thought you were a Christian?”
You: “I am, because I believe as Jesus Christ taught. And Jesus did not teach literalism, no matter how many out-of-context quotes you provide.”
You’re last answer really is not faithful to the subject of our exchange.
We were talking about “AUTHORITY”, the subject YOU inserted way back in #547.
And subsequent exchanges, primarily with ann, dealt with authority regarding Catholic morality on abortion. Abortion was the “object” of the “subject” of authority. But regardless of the object being abortion or something else, we were talking about the SUBJECT of AUTHORITY.
You said NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has AUTHORITY to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is.
That’s why I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian.
But as I pointed out to ann in #541 and #674, labels can be deceiving.
re: the topic of who is, and is not, a "real" Christian. I was raised in the Pentacostal church, which regards Catholics as warmed-over pagans. I didn't know much about Catholicism in high school, where I learned that they claimed to be the "original" church. When I started studying the history of Christianity in college, I was shocked to discover that they were both right.
^I didn't know much about Catholicism until high school.
The Standard Model has 19 empirically determined parameters (ignoring neutrinos), not 10⁵⁰⁰. Of course, your phrasing demonstrates that your ignorance runs far deeper than that.
You said NO ONE apart from Jesus Christ has AUTHORITY to say definitively what Christianity is, and even authority to decide what proper Christian behavior is.
That’s why I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian.
His religion, His call. Not yours.
To LW #801:
“No scientist studying evolution has ever said that a non-human became a human one second later…”
As Slicky Willy Clinton might have said,
“That depends on what the meaning of “said” is.”
MANY scientists HAVE SAID that the population of human beings was NEVER LESS THAN 10,000.
And since even I agree there was a time on earth with zero human beings, call it “through time X”, then, at X plus one second 10,000 NON-human beings became 10,000 human beings.
“The notion of individuals evolving in their own lifetime is a science fiction notion (e.g., “The Man Who Evolved”), not part of evolutionary theory.”
Completely false. See above.
“Likewise, evolutionary theory does not predict that dogs turn into cats but rather that different populations that were originally one species can become more and more different over vast time until they are as different as dogs and cats. But of course as a thirty-year “believer” in evolution, you know that.”
Do you believe as Kerbiozen here that “Species don’t have boundaries”?
“So why do you bring these things up? As an apostate trying to convince current believers, why do you claim that your former belief system includes something that it never has included?”
Granted, in the 30-some years I believed in evolution I didn’t know as much about it as I do now, and no doubt had some misperceptions. And I didn’t ask nearly as many questions about it. I essentially just ASSUMED it was true and scientific because I always HEARD it was true and scientific. But I’d bet that if today you asked several average Evolution believers what Evolution is, you might get several different answers. Evolution education is not in great shape, 150 years on.
See Noevo- Seriously, you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority of Christianity? Are you really suggesting something that heretical?
^ Moreover, it doesn't seem to have dawned on S.N. yet that quantum measurement is nondeterministic, which would be a far greater problem if he had the slightest idea what he was talking about and completely eliminate the need to make a fool of himself by yammering about a failed version of BSM physics.
Then again, The Fibonacci sequence would have done that as well.
At least your underlying lack of reasoning skills hasn't changed; you've simply chosen a more primitive script to try to memorize lines from.
No, See, it doesn't: evolution does not act at the scalel of individual organisms, but at the scale of populations of organisms.
Who exactly are these all=caps MANY scientists, See, and what was the contexy in which they stated this calim?
Identify 10, with citations to the articles they've published stating the claim, please.
See, once again: by definition individuals (human or otherwise) do not evolve. Populations evolve.
I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea there was a time you understood evolution even less well than your posts indicate you do now...
Which might be an argument that we should improve how evolution is taught, not that evolutionary models are invalid. Agreed?
When someone has to base their entire argument on Semantics, there is very little to be had......
Are you sure that if you saw that in context, it wouldn't be clear that they were talking about a population bottleneck from 70,000 years ago and not some singular, mythical concept like the Dawn of Mankind?
Because while it's hard to say without a citation, that's my best guess.
So what do you think was meant by this? Do you think that:
a) at a given signal, 10,000 home not-quite-sapiens females gave birth to the first generation of homo sapiens?
b) On New Years Day, the HR department sent out a message to 10,000 homo not-quite-sapiens with the beginning of fiscal year promotions?
c) Or that perhaps the boundary between species is not quite so exact that it can be defined to the second?
Although I suppose that since you presumably need to attain something above non-negligible population numbers in order to leave a lasting fossil record, they might also have been talking about that.
There are probably other possibilities, too. It's really just the out-of-context part I'm betting on.
Even better, the 10,000 comes from the Toba supervolcano idea, so the "argument" isn't even well constructed.
S.N. is not a particularly competent creationist, but this is what happens when one's only intellectual resource is picking up second-hand material here and there.
Coming from someone who was quoting the scriptures upthread and quite obviously was regarding them as the literal word of Jehowah/Jesus, this sentence is difficult to parse.
Judging from recent examples, the same hold true asking Catholics what Catholicism is about.
That would have been the Tambora Super-Eruption, that may have reduced the number of humans on earth to a mere 100,000 or less......
Oops - I meant Toba...Tambora was 19th Century....
Clearly the apostle Paul had a far greater impact on the workings of the church (entrance requirements, secret handshake, articles of faith) than Jesus. After all, he wrote far more of the New Testament than Jesus did.
@#828, #831 --
On consideration, I think it's likelier to be the Adam-and-Eve-based point of confusion described here.
The population-bottleneck thing just looked good to me because I wasn't thinking like a creationist. Which only goes to show. Dying is easy, communication is hard.
MANY scientists HAVE SAID that the population of human beings was NEVER LESS THAN 10,000.
I would like to see citations for these MANY scientists saying that there have always been 10,000 or more human beings alive.
Life is full of disappointments, however.
I essentially just ASSUMED it was true and scientific because I always HEARD it was true and scientific.
I will try SN's citational approach in my next paper and see how far it gets me.
To Krebiozen #806:
“I do not agree with the physicists who claim that universal constants are evidence of the existence of God. I don’t believe that the fact that most weeks someone wins the UK lottery with odds of 13 million to 1 is evidence of the existence of God either.”
You’re confusing outcomes with probabilities. The OUTCOME is certain, 100%. Specifically, everyone knows with 100% certainty that SOMEONE of the 13 million will win.
Likewise, we know with 100% certainty the outcome of the universal constants, that the universal constants turned out the way they are.
But what was the probability of that outcome? With ANY of the universal constants, ONLY ONE PARTICULAR “someone” can win, else there’s no more “lotteries”, no more anything. And the odds of that one particular “someone” winning are a lot smaller than 1 in 13 million.
“Incidentally, I’m not clear about your beliefs. You claim that God created the universe, the Earth and life fully formed. You also claim that God created the universe with all the physical constants and conditions necessary for life to evolve. Why did God need to do the latter if he was going to do the former?”
Let me clarify more of my beliefs for you: He didn’t do the latter.
“Conversely, people’s beliefs are people’s beliefs regardless of the truth…You stated that if evolution had been observed, which it indisputably has, everyone would believe in it (“If that were true, everyone would believe in Evolution”).”
I’ll give you partial credit on this one, Krebiozen. It’s true that seeing is not always believing (cf. Matthew 28:17). You’re absolutely correct.
Conversely, believing is not always seeing (e.g. abiogenesis).
“What has the fact that not everyone believes in evolution have to do with the truth of the matter?”
Virtually nothing.
“In some areas we can be sure enough that something is true that for all practical purposes it is proven to be true.”
I agree. The existence of fossils and of gravity, for example. In fact, you don’t even have to be a scientist to know that for all practical purposes these are proven to be true. It’s almost as true for me as Cogito Ergo Sum.
Me: “What science deals with is OBSERVATIONS and theories about observations.”
You: “That isn’t true at all…That’s why we need replication and large numbers of observations.”
Hmmm.
You: “You are seriously comparing science with the jury system…”
Me: “Yes, I seriously am.” [Ever hear anything like ‘The CONSENSUS of the scientific community believes evolution is a fact’?]
You: “Oh wait, another contender. I’m not even going to start pointing out the differences.”
Hmmm.
………………….
You: “How can you accept anything as Holy Writ if you have your “critical-thinking part of brain and my curiosity” intact?”
Me: “Fairly easily.”
You: “I would be fascinated to know how.”
To borrow some of your words above, I’m not even going to start pointing out…how.
“OK, if you insist, I’ll explain. If random chance were all that is in operation, perhaps it could, but it isn’t, natural selection is operating too. Each mutation back towards the common ancestor would have to carry some reproductive advantage to it for the offspring to out-compete the other, which is effectively impossible.”
Why would evolving backwards hurt an organism’s reproductive advantage if the organism that it evolved FROM* is still around and reproducing fabulously? [*Cyanobacteria are as good a candidate as any for the first life, the universal common ancestor. And according to the bubble heads at Berkeley, the 3.5 billion year old cyanobactria fossils are barely younger than the first rock!]
“I’m stating that life emerged just once (probably) on Earth, and (almost) all living things are descended from that original life form… So, we can represent all living things on a family tree diagram showing that interrelatedness.”
As always with evolution theory, that SOUNDS sensible.
But the Devil’s in the details. And oddly enough, it’s the details about the family tree that have exasperated scientists to the point of cutting the damn thing down. Which they have.
Me: “But if no mutual exclusivity exists between “X” and “not-X”, then “X” = “not-X”. And every “one” and every “thing” is.. “everyone” and “everything”.”
You: “It isn’t about exclusivity, it’s about every living thing on Earth being related to every other living thing.”
Me: “Well, I’d say every human being on Earth is related to every other human being. But YOU are saying a Non-human being one second can be a human being the next second. That’s different.”
You: “If we could…form a line of animals leading from cats to dogs, through their common ancestor, with each animal being indistinguishable from the ones either side. There is no point at which a cat is next to a non-cat…”
If not a non-cat, then, what would the scientist say the cat is next to?
You: “How does having no boundaries mean that evolution does have a reverse gear?”
Me: “Because having no boundaries means being able to go in any direction, including backward.”
You: “Tell that to someone trying to canoe up the Niagara Falls.”
If that someone in the canoe was named See Evo, I’d tell him: “Don’t sweat it. You’re not TRYING to do ANYTHING.”
“As I wrote before, once a step has been taken in evolution it may well not be possible to reverse that step – think of a ratchet. Or if it is possible, it is so unlikely that for all intents and purposes it will never happen.”
WHAT?
You say “If it is so unlikely that for all intents and purposes it will never happen”?
OK. Just like the universal constants settling on their particular and necessary settings BY CHANCE. It will or could never happen.
Mephistopheles O'Brien,
Me neither. I should have been clearer in specifying that I meant the direction in a sequence of mutations that resulted in evolution. The use of directional, goal-oriented design terminology in evolution has led to enormous amounts of confusion. I remember in one of Gould's books he uses the analogy of water being poured down an inclined tray, and the route the droplets take as an analogy for the different directions evolution takes. The idea was that if life on Earth was set back to the beginning and rerun, it would not follow the exact same path again. I never quite understood what gravity was in that analogy.
I think what we (well, I) sometimes forget is the time element in evolution. In some ways it is useful to think of every organism that ever lived as still being alive as a sort of 4-dimensional bush (or whatever metaphorical shape you prefer), representing life as an interrelated monolithic entity. That way it becomes obvious that it is the death of some organisms and survival of others that gives the illusion of direction. We can see a sort of progression towards complexity, I suppose, but there are plenty of simple organisms still around that have barely changed at all. I'm musing again, but you get my drift.
I'm sure you're right, but my point is that the series of mutations that resulted in speciation is unlikely to spontaneously reverse in sequence*, given the requirement for said reversed series of mutations to also improve the reproductive success of the creature concerned.
:-) Christianity sounded quite nice (in parts) until Saul got his hands on it. It's funny to think someone who never met Jesus IRL had such an influence on the Christian church. BTW, try talking to a Mormon about Catholicism, if you want some entertainment ;-)
* I recently came across a discussion of entropy, and how it wouldn't be possible to make a machine that turns omelettes into eggs. Someone pointed out that a chicken in a box would do the job, which I thought was an interesting though slightly distasteful idea.
Same difference (RLY).
Too bad that the "universal constants" aren't even constant, dumbass.
To JP #807:
“Interestingly, it seems that “belief” in evolution is positively correlated with support for environmental regulations among religious believers.”
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with more than just belief in (AGW agenda) environmental regulations.
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated with
-divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers,
– abortion and contraception,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
- view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document,
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver]
I don't KNOW. But I'd take that bet.
Define "gravity." If you refer to it as a force, you lose.
Krebiozen,
I also remember one of Gould's essays in which he discussed how wildly improbable it would be for the same creature to evolve twice, even given the exact same starting conditions. The fact that all chordates have a single common ancestral species and that there is nothing that distinguishes that one (so far as we can tell) for survival from others makes you think about how things could have gone. The notion of people being the end products of evolution is only correct as far as time is concerned - amoebas, slime molds, and mosquitoes are just as much end products of evolution.
I fully agree. In fact, if something that appeared like that happened it would not be a reversal, as such, since it would be incredibly unlikely that** your treads would follow exactly the same path "backwards" as "forwards".
**Using an amazingly bad analogy.
See Noevo - I'll take that bet on the other side. What are your stakes, sir?
Oh, G-d, it's a legal ignoramus as well. Truly a bounty of riches.
Let's see - who was the most famous person I can recall getting a divorce? Henry VIII? What was his stance of evolution?
@SeeNoevo:
Given the fact that you're a Roman freaking Catholic, I find the fact that you include this on your list of modern sins incredibly amusing.
As for the rest of the things you'd be willing to bet on, you'd be losing money. Out-of-wedlock birth is actually higher in "red" states which tend to be more religious in, uh, the way that you seem to be, though I'm willing to concede that that probably has more to do with education levels and socio-economic status than anything. (Well, and abstinence only sex "education.") Same goes for STDs. And the state with the highest rate of pornography consumption is Utah.
Depression is a fairly equal opportunity illness, although it has a lower incidence in those who are highly involved in a religious community. I'd be willing to bet it has a lower incidence in people who are involved in any sort of community, though. It says a lot about you that you include clinical depression on your list of "sins," though. How very compassionate and Christ-like to blame the afflicted for their own afflictions.
Oh, and BTW, do you think the 3/5 compromise was something worth keeping in the Constitution? Are you a fan of the Bill of Rights?
To ann #809:
Me: “Also, and perhaps equally important, is the point YOU IGNORED. Namely, you DON’T HAVE FOREVER to keep rolling the dice in hopes of getting that particular 1 in 10 to the hundredth-something power. You have JUST ONE ROLL, in the microsecond our universe came into existence after the alleged Big Bang.”
You: “I could be wrong about this. But if the odds of something happening in a single microsecond are 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power to one, you just need 10-to-the-hundredth-something-power microseconds to make it probable that it happened once, don’t you?”
You not only could be wrong, you are wrong.
The point is that you get ONLY ONE roll EVER; the TIMING of that one and only roll was in the microsecond our universe came into existence after the alleged Big Bang.
You can keep repeating this, but it's never going to make you less ignorant of what you're babbling about, which has nothing to do with probability.
To multiple addressees…
To Mephistopheles O'Brien #810:
“I’m never comfortable with a notion of direction in evolution…If dogs were ruthlessly selected for cat traits over a sufficiently long period, I’m sure they could be bred to look and act like cats.”
Whew!
Make sure you don’t snuggle with Krebiozen.
That wouldn’t be comfortable.
…..
To JGC #802, #812:
I think that Stenger article is really bad.
Too bad you’ll never know why.
Because you’d have to first tell me what’s good about it – specifically, identify your one favorite sentence, or even favorite 2 or 3 consecutive sentences.
Too bad.
…..
To Gray Falcon #820:
“See Noevo- Seriously, you don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority of Christianity?”
Of course I believe that Jesus Christ is the ultimate authority of Christianity.
That’s why I said I don’t understand how you can call yourself a Christian.
You don’t believe in His authority, specifically, in the authority of what He said.
Oh, and, uh...
"Let the poor starve, I always say! Cripples? Who needs 'em! If they can't pull their own weight, let 'em starve to death too!"
-Definitely not Jesus of Nazareth
I don’t KNOW. But I’d take that bet.
I'll take it too. Now...produce your proof.
To JGC #823:
Me: “MANY scientists HAVE SAID that the population of human beings was NEVER LESS THAN 10,000.”
You: “Who exactly are these all=caps MANY scientists, See, and what was the contexy in which they stated this calim? Identify 10, with citations to the articles they’ve published stating the claim, please.”
No, thank you.
As I disclosed earlier, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready. I don’t always have comprehensive, copy-n-paste-able listings of “the names and publications” when I make statements.
I thought the 10,000 thing was common knowledge, at least common among those at all familiar with the subject.
But why go far afield?
We have a scientist, or at least an authority, right here at this website. His name is “eric”. Check eric out. I mean, check out what eric says, about the 10,000:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/05/11/oppy-surveys-the-work-…
Also, just from memory, I KNOW PhD Dennis Venema at BioLogos preaches the 10,000.
Me: “Evolution education is not in great shape, 150 years on.”
You: “Which might be an argument that we should improve how evolution is taught, not that evolutionary models are invalid. Agreed?”
Agreed.
But do you know of any other science subject that has been taught for the last 150 years which less than 20% of the students buy completely and 45% reject completely (U.S. figures)?
So, See is just your typical bible-belt, bible & flag hugging Tea Party nutjob.
Totally makes sense.
See Noevolution:
So you reject all the instances where (P|S)aul's teachings conflict with JC's? You know, like where JC insists on total adherence to the Hebraic laws, but (P|S)aul peddles the heresy of "fulfillment"?
To ann #825:
“Because while it’s hard to say without a citation, that’s my best guess.”
Dear ann,
Saying something without a citation?
You may be in for a spanking from the “observant” one, JGC.
Annie, get your guns ready.
Oh, and I just checked out some of his "other work." He invokes the "No True Scotsman" Fallacy as well.....what a wonderful person, Jesus must be proud to have such a profound jackass as one of his believers.
For some seriously good entertainment, I have to go with Jack Chick.
https://www.chick.com/catalog/tractlist.asp
Except for Jack's take on Catholics, See would really like him. I expect this is how See sees himself -
https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Wait, what?
– abortion and contraception,
You do know that one of those will prevent the other, right? Or are you just against people having sex? (like I gotta ask.)
Well, the guys who wrote it made provisions for it to be amended, so I rather expect they thought it would change over time. There are 10 amendments in particular that you may have heard of, they are rather famous.
Proper Johnny
Accept no substitutes
See, did you know we can just scroll up and read what we both wrote in the past?
You're an outright liar, See. Do not pretend otherwise.
As I disclosed earlier, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready. I don’t always have comprehensive, copy-n-paste-able listings of “the names and publications” when I make statements.
Translation: I'm a weasel and I make shit up.
Six will get you ten he welshes on the bet.
As I disclosed earlier, I do NOT necessarily keep supporting documentation at the ready am more than happy to spew random horseshіt that I half-remember from Protestant fundie sites and feel that it is beneath me to so much as figure out what the fυck I was supposed to be saying, much less consider whether I have no fυcking idea what I'm talking about in the first place.
FTFY, pompous chickenshіt.
To Gray Falcon #858:
“See, did you know we can just scroll up and read what we both wrote in the past?
You’re an outright liar, See.”
How so?
@See Noevo #819:
To LW #801:
You seriously don't understand anything about evolution. There is no line drawn between NON-human beings and human beings -- that is a creationist concept. A long time ago there were populations of apes. Some of these apes were a little hairier than others, some a little less hairy. Some had hips a little better adapted to bipedality, some a little worse adapted. Some of them had mouths a little more rectangular, some less. Some had bigger teeth, some smaller. Some were a little smarter, some not. And so on. Over time, some of these alleles spread through some of the populations because they gave a survival advantage in the particular environments where those populations lived or perhaps were neither advantageous nor detrimental.
After a long long time -- millions of years, in fact, the descendants of some of these populations looked more like human beings and less like other apes. But those populations still had individuals with differences like being a little hairier or a little less, etc. And there were thousands of them. After yet more time, some of these populations looked a lot more like human beings, and many of the individuals in these populations would have traits falling in the range of human beings.
You will probably say that there would have been a first person who fell in the range of modern humans in every respect. Logically there could have been, but that person would have had siblings, cousins, and so on, who were just a little bit out of the human range in one respect or another -- and they would have been no more different from that "first person" than your siblings or cousins are from you. And, of course, that "first person" might have died without issue anyway. But, as the relevant alleles spread through the population and natural selection had its way, more and more of the population would have fallen in the range of modern humans, and fewer and fewer would have fallen out of the range in any important respect, and at some arbitrary time -- which differs even from creationist to creationist -- you would say, "yes, these are in fact human beings". But there was never a "time X" before which there were no human beings and after which there were ten thousand.
Yes, because I am not deliberately misunderstanding him and you are. Certainly dogs and cats are not the same species and there are clear boundaries -- today -- between the two populations. A cat today is not the same species as its ancestor fifty million years ago. But there is no boundary a scientist can point to and say, "this animal unmistakeably is not a cat and this, its offspring, unmistakeably is a cat."
An analogy to this situation -- and this is only an analogy and an illustration, not a statement about evolution -- is found in this statement by Edmund Burke:
Finally, you observe that,
You get no argument from me as to the deplorable condition of education in all areas but especially scientific subjects. Your appalling, proud, and defiant ignorance is certainly an excellent demonstration.
Ignore SN - based on what he's written here & over at the other site, he truly believes that he is the only "True Catholic" - uses Semantics as a means of justifying his beliefs, and is truly a nutjob on par with the Th1Th2's of the world.
That's not in the video. According to whom?
The reason I was saying something without a citation was that you didn't provide one. So there was none.
Pax vobiscum.
What do you have against the undeserving disabled, for mercy's sake?
Is it your position that they have only themselves to blame, or what?
I will also take that bet, btw.
See, those were both quotes from you. When you realized you just took a blasphemous stance, you tried to pass yourself off as never having taken in at all.
I don't know if you all should be taking that bet. After all, in See Noevo's view, "belief in evolution" means total ignorance of evolution combined with amazingly stupid misconceptions of evolution and a determined refusal to learn anything at all. I don't have a problem seeing that as correlated with all sorts of bad behavior.
Maybe if I find myself too tired to do anything else later, I go on, but here's a partial list of things that S.N. does not understand that makes anything he spouts off about regarding fundamental physics so meaningless as to leave no rational recourse other than mockery, given that he's desperately trying to avoid really letting his moron flag fly:
1. Big bang cosmology
2. Inflation, specifically, its difference from eternal inflation
3. That "multiverse" does not mean whatever he says it does
4. What motivated the string landscape
5. The Standard Model
6. What representation theory has to do with this
7. Anything vaguely resembling quantum field theory
8. "Naturalness"
9. General relativity
10. Why G-ddidit and the "anthropic principle" are "asymptotically" identical
11. As a consequence, why his idiotically rocking in the corner intoning UNPOSSIBILITY amounts merely to a "victory" in the sense of replacing one rejection of science with a vastly more primitive one
To LW #861:
“An analogy to this situation — and this is only an analogy and an illustration, not a statement about evolution — is found in this statement by Edmund Burke: But, though no man can draw a stroke between the confines of day and night, yet light and darkness are upon the whole tolerably distinguishable.”
And Edmund Burke surely must have completed his thought by saying “But at no time was the day’s light less than 10,000 lux.”
See Noevo- Bit of advice- Don't think you can convince me of your rightness through Scriptural quotation. Remember, Satan quoted scripture to make a point.
To ann #863:
“What do you have against the undeserving disabled, for mercy’s sake [url for Luke 10:37]?”
Well, from a secular and even atheistic viewpoint, as is apropos for this website, I would say an “undeserving” solicitor doesn’t deserve whatever he’s soliciting, by definition.
Also, I suppose your “undeserving disabled” here is meant to distinguish from the “deserving disabled”, although I’m not getting what the distinction is. Perhaps the former deliberately disabled himself? Or would that be the latter? Whatever.
And from that secular and even atheistic viewpoint, the Good Samaritan of Luke 10 has NO LOGICAL RATIONALE for his actions, UNLESS his actions will benefit HIMSELF in some way. In other words, that whole Golden Rule thing which many atheists tout as a substitute for Christian morality (and, yes, the Golden Rule long preceded Christ) is just a euphemistic gloss for UTILITARIANISM. And in keeping with the evolutionary viewpoint of this website, the primary and perhaps only benefit the Good Samaritan should be eyeing is whether this guy by the road can help the Good Samaritan REPRODUCE. (Yuck.)
From a Christian perspective, however, I’d say he Good Samaritan did the right thing, of course.
As to “governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps”, I’d refer to 2 Thessalonians 3:10.
I would like to take this opportunity to mention that S.N.'s defacing a memorial post for the sake of seeking personal attention is one of the most fυcking disgraceful things I can imagine.
He invokes the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy as well
It is as if the True Scotsman fell in love with a strawman and they had beautiful babies together.
I guess that leaves you utterly fυcked as far as your appearance here goes.
Because apparently there is no distinction between "unwilling" and "unable" in your mind, and no difference between, say, quitting a job or being laid off, and I guess in your world, nobody's ever underemployed during, say, a recession.
Honestly, you are a disgusting piece of work. If J.C. ever does come back, I imagine you'll be in for a surprise. Actually, you'll probably be first in line to f*cking crucify him all over again.
What's more, the 2 Thessalonians passage, in context, refers to people who treated the Christian church as a Doomsday cult, waiting around for Christ to come back and fix everything, and not acting to bring justice to those on Earth. In other words, the way See Noevo acts.
The short version is that they are idiots and ought to be kicked out of the profession, just like the useful idiots of the anti-vax movement. And Jindal, who needs his degree rescinded.
Creationists also ought to be prevented (by force if neccessary) from going to museums, getting a university education, finding fossils or looking up. I wish they'd just lead a quiet, joyless existence and shut up.
To JP #875:
“Honestly, you are a disgusting piece of work. If J.C. ever does come back, I imagine you’ll be in for a surprise. Actually, you’ll probably be first in line to f*cking crucify him all over again.”
and to Politicalguineapig #877:
“Creationists also ought to be prevented (by force if neccessary) from going to museums, getting a university education, finding fossils or looking up. I wish they’d just lead a quiet, joyless existence and shut up.”
Assuming I refuse to change my ways, and in fact never change my ways, would you like to see me punished?
I’d like to add one item to my list in #840:
I’d bet belief in evolution is positively correlated also with
-Population decline.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11644660/Germany-dominance…
Not at all. Being a willfully ignorant fundamentalist prig is punishment enough.
I'm pretty sure you are your own punishment, SN. You are a small, stupid and mean person, you live in a small, stupid and mean world (in your head), and you worship a small, stupid and mean G-d that you have created after your own image - an idol, really.
That's just sad.
See Noevo: "– Population decline."
And that is bad because why?
Apparently people who are financially well off and know their children will become adults tend to have fewer children. This makes sure that fewer of our limited resources are used. Here are some videos you should familiarize yourself with:
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/
As has already been pointed out, the disabled are not unwilling but rather unable to work. So that doesn't apply. The parable of the Good Samaritan, on the other hand, is completely a propos.
I ask again: Why do you oppose disability benefits?
The "undeserving" was sarcastic on my part. Sorry for the confusion.
Yeesh.
There are exciting issues in the evolution field, like adaptive mutations and the extent of horizontal gene transfer between species, but creation seems to attract more interest.
Two years ago, I went to this blog because some people here thought that Cell Inflation Assisted Chemotherapy (a universal treatment for cancer) was some kind of quackery, and I came to defend myself. What surprised me was that when they realized I was not a quack they were not interested anymore in what I had to say.
I never could decide whether this was because people in blogs prefer to argue with morons, because they think they have a chance to have the last word, or because they are more fascinated by magic and faith than by knowledge.
I know you weren't asking me. But fwiw, no, I would dislike it.
@#872 --
That's very low.
Yah, that whole Tischreden thing flew right over your head just like everything else.
C'mon, babycakes, haven't you had time to get, ah, "to hand" some of your profound G—le insight into the unpossibility of the nondivine nature of SNerverse?
I don't think you need any punishment. You are your own punishment.
What you haven't realised is that Politicalguineapig is just as narrow-minded and prejudiced as you are - only in different areas - and we take about as much notice of their moralising as we do of yours. i.e. none, other than to tell them to stop being a prig.
I don't imagine that solicitation is too far off when certain desires are frustrated in the real world:
Maybe they're no longer letting him around the altar boys.
^ I regret that I'm not immediately finding my desired reference to "Meat Hook" Baird, but "candle and foreskin act" conveys the general idea.
Or, in S.N.'s case, general flavor.
ChrisP : It's not a moral thing: I simply dislike people like See Noevo and their spawn and hostages taking up space in museums like, say the Field Museum or the museum I work at that might otherwise go to people who are there to, y'know, LEARN things or appreciate fossils. (Plus, if they stay out of my museum, I will have more free time, since I don't have to lurk nearby to ensure they won't blow the place up.)
They want to go to a museum, they can go to Ken Ham's abomination.
Jindal's tossed in his lot with the creationists- that basically makes his degree slightly less useful than toilet paper. Carson's too, from whatever mailorder place he graduated from.
I suppose you can take a relaxed view of things from Australia. I can't. Almost all of the candidates currently running for President, the highest office, have no understanding of science, think fetuses are one of the highest forms of life (outranking actual living women) and want to dismantle *everything* that made the US, once-upon-a-time, a decent place to live in.Things like living wages, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Everglades, since Rubio's selling them to the Koch brothers.
Cruz will likely win. (One wonders who the heck Rand Paul is fooling, with his claim of composting. That's about as likely as any of the local state senators eating wild rice.)
Next time summer rolls around, why not thank all of them, and Congress too, for all your lovely brushfires.
SN: Not punished, exactly, but I sure as heck wouldn't mind dropkicking you out of my museum or the library. Hey, serious question, isn't using the internet a sin? As well as jeans, composting, not littering, any music produced post 1950, and literacy?
@ See
Do not presume to know our motivations, little man.
I help people because I want to help them. Because, by helping those around me, I makes this world a better place. Because, funny enough, one can feel empathy and have a conscience without being overly religious.
I don't do it to score brownie points with the FSM.
You jest, sir, and yet there are a number of scientists who precisely study how altruistic behaviors, which could be observed in animal societies, could be squared with evolution, although evolution is apparently all about one's self-interests.
Well, it works. Altruistic behaviors contribute to make an animal society more viable and stable, and thus indirectly help the Good Samaritains to reproduce by giving them better surroundings to do so.
There was a study about the prisoner's dilemma among a tribe of great apes. It was quite fascinating. The apes which forgot to repay the ones which helped them first tended to be ignored during subsequent requests for help.
Funny, eh? Morality may well be a concept inscribed into our genes.
You want to talk about Utilitarianism? How is "secular" utilitarianism different from the religious guy who is doing good actions to buy his ticket to Heaven?
And yet another goalpost shift.
To ann #883:
“I ask again: Why do you oppose disability benefits?”
I never said I opposed disability payments. (In fact, I do NOT oppose disability benefits for the disabled, the TRULY disabled, that is.)
What I SAID was that I’d bet a POSITIVE CORRELATION exists between belief in evolution and gov’t payouts for disability (and welfare, food stamps, unemployment).
And strangely enough, the U.S. seems to be an increasingly disabled nation: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Some other notes on Disability…
Ratio of working people to people on disability: 1968: 51 to 1; 1997: 24 to 1; 2013: 13 to 1.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/8830026-americans-disability-hits-new-r…
(And it’s gotten worse in the last two years.)
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, among disability recipients “Mental disorders more than tripled from 10 percent of cases 30 years ago to become the second largest diagnostic category with 32.8 percent. Half of these were considered “mood disorders,” such as depression and anxiety.”
According to the Social Security Administration, “Just over 1 in 4 of today’s 20 year-olds will become disabled before reaching age 67.”
I wonder what the ratio was 50 years ago. I’d just betcha it was a lot different.
To all those who responded to my question (“Assuming I refuse to change my ways, and in fact never change my ways, would you like to see me punished?”)…
Thank you for your gentle “No”s.
Your “mercy” is only appropriate, of course.
Because when you think about it, I’m doing nobody any harm whatsoever. For even if I were to convince just one person that evolution wasn’t true, that person’s life would go on just as before.
For instance, he/she/it would still go to work every day (even as a medical doctor!) (unless they were on SS Disability for a mood disorder (ref. #893)), enjoy leisure activities, benefit from technology, plan for the future, etc.
Not a single thing in his/her/its everyday life has anything to do with evolution.
But anyway, thanks for being easy on me. You did the right thing.
"Not a single thing in his/her/its everyday life has anything to do with evolution."
Reproduction has much to do with evolution. And if you convice him not to use condoms, it may change his every day life.
Perhaps there's some need for clarification to my answer to See Noevo's rather absurd question in #771. It would be more accurate to say that it is by Jesus Christ's teachings that we decide what is right and wrong. At no point did he declare that the sheep and the goats would be divided by who believed that Genesis 1 was literally true or not. When he asked "who proved his neighbor?" the answer was not "the one who passed the broken man by". And when asked "what must I do to gain eternal life," he most certainly did not say that bearing false witness was perfectly acceptable.
All See has are a few out-of-context verses. Quote mining was explicitly used by the devil to tempt the Christ in the wilderness. That does not put him in good company.
and
I see a couple of practical difficulties with this laudable scheme. For one, forcibly preventing someone from getting a university education or from "looking up" -- raising their gaze from the ground as if they were real people -- is actually illegal in many States. So you need to work on changing the laws. I think a simple law would do it: "No creationist has any rights that a non-creationist is bound to respect."
Okay, now that we've established the legal basis for action, there's another practical problem: creationists sometimes wear distinctive clothing enabling you to identify them, but many do not. I have worked with creationists and not realized it! A creationist disguised as a real person might sneak into your museum and steal the learning away from the real people and you might not even know it! The horror! So, I think we need to require creationists to wear some distinctive symbol sewn to their clothing so we can be sure to recognize them.
Now, you're concerned about creationist spawn. This is of course the biggest concern. You see, there are some real people who -- well, there's just no delicate way to put this -- there are some real people who actually breed with creationists. I know, it's an appalling thought, isn't it, that a real person might stoop to relations with a creationist, but you have to know that there are perverts in this world. And also creationists are sneaky in their attempts to defile our pure blood.
So obviously we need the law to prevent miscegenation between creationists and real people, and we need some way of deciding when the taint of creationism is washed from the blood. I'm thinking that half-creationists, being spawn themselves, should be subject to all the sanctions to which we subject full creationists. You agree, of course. Quarter-creationists are a bit more difficult to handle. Why, they might not even realize the taint they inherited from a grandparent! So I think we should presume them to be creationists but, on a case-by-case basis, we might allow them to be freed from the normal sanctions. We'll need a commission to handle this, of course.
Once we get all these mechanisms in place, we can start considering how to remove the alien taint of creationism from our society permanently.
Glad you're with us in this campaign, Politicalguineapig. It will be glorious!
@#893 --
^^That's primarily because the criteria for awards changed back in Reagan's second term:
(From here.)
OK. Even according to the story on the other end of that link, that's generally attributable to cuts to other social-welfare programs under Reagan and Clinton.
Has it occurred to you that this might be due to a decrease in the number of working people, and not an increase in the number of people on disability?
Because it might!
Although I've also got to say that nothing says "cherry-picking" like the progression of 1968 to 1997 to 2013.
^^But that's just for the sake of its educational value. As far as the bet goes, the problem is that Gallup has been regularly asking people what they think about evolution since 1982. And:
You lose.
Rats. I'm in moderation for excess links.
Shorter version:
The rise in disability numbers is largely attributable to Reagan and Clinton. But as far as the bet goes, it barely matters. Because, per Gallup:
And they've been asking since 1982. So you lose.
See, let me remind you of another Bible passage:
Matthew 7 “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s[a] eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor,[b] ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s[c] eye.
If you're willing to suggest disabled people across the country are engaged in large-scale welfare fraud, then don't be surprised if people accuse you of lying.
Chris@882 - See Noevo is referring to population decline among what he considers the right kind of people.
Of course, SN should be the arbiter of who is TRULY disabled, just as he is qualified to judge who is TRULY Christian, and which is the One TRUE Church.*
I mean, I'm sure a lot of people are totally faking disability so they can collect a massive $733 check per month Yessiree, Bob!
Think that might have anything to do with deinstitutionalization, SN? Oh, wait. You don't think.
*There are pretty good arguments to be made that you're all just a lot of schismatic papists, actually, but whatever.
Narad @788 -- I watched about the first 15 seconds of that video (for others, it was some guy talking into the camera sneering about how Novella had attacked homeopathy. Having an actual day job, I went no futher.)
What struck me as incredibly weird was the utterly gratuitous flute music mixed into the soundtrack.
The acontextuality is really a chronic problem.
I mean, "Go thou and do likewise" is a direct, unambiguous command to aid, assist and care for the needy from Jesus Christ to his followers.
So you'd think a person to whom that was important would at least go to the trouble of reading the whole exhortation in 2 Thessalonians,** not just the one sentence that appears to contradict Luke 10:37.
(**Shorter version:
Work hard yourself, as we do. It sets a good example. Don't associate with those who don't, although -- PS -- they do have a right to help. Never tire of doing good. Be nice to people.)
"Because when you think about it, I’m doing nobody any harm whatsoever."
The people you harm are the foolish people who believe you or think your behavior is a good one. We can only hope you don't have access to children.
That's a factor, and there are others. But it's really mostly because the criteria for mental-health disability awards actually got fairer during the Reagan administration.
I know that's counter-intuitive. But he kicked 400,000 people off the rolls when he first came in, which -- predictably -- created such a mess that he ended up having to pivot.
No--even if someone else wins there may b'e more lotteries' 0r, more precisley, no need for additional lotteries.
You're still asking the wrong question ("What are the odds that this universe, capable of supporting life as we know it, could arise by chance?") rather the relevant one ("What are the odds that some universe, capable of supporting life of some kind even if not life as we know, could arise by chance?") As the Stenger article I linked to demonstrates the constants you seem to believe must take the values we observe can actually vary over several orders of magnitude and still result in unvierses where stellar lifetimes are sufficient to allow life to arise.
And whoever that person was instead will think "This could never happen by chance" as well--and be wrong as well.
Translated from the hand-waving, “I frequently pull claims out of my ass—don’t expect me to defend them.”
Your source for these figures, See? The figures (from Gallup) I’ve seen indicate that as of 2014 belief in evolution had doubled compared to previous years, with two thirds of 18 to 29 year olds supporting evolution. In any event, since you have just agreed that the number of people who do or do not embrace evolutionary models does not speak to their validity of, one must ask: what’s your point?
And I’d be willing to be a positive correlation between gov’t payouts for disability, etc., and cell phone use, sales of organic produce and any number of other completely unrelated metrics as well. All together now: correlation does not equal causation.
And, as I recall, Dainel, you failed to do so: in fact you admitted in that proof of concept for CIAC had not been demonstrated. As far as I’m aware it still hasn’t been demonstrated.
It wasn’t that we lost interest, but that you HAD nothing to say: you could offer no evidence that your CIAC was effective as a treatment for cancer, let alone had the potential to be a ‘universal’ treatment.
Convincing people that evolutionary models are invalid has repercussions beyond the individuals convinced, See. It contributes to scientific illiteracy in the general public, which in turn affects the issues that public deems important, the public officials it supports and elects, the public policies those officials seek to institute, etc.
I mean, I’m sure a lot of people are totally faking disability so they can collect a massive $733 check per month Yessiree, Bob!
I only get $587.36. I must be doing something wrong.
Think that might have anything to do with deinstitutionalization, SN? Oh, wait. You don’t think.
I wonder if another factor is our current ability to save the lives of accident victims who would have died say, 20 years ago. Could at least some of the increase on the disability rolls is due to more people surviving serious injuries?
I only get $587.36. I must be doing something wrong.
Well, $733 is the maximum monthly payment...
To ann #898, #899:
I lose?
On the bet that a positive correlation exists between belief in evolution and “governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both SENDER and RECEIVER]” ?
I’m not so sure about that.
As for the RECEIVERS: The number of people on disability as skyrocketed, although as a portion of the overall population they are a small %. HOWEVER, of that population of receivers, I’d bet the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
As for the SENDERS (i.e. the politicians and government bureaucrats creating and expanding such programs): Of that population of big-government “benefactors”, I’d bet the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
@#913 --
You made it clear what you meant by positive correlation back in #893. Be a grown-up and stand by it. You lost the bet.
@#912 --
That's just for SSI. SSDI can be higher.*** And we're really talking about both, since all the trends figures are.
***Because it's earnings-based, which throws a further spanner into the works of the 2 Thessalonians 3 10 argument, given that there's no exhortation not to let people have money they earned and put away for a rainy day..
Although, fwiw, it looks like you'd lose the RECEIVERS half of your attempt to welch anyway:
And here's a bonus global round:
So if you're tired of waiting for things to go your way here in the US, try Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Indonesia. They're more advanced.
(LINK
To ann #904:
Gray one: “All See has are a few out-of-context verses.”
You: “The acontextuality is really a chronic problem.”
Actually, what you call “acontextuality” is really a chronic problem with Protestants, not Catholics.
They don’t get, often willfully, the whole picture.
What I find chronically funny is that when they demand Scriptural support for a Catholic position and the Catholic provides it, they then accuse the Catholic of quote-mining/proof-texting/“acontextuality”.
The song remains the same. And in this context, that’s bad.
In other contexts, it’s good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWYiddSs4wk
@ JGC
"As far as I’m aware it still hasn’t been demonstrated."
As far as I'm aware, you didn't convinced See Noevo of the importance of natural selection as the mechanism for adaptation, and he is still asking, like all creationists, "where is the evidence?". Everybody can ask for more demonstration, but in the case of CIAC the demonstration is in the paper:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24156014
As in the case of relativity, very few people understood the demonstration from the beginning. Some were convinced only by the atomic bomb, some are yet to convince, not to mention the creationists. So please, read the paper, ask some specific questions if you wish, and, if you want to prove or disprove the theory, perform some costly experiments.
See Noevo, your attitude towards the poor is utterly opposed to the teachings of Christ. Why should anyone listen to someone like you. Christ himself declared people like you are the "goats", the ones outside His kingdom. Why should anyone listen to you?
And if something is a sin for a Protestant, then it's sin for a Catholic, and that includes out-of-context scripture quotation.
I think that's very possible. My guess is that it depends on how many recent veterans apply for SS, though. There would probably be too few people with insurance/access otherwise.
FTFY.
@#917 --
And what does Article 7 of the CCC say is the proper context in which a Catholic should consider aid to the poor and needy?
Well, let's see. There's 2443:
And there's 2447:
It's true that 2 Thessalonians 3 10 is also cited in the discussion of that commandment. But it's not in the context of the duty Catholics owe to the poor and needy. It's in the context of the duty Catholics owe to work.
Same as scripture. Funnily enough.
The relevant question is what deeper understanding of QFT could lead to the computability of the SM's 18* parameters.
* I'm pretty sure I had one too many last time, but I'm kind of busy.
…and in current news - http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150602/us--working_with_disabilities…
Because, you know, the country is in a decline because of evolution.
/sarcasm
Why would you make this bet, See? walk me trhough your...well, for the lack of a better word, 'logic'.
Where in the paper is the evidence that CIAC is an effective and universal treatment for cancer, Daniel? I haven't been able to find it.
JGC
You are like See Noevo: hard to convince.
See Noevo also asks for evidence. What is difficult to understand in the paper? That if normal cells do not divide they are protected from anti-mitotic drugs? Or that normal blood cells are under negative feedback, and that this can be used to prevent division? I think that it is easier to understand than evolution by selection.
To ann #922:
"And what does Article 7 of the CCC say is the proper context in which a Catholic should consider aid to the poor and
needy? … Same as scripture. Funnily enough.”
Funnily enough, I don’t recall where in Scripture Jesus calls for the government or the state to consider aid to the poor and needy.
Jesus recognized the need to pay taxes to the state, but He NEVER said the people should BE FORCED to pay more taxes to the state so that the state could expand the state’s programs to aid the poor and needy. Correction: Forget about EXPANDING that state’s poverty programs, because the state apparently didn’t HAVE any poverty programs. Seems that the poor and disabled and diseased were all over the place. But Jesus didn’t call for the COERCION of still more taxes to create a state program. He didn’t point His forewarning finger at the state. He pointed it at INDIVIDUALS. And while it shouldn’t need saying, I guess I’ll have to say it for this audience: “Charity” and “mercy” are NOT charity and mercy if they are COERCED.
And from the CCC…
[2430 Economic life brings into play different interests, often opposed to one another. This explains why the conflicts that characterize it arise.216 Efforts should be made to reduce these conflicts by negotiation that RESPECTS the rights and duties of EACH social partner: those responsible for business enterprises, representatives of wage- earners (for example, trade unions), and PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WHEN APPROPRIATE.
2431 The RESPONSIBILITY of the STATE. "Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure GUARANTEES of individual FREEDOM and PRIVATE PROPERTY, as well as a stable currency and efficient PUBLIC SERVICES [See Noevo comment: “Efficient public services” sounds like providing roads, bridges, military for national security, etc.]. Hence the PRINCIPAL TASK of the state is to guarantee this SECURITY, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs NOT TO THE STATE BUT TO INDIVIDUALS and to the various groups and associations which make up society."217]
Pretty much the same as scripture. Funnily enough.
Daniel Corcos: That's an interesting idea in your paper. Where is the data? You know, the animal studies, the human studies, the Phase 1?
Like JGC said, you haven't actually shown anything. "I said it will work" is not evidence of anything.
People who work in actual cancer immunotherapy are endlessly irritated by people like you, who make things us and then try to use our credibility to bolster your own.
I will note at this juncture that S.N. has wholly capitulated with respect to all of his comically lame-brained creationist arguments and resorted to changing the subject.
See Noevo, if you fail to care for those in need, you risk damnation, possibly cessation of existence. You seem to have no problems with laws saving peoples' souls otherwise.
Also, here's what the scripture says about mandated charity:
Leviticus 19:9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very edges of your field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 You shall not strip your vineyard bare, or gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the alien: I am the Lord your God.
That is not a suggestion, that is a direct order.
Of course, this would also require "convincing" someone to embrace your entire moronic redefinition of words. Otherwise, they could assume that there's no issue with failing to complete a course of antibiotics.
Justa Tech
There is no data, because to do primate or human studies, you need a lot of money and authorizations, and to get them, at least in France, you have to deal with people like you, just a tech, who ask: where is the data?
@Gray Falcon:
Funny, that's just the bit I had in mind, too.
I was going to compose a longer reply, but Narad's right: the idiot's just trying to change the subject at this point.
I'm quite confident that the last thing this operation needs is offering S.N. an opportunity to yet further divert from his catastrophic on-topic failure to the boundaries of the Old Covenant.
Well. Have I got an infallible teaching on morals and faith for you!
As to the rest of your goalpost-shifting screed:
The subject was out-of-context bible quotation. We were discussing aid to the poor and needy. You cited Thessalonians, as if to suggest that the Catholic position on the subject is that people who are unwilling to work don't get fed.
And it's not only acontextual and untrue but ludicrous to quote that passage in support of the assertion that Catholics have a solemn religious duty not to associate with, feed, clothe, house, support or care for the needy unless they're working.
You don't even have to be a Catholic or a blowhard to know that much. It's not like the Church is famous the whole world over for its tireless efforts to minister and provide snacks to the gainfully employed.
Daniel @935: Well, of course no one is going to give you a grant to work on humans if you don't even have in vitro studies. But you should know perfectly well that you don't start in humans or even primates. How about mice. They're much cheaper, have shorter life cycles and require (at least in the US) slightly less ethical oversight.
But you know what, Daniel? Everyone has to provide at least some data in order to get a grant to generate more data. You wrote that article, why didn't you make it a grant proposal? Your university or institution should have classes on grant writing.
Here is why everyone here says "show me the data". It is not because you don't have an interesting idea. It is because you are insisting that it works. How do you know it works if you've never tried it?
If you came here and said "This is my cool idea, what do you all think", you'd get a lot of commentary, some more critical than others, but that's how science goes. But when you say "I know this works" and then don't have any evidence to back that up, well, then you end up sounding a lot like See Noevo, with fewer bible quotes.
I forgot:
And while it also shouldn't need saying, I guess I'll have to reply: Paying taxes to support social welfare programs for the needy is not "coercion" if you act in the spirit of CHARITY and MERCY.
@#JP and GF --
Yeah. But it's hard to get more direct than "Go thou and do likewise." I mean, the parable of the Good Samaritan is a direct response to the question "Who is my neighbor?" in the context of: loving of same; the necessity thereof to entering the kingdom of heaven.
There's also "And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.”"
"He" being John not Jesus, in that instance. But he's preparing the way of the Lord. I'd say it's more than a suggestion.
To JP #936:
“Funny, that’s just the bit I had in mind, too. I was going to compose a longer reply, but Narad’s right: the idiot’s just trying to change the subject at this point.”
Funny, you mean changing the subject to potential positive correlations between belief in evolution and other things?
Funny, who would do such a thing? (See #807.)
the idiot’s just trying to change the subject at this point.
"At this point"?
Fair enough. What can I say - I am easily led.
It was an aside, dumba**.
Back on topic, I noticed that the arguments that See makes against evolution could just as easily be applied to linguistics: Sure, people claim to have records of new languages developing, but can anyone point to exactly when Old English became Middle English?
This also raises one of the dangers of "creation science". If we teach that dishonest arguments, muddled reasoning, and arrogant dismissal of everyone else are perfectly acceptable, what kind of people will we create?
One can imagine a linguistic "creationist" making the same kind of clueless arguments as SN: "Sure, there are variations among Slavic languages, but a Slavic language cannot just BECOME a Germanic language! They are different kinds!"
Oh, L-rd. It just occurred to me that a Biblical literalist might actually come up with some cockamamie "theory" about how the confusion at the tower of Babel created the various language families that exist today. I mean, considering that the whole field of linguistics basically came into being because of the search for a world Ursprache, it's not actually unimaginable.
I am delighted to have the opportunity of introducing JP to the Institute for Creation Linguistics.
Sample 1:
Sample 2:
To ann #938:
Me: “Jesus recognized the need to pay taxes to the state, but He NEVER said the people should BE FORCED to pay more taxes to the state so that the state could expand the state’s programs to aid the poor and needy.”
You: “Well. Have I got an infallible teaching on morals and faith for you! 2436 It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.”
While the CCC addresses VERY briefly the unjustness of not paying SS taxes, unfortunately, it does not address the justness of complying with UNJUST TAXATION.
The SS payroll tax (later called FICA) was first instituted in 1937.
In 1937, the rate was 2.0% (employee+employer).
By 1965 the tax rate was at 8.4%.
In 2015 it’s 15.3%.
The SS Administration says ALL of its trust fund reserves will be depleted by 2033, and the Disability portion by 2016.
I wonder what the 15.3% rate will go to then? Maybe it’ll double again, to 30%. Who knows?
When more and more is never enough, something is very wrong. Very UN-just.
I don’t suppose the Catholic Church will be issuing any infallible statements on what the new holy FICA rate should be.
Would you like them to?
I wouldn’t.
And in fact, the CC will NEVER issue an infallible statement on what the “just” FICA rate is. It’s not their business. THAT is the business of what the Catholic Church calls “prudential judgment.” (You can read up on that, assuming you’re not already an expert. Or a blowhard.)
A Catholic may validly disagree even with the Pope on matters of prudential judgment.
And MY prudential judgment leads me to disagree greatly with the way the U.S. is becoming increasingly an “entitlements” society, more and more a socialistic society.
Speaking of which, I wonder if there’s a positive correlation between belief in evolution and socialism?
……
“As to the rest of your goalpost-shifting screed… You cited Thessalonians, as if to suggest that the Catholic position on the subject is that people who are UNWILLING to work don’t get fed.”
Yes, I do so suggest. More importantly, Paul did MORE than suggest:
“Now we COMMAND you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you KEEP AWAY FROM ANY BROTHER who is living in IDLENESS and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you,
we did not eat any one's bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you.
It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.
For even when we were with you, we gave you this COMMAND: If any one WILL NOT WORK, LET HIM NOT EAT.
For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.
Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to EARN THEIR OWN LIVING.
Brethren, do not be weary in well-doing.
If any one REFUSES TO OBEY what we say in this letter, note that man, and HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM, that he may be ASHAMED.”
And regarding that last, I think our world is losing the very concept of shame, appropriate shame. This is tied into the ‘loss of the sense of sin.’ Last year, Pope Francis said “When the Kingdom of God is forgotten, when the Kingdom of God diminishes, one of the signs is a loss of the sense of sin.”
I wonder if there’s a positive correlation between belief in evolution and loss of a sense of sin and shame?
I knew I saw that somewhere before! Thanks, herr doktor!
How could anyone but the Germans come up with a word like Schadenfreude?
Wow. Endless entertainment. It was really disturbing when I clicked on some of the links and was reading them and giggling, assuming them to be satire, only to come to the realization that they are real...
See, your refusal to discuss the topic at hand has been noted. Have you ever considered being honest, even once in your life?
No, they don't. But they're infallible and you're not, per your worldview. So govern yourself accordingly.
If that's the Catholic position, there are an awful lot of churches operating heretical soup kitchens out there.
Back to topic(-ish):
You don't have to. They've done it.
http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics
Oh, and See? I'm a computer programmer. I was unemployed and collected unemployment to pay my rent for several months. Do you know why? Not because I was too lazy to look for work. I spent almost as much time looking for a job as I would have working. It was because some dumb****s in suits decided they'd rather pay for cheap programmers in China, that's why!
Getting back closer to the original topic of this blog, what a shame that the medical community seems to avoid the big E whenever it can.
“…we have evolutionary biologists who are unafraid to use the word “evolution” properly; medical biologists who know what it is but avoid using the word…”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/02/20/its-not-just-creation…
How sad.
One can imagine a linguistic “creationist” making the same kind of clueless arguments
John Oller, the editor of Entropy who published several of Seneff's "Autism is caused by Aluminum / Acetaminophen / Glyphosate" papers, is a Creationist Linguist (also Professor of Linguistics at U. New Mexico).
I see the Gray one brought up the subject of “linguistics” for some reason.
I also see that Mister-stay-on-topic, JP, joined in the fun.
But seriously, the origination of language is just another conundrum for evolutionists. Always has been.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080217102131.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/303/5662/1315.short
An underlying sing-song beat that is pronounced in poetry? Are we talking amphibrachs here? Iambs? Trochees? I assume free verse must be right out, so are we talking about syllabic, tonic, or syllabo-tonic versification?
Good grief.
More to the point, neither of the articles you linked to demonstrate that "the origination of language is just another conundrum for evolutionists." Sure, linguists can only trace the development of language families back so far, depending on what kind of written records the can use to make extrapolations from. That doesn't mean G-ddidit.
^ what kind of written records they can use.
Anyway, SN, I'm sure we're all waiting with bated breath to hear more about the "universal constants" you were lately fixated upon.
Following up on #956...
Why do the folks here think human language evolved?
I’ll answer for you: ‘We know human language evolved because, for just one example, all of us are here on this website communicating with language!’
Well done, class.
I’m confident they’re working on a new term for the dictionary. Actually, it’s not much work. Just take the definition for Phylogeny and tweak as follows:
Linguology: 1: the evolutionary history of language. 2: the evolution of language itself as distinguished from the development of later, new languages.
And here are some questions that came to my mind:
If language mutated into existence, and the mutation has been retained, it must be because it gives humans advantages in reproduction and whatever.
So, why don’t other animals speak? It certainly couldn’t hurt to have spoken language.
After all, another goody, eyesight, mutated into existence and that mutation has been retained, because it must have given all seeing things advantages in reproduction and whatever. And this eyesight didn’t mutate just once in a universal common ancestor. It mutated separately and independently MANY times in the various branches of the Tree of Life (the same Tree of Life that has been abandoned by evolutionists (see #764).). It's called "convergent evolution."
So, again, why haven’t many and varied types of animals evolved language, the way they evolved eyes?
I’ll try to answer for you again: “Because they didn’t.”
Class dismissed!
Heh. Another addition to the tally (biology, physics, law at least so far) of things for which S.N. prefers random ejaculations over things he's picked up from the low-rent company that he obviously keeps to figuring out the details of what the fυck he's trying to talk about.
But at least that caps out once one is holy enough to earn $117,000 a year or so.
Howsabout that tax-exempt status for the Catholic Church though? Last I checked, they don't even pay for water usage where I live. One might almost wonder whether someone had calculated how much the holy suckling at the public teat added up to. *koff*
I can fully imagine this as being something that S.N. yelps when startled.
Perhaps as a result of conditioning after all that compulsive "peeking under the hood."
Another knee-slapper. BTW, have you tried out your shtick at (FTB) Pharyngula, or are you just going to stick with vicariousness?
They have. Not as complex as we humans have, but many species use sounds to communicate. Bird songs. Whale songs. Even elephants. Some are fairly simple, some are very complex. I have read (no cite at hand, but See says that's OK) that whales have been known to teach songs to one another.
And then there is non-verbal (or rather non-sonic) communication.
It's the same as eye design. There is, what, maybe 6 or 8 basic eye designs. There are 3 pupil designs (none, round and slit).
Many variations on a theme, over all living things.
A great web of life that began 3 billion years or so ago, and we are part of it, and it fills me with wonder.
Then I realize that See is the end result of several billion years of evolution, and thousands of years of civilization, and I just want to drink more.
Just a tech
As explained in the paper, mice are very different to humans in that they have very few neutrophils in their blood. Evidence for a negative feedback in the granulocyte lineage is strong in man, weak in mice. The apparatus for leukapheresis is currently used in humans, not in mice. And the question is not whether it can work, because you can predict that it should work like you can say that gene therapy should work, but how to make it work in man. If my goal were to "have data" then I would do gene therapy in mice to show that DNA can make protein in mice, and I would have had much more academic papers. As for CIAC, the information I need for making it work in man is:
How long can we keep human or primate granulocytes in a collection bag and still have a negative feedback effect?
How long does it take for the granulocyte levels to go back to normal in humans after withdrawing of one fifth of the pool, which can be currently achieved?
How fast is achieved cell division arrest in the bone marrow of primates after re-infusion?
Which short half-life drug should we use? Actually, that is what I am working on now:
http://www.dna-therapeutics.com/?page_id=3218
"Why didn’t you make it a grant proposal? "
Do you really think I didn't make a grant proposal? The paper was written from a grant proposal in France. Less than 10% of grant proposals are accepted, and none of them if you don't have DATA.
And I am not insisting that it works. I just say that it should work in theory, and the ground is much stronger than experiments in mice in many domains.
The only problem with CIAC is the business plan: much work, much money to spend, some risk, no financial return.
Finally the comparison with SN is ludicrous: he refuses to admit theoretical evidence, so do you; he attracts on him many commentaries, (remember that you wrote: If you came here and said “This is my cool idea, what do you all think”, you’d get a lot of commentary), not me. As I said above, I would have attracted much more interest if I were a quack.
@palindrom:
Even better in this context is whom I studied it under.
Because the original comment is fairly dated, allow me to repeat the S.N. meltdown that it was presented in response to:
Now, back to the original programming:
That is the the very theme song of the Freak Power Party, Herbie Mann's Battle Hymn of The Republic. You can find the Benneth original without a soundtrack pretty easily, but I prefer this version.
The immediately relevant bit, though, is at 6:30, in the denouement.
As I have no interest in delving into the Tower of Babel crap or the energy to look into the extent to which animals can be described as having "language,"* I will just observe that Ameslan is indisputably a human language that evolved from a mamesh different kind and which possesses an entirely novel spatial syntacticization.
* Or whether there's a parallel "Scientists Ha Ha!" fail-trope associated with CFGs.
I believe that it is appropriate to add here that, since my departing the clergy and later reconciling with an explicit request to remain among the laity, my proper title is "Mother Narad."
The usage thereof, on the other hand, appears to represent an entirely different issue for S.N., unless there's an Aramaic pun lying around somewhere.
^ Re #966, "goo-to-you."
Rest assured, it is extremely stupid. One key assertion is that language only "simplifies" over time, which is supposed to prove that PIE (among some dozen other languages) was created by G-d at Babel, and has been degenerating ever since or something.
These idiots might be surprised to learn that languages are perfectly capable of developing in the direction of greater grammatical complexity. I remember, when I was first learning Russian, assuming that the past tense conjugation of verbs would be marked for person as in the present tense, and was relieved to find out that it is "only" marked for gender/number. Polish, though? Unlike Common Slavic and most modern Slavic languages, it is marked for person in the past tense. Not only that, but it developed an entirely new grammatical gender: the "virile" or masculine personal. (Yes, the virile gender also affects the past tense, and yes, it is all a bit unwieldy.)
I'm not even going to talk about Czech.
The Babel people also fixate on this weird "there's a problem with the tree!!" thing in a really, really stupid way. The argument is basically that, because some languages absorbed significant amounts of vocabulary from other languages, the tree model is faulty and therefore G-ddidit. Seriously.
They think language only simplifies over time? If they ever studied Ancient Hebrew, they'd know half the problem with translating thet Tanakh is the fact that there are so few words in the language, and that the same word has numerous, similar meanings.
There is some interesting discussion of the development for the words for colors as well. Ancient Greek and Roman works use some rather odd descriptions of color compared to what modern people use.
The reason why I bring up linguistics is that the study of linguistics is because the development of languages is very similar to the development of species. Not surprising that fundamentlists cannot accept either.
One key assertion is that language only “simplifies” over time
Finnish and Estonian declensions would seem to be a counter-example, but I suppose you could get around that by arguing that Finns aren't actually human but arrived on Earth at some point in the recent past.
@ Gray Falcon
Survival of the fittest word. I like it :-)
When I met my Quebecois friends, the concepts of convergence and divergence, and of geographical separation did indeed come to my mind to explain the differences between our French languages.
After roughly 3 centuries, some French words have come to mean different things. And the loans from other languages were not the same. Some anglicisms were absent from Quebecois (well, they understand "week-end", but they stick to "fin de semaine") or have been completely integrated (car/char).
Also, northern France's Ch'ti slang seems to have had a bigger impact on Quebecois than on France's French. I showed some Quebecois slang to a colleague from the North of France, and she just read it casually. A result of the founding population, I would guess.
Not sure I would qualify all these additions and loans as "simplification", in either version of French.
The only simplification that the French language may have undergone was the artificial one done by the French Academy since Richelieu created it (he was a great believer in occupying one's political opponents by creating committees). As a result of the ensuing pruning, we have less words than in English. But as far as grammatical/spelling go, I believe the Academicians didn't have much luck in simplifying the language.
After all these centuries, we still have to write "Les fourmis fourmillent dans la fourmilière" (same root, but count the "L"). Not much selective pressure to come to something more homogenous, I would hazard.
You risk not just getting me started on idiosyncrasies of Quebecois CB lingo again* but demanding that someone seek out retired French truckers to fill in the gaps in this underappreciated subfield.
* Not really, as I'm going to be under the gun in short order.
Not literally, I hope.
Narad @969 -- I would have thought that a CS professor taught you to avoid "goo-to" statements.
They took it all too far. But boy, could they play guitar.
HDB @ 972 -- I believe Finnish is related to Hungarian. And as you probably know, at Los Alamos during the war, there was speculation that the Hungarians were actually aliens, as I understand it because (a) they were so smart, (b) they spoke a language that appeared unrelated to anything else.
So it must be true.
Much more distantly than Estonian is, but many (possibly most) linguists agree that there is some relation.
Why do the folks here think human language evolved?
Ever read Beowulf?
Not as complex as we humans have, but many species use sounds to communicate
And they communicate not only with others of their kind, but other species as well.
I’m a little surprised.
Surprised that after I provided a list of things which I’d bet had a positive correlation with belief in evolution, namely
– divorce,
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),
– sexually-transmitted diseases,
– out-of-wedlock births and single mothers,
– abortion and contraception,
– pornography,
– drug addiction,
– depression and dysphoria,
– social isolation/disintegration of community,
– view of Constitution as a “living/fluid” document,
– governmental payouts for welfare/unemployment/disability/food stamps [both sender and receiver]
… about the only one I got objections to was the last, and even then, almost entirely regarding “disability”.
As I recall, the objections were farcical, amounting to ‘How dare you call yourself Catholic or even Christian. You’re against helping the disabled! You bad person you.’
Laughable. Next thing you know I’ll be accused of wanting dirtier air and dirtier water.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/17/obama_gop_wants_dirti…
Anyway, I’m a bit surprised.
at Los Alamos during the war, there was speculation
"they are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians."
See, I find it interesting that, when you failed utterly on evidence, you decided to accuse your opponents of immorality. Just as they did to Jesus.
I find it interesting (well no, I don't. I find it completely in character) that he pretends we only objected to the government payouts for disability.
If you're going to roll around on the floor chortling about "farcicality," you should perhaps take a better look at your own list. Would you care to define "view of Constitution as a 'living/fluid' document"? Then you can figure out how the fυck to quantify it for survey-design purposes. You've already run away from one direct response.
Or you could, you know, do something about all the squashed banana peels you've left all over the stage.
Herr Doktor
“they are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians.”
And they have communication difficulties:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akbflkF_1zY
about the only one I got objections to was the last
Troll whines about lack of attention. No-one could have expected.
See @981:
" I provided a list of things which I’d bet had a positive correlation with belief in evolution, namely
– extended or perpetual singlehood (i.e. not marrying),"
Now, I have to provide a very specific counter-example. The number of people in perpetual singlehood has decreased dramatically, an inverse correlation with general understanding of evolution. Specifically, there are many, many fewer monks and nuns now than there used to be. And who could be more perpetually single than a nun?
As a Catholic, I would think you would be aware of this.
I said as much, and more, here. SN either can't read very well or is lying through his teeth again. Yawn.
I remember watching an episode of Nova where they talked about doctors using evolutionary relationships to understand how their patient's genetic disease caused the symptoms.
They were specifically looking a genes they thought might be related to speech, and what other animals have those genes and what other functions those genes carry out.
So, more doctors using evolution.
To JP #989, #846:
"As for the rest of the things you’d be willing to bet on, you’d be losing money.
Out-of-wedlock birth is actually higher in “red” states which tend to be more religious in…”
AMONG THAT POPULATION OF WOMEN giving birth out-of-wedlock, I’m betting the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation. Same goes for the fathers.
“Same goes for STDs.”
Same goes for STDs.
“And the state with the highest rate of pornography consumption is Utah.”
I said nothing about a state-by-state breakdown.
I’m saying that AMONG THAT POPULATION OF PEOPLE engaging in pornography, I’m betting the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
“Depression”.
Ditto.
“It says a lot about you that you include clinical depression on your list of “sins,” though. How very compassionate and Christ-like to blame the afflicted for their own afflictions.”
I don’t consider depression a sin. It’s no more a sin than say, a dead baby or a fatherless child.
“Oh, and BTW, do you think the 3/5 compromise was something worth keeping in the Constitution? Are you a fan of the Bill of Rights?”
That “three-fifths” thing was essentially eliminated by the Amendment process. I’m a fan of the Amendment process, as well as of the Bill of Rights.
Do you think the Right to Abortion something worth keeping in the Bill of Rights?
Since the Right to Abortion is said to be in the Bill of Rights, perhaps someday a Constitutional Amendment will eliminate it. You know, the same way it explicitly did for that explicit “three-fifths” thing.
To Justa Tech #990:
“I remember watching an episode of Nova where they talked about doctors using evolutionary relationships to understand how their patient’s genetic disease caused the symptoms…So, more doctors using evolution.”
I remember watching an episode of the guys mowing my lawn, where they talked about using evolutionary relationships to understand how their customer’s grass genetics caused the symptoms (i.e. growth of the grass). So, more landscapers using evolution.
But it’s a shame that landscapers so often avoid using the E-word. Just as it’s sad about those doctors noted in #954.
Keep going See - there might be a minority or two that you haven't managed to insult yet.
I note that our bloviator is still speaking about abortion without responding the the fact that his alleged deity does not consider a child to be human until a month after birth.
What a surprise. . .
/Sarcasm off/
@SN:
Your "willingness to bet" is absolutely meaningless. It means you have a random, unsubstantiated opinion about something which I am utterly uninterested in, unless you have some data to back it up.
I'm "willing to bet" you consider suicide a sin, though, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're one of those a**holes who goes around telling the grief-stricken that their loved one has gone straight to hell for doing the deed.
The sheer depth of your ignorance of every single subject that you have stumbled into thus far amazes me. There is no "Right to Abortion" in the Bill of Rights, dumba**, whether or not there is "said to be" by ignoramuses such as yourself. Oh, and you're a "fan of the Amendment process" but you refuse to believe that the Constitution is a "living document"? Make up your mind, numbnuts.
In any case: howsabout them universal constants, SN?
Oh and P.S., SN: So what if people look at pornography? I personally am not bothered at all about other peoples' sexual mores and behaviors, as long as they aren't hurting anyone. It's not my business, and frankly, I don't care.
AMONG THAT POPULATION OF WOMEN giving birth out-of-wedlock, I’m betting the % believing in evolution is higher than the average for the nation.
Prove it. In the meantime, there's this:
https://plus.google.com/+OleOlson/posts/FYGxtgRqnvF
Don't be too hard on the Bible thumping liar. He has never said he studied or understood evolution, only that at one time he believed in it.
Hence his inability to answer a question or read an article.
And one more should make #1000.
To JP #995:
“Your “willingness to bet” is absolutely meaningless. It means you have a random, unsubstantiated opinion about something which I am utterly uninterested in, unless you have some data to back it up.”
You would agree with me, I hope, that NOT all believers in evolution are atheists, but ALL atheists are believers in evolution.
Keeping that in mind, here’s some data on depression and atheism. It has about 40 footnotes/references. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_depression
“The sheer depth of your ignorance of every single subject that you have stumbled into thus far amazes me. There is no “Right to Abortion” in the Bill of Rights, dumba** whether or not there is “said to be” by ignoramuses such as yourself. Oh, and you’re a “fan of the Amendment process” but you refuse to believe that the Constitution is a “living document”? Make up your mind, numbnuts.”
Yes, I know, of course, there is no “Right to Abortion” in the Bill of Rights. And I know abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
Which is why I marvel at those that claim they have a Constitutional right to abortion. I don’t understand it.
Apparently, neither do many liberal, pro-abortion Constitutional legal scholars, including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Harvard’s Laurence Tribe. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-pervading-dishonesty-of-roe-v.-wa…
Apparently, your ignorance extends to such a depth that you don’t understand the difference between change and perception. That is, you don’t see the difference between changing (clearly adding to/subtracting from/other altering) X and perceiving X as it is.
But there is a BIG difference. Ruth and Laurence see it. And so do I. Maybe someday you will, too.
“In any case: howsabout them universal constants, SN?”
Why do I have to do all the work? Why don’t you ask Sandra Faber or Lawrence Krauss or Stephen Hawking (ref. my #775)?