Life, The Universe, And Everything

[Mankey]

Buddy:

You mistake me for an anti-evolutionist. I've stipulated common descent, random mutation, and natural selection. Survival of the fittest is a well established mechanism; the arrival thereof is less well established

Intelligent Design is hogwash....even if it is kind of evolution theory friendly.

 

I promised myself that before I build any real knowledge base I would start with psychology, ethics, and the scientific method. I am focus on these and be satisfied with my understanding before I move on to other things. The basics. I don't know jack about evolutionary theory yet. May atheism is not really contingent on evolutionary theory...

 

Science and God belief are incompatible so long as people are stuck with primitive ancient comic books. Your God is an idol. You are an idolater. There is no room for your idol in science.

 

Buddy: since you asked for it, here's my current thought on the subject. GOD DID IT! Dang, couldn't help myself, being a religiously blindfolded, fundy-mental-less, ignorant and unquestioning faith-for-brains, moronic child-abuser (since I taught my daughter how to both think and pray), intellectually challenged, parochially minded, evan-jelly-ist. ... who sees things.

Hehe. I can not in any way speak for other heathens...only me....I still think that the only difference between you and a Free Thinker is your theism... I respect you but have no respect for your idol. Just sayin'..

 

You know more about this topic than I. Even if you are making errors. Perhaps you should let go of your idol when you absorb all the info available? Is it possible for a Christian to be that openminded when learning something that might contradict faith? Hmmm....

 

What the fuck do I know?

 

Good luck Buddy.

 

 

Buddy: You know I'm a Christian, so that part won't be a surprise; my general impression includes, as I've said, common descent from a life-beginning point. I suspect the evolution from the very beginning to modern man has followed a design inherent from the beginning. To make matters worse, I'm fairly convinced that this bio-realm (or creation or universe) isn't the first, and it might not be the last. If I were to attempt to visualize the point of beginning (bang), it would include the causal component. Here it comes... and God said, let there be... bang, and there it was. Science carries us confidently back to the first instant after the cause and is helpless to go back further, lacking the language and breadth of thought required.

 

You probably know me well enough to understand that this is not a 'must win' point of philosophy. It's just my current and honest thought on the subject. While I do genuinely enjoy both the science study and the discussion the subject matter provokes, I'm not persuaded that the mind of man is actually the measure of all things; it may be awhile before we understand the things we propound with such confidence. To properly establish the subject's precedence, it is listed under general interests along with emerging technologies, cultural transformation, and small group interactions within large corporate bodies. I spend time variously on all of them; none are life-forming issues.

 

Does that answer the question adequately?"

Before you make any other assumptions perhaps it is better to first come up with a ...er...hehe...."positive" ontology for God. hehe. Then build from there. I feel that you theists put the cart before the horse.

 

I sense that your questionings here are an impulse based on faith, ie argument from ignorance type impulse. Do you truly wish to understand evolutionary theory in a scientific attitude?

 

Food for thought...

[webmdave]

You may glean from that what you will.

 

Buddy

 

 

I just threw up in my mouth. I despise narcissistic back patting. My understanding is that so did the Jesus character.

 

Yuck

[Ouroboros]

Hans you put it as simply as possible. I was going to use similar analogies, but alas I am no teacher! If you are not on my level, I have a difficult time communicating. I am very good at math and my wife sucks at it so it is up to me to tuitor our daughters. Sometimes it is not a pleasant sight! I just have to walk away, cool down and try another approach! Kinda like what we are doing with Buddy.

When I worked as a teacher I learned that when a student don't understand, then try a new approach. Just change the wording, the phrasing, the emphasis or just say the same thing again but slower, and many can eventually catch on. I know it from personal experience too. First explanation maybe doesn't make sense, but if you hear a second, then all of a sudden the first one makes sense, and you can't even see why it didn't make sense before.

[Ouroboros]

HanS,

You mistake me for an anti-evolutionist. I've stipulated common descent, random mutation, and natural selection. Survival of the fittest is a well established mechanism; the arrival thereof is less well established.

Okay. Sorry about that. It's hard to figure out exactly where your standpoint is. But I think I'm starting to pin you down. You basically have no problem with what some call "micro evolution", while you have an issue with "macro evolution", is that correct?

[BuddyFerris]

Ok, so you are an ID'ist. You think your god created the Big Bang with a predetermined path. Am I correct?

Close enough.

 

I just take it a step further. The creator was the Big Bang with no predetermined path.

Understandable.

 

"I'm fairly convinced that this bio-realm (or creation or universe) isn't the first, and it might not be the last. " Buddy

 

Sometimes the chances are meet sooner rather than later. For instance, if a mutaion has a 1:1,000,000 chance of happen (I'm talking about 1 generation to 1,000,000 generation) what if it happens in the first generation and not in the millionth? Sometimes the system favors the organism and not the statistics!

Not at all what I was referring to, but generally correct.

 

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... I think I'm starting to pin you down. You basically have no problem with what some call "micro evolution", while you have an issue with "macro evolution", is that correct?

Perhaps so; I haven't used the terms, so it would be difficult for me to say, but you can begin there if that helps 'pin me down.'

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

Yuck

Dear Webmaster,

I run some risks answering questions honestly here, since many of the land mines are hidden. Which one did I step on this time?

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

... I think I'm starting to pin you down. You basically have no problem with what some call "micro evolution", while you have an issue with "macro evolution", is that correct?

Perhaps so; I haven't used the terms, so it would be difficult for me to say, but you can begin there if that helps 'pin me down.'

Buddy

 

Seems to me 13 billion years of planning to get us seems overkill... then when you look at scale of the universe, it sort of confirms the view purely gut feeling, but I don't think we're that damn special...

[Grandpa Harley]

Yuck

Dear Webmaster,

I run some risks answering questions honestly here, since many of the land mines are hidden. Which one did I step on this time?

Buddy

 

 

Now, you see, there you go being deliberately disingenuous again... It's unbecoming.

[Ouroboros]

... I think I'm starting to pin you down. You basically have no problem with what some call "micro evolution", while you have an issue with "macro evolution", is that correct?

Perhaps so; I haven't used the terms, so it would be difficult for me to say, but you can begin there if that helps 'pin me down.'

Buddy

Well, the terms aren't very popular with everyone, but it's used quite a lot in the Creationist and ID camps. Basically it is meeting evolution half-way by admitting that mutations and natural selection does occur, but they won't accept that it can cause speciation. But I think Ring Species is the proof that micro evolution does result in speciation, by the classical definition of species.

[BuddyFerris]

... I think Ring Species is the proof that micro evolution does result in speciation, by the classical definition of species.

HanS, I'm game. I'll take another look; got a link you recommend?

Buddy

[Mankey]

Yuck

Dear Webmaster,

I run some risks answering questions honestly here, since many of the land mines are hidden. Which one did I step on this time?

Buddy

Stop crying. You are not a moron and so you get no free pass. Stick to understanding instead of proselytizing your untestable "truths" with unnecessary anecdotes. You are sometimes evasive.

 

Besides I learn from your questions and assumptions as well as the rebuttals from others. Stick to your skepticism of evolutionary theory. People benefit from threads like these.

 

[Ouroboros]

... I think Ring Species is the proof that micro evolution does result in speciation, by the classical definition of species.

HanS, I'm game. I'll take another look; got a link you recommend?

Buddy

I think the Wiki explanation works well: link.

[freeman]

Yeah, what is the point of predetermining something and making it go through the steps of a fake evolution to get us here! If god is so powerful, then the creationist would be right!

 

If I was a deity and wanted to cook, I would not grow a garden, tend the cattle and do all the prep work before cooking and then suffer over a hot stove! I would simply to poof and eat!

 

The major problem with people like you Buddy is that you know the bible is full of shit, hence the disbelief in genesis! However, you are too scared to let go of you deity, therefore you will not endorse macro evolution. You still give power to your god! The bible in not literal and you intellect tells you this, yet... you still believe in myths! Delusional! tsk tsk

[webmdave]

Yuck

Dear Webmaster,

I run some risks answering questions honestly here, since many of the land mines are hidden. Which one did I step on this time?

Buddy

Stop crying. You are not a moron and so you get no free pass. Stick to understanding instead of proselytizing your untestable "truths" with unnecessary anecdotes. You are sometimes evasive.

 

Besides I learn from your questions and assumptions as well as the rebuttals from others. Stick to your skepticism of evolutionary theory. People benefit from threads like these.

 

 

 

Mankey understands, except I'd say you are considerably more than "sometimes" evasive. Regardless, personal homilies do nothing for advancing this discussion, but instead tend to give the annoying impression that you believe you are ordained to be a some kind of a mystical fatherly mentor to the spiritually impoverished apostates you encounter.

 

Is that your intention? Who knows?

 

What's the tenor in your "voice?" Sickeningly sweet, yet proudly superior.

 

Again: Yuck.

 

 

Oh, and another suggestion, if you want to assist in helping me keep my bile down: Stop analyzing, complimenting, correcting and patronizingly praising people's responses. It makes you sound as if you think you reside high on some sort of lofty pedestal. Metaphorically speaking, you may indeed have something shoved pretty far up your ass, but I assure you that the broomstick isn't lifting the validity of your "beliefs" one inch higher in my (or, I suspect, anyone's) estimation.

 

Sincerely.

[Grandpa Harley]

Now, this is why I love Dave the WM... He gets to the crux of the matter...

[BuddyFerris]

... Oh, and another suggestion, if you want to assist in helping me keep my bile down: Stop analyzing, complimenting, correcting and patronizingly praising people's responses. It makes you sound as if you think you reside high on some sort of lofty pedestal. Metaphorically speaking, you may indeed have something shoved pretty far up your ass, but I assure you that the broomstick isn't lifting the validity of your "beliefs" one inch higher in my (or, I suspect, anyone's) estimation.

Dear Webmaster,

 

Most here are both reasonable and clever. They offer reasoned responses or challenges with candor and respect. Lacking the feedback of face-to-face where tone and body language provide amplification of comments, they substitute grudging respect and compliment, or the occasional insult. More than one has offered anecdotal illustration, opening insights into the way their philosophy works out in real life. One tells proudly of his young daughter giving an answer to a question publicly posed. Another refers to his discovery of effective methods as a teacher. Another describes the difficulties encountered with family over ideological differences. It adds to our understanding of the person to hear such things; at least it does for me.

 

While we insist that reason is the useful component in dialog, our awareness includes much about the person who offers it. The forum you've provided here is for encouragement of ex-c's; I suppose that many come and are encouraged to find acceptance, affirmation, support, and genuine concern, all of which are elements beyond the mere ideological content. My praise or compliments are sincere and offered in that spirit. Although I enjoy a lively exchange of ideas, I've no need or desire to pull anyone down; I didn't come here because I thought I had the answers you need or because because I thought I lived on a higher plane and you needed me to lift you up. I'm disappointed if my tone suggests such things to you. It serves neither me nor you or the others here if that's the case.

 

When Grandpa Harley asked why I was here, it was after the third or fourth time asked and answered. I offered the two accounts a little hesitantly, because they uncover a bit more of my life than had been visible before. I expected to get slammed for either the tender father stuff or the praying for people as neither seems expected activity here. Nevertheless, that's how my life plays out, and I thought it might make me a clearer target, which seemed to be the reason I was asked in the first place.

 

So for the record, I'm not here as anyone's superior. My education is fairly unimpressive; no one will have heard of the places I went to school; I graduated magna cum barely average. My math skills are known, now, as is my grasp of genetics and evolution where I've barely avoided drowning so far. Don't tell HanS I'm on the ropes; he'll sucker punch me for sure if he finds out.

 

I'll do my best to take your reproof on board and screen my comments more carefully.

 

Buddy

 

P.S. I'd be an idiot to thank you at this point for your frank critique as it would probably provoke a replay of the bile thing. I'll save it for another occasion.

[Ouroboros]

So for the record, I'm not here as anyone's superior. My education is fairly unimpressive; no one will have heard of the places I went to school; I graduated magna cum barely average. My math skills are known, now, as is my grasp of genetics and evolution where I've barely avoided drowning so far. Don't tell HanS I'm on the ropes; he'll sucker punch me for sure if he finds out.

I found out!!!

 

Okay, Buddy, I'll give you one more to add to your probability and "sucker punch" you ... what about all the possible planets in the Universe that can play out different scenarios of evolution, and on some planets there are intelligent life, but on most there isn't. So how would the statisics change if you multiply the chances with some extra billions planets? Think about this. It would mean that that statistical chance of different mutations could be played out on many other planets, where maybe the evolution never got the chance to develop life that could ponder existence and the probabilities thereof. It would increase the chances incredible, because we just happens to be on one of those planets where (by chance) intelligent life did succeed. Does it make sense to you? And if that isn't enough, if our universe is part of a multiverse, we can also add an infinite number of universes where life never started, and infinite number of universes where life did, and so it happens, we are in one of them.

[BuddyFerris]

So for the record, I'm not here as anyone's superior. My education is fairly unimpressive; no one will have heard of the places I went to school; I graduated magna cum barely average. My math skills are known, now, as is my grasp of genetics and evolution where I've barely avoided drowning so far. Don't tell HanS I'm on the ropes; he'll sucker punch me for sure if he finds out.

I found out!!!

 

Okay, Buddy, I'll give you one more to add to your probability and "sucker punch" you ... what about all the possible planets in the Universe that can play out different scenarios of evolution, and on some planets there are intelligent life, but on most there isn't. So how would the statisics change if you multiply the chances with some extra billions planets? Think about this. It would mean that that statistical chance of different mutations could be played out on many other planets, where maybe the evolution never got the chance to develop life that could ponder existence and the probabilities thereof. It would increase the chances incredible, because we just happens to be on one of those planets where (by chance) intelligent life did succeed. Does it make sense to you? And if that isn't enough, if our universe is part of a multiverse, we can also add an infinite number of universes where life never started, and infinite number of universes where life did, and so it happens, we are in one of them.

AAargh! I'm undone!

 

OK, I concede! You win. I was ok as long as we only had one planet, but now I'm screwed. Aliens!

I've always been partial (emotionally, at least) to life on other planets. It seems like such a waste of real estate otherwise. I was a sci fi reader as a kid, and always hoped at least some of it would eventually come true. It has, obviously, thanks to Al Gore's invention of the internet , but I'm still waiting for the aliens.

Coffee, then work.

Buddy

[dano]

A couple of illustrations might help: I spoke to an older fellow at the gas station Saturday, commenting on the days when gas was 10 cents a gallon. We laughed together, and while reminiscing, became buddies, introduced each other to our wives, commented on family issues, age, health concerns, and hopes. We shook hands warmly; I said a blessing over him and his family, he thanked me and we parted. It took all of 7 or 8 minutes, and we were both refreshed by the positive and affirming exchange; I can still see his weathered smile.

 

I was walking down the pier at a Navy base two weeks ago, and noticed a sailor's name stenciled over the pocket of her dungarees. I didn't know the name so I asked her how to pronounce it; she spoke it for me and told me it was from Western Africa; I told her I had just returned from Western Africa and we struck up a conversation. Her family is from Ghana; my almost brother is Ghanaian. I'm retired Navy, she's going on her first deployment and is nervous over several things. We talked shop and career for a few minutes while we walked the half-mile to our cars. At her car, she didn't want to part, so I offered to pray with her; she took my hand while I did and wouldn't turn loose when I'd finished, tears in her eyes. For a moment, I was her father, encouraging her to fight her way through. She asked me to visit her again. I will later this year on my next installation trip, perhaps.

 

You may glean from that what you will.

 

Buddy

 

Dan writes:

Buddy,

Has God ever answered any of your prayers, and if your answer is yes, then why doesn't he answer the prayer of the mother of the child in Ghana, who is dying in her arms, of hunger, and disease, or her prayers for mercy while she was being raped by six soldiers, not long after her sexual parts were mutilated as is custom in a lot of African countries?

 

Oh I get it, God only likes fat, healthy, pseudo intellectual, Christian, American males, living in a country, whose founders were wise enough to write into their constitution, that religion cannot be a requirement for holding public office, or need not be considered in the making of laws.

Dan, Agnostic,

[BuddyFerris]

Dan writes:

Buddy,

Has God ever answered any of your prayers, and if your answer is yes, then why doesn't he answer the prayer of the mother of the child in Ghana, who is dying in her arms, of hunger, and disease, or her prayers for mercy while she was being raped by six soldiers, not long after her sexual parts were mutilated as is custom in a lot of African countries?

 

Oh I get it, God only likes fat, healthy, pseudo intellectual, Christian, American males, living in a country, whose founders were wise enough to write into their constitution, that religion cannot be a requirement for holding public office, or need not be considered in the making of laws.

Dan, Agnostic,

I assume your remark was intended as just rhetorical, Dan, but yes God has answered prayers. I don't have any easy answers for why we suffer the things we do, nor for why some suffer and others don't. I take it your own experience was frustrating; much of my early experience was frustrating for me including some personally painful times. Both peace and clarity eluded me for years. I'm afraid I don't have much to offer on the painful questions.

Buddy

[freeman]

Hans,

Talk about the roll of the "cosmic" dice!

If you roll billions of galaxies (with god (pun intended Buddy) knows how many solar systems and planets), chances are that organisms somewhere would have made the correct sequences of mutations and evolved into "higher" life forms.

[BuddyFerris]

Hans,

Talk about the roll of the "cosmic" dice!

If you roll billions of galaxies (with god (pun intended Buddy) knows how many solar systems and planets), chances are that organisms somewhere would have made the correct sequences of mutations and evolved into "higher" life forms.

Freeman,

That's how God created the Borg; thought you knew.

Buddy

[BuddyFerris]

... Before you make any other assumptions perhaps it is better to first come up with a ...er...hehe...."positive" ontology for God. hehe. Then build from there. I feel that you theists put the cart before the horse.

 

Food for thought...

Good morning, Mankey,

I have a few minutes before my 0900 mtg. I'm no philosopher, so the ontology questions (what's reality?) don't come readily to mind. What specifically did you have in mind that was lacking in traditional Christian thought. Dang, that's likely to provoke another firestorm, isn't it.

Buddy

[Grandpa Harley]

Well, Christians say about Atheists that 'you can't prove a negative' The Atheist doesn't have to prove a negative since what he/she wants is the Theist/Deist/Westboro member to prove a positive... and the concept of an all powerful, all knowing, extrinsic, objective God should be like pretty easy to prove as a positive... which, to my knowledge, hasn't happened save by a-priori assumptions like 'It's all TOO complex to have happened by an accident or happy chance' which usually means 'I failed maths and physics at school, and biology was mostly about abstinence'...