2
   

"Genetic Death": The Evolution Meat Grinder

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 06:48 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
I'm pretty sure it wasn't a magic elf,


Actually, I kinda like that explanation. I sure solves a lot of problems.


Unfortunately, a lot of people like that explanation. They just don't call it an Elf, they call it God. But it's EXACTLY the same thing. The most interesting part is that some people don't see them as exactly the same thing, even though they are. Which tells us something about the belief itself.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 07:30 pm
Oh well, back to reality. I had visions of an omnipotent Kebbler elf there for a moment.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 08:02 pm
Acquiunk wrote:
Oh well, back to reality. I had visions of an omnipotent Kebbler elf there for a moment.


They make REALLY BIG cookies.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 10:45 pm
I am disappointed rosborne979. I hoped that you would "explain" what Bryson wrote, you know, using scientific theory.

I am not a scientist but I hoped that you could explain just exactly how, as Bryson states( and as I quoted fully in my previous post) "there is nowhere to retire to because outside the singularity there is no where" and "The singularity has no "around" around it.

If Scientific theory is so superior to Adler's arguments and theorizing about God, it would be simple for scientific theory to explain at least those two quotes above in an understandable way.

Failing that, I see no superiority of "scientific so-called theory" to the theorizing of Adler. Both approaches are apparently based on theorizing on what can not be observed, has never been observed and, if Bryson is any guide, obviously cannot be adequately explained.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 May, 2006 10:50 pm
Spendius- Sir- I did not mean to mislead you. My post was taken from the Times Article. "before the evolution of bones" is indeed taken from the Article in the New York Times. Please re-read my post. I am sorry if I did not make it clear.

And, sir, the article does say "before the evolution of bones"--If that is an incorrect phraseology in the context, what does it say about the infallible scientific theorizing as laid out by Mr. Rosborne 979.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 06:11 am
Bern-

It's okay. I was just making a weak joke about sexual selection.

And less of the "sir" if you don't mind. I'm a toss-pot. There's a right and proper place for the use of "sir" and to extend its use beyond that tends to weaken the authority of those who are entitled to such an address. It can even become a term of abuse.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 06:14 am
BernardR wrote:
I am not a scientist but I hoped that you could explain just exactly how, as Bryson states( and as I quoted fully in my previous post) "there is nowhere to retire to because outside the singularity there is no where" and "The singularity has no "around" around it.


Ok Bern, I'll try to rephrase what Bryson wrote for you.

Remember first that the Big Bang is a model which only addresses the physics of our Universe from within the Universe. The model doesn't extent outside of itself, or outside of the Universe.

When Bryson says there is nowhere to retire, and no "around", he is explaining that Time and Space are contained within our Universe, and that those dimensions we experience do not necessarily exist outside of our Universe.

There is no "before" the Big Bang because as far as we know, Time itself didn't exist before the Big Bang. And there is nothing outside the Big Bang because Space also didn't exist.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 08:18 am
Time and space, as we experience them, came into being with the emergence and subsequent expansion of what we term "The Singularity" which was predicate to what we term the "Big Bang". Time and space, in effect, are the same thing, "Spacetime"; the concept of one is indivorceable from the other, they are concommitant, codependent, coequal. Within our sphere of reference, conjecture pertaining to anything apart from, other than, prior to the spacetime we experience is meaningless.

It would appear some folks just can't grasp or come to grips with the reality of that, committing themselves not to seeking knowlege and developing understanding but rather, perforce, to the embrace of meaninglessness. That fatuous excercize calls for the invention of conventions as opposed to the formulation of postulates, theories, and laws based on the observation, analysis, and understanding of phenomena, bringing about the entirely speculative, wholly human construct we call "Theology" - an entertainment best described as "the study of that for which there is no discernable evidence".
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 08:24 am
timber wrote-

Quote:
"Theology" - an entertainment best described as "the study of that for which there is no discernable evidence".

That assertion is only true within the confines of the ideas of those who agree with it.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 12:05 pm
spendi, you gotta work on differentiating between attitude and argument - get a handle on that, and perhaps then you will be able to engage in discussion through employment of argument as opposed to expression of attitude.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 01:22 pm
timber-

Once again another tortuous tautology crafted for the sole purpose of attempting to prove that the teleology that theology is

Quote:
an entertainment best described as "the study of that for which there is no discernable evidence".


is a valid argument.

Of course there is evidence of the use of theology;the Faustian culture could be said to be the evidence of the use of Christian or Western theology just like the decline of Classicism could be said to be the result of their theology. Even that might be said to be a teleology. There are some historians who claim that Western culture is a function of wheat/ meat or of tobacco,Asian culture a function of rice and Inca/Aztec civilisations the function of maize.

But the idea that theology is an entertainment is so laughable that expressions to that effect cannot seriously be expected to be greeted by anything other than flippancy and general ribaldry.

So I agree with your homily except that it should be addressed to yourself rather than to me. The obvious fact that you can't see the evidence for the vital functions of theology is neither here nor there. Theology has been fought over so violently precisely because of that but I know you think everybody else is a complete idiot and thus that theology is a battleground for said idiots.

Mockers of our roots and traditions are ever the same.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 02:18 pm
Theology is not the sole example of "roots and traditions." Mocking the concept of Creationism and ID is mocking a system of belief that is lost in the past. The believers are unable to pull up their roots and do away with silly, unreasonable traditions.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 02:43 pm
LW wrote-

Quote:
The believers are unable to pull up their roots and do away with silly, unreasonable traditions.


So if they are unable how are you going to make them do it.

Why couldn't you have said simply "do away with their traditions"?

Why do you feel the need to include "silly" and "unreasonable". Such things just cause the opposite effect of their intention, cause you to look ill-mannered and bigoted and take the argument nowhere. They actually weaken your case. Who wants to be an anti-IDer if they go around talking like that. I wouldn't want to be if that's what they are like.

The one constant characteristic of anti-IDers on these threads is their underestimation of others and their fist banging on the table in a repetitive fashion. It is the strongest possible argument for ID that I know.
Maybe the only one. Who wants anti_IDers running things if that's what they are like. En masse they would be ferocious with the power.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 04:27 pm
Oh, now I understand. Time didn't exist before the big bang. Neither did space.

I am very sorry but I have as much difficulty in believing in an "uncaused" cause as I have believing in the Existence of God as laid out by Mortimer Adler.

I think it is because I do not have a scientific outlook. I cannot conceive of an "uncaused" cause although I am sure that the scientific community can do so.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 04:40 pm
BernardR wrote:
Oh, now I understand. Time didn't exist before the big bang. Neither did space.

I am very sorry but I have as much difficulty in believing in an "uncaused" cause as I have believing in the Existence of God as laid out by Mortimer Adler.

I think it is because I do not have a scientific outlook. I cannot conceive of an "uncaused" cause although I am sure that the scientific community can do so.


I think the big difference is that you're assigning an identity to the unknown. Many people (and science itself) are just content to say they don't know, rather than going one step further and assuming a cause or an identity.

I have a hard time imagining a lack of time and space also, but I have an even harder time assigning a human-like identity to such an alien concept.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 04:46 pm
I understand you have a "hard time". As I have also pointed out, I have a "hard time" also. I guess that would make us both agnostics.

But, in my search for truth and meaning, I have read the excellent book by Mortimer Adler--How to Think About God and I must say that I am much less agnostic now than I was previously.

I know scientists do not like to read Philosophy, sir, but I heartily recommend the book!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 May, 2006 05:42 pm
Try Confessions of a Window Cleaner Bern. There's a whole raft of really Big Bangs in that.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Sep, 2008 04:56 pm
whatever happened to the sustainability of this thread? It was one of Timbers greatest appearances and when I was reintroduced to massagato by Set. Its so much easier to surf the new site.

As it may be noticed, Gunga had herein posed his cyclic post of "what real scientists say about evolution". He reposted that in a personal thread created in August 2008, over 2 years later.

The thing I find interesting is that gunga doesnt impose any standards of "critical thinking" that he appears to demand from science.
KINDA BIPOLAR NO?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/28/2014 at 12:49:09