39
   

Why People Seek Solace In Gods.

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 06:50 pm
@ABYA,
Hi Abya,
Straight out of Solomon's diary. Grand approach Sir.
Great to have your presence Abya.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:24 pm
@mark noble,
1) Have you ever sought God? Yes
2) Why? For my selfish gain, for greed, for lust, for test of claims
3) Did you find what you sought? Yes, but only on a thin definition, so whimsically. I said ..if there's a God, then give me that girl ..that beautiful girl. I got her but only for a mere week, so whimsically! ..and like that it has been for everything I asked, begged and plead with God about.
4) Are you still looking? No.
5) Are you convinced that there is a God? I have asked so much and given so much ..by statisticly looking at it, there must be a God when so many of my prayers has been heard.
6) Do you follow your faith to the LETTER? No, then it wold be madness, specially with Genesis 1.
7) Do you sin? Yes.
8) Do you believe in an afterlife? Yes, that's why I won't donate my organs.
9) Have you ever had an epiphany) No, usually I consider such persons crazy.
!0) Did a traumatic experience flower your search? No.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:35 pm
@HexHammer,
Hi Hex,
How are you? Do you think that what you want from God (And I'm assuming biblical God - Due to your "Genesis"reference) is what God wants from you?
Think about it?
Have a great day.
Mark...
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:46 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
Why, indeed? Have you ever sought God?

I would be happy indeed, if some of you would take the time to answer any or all of the questions below.

1) Have you ever sought God?
No maybe a little out of fear. Then I realized that atheism seemed
better than a God of fear. So I guess my answer is also yes because I was once told God was love and I wanted to find out if love was real.


2) Why?
I think I've answered this one already in question 1 but I will clarify. Religion taught me that I better seek God and it better be through the one true religion or I would suffer some kind of Hell. Of course every religion I ever interacted with said the same thing except that they are the one true religion and the others are liars. This led me to believe that they were all liars.

So I was an atheist for the longest time until I found out that bringing up God is love when religious people threatened me both angered them and eventually shut them up. I decided that this is a good test for truth. I noticed that when I was right people would usually get angry at me and threaten me or they would suddenly have nothing to say or they would tell me to shut up. Of course I had to tell people that so I had very few friends.



3) Did you find what you sought?
Yes something is definitely going on. And whatever it is it has a sense of humor.

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh."
Voltaire

Once a Jehovahs Witness came to me door. When he couldn't touch me with his gibberish he asked if he could bring his friends. I told him to bring them on. When they arrived they gained up on me but still couldn't win. I could see that this would go nowhere because they wanted a conversion and I had truth on my side.

So I gave them an out and told them look lets just all drop our differences and admit that God is love. This is the most important thing . So nothing else matters. Suddenly I felt a change in energy because the beings that possessed their spirit knew they had lost.And one of them quite angrily said "That isn't the most important thing". All of them ran to their car and drove off.

I am not afraid to laugh because the comedian Voltaire refers to is religions God

4) Are you still looking?

Sort of. I am looking into Pantheism and Deism and basically any non religious concept of God But I know that I am probably looking for myself.

5) Are you convinced that there is a God?

Well I once told some one that if there was a God that I would find a holy book that answered all my questions and did so with a sense of humor. The next day I found Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide series.


"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

This was my first sign that something was going on.

To get away from the religious God I will just have to quote

Is God a Taoist?

Raymond M. Smullyan, 1977

Mortal:
Well, if I think I am talking to you, but I am really talking to myself, in what sense do you exist?

God:
Your question is based on two fallacies plus a confusion. The question of whether or not you are now talking to me and the question of whether or not I exist are totally separate. Even if you were not now talking to me (which obviously you are), it still would not mean that I don't exist.

Mortal:
Well, all right, of course! So instead of saying "if I am talking to myself, then you don't exist," I should rather have said, "if I am talking to myself, then I obviously am not talking to you."

God:
A very different statement indeed, but still false.

Mortal:
Oh, come now, if I am only talking to myself, then how can I be talking to you?

God:
Your use of the word "only" is quite misleading! I can suggest several logical possibilities under which your talking to yourself does not imply that you are not talking to me.

Mortal:
Suggest just one!

God:
Well, obviously one such possibility is that you and I are identical.

Mortal:
Such a blasphemous thought -- at least had I uttered it!

God:
According to some religions, yes. According to others, it is the plain, simple, immediately perceived truth.

Mortal:
So the only way out of my dilemma is to believe that you and I are identical?

God:
Not at all! This is only one way out. There are several others. For example, it may be that you are part of me, in which case you may be talking to that part of me which is you. Or I may be part of you, in which case you may be talking to that part of you which is me. Or again, you and I might partially overlap, in which case you may be talking to the intersection and hence talking both to you and to me. The only way your talking to yourself might seem to imply that you are not talking to me is if you and I were totally disjoint -- and even then, you could conceivably be talking to both of us.

Mortal:
So you claim you do exist.

God:
Not at all. Again you draw false conclusions! The question of my existence has not even come up. All I have said is that from the fact that you are talking to yourself one cannot possibly infer my nonexistence, let alone the weaker fact that you are not talking to me. For more read http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html this

6) Do you follow your faith to the LETTER?

Well I do read my Holy book The More Than Complete Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy but I'm not sure if I can form a faith from it let alone a theology. That is why I practice Buddhism. Not sure if I could call my practice a faith either since Buddhism like science encourages treating their teachings as falsifiable


7) Do you sin?
Are you asking me if I knowingly cause other people to suffer or if I do things that make me feel guilty? There are things I do that cause me to suffer. Most of these things are things I do or don't do that I am afraid may cause other people to suffer. I believe in karma not sin. The difference is I am never punished even if the lessons I draw to me when I cause suffering tend to cause me suffering. To me it is all lessons. The more I learn the less suffering I cause. The less suffering I cause the less I suffer. I do not think sin enters into it.

8) Do you believe in an afterlife?

I believe in reincarnation. Is that an after life ? Because if I keep coming back then I was never actually dead was I?


9) Have you ever had an epiphany)

Too many to list . I do not think we really learn anything like we are a blank slate covered in experiences later. I think we do not learn as much as we remember what we already knew. I think ignorance is a form of forgetting. If you are attached to "Ignorance is bliss" then you will become a zombie and you will forget everything you knew moment to moment. If you seek enlightenment you will start with epiphanies and work your way up.


10) Did a traumatic experience flower your search?

Yes I lost connection with my soul. This caused suicidal depression. Religion and science failed me so I turned to Zen and Shamanism. Now all depression is gone and I believe love is real and I am happy. To me I am my soul. Everything alive has a soul. Every soul is connected to every other soul by awareness. When I lost that connection I got suicidally depressed. So what I always sought was a way to get connected back to the source of all including who I really am.

When I am in enlightened state I no longer perceive the limits of time or separation from other souls. When I am connected to this internet of the spirit I feel a connection to the source of all there is. If this is awareness of God so be it.

All your replies will be gratefully appreciated.
Thank you, and journey well.
Mark...

mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 07:54 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
Hi SA,
Fantastic post!
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
I neither, believe in death.
Brilliant!!! Have a lovely everything, always.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
spiritual anrkst
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:26 pm
Thank you Mark . Here is the link that was broken in my last post http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:29 pm
@spiritual anrkst,
Hi SA,
Thank you! I'll have a good read of that tomorrow.
Have a splendid evening.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:40 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
Why, indeed? Have you ever sought God?





Because I have read some of the posts on this board.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 08:55 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
Why, indeed? Have you ever sought God?





Because I have read some of the posts on this board.

Hi Ken,
May that you seek find you soon.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:13 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
How are you? Do you think that what you want from God (And I'm assuming biblical God - Due to your "Genesis"reference) is what God wants from you?
Think about it?
I have thought about it most of my adult life, I see in the the bible, that those who suffer much, has a purpose that God whishes of them.
In a way God exploits them and torments them, when he bestows a great gift unto their lifes.
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:31 pm
@HexHammer,
Hi Hex,
The biblical God doesn't know whether He is coming or going, and neither can any followers thereof. In order to find that God, one must first be on the fringe of utter despair. The despair will generate the opposing end of said spectrum and a state of euphoria will preside. In order to maintain said state the now psychotic individual will pursue and preserve the ident of said God, merely furthering their own delusion. But, this is what keeps them from falling apart at the seems. Nuff said for now.
Have a brilliant existence Hexhammer.
Mark...
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 09:57 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
I am not of any fixed religion. But I do believe that evolution is real.


MICROevolution is real enough; MACROevolution however, which is what the theory of evolution is about, is a bunch of bullshit.




The big lie which is promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Quote:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

    http://concerts.ticketsnow.com/Graphics/photos/TinaTurner.jpg

  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

Quote:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!


Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?

HexHammer
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:14 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:
one must first be on the fringe of utter despair.
I'm afraid that falls under pure spekulation and assumption, if you really belive it, it might fall under psycotic/skitzophrenic distortion.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jun, 2010 10:55 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
Why, indeed? Have you ever sought God?

I would be happy indeed, if some of you would take the time to answer any or all of the questions below.

1) Have you ever sought God?
2) Why?
3) Did you find what you sought?
4) Are you still looking?
5) Are you convinced that there is a God?
6) Do you follow your faith to the LETTER?
7) Do you sin?
8) Do you believe in an afterlife?
9) Have you ever had an epiphany)
!0) Did a traumatic experience flower your search?

All your replies will be gratefully appreciated.
Thank you, and journey well.
Mark...



1. Yes

2. Search for meaning and wisdom.

3. Not in gods.

4. Hmmm...interesting question...not LOOKING, but sure as hell still reflecting.

5. Not at all.

6. My ethical framework do you mean, I am sure you would not ASSUME theism in such a question deliberately. No. I am imperfect, but I seek to learn from each failure I notice, and do better.

7. I fail, yes. If I were a theist, I would call it sin.

8. No. Except occasionally I consider the possibility because non-being is hard for the human mind to encompass.

9. Many. Not religious ones, though.

10. Well, to live is to experience trauma...but yes, the traumas experienced by myself..but more so by others...have certainly driven my search for meaning.
0 Replies
 
Philis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 01:27 am
@mark noble,
mark noble wrote:

Hi All,
Why, indeed? Have you ever sought God?

I would be happy indeed, if some of you would take the time to answer any or all of the questions below.

1) Have you ever sought God?
I felt him seeking me first, yes I have sought God.
2)Why?
I felt him in my soul and spirit.
3) Did you find what you sought?
yes.
4) Are you still looking?
I have found a great communion with God, my faith has rewarded me. Life is a continuous search.
5) Are you convinced that there is a God?
Convinced yes.
6) Do you follow your faith to the LETTER?
Not much phases me at this age. My faith has been rewarded too many times to keep track. I listen to my faith many times.
7) Do you sin?
I am a sinner.
8) Do you believe in an afterlife?
The Rapture and resurrection and eternal life.
9) Have you ever had an epiphany)
yes
!0) Did a traumatic experience flower your search?
A couple of times during trauma I have searched for more understanding.
All your replies will be gratefully appreciated.
Thank you, and journey well.
Mark...

ABYA
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 05:52 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

MACROevolution however, which is what the theory of evolution is about, is a bunch of bullshit.




Yes and No. It seems pretty obvious that one creature followed on from another, Where Darwin got it wrong is the reasons for it, He saw one creature randomly genetically mutate from another, when in reality one creature originates after another.
God /Nature created every creature. Matter is the outward appearence of desire and as desires evolve so the outward appearance alters.
You might find this article interesting http://www.kabbalah.info/eng/content/view/frame/60691?/eng/content/view/full/60691&main
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 07:08 am
@HexHammer,
Hi Hex,
The point there is - A person, with an opposing opinion is always percieved to be on the fringe of mental degredation. You've just proven that by your reply. No, I don't believe my proposition - It was a trap (not malicious) set to prove what it did.
Thank you Hex, best wishes.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 07:17 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
I am not of any fixed religion. But I do believe that evolution is real.


MICROevolution is real enough; MACROevolution however, which is what the theory of evolution is about, is a bunch of bullshit.




The big lie which is promulgated by evolutionists is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari.

The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.

Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, or some other member of that crowd.

To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:

God Hates IDIOTS Too...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:

Quote:

Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....


You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.

But it gets even stupider.

Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.

Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).

Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:

  • It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). In other words, the clowns promoting this BS are claiming that the very lack of intermediate fossils supports the theory. Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...

    http://concerts.ticketsnow.com/Graphics/photos/TinaTurner.jpg

  • PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...

  • PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.

  • PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.

  • For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.


The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.

And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:



They don't even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technical explaination of any sort for this "punk-eek"


They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:

Quote:

ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!


Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.

I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?



Hi Snake,
I didn't say I believed in evolution, I said I believe it is real. Why would anyone believe in it as if it were a religion? It's just a process - It would be like saying "I am a believer in 'Temperature'", Why would anyone do that. It would be quite sane to believe that temperature is a real process, though, would it not? I am under the impression that you percieve it as a religion, with followers and disciples. Where did you get that notion? People don't worship the process of evolution. If these are the people you are angry with? It is YOU that you are angrry with.
Anyway, thank you for your input, and have a great day.
Mark...
0 Replies
 
A Lyn Fei
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 07:27 am
@mark noble,
1) When I was a child I used to speak with god
2) I was extremely lonely and have an active imagination
3) Absolutely
4) I have found other ways to cope with the loneliness of life
5) Just the opposite
6) No, for it does change based upon my experience
7) What is sin to me if there is no god?
8) I have to believe that there is something after we die, but a kingdom of heaven? Ludicrous to me.
9) Yes, many. They are terrifying and wonderful at the same time.
10) Traumatic, traumatic. Yes and no, and I cannot give a better answer.

For fear there ever was a way
To be what is and leave what may
I wandered in, saw for myself
That fear is not but what we say
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 07:28 am
@Philis,
Hi Philis,
Glad to make your aqcuaintance.
Very open and honest, indeed! You have the right mindset for the faith you adhere to. Which avenue of christianity do you pursue, by the way?
Have a great day, Philis.
Mark...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2021 at 11:55:46