Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Great White Wonder on February 16, 2005 04:16 PM
- John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 03:55 PM
- SwiftWindhorse on February 16, 2005 03:21 PM
- Dave S. on February 16, 2005 01:52 PM
- Dave S. on February 16, 2005 01:49 PM
- slpage on February 16, 2005 01:34 PM
- Pastor Bentonit on February 16, 2005 01:07 PM
- Pastor Bentonit on February 16, 2005 01:05 PM
- John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 11:08 AM
- Bob Maurus on February 16, 2005 11:05 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Yang Yang on December 11, 2004 12:42 AM
With any tavern, one can expect that certain things that get said are out-of-place. But there is one place where almost any saying or scribble can find a home: the bathroom wall. This is where random thoughts and oddments that don’t follow the other entries at the Panda’s Thumb wind up. As with most bathroom walls, expect to sort through a lot of oyster guts before you locate any pearls of wisdom.
The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we’ve splashed a coat of paint on it.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/652
Comment #11609
Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on December 11, 2004 05:24 PM (e) (s)
Bob:
If “Nobody is good enough to go to heaven,” does that mean that the place is entirely deserted and all them sweet sounding harps are just laying around gathering dust with their strings sagging? What a pity.
Who told you there were harps in heaven? No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.
Where then is the incentive toward moral behaviour?
Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God. If they have sensitive consciences, though, they have to admit to themselves that they can’t even live up to their own ethical standards, let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God. Observers of other religions often fall into this category. They often have very high ethical standards, but religions provide no assurance that it makes the observer good enough to be acceptable to God.
Christians have been given a new life by God in replace for the old one, and because of God’s work in their lives, are able to please God through their ethical behaviour. In fact, because the new life that they have been given belongs to God, it ought to be natural for them to live ethical lives. Of course they can’t do this perfectly - they are still messed-up human beings - but a change has taken place.
Have you ever pondered how much of the bible is borrowed from the Torah, and how much of the Torah is borrowed from …
Yes. Have you ever pondered why that might be the case?
Comment #11610
Posted by jay boilswater on December 11, 2004 06:48 PM (e) (s)
I hate to interrupt those that want to turn schools into churches or churches in to indoctrination centers but: Any new thoughts or sites that address the impact theory, Punk equib, or extinction in general?
Comment #11748
Posted by Grey Wolf on December 12, 2004 04:18 AM (e) (s)
> aCTa: “Who told you there were harps in heaven? No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there
> will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50
> million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.”
As can readily be noticed by simple maths from aCTa’s declaration, his “all mercy” God is condeming at least 1250 million living people to hell, “by all accounts”. Also, given that Luther’s theology ideas *and* Catholic ideas are also “accounts”, it is easy to deduct that aCTa is either lying or missinformed. Luther stated that an exact number (not sure which - bear with me, I’m no theologist), less than a million were going to Heaven and none else - thus 50 million chinese cannot possibly be going to Heaven by Luther’s account.
On the other hand, Catholics approach the matter obliquely: Jesus Christ is God. He sacrificed himself for all humanity. Sacrifices are like paying God to get a result. If you sacrifice a frog, you get something valued in loose change. A goat gets you a nice car, I’m sure. God, however, has infinite value, so when He sacrifised himself for the salvation of all humanity, it was for *all* humanity, not just those that aCTa likes. Indeed, according to (what I have last heard form) Catholic educators, everyone is going to Heaven, regardless. And that is because a) Jesus sacrifised himself for all our sins and b) God is full of mercy and love, and thus will forgive everyone.
Oh, and aCTa, to predict your next response, don’t even try to say that Catholics aren’t Christians. It’ll make you look silly and stupid.
> Bob (I think): “Where then is the incentive toward moral behaviour?”
The incentive is the fact that moral behaviour leads to better lives, in Catholicism. The self-same conclussion has been reached independently (Loves others like people like yourself), so it’s not such an increadible concept. Jesus only added an absolute measure - Love others like He loved us.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #11750
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 12, 2004 05:19 AM (e) (s)
No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.
Where do you come up with this 50 million figure?
Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God.
What … do you think some Jew’s, Muslims, Budhist, Hindu’s and the plethora of other “non-Christians” are different in their devotion to god. I don’t understand why you put in “non-Christians” surely your statement would cover all religions.
let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.
who sets your code of ethics for God? How should we even compair our ethics as humans to Gods? If I adopt your God’s ehtics then I can not only mentally torment my children but those that I feel have done me wrong are going to get it along with their next 3 generations. I’m also allowed to get seduced by my daughters after they get me drunk drunken. Note I’m just picking some of the Ethics from the Christian bible. A book compiled over thousands of years by MAN of many different religions including pagen religions.
Comment #11751
Posted by Grey Wolf on December 12, 2004 05:58 AM (e) (s)
> aCTa: “Who told you there were harps in heaven? No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there
> will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50
> million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.”
As can readily be noticed by simple maths from aCTa’s declaration, his “all mercy” God is condeming at least 1250 million living people to hell, “by all accounts”. Also, given that Luther’s theology ideas *and* Catholic ideas are also “accounts”, it is easy to deduct that aCTa is either lying or missinformed. Luther stated that an exact number (not sure which - bear with me, I’m no theologist), less than a million were going to Heaven and none else - thus 50 million chinese cannot possibly be going to Heaven by Luther’s account.
On the other hand, Catholics approach the matter obliquely: Jesus Christ is God. He sacrificed himself for all humanity. Sacrifices are like paying God to get a result. If you sacrifice a frog, you get something valued in loose change. A goat gets you a nice car, I’m sure. God, however, has infinite value, so when He sacrifised himself for the salvation of all humanity, it was for *all* humanity, not just those that aCTa likes. Indeed, according to (what I have last heard form) Catholic educators, everyone is going to Heaven, regardless. And that is because a) Jesus sacrifised himself for all our sins and b) God is full of mercy and love, and thus will forgive everyone.
Oh, and aCTa, to predict your next response, don’t even try to say that Catholics aren’t Christians. It’ll make you look silly and stupid.
> Bob (I think): “Where then is the incentive toward moral behaviour?”
The incentive is the fact that moral behaviour leads to better lives, in Catholicism. The self-same conclussion has been reached independently (Loves others like people like yourself), so it’s not such an increadible concept. Jesus only added an absolute measure - Love others like He loved us.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #11752
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 12, 2004 06:00 AM (e) (s)
No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.
Where do you come up with this 50 million figure?
Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God.
What … do you think some Jew’s, Muslims, Budhist, Hindu’s and the plethora of other “non-Christians” are different in their devotion to god. I don’t understand why you put in “non-Christians” surely your statement would cover all religions.
let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.
Comment #11753
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 12, 2004 06:00 AM (e) (s)
No, it’s not entirely deserted, and there will eventually be a number that “nobody can count”. To give some idea, there are 50 million people alive in China today who will be there eventually, by all accounts.
Where do you come up with this 50 million figure?
Some non-Christians try to conform to what they think God requires of them, hoping that they will be good enough to satisfy God.
What … do you think some Jew’s, Muslims, Budhist, Hindu’s and the plethora of other “non-Christians” are different in their devotion to god. I don’t understand why you put in “non-Christians” surely your statement would cover all religions.
let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.
Comment #11754
Posted by gary on December 12, 2004 06:04 AM (e) (s)
Couple of things I want to scribble here.
If God gives me the choice to be good or bad and I decide to be good but just not necessarly in his view. I’m still going to get punished?
GREAT! site I love it. The care with which the information is presented is magnificant. No matter which side your on. Congratulations.
Did Jesus live or did some guy in pre time just have a GREAT! PR man?
Comment #11755
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 12, 2004 06:16 AM (e) (s)
hmm double post and lost bits
let alone what they perceive as the standards of an ethically perfect God.
This makes me laugh. Why do you think your God’s ethics reflect down on you. What makes you think you can comprehend them to try to mimic them. Please explain how your biblicle god is “ethically perfect” Can you be jealous and vengeful and still be “ethically perfect”? Can you torment your children and be “ethically perfect” can you condone drunken sex with your daughters and be “ethically perfect”
Troll, I don’t think you understand how much of the bible came from other religions including pagan religions. You make it sound like God wrote the bible. Many men wrote the bible. Changing the stories over the years to fit their current religious model. Christians like to ignore that fact along with the fact that most of the gospels being written about 60 years after the death of Jesus.
Comment #11759
Posted by Bob Maurus on December 12, 2004 08:10 AM (e) (s)
wELL, aCTa, that really sucks! First you say nobody’s good enough to get into heaven and then you turn around and tell us that 50 million Chinese have been given free passes. Nothing against Asians of any stripe, some of my favorite foods are Asian and I’m convinced I was Japanese in a previous life, but what makes them folks in China better than the rest of us - well, not me actually cuz I never did believe in that whole gig, including the harps and the wings and all the other trappings so I doubt you’ll be seing me there under any redemption scenario.
As Wayne has already referenced, YOU tell ME why the bible is loaded with recycled and cribbed pagan myths claiming to be the word of God.
Grey Wolf: Yes, moral -or altruistic and cooperative - behaviour is the only behaviour which makes sense in this hostile world. It does not, in my opinion, emanate from God or Jesus, nor is it the sole prerogative of the Faithful. The question was specifically to aCTa and the Fear Factor driving at least some varieties of Christianity. Behaviour motivated by fear of the flames of Hell is not a freely chosen behaviour.
Comment #11771
Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on December 12, 2004 02:35 PM (e) (s)
wELL, aCTa, that really sucks! First you say nobody’s good enough to get into heaven and then you turn around and tell us that 50 million Chinese have been given free passes.
Cool! You are getting it! You have to be given a pass. The only thing is, it isn’t free. There was a major price to be paid.
Comment #11784
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 12, 2004 06:43 PM (e) (s)
Troll where did you get that 50 million number for those in China going to heaven?
Comment #11802
Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on December 13, 2004 03:44 AM (e) (s)
Wayne: that’s a current estimate for the number of Christians in China. Open Doors estimate is somewhat higher.
http://www.opendoors.org/content/truth_china.html…
The Chinese church became the world’s largest Christian community due to a massive revival dating from the early 1970s, the size of which is unprecedented in Christendom. We believe the total number of Christians to be between 60-80 million, though it could be higher.
And they reckon the church is growing by 3-5 million per year.
Comment #11803
Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on December 13, 2004 04:05 AM (e) (s)
Also Wayne: Who gave you the idea that Lot’s behaviour was an ethical example for you to follow?
Can you be jealous and ethically perfect? Yes, if by “jealousy” you mean wanting something that is rightfully yours that is being withheld from you. Is it wrong for a husband whose wife has gone off with somebody else to be jealous? Can you be vengeful and ethically perfect? Yes, if what you are seeking to avenge was something wrong or unjust. Is it wrong for a parent whose child has been killed to want revenge? In fact, if God were to ignore sin or rebellion, then he would be less than ethically perfect.
If you want a more substantial idea about heaven and hell than the “harps and clouds”/”lake of fire [and nothing else]” model, try The Great Divorce
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0006280560…) by C.S.Lewis.
Comment #11805
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 13, 2004 07:13 AM (e) (s)
Yes, if what you are seeking to avenge was something wrong or unjust.
and it ethical to be vengeful agianst those that did no wrong simply because they are related to the one that you feel wronged you?
So someone harms my child it is ethical for me to kill him, his wife, his kids, his 19 year old daughter and her new born baby. Hmmm got to love that.
Comment #11806
Posted by charlie wagner on December 13, 2004 07:53 AM (e) (s)
Okay this is enough. Discuss this further on the bathroom wall please. As it has nothing much to do with the topic of the thread.
Gee Pim, just when it was getting interesting!
I was hoping that you would be inclined to participate, since you have such strong opposition to ID. Could you find nothing in what I said to comment on?
Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…
Comment #11813
Posted by gaebolga on December 13, 2004 11:09 AM (e) (s)
Maybe Pim’s wondering when you’ll get around to explaining why the fact that dogs reproduce and airplanes don’t isn’t a flaw in “your” argument by anaolgy that dogs must be designed because airplanes are.
I’m still waiting, Charlie….
Comment #11820
Posted by Great WhiteWonder on December 13, 2004 12:52 PM (e) (s)
An interesting article about Stephen J. Gould:
Comment #11824
Posted by charlie wagner on December 13, 2004 02:05 PM (e) (s)
Any comments on this?
Easterbrook thinks that the phrase “the origin of living things” means abiogenesis.
It does not.
Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…
http://www.charliewagner.com…
Comment #11829
Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 13, 2004 04:02 PM (e) (s)
Easterbrook thinks that the phrase “the origin of living things” means abiogenesis.
It does not.
So what the heck does it mean?
Comment #11830
Posted by Bob Maurus on December 13, 2004 04:09 PM (e) (s)
aCTa,
I agree with you absolutely - C.S. Lewis wrote some excellent Fantasy in addition to the Narnia Chronicles.
;^)
Comment #11831
Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 13, 2004 04:11 PM (e) (s)
And Charlie, I looked at your web-site. The following comment needs… uh, a comment,
Not one of these machines ever assembled itself from it’s parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Since living organisms are highly organized biochemical machines, why should I think differently about them?
The reason you should think differently about them is obvious: because they do assemble themselves from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Period. Unless you’re telling me that every biological orgainism is hand-assembled by some ‘intelligence’.
Your analogy is inappropriate.
Comment #11851
Posted by gaebolga on December 14, 2004 10:05 AM (e) (s)
Get ready for some deafening silence, Rilke’s Granddaughter…Charlie doesn’t do “logic”.
Comment #11852
Posted by charlie wagner on December 14, 2004 10:13 AM (e) (s)
So what the heck does it mean?
“Es treibt der Wind im Winterwalde …”
Great stuff.
Are you *really* Rilke’s granddaughter?
“Origin of living things means “the point at which a living organism comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived”. Abiogenesis takes us up to the first cell, it says nothing about what happens thereafter. Evolution starts with the first cell and takes it from there. It says nothing about what happened before. Clearly, the origin of higher taxa from lower taxa has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis and occurred well after the first cell appeared.
because they do assemble themselves from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Period.
No they do not.
All living organisms assemble themselves under the guidance of a highly organized and complex set of instructions found in the genome. These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.
Comment #11853
Posted by PvM on December 14, 2004 10:46 AM (e) (s)
These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.
Begging the question. Argument from analogy is not very impressive. And Rilke is right, they do assemble from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence.
Comment #11866
Posted by racingiron on December 14, 2004 01:50 PM (e) (s)
All living organisms assemble themselves under the guidance of a highly organized and complex set of instructions found in the genome. These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.
OK, let’s delve deeper into your analogies, then. Take, for example, an airplane. We can agree that airplanes do not assemble themseves. They are indeed assembled using a complex set of instructions.
Take the instructions for a Boeing 777. The instructions were not created out of nothing by a single intelligent act. They borrowed heavily from the instructions for the 767, which was based on the 737, which incorporated elements from the 707, etc… You could continue this exercise all the way back to the invention of the wheel, discovery of fire, and beyond.
You’d probably say that human intelligence is the driving force behind these changes. I submit that selection is the ultimate driver. We humans influence the process by introducing changes, but success or failure is determined by how the object performs. Successful objects are selected to be reproduced and improved upon.
The “intelligence” behind the instructions is simply remembering what has worked in the past. Add to that the ability to combine elements from two or more successful designs and a curiosity for trying new things, each of which may result in improvements, flaws, or both.
Charlie, can you explain to me how this is supposed to refute evolution?
Comment #11867
Posted by charlie wagner on December 14, 2004 02:09 PM (e) (s)
Charlie, can you explain to me how this is supposed to refute evolution?
The analogy between biological evolution by natural selection and technological advances is a false analogy. I know that some people have drawn an analogy between biological evolution and the evolution of, say, an airplane or car. The analogy is false because at no point in the development of the automobile or airplane was any element of design achieved by chance. Only by the most strict application of the rules of engineering and aerodynamics was the final result obtained. There is no way that a random search could ever have discovered the design of the internal combustion engine. In all cases, the search for function is intelligently guided. Evolution by the method you propose is analagous to problem solving without any intelligent guidance. In the case of every kind of complex, functional system, the total magnitude of all combinational possibilities is nearly infinite. Meaningful islands of function are so rare, that to find even one would be a miracle.
Comment #11868
Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 14, 2004 02:21 PM (e) (s)
charlie,
Are you *really* Rilke’s granddaughter?
Great-granddaughter, actually… if you believe my mother. Sometimes she’s a bit spacy (remind me to tell you about the chain-saw incident).
“Origin of living things means “the point at which a living organism comes into existence or from which it derives or is derived”. Abiogenesis takes us up to the first cell, it says nothing about what happens thereafter. Evolution starts with the first cell and takes it from there. It says nothing about what happened before. Clearly, the origin of higher taxa from lower taxa has nothing at all to do with abiogenesis and occurred well after the first cell appeared.
Um, so you are talking about the origin of species, not the origin of life? OK.
Then I wrote:
because they do assemble themselves from parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Period.
And Charlie replied:
No they do not.
Um. Wrong. Show me the intelligence standing right there, at every step of the process, as the fertilized egg becomes a human being.
All living organisms assemble themselves under the guidance of a highly organized and complex set of instructions found in the genome.
But that’s not what you said. Shall we refresh your memory?
Not one of these machines ever assembled itself from it’s parts without intervention by a higher intelligence. Since living organisms are highly organized biochemical machines, why should I think differently about them?
You didn’t say one darn thing about the guiding code, you just talked about the assembly.
If what you’re kvetching about is the evolution of the instructions then you ought to actually say what you mean.
Otherwise people are gonna think you’re clueless.
These instructions did not create themselves from nothing by random, accidental processes, they were the product of intelligent input, just like a computer program is the product of intelligent input.
Blatant assertion without supporting evidence doesn’t cut it as an argument. We know (from such research as Avida) that complex instructions can evolve. We have no evidence that any ‘intelligence’ existed at the time period in which these ‘instructions’ came into being.
MN+OR = clean-shaven Charlie
Comment #11869
Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 14, 2004 02:29 PM (e) (s)
Charlie,
The analogy between biological evolution by natural selection and technological advances is a false analogy.
You haven’t shown that.
I know that some people have drawn an analogy between biological evolution and the evolution of, say, an airplane or car. The analogy is false because at no point in the development of the automobile or airplane was any element of design achieved by chance.
But that’s not the analogy. You’re not reading what he’s saying; the point is that the selection of the particular features of a given design is a process of natural selection. The process of inventing new features that you think the customers would want is analagous to variation (I admit that the anaology is imperfect because the human inventors can anticipate in a fashion that natural variation cannot).
Only by the most strict application of the rules of engineering and aerodynamics was the final result obtained.
True, but that’s not his analogy.
There is no way that a random search could ever have discovered the design of the internal combustion engine. In all cases, the search for function is intelligently guided.
Nobody has ever claimed that evolution is a random search. This is a strawman of your invention.
Evolution by the method you propose is analagous to problem solving without any intelligent guidance.
Yup. And it can be done. Ever heard of genetic algorithms? Problem solving with no intelligent guidance.
In the case of every kind of complex, functional system, the total magnitude of all combinational possibilities is nearly infinite.
Pretty rhetoric; can you back it up with actual examples? Real math?
Meaningful islands of function are so rare, that to find even one would be a miracle.
Do read up on GAs; you’ll be amazed that miracles simple algorithms can perform….
Comment #11872
Posted by Great White Wonder on December 14, 2004 03:06 PM (e) (s)
Charlie, a total spaz who must have been an awful teacher, writes
at no point in the development of the automobile or airplane was any element of design achieved by chance
Do rubber tires fall within the scope of this statement Charlie?
Comment #11873
Posted by charlie wagner on December 14, 2004 03:17 PM (e) (s)
Um, so you are talking about the origin of species, not the origin of life? OK.
The question is not what I’m talking about, it’s what the Cobb County BOE is talking about. The sticker means “origin of species”, not “origin of life”, and Easterbrook got it wrong.
Show me the intelligence standing right there, at every step of the process, as the fertilized egg becomes a human being.
Do you know how they make cameras? They sure don’t use little, tiny screwdrivers in little tiny human hands. They use robotics and computer algorithms. No one can “see” the intelligence standing right there, at every step of the process, guiding the assembly. In the development of a cell into a living organism, the “robotics” are the protein synthetic apparatus, the ribosomes, the mitochondria, etc. The algorithm is the instructions in the DNA that guide the process of construction and assembly. Because you can’t see the intelligence behind these processes doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Otherwise people are gonna think you’re clueless.
No one who knows me or spends a few minutes talking to me could ever come to that conclusion.
You didn’t say one darn thing about the guiding code, you just talked about the assembly.
If what you’re kvetching about is the evolution of the instructions then you ought to actually say what you mean.
I said “without the intervention of a higher intelligence”. This higher intelligence could take many different forms, from an actual human being standing by and guiding the process to an algorithm that is being executed by a machine.
MN+OR = clean-shaven Charlie
I got the Occam’s Razor part, but the MN has me stumped.
Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…
Comment #11875
Posted by charlie wagner on December 14, 2004 03:26 PM (e) (s)
But that’s not the analogy. You’re not reading what he’s saying; the point is that the selection of the particular features of a given design is a process of natural selection. The process of inventing new features that you think the customers would want is analagous to variation (I admit that the anaology is imperfect because the human inventors can anticipate in a fashion that natural variation cannot).
It’s getting to the point where I’m beating the ground where a dead horse stood 5 years ago. All of these questions have been answered ad nauseum by me. Of course, that doesn’t mean you’ve seen my answers so I’ll give you the short answer:
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!
(Google on my name in talk.origins, go to me website and read the mountains of stuff I’ve posted on this topic.
Comment #11876
Posted by charlie wagner on December 14, 2004 03:32 PM (e) (s)
go to me website
RG,
That would be *my* website. I’m not a pirate but I am a bit anal retentive…
Charlie
http://www.charliewagner.com…
http://enigma.charliewagner.com…
Comment #11878
Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on December 14, 2004 03:37 PM (e) (s)
charlie,
No one who knows me or spends a few minutes talking to me could ever come to that conclusion.
Unfortunately, we’re exchanging postings. Which means that neither one of those two conditions applies. Net result? You certainly come across as clueless.
And I’ve read a great deal of what’s on your web-site. Most of it is the ancient ‘argument from ignorance’ coupled with a misunderstanding of what evolution actually says and a general ignorance of the scientific method.
Comment #11880
Posted by racingiron on December 14, 2004 03:57 PM (e) (s)
The analogy is false because at no point in the development of the automobile or airplane was any element of design achieved by chance. Only by the most strict application of the rules of engineering and aerodynamics was the final result obtained.
C’mon, Charlie! Can you really say this with a straight face? I’m getting a picture in my head of cavemen with lab coats…
There is no way that a random search could ever have discovered the design of the internal combustion engine.
You have a problem seeing the trees for the forest. Could a random search have ever discovered fire? Could a random application of fire to various substances have ever discovered that oil burns? Could that same random application of fire discover that some metals tend to resist burning? Do you see where I’m going with this?
In the case of every kind of complex, functional system, the total magnitude of all combinational possibilities is nearly infinite. Meaningful islands of function are so rare, that to find even one would be a miracle.
It’s not so hard to find the functional island when you know what to look for. It’s tough to pick a functional glider in a room full of randomly folded paper (especially if you’ve never seen a glider before), but drop all that paper from the tower at Pisa and it’s easy to select the better gliders. Take the one that stays aloft the longest and reproduce it many times over. Randomly add and/or remove a fold or two to most of them and drop again. Rinse and repeat. After many iterations I wager you’ll end up with a design you’d never expect to see in a sampling ten times the size of the original random room.
Tell me, Charlie, what am I missing? I’ve been to your website and I don’t recall a sufficient explanation of where I’ve gone wrong here. If it’s there, just give us a direct link to the applicable passages. I’m serious; I don’t mind being proven wrong, but screaming at me won’t do it.
Comment #11881
Posted by gaebolga on December 14, 2004 04:00 PM (e) (s)
But you’re missing the point, Rilke’s Granddaughter: according to Charlie, no one has ever demolished his argument that life must be designed. The only logical conclusion one can draw from this statement is that Charlie is either 1) an idiot, 2) a liar, or 3) clinically insane (or some creative combination of these) since a large number of people here on Panda’s Thumb (and I suspect elswehere) have demolished his arguments in a varitey of interesting ways.
The fact that he seems to think that “no one who knows me or spends a few minutes talking to me could ever come to [the conclusion that I’m clueless]” tends to argue for option 3, which further implies that no amount of logic or evidence (or much of anything, really) will ever change his mind. It just doesn’t register, becasue it CAN’T register, becasue if it did register then Charlie would be wrong.
And he simply can’t face that possibility, so logic and evidence be damned.
Well, at least his posts are generally written in proper English. I suppose that’s something.
Comment #11885
Posted by Great White Wonder on December 14, 2004 04:36 PM (e) (s)
Charlie, where did the information that rubber can be vulcanized come from?
Comment #11893
Posted by turtleherd on December 14, 2004 06:45 PM (e) (s)
So the Charlie does not monopolize the conversation… Anyone care to comment an article cirulating various news chanels earlier this week concerning a certain species of Australian snake that has evolved a smaller head in response to the presence of imported poisonous cane toads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm…). The basic gist of the article was that in 20-25 generations the species has reduced its head size so that the better adapted snakes do not eat the obviously large toads and die. Is this a good example of evolution in action or is the study more controversial than appears on the surface? For the record I am not a biologist or scientist, just and engineer who enjoys debates and reading this site from time to time.
Comment #11894
Posted by turtleherd on December 14, 2004 06:56 PM (e) (s)
So the Charlie does not monopolize the conversation… Anyone care to comment an article cirulating various news chanels earlier this week concerning a certain species of Australian snake that has evolved a smaller head in response to the presence of imported poisonous cane toads (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm…). The basic gist of the article was that in 20-25 generations the species has reduced its head size so that the better adapted snakes do not eat the obviously large toads and die. Is this a good example of evolution in action or is the study more controversial than appears on the surface? For the record I am not a biologist or scientist, just and engineer who enjoys debates and reading this site from time to time.
Comment #11895
Posted by Great White Wonder on December 14, 2004 07:22 PM (e) (s)
“Anyone care to comment an article cirulating various news chanels earlier this week concerning a certain species of Australian snake that has evolved a smaller head in response to the presence of imported poisonous cane toads”
Very interesting and I don’t think there’s anything controversial about it. We can be sure that until those snakes grow feathers, legs and feed their young with milk, the creationists won’t be impressed.
Of course, it’s already been noted that creationist heads are shrinking every year so they they are incapable of comprehending arguments that show their theories are pseudoscientific gobbledygook. Unfortunately, their small heads allow them to reproduce more frequently and with lower rates of mortality during childbirth. Thus, there are increasing numbers of small-brained people that need an intellectual horse-whipping but are physiologically unable to feel the pain.
Comment #11907
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 15, 2004 12:57 AM (e) (s)
Only by the most strict application of the rules of engineering and aerodynamics was the final result obtained. There is no way that a random search could ever have discovered the design of the internal combustion engine.
Obviously Charlie doesn’t follow advance CAD system that don’t apply engineering knowledge but in fact just randomly make modifications over many samples (Random Mutations) then selects a subset of the samples (Natural Selection) for the next generation to start the cycle over again. I’ve got a program that writes other programs. Its pretty interesting to see what it comes up with. Many of the programs look nothing like what I or any other programmer would design but they do indeed work. The program (even picks some samples that are low on the fitness landscape to see if later on other mutations combined with the sub standard mutations will produce a emergent effect. IE tho a mutation might make the program’s performance less then average now it may, combined with other mutations, end up producing the best solution.
This type of system is employed widely in the aerospace industry. They don’t “design” wings so much as let the computer go randomly in many directions and test each one against the known physical laws.
Multi-Point Optimization of Transonic Wing by Real-Coded Genetic Algorithm
The mutations are completely random. The changes to the wing are not designed. They are just selected based on physical laws. No human decision is needed.
Charlie will of coarse go into a rant how humans designed the software but the software is just a faster way to do it. They could easily had monkeys tapping away at the wing, test it, repeat and got the same result. In the end is the monkey the designer? Nope! Is the human? Nope (human is just the tester and like all good testers they don’t use judgment but just perform measurements. The measurements are not “designed” They are based on “physical laws”.
“problem solving without any intelligent guidance.”
The guidance is how well the item performs with the natural laws.
Comment #11908
Posted by Wayne Francis on December 15, 2004 01:11 AM (e) (s)
Some more good examples that had no intelligent guidance.
http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-03/departments/feattech/…" target="_blank">Emerging Technology
Darwin in a Box
and even better
This mpeg shows a few generations.
The only thing that the did during this test was to intruduce some parameters to limit “HOW” the thing walked. A few generations in they had samples using flips as locomotion and doing it quiet well.
Comment #11937
Posted by Gav on December 15, 2004 05:46 PM (e) (s)
GWW wrote “We can be sure that until those snakes grow feathers, legs and
feed their young with milk ….”.
Don’t caecilians feed their young with milk then? They are a “kind” of snake
aren’t they? No? Well, they look a lot like a “kind” of snake to me.
And presumably snakes did have legs before Genesis 3:14 (and caecilians -
see I told you!) so perhaps they’ll get given them back if they’re really
sorry and ask nicely.
Feathers - didn’t there used to be feathered serpents in Mexico which in the
light of things dug up recently in China only goes to confirm that dinosaurs
were contemporary with humans or else how would the old priests have known
about the feathers?
Anyway, stitch them all up together, milk, feathers and all, and you’ve got a
chimera the evolutionists could never explain away. All you have to do then
is produce the animal. Surely that’s not too much to ask. Like the unique singing whale - who’s the daddy, answer me that, eh?
There’s got to be more to ID than dodgy application of statistics - it’s the lack of imagination that’s so disappointing. The answer is in cryptozoology, it’s
clear. My advice to the creation scientists would be keep looking anyway,
and don’t worry too much about Mark 8:11 perhaps it doesn’t apply to you.
Comment #11941
Posted by Bob Maurus on December 15, 2004 07:07 PM (e) (s)
Gav,
Just keep your eyes screwed tightly shut and your fingers crossed behind your back and repeat, as fast as you can, “I wish, I wish, I wish …”
Comment #11944
Posted by Flint on December 15, 2004 08:25 PM (e) (s)
Take THAT, you creationists! Is this intelligent design or what?
Comment #11979
Posted by Great White Wonder on December 17, 2004 12:00 PM (e) (s)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews7/walkingwithcavemen.htm
Nice review here of “Walking with Cavemen” DVD (I highly recommend DVDBeaver to anyone interested in film on DVD, by the way).
Anybody seen this show? I saw the Walking with Dinosaurs series before I pulled the plug on my cable subscription. Good stuff.
Comment #12000
Posted by Gav on December 17, 2004 07:15 PM (e) (s)
Flint - yes that’s the kind of thing. That would really blow the cladists
out of the water, wouldn’t it, if they were real. I turn my compost heap
over regularly looking for less exotic examples - no results yet but you
never know.
I have been wishing really hard for cold fusion too. It doesn’t seem to be
working yet. Nothing wrong with the theory; obviously I’ve got some aspect
of the ritual wrong. Perhaps I should stand on my head or kill a chicken or
something.
There have been some controlled studies on prayer - see for example report a
few years back in http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band46/b46-6.html… . I
understand however that the results have not been reproduced in follow-up
studies.
When I asked The Minister of our Church for a theological explanation for
this apparent lack of repeatable results he just asked how I felt about
praying for a new washing machine. Now that’s quite remarkable as our
washing machine has been leaking all over the kitchen recently but when I
mentioned this he muttered something I didn’t quite hear. He can be quite
daunting sometimes so I left it there.
Comment #12243
Posted by Steve on December 25, 2004 04:38 PM (e) (s)
Salon’s cartoonist Ruben Bolling has apparently been following creationist physics idiocy:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2004/12/23/boll/index1.html…
Comment #12246
Posted by Mike Schneider on December 26, 2004 01:27 AM (e) (s)
After visiting the dentist last week, I find the idea that there’s anything indicating intelligence in the design of human teeth to be preposterous.
Is there any scientific support for the theory of Stupid Design? Or for the possibility that people were designed, created, and put on this earth in order to make dentists rich?
Comment #12247
Posted by Steve on December 26, 2004 02:15 AM (e) (s)
Mike, if you ever get to an intergalactic bookstore, you might want to check out the works of Oolon Colluphid. Some of his bestsellers are “Where God went Wrong”, “Some more of God’s greatest Mistakes”, “Who is this God Person anyway?” and “Well that about wraps it up for God.”
Comment #12309
Posted by Bartholomew on December 29, 2004 06:51 AM (e) (s)
Uber-fundie Gary North has just posted an article to “Business Reform”, arguing that Darwinism is undemocratic because most Americans do not want their tax dollars spent on such an offensive idea. An accompanying blog has requested responses. Here’s the link:
http://www.businessreform.com/blogs.php?writerid=23190…
(North has been around for years, but became famous as a Y2K scaremonger. His appeal to “democracy” is specially odious, as he is a Christian Reconstructionist who believes in Christian “dominion” over society)
Comment #12361
Posted by Great White Wonder on December 29, 2004 09:59 PM (e) (s)
From another thread, Flint writes
Schafly’s goal is to save immortal souls by bringing them to Jesus.
How do you know this?
Schafly’s point wasnt that evolution has suffered any embarrassments, it was that her target audience wishes to hear that it has.
This is really weak, Flint. I don’t even know how to respond to this sort of flimsy metaphysical wordsmithing. Let’s try to see what you just wrote by using ellipses: “Schafly’s point … was that her target audience wishes to hear that [evolution has suffered any embarrassments].”
So who was Schafly trying to communicate this point to, Flint?
Don’t answer. Purely a demonstrative exercise.
“In the advertising world, this is known as “puffery” (like saying “Our food tastes the very best”) and is not considered dishonest or illegal.”
Well, there’s a huge huge gap between dishonest and illegal, and we can all be thankful for that. News flash: advertisers aren’t unformly allowed to tell people what they want to hear when it is factually untrue. For example, I want to hear that a pill can extend my life by twenty years. So, your attempt to excuse Schafly’s dishonesty is, once again, dead in the water.
“the goal isn’t that Schafly’s audience be informed, but rather that it be unified.”
There are easier to ways to unify people, especially ignorant people prone to bigotry, than to recite lists of absurd and patently false baloney.
I fail to see how Schafly is “winning” by telling lies that can be refuted by an average 7th grader in ten minutes.
When did the Ku Klux Klan stop “winning” and start losing, according to your “puffery” theory?
And just a heads up: I’m not going to drag this out any further because I know from experience I’ll end up in the bramble bush of one of your excessively long paragraphs.
Comment #12411
Posted by Traffic Demon on December 31, 2004 01:37 AM (e) (s)
Doing my part to fight the battle in ultimately insignificant ways, stopped by the local Barnes and Noble, and finding that a copy of Darwin’s Black Box had been mis-shelved, I saved the staff some time and relocated it from the Science section to Fiction.
—TD
Comment #12457
Posted by steve on January 1, 2005 03:20 PM (e) (s)
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/2004/12/atheist_grinch_ste…
Comment #12572
Posted by Great White Wonder on January 3, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/03/school.dispute.ap/index.html
Apparently “teaching the controversy” in school isn’t acceptable to some parents who are working overtime to instill bigoted religiosity in their children:
COSTA MESA, California (AP) — Some parents and parishioners have accused the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a church school.
The group demanded that St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that pledge to abide by Catholic teachings, the Los Angeles Times reported in Sunday’s editions. Church doctrine opposes gay relationships and adoption by same-sex couples.
“The teachings of the church seem to have been abandoned,” John R. Nixon told the Times. “We send our children to a Catholic school because we expect and demand that the teachings of our church will be adhered to.”
School officials rejected the demand, and issued a new policy stating that a family’s background “does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school.”
The parents’ demand would presumably prevent two adopted boys whose parents are both men from attending the school’s kindergarten.
The Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of diocese schools, said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.
“This is the quagmire that the parents’ position represents,” he said. “It’s a slippery slope to go down.”
The boys’ parents, who enrolled their children at the beginning of the school year, declined to comment to the Times.
Some parents have promised to ask the Vatican to intervene and some have threatened to pull their children from the school. Others are worried the boys’ attendance will set a precedent, saying their presence is part of a larger effort by the gay community to change the church.
“The boys are being used as pawns by these men to further their agenda,” said Monica Sii, who has four children at the school.
Ignorant fearful indoctrination-loving parents at work. I’ll take a conservative RC over any script-reciting fungelical any day of the year. In your average fundie school these kids would be most likely be out on their asses before you could say “gay parents”.
Comment #12660
Posted by Little Old Lady on January 4, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)
I am a weak infirmed old lady who has always been a bit skepticol about this evolution business. As my hour of reckining approaches, I really would like to learn from one you true bilogolists whether God in his greatness designed me as a human in His image and all the creatures too, or am I only an ape with opposite thumbs, waiting only for the eternal darkness and worms to lick my old old bones.
I know you are very busy but please hurry with your answer because sadly I don’t have much time! I trust your opinione, not matter what science tells you. I am prepared for the worts, even if my doctor says I need to stay in high sprits.
Comment #12667
Posted by Wayne Francis on January 4, 2005 06:48 PM (e) (s)
Thanks Troll…err Little Old Lady.
You bring up the tire old (much older then you) argument that if evolution is true then when you die you have to just turn to dust.
As an agnostic I’ll tell you my feelings. What happens after we die is independent of the fact that life has evolved from a common origin or not. In fact I could say “life after death” could also be independent of the issue of “Is there a God”
If there is a God it seems that God used evolution as the method of producing varied life on earth (and my guess many other places in the universe.
Lastly let me point out a few things. “You created in God’s image” should be metaphorical. Do you honestly think that an all powerful being that is outside of space and time would have any use for legs?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea
Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
God would have no need for legs for God is everywhere.
The same could be said for every part of the human form. God would have no need for them. No need for eyes or ears for God would be omniscient and would not need them.
Also let us point out God would not be a male. Your god, being the sole supreme being, would have no need for sexual organs.
Another point….I think the word you are looking for is “opposable thumbs”.
Lastly if there is nothing after life then don’t look at it as “eternal darkness” That implies you are conscience for ever after you die…and if there is nothing after death its just the end. Contrast this to what the bible teaches that most of the world’s populations will be damned to hell until judgment day then suffer our 2nd death for eternity.
Stay in high spirits. For if there is nothing after death or if their is eternal bliss or torment being negative now will only cause you to suffer. But its your choice if you want to worry about something that is out of your control.
Comment #12672
Posted by Little Old Lady on January 4, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)
Do you honestly think that an all powerful being that is outside of space and time would have any use for legs? God would have no need for legs for God is everywhere.
Wayne, I suppose it would be of no interest to you that I lost my legs to cancer last year. Perhaps that is God’s way of letting me know that I am getting closer to Him.
Thanks for nothing, you heartless brutish agronomist.
Comment #12727
Posted by steve on January 5, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)
I realize I have been too negative and bitter towards my IDiot bretheren. Therefore, I have a new idea how their purely scientific undertaking may be enhanced.
For those of you who want to be ground-breaking ID Theorists, but aren’t interested in biology, you too can now participate, via the new field of study, Intelligent Design Linguistics.
Intelligent Design Linguistic Theory says that the idea that different human languages could have evolved from the same one is ridiculous—they’re Irreducibly Different.
Though the mainstream linguistic community will try to censor you by not publishing your papers, not teaching your ideas in high schools, and just disagreeing with you. Using ID-style logic, you can make immediate contributions to linguistics:
* Scientists have never found a Missing-Link Language which is exactly half-English, half Tagalog
* Simple calculation shows that for words to just spontaneously assemble into a language is roughly a skillion times more unlikely that Hemoglobin assembling
* The 2nd Law of Thermo says languages should get less descriptive over time, but they Don’t!
* Languages have way too much Ontological Depth to have evolved. (note: Ontological Depth will be defined ‘next week’, which itself is defined as ‘sometime in the future, or not’)
* In fact, IDLT asserts that all humans spoke the same language up until, say, 3000 years ago, at which time an Intelligent Designer got annoyed and Intelligently Designed a bunch of new languages, and set them all to speaking them, so that they could never again work together to do big things.
Any resemblance to anything religious is purely coincidental, and I’m quite shocked, shocked to discover that you would impugn my scientific notions by suggesting otherwise.
Now, on to the School Boards!
Comment #12732
Posted by Alan Gourant on January 5, 2005 02:10 PM (e) (s)
I am sorry for having confused Mr. Cordova with Mr. Alonso and I apologize for that unfortunate error. The rest of my post rebutting Mr. Cordova’s assertion that Dembski agrees with Perakh’s idea (simplicity=low probability) stands however.
Comment #12743
Posted by Mark Perakh on January 5, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)
Salvador: Apparently Alan Gourant meant not you but Nelson Alonso who authored the post to ARN where he falsely accused me of lying. Perhaps Mr. Gourant will now realize his mistake and correct it. I have noticed that you posted once a few positive words regarding my post about the Bible code and I appreciate it (although it is not a big secret that I largely disagree with you, especially when you praize Dembski’s work of which my view is distinctively different from yours). I also appreciate your frank admission of being a creationist while the CSC of DI persistently denies that ID is a version of creationism. Mark Perakh
Comment #12747
Posted by Great White Wonder on January 5, 2005 03:17 PM (e) (s)
We should not forget that one of the great complaints from the whining footsoldiers in the Christian fundamentalist army that accompanies the defense of “ID theory” and similar creationist claptrap is that religion is being “forced out of the public domain” by secular humanists and the rising tide of atheism.
Reasonable people know that this dishonest claim borders on the surreal. In fact, just this morning I watched some senators being sworn in on C-Span and they all held up their hands and responded “I do” after the final utterance of their common oath: “So help you God”. Not one of them said, “I agree to uphold the Constitution and not to lie but I will do so without God’s help, thank you very much.”
Of course, that is because none of the Senators in the United States Senate are atheists or, if they were, they wouldn’t dare admit it. Such is the hard lonely life of theists in the halls of power in the United States!
But if the coins, emblems, chaplains, invocations, oaths and hymns weren’t enough, we can now add this Inauguration Song, written by fundamentalist Christian John Ashcroft, Attorney General for the United States.
This is what qualifies as 21st century evangelical Christian art fit for the Inauguration Ceremony of the so-called leader of the free world:
[quote]”Let the eagle soar,
Like she’s never soared before.
From rocky coast to golden shore,
Let the mighty eagle soar.
Soar with healing in her wings,
As the land beneath her sings:
‘Only God, no other kings.’
This country’s far too young to die.
We’ve still got a lot of climbing to do,
And we can make it if we try.
Built by toils and struggles
God has led us through.[quote]
Of course, a large part of the “land beneath” Asscroft’s eagle will be vomiting uncontrollably and wondering whether Osama Bin Laden is interested in owning the copyright to Asscroft’s li’l ditty. It’d make a nice anthem for the Taliban.
Comment #12760
Posted by Wayne Francis on January 5, 2005 07:46 PM (e) (s)
Wayne, I suppose it would be of no interest to you that I lost my legs to cancer last year. Perhaps that is God’s way of letting me know that I am getting closer to Him.
Thanks for nothing, you heartless brutish agronomist.
1) Where do you get the idea would enjoy the loss of your legs?
2) How does you loosing your legs get you closer to God in the context that we are supposed to be made in god’s image. To which most creationist think means God is a bipedal man of human form. I just simply state that logically thinking would show God would not have the appearance of a human in God’s natural form.
3) Sorry but I’m not a heartless, brutish, or a farmer….not sure why you called me a farmer.
4) What reason did you have for coming here? If you are really on your death bed then why come to a location you are assured will be contradictory to your beliefs? I didn’t “Find God” when my grandmother died do you think you will get anyone that basis their beliefs on evidence to convert because they feel sorry for you?
Life is precious. I don’t have to be god fairing to be moral and caring. But don’t think that your physical condition will sway my beliefs or that if you attack my beliefs that I will not defend them. In other words don’t ask a question unless you really want to hear the answer to.
Thank you for coming. If you really want to learn about evolution we can gladly help. If you want to see how evolution is not at odds with religion we can help with that too. If you want to troll then expect to be rebutted in your illogical misguided statements and conclusions.
Comment #12761
Posted by Michael H. on January 5, 2005 07:59 PM (e) (s)
Mr. Francis,
In the process of cleaning my mother’s room after taking her to the hospital last night, I discovered that her laptop was open to this web page (or “blog” or whatever you call it).
Needless to say, I was very saddened to read your disturbing comments about the Lord’s “sex organs” and other sick remarks.
In the event you had any doubt about the effect your vile language had on my mother, let me set the record straight: she was very upset.
Last night the Lord decided to call her soul back to heaven. She died of heart failure.
Mike H.
Comment #12764
Posted by Great White Wonder on January 5, 2005 09:53 PM (e) (s)
Just for the record, I noticed that a couple comments re Hewitt’s kissable bee-stung lips were deleted from that thread by one of the Powers That Be.
Hugh, if you want to engage in some serious learnin’ about why is ID is bogus, come to the Bathroom Wall!!! Comments have been shut down on the only post (thus far) to feature your delectable visage.
Comment #12765
Posted by Wayne Francis on January 5, 2005 10:24 PM (e) (s)
Mr. Mike H.
Forgive me if I seem doubtful of your authenticity but I am. If your mother really passed away then I’m sorry for your loss but not sorry for my comments. This is a biology based blog. If you mother was offended by talking about sex organs then she was the one with the issue. I was not profane with my comments. Sex is a natural part of the world and me pointing out that a sole all powerful god would logically not have sex organs for which that god did not need for any purpose should not be offensive.
One would have to wonder why on your mother’s “hour of reckining” she was coming to a site that is dedicated to a site that “discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education” and expect anyone to treat her different then any other person coming here making false statements. If she was so “weak infirmed old lady” she’s done very well to find this site at all.
Would you blame a Hindu for saying that Jesus was not the son of god to your mother if she asked them? Doesn’t Jesus teach you not to lie? For me to say anything but what I said would have me do what you would say Jesus tells us not to do.
In the end I don’t believe you. Either you let your mother spend to much of her “hour of reckining” alone on the internet looking for answers to questions she did not want answered truthfully or you are just a troll. In either case you should seriously take a look inward to how far you are straying from the path of Jesus and not blame outsiders for truthfully answering questions posed to them.
Comment #12796
Posted by Smokey on January 6, 2005 11:09 AM (e) (s)
Wayne,
I’d suggest checking the email address of both Little Old Lady and Mike H, as well as recalibrating your satire detector.
Comment #12798
Posted by Smokey on January 6, 2005 11:12 AM (e) (s)
Wayne,
I’d suggest checking the email address of both Little Old Lady and Mike H. Also, you might think about recalibrating your satire detector.
Comment #12799
Posted by Smokey on January 6, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)
Doh! Disregard whichever of the prior comments you prefer. Damn error messages.
Comment #12844
Posted by Wayne Francis on January 6, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)
I know they come from the same email. My guess is someone was trying to bait GWW but failed miserably. If you are saying that someone like GWW is roleplaying then I was sucked in.
Comment #12854
Posted by Little Old Lady on January 6, 2005 07:48 PM (e) (s)
All is forgiven Wayne!
Who’d have thought they had laptops up here?
But that’s not the only surprise. Christopher Reeve is here with me but he’s still paralyzed! We’re on the same level with all the other invalids but we’re going to petition the Big Guy for some wheelchair accessible ramps.
Comment #12866
Posted by Wayne Francis on January 6, 2005 09:38 PM (e) (s)
Ok…so I was sucked in.
Isn’t the first time and certianly won’t be the last
Comment #13034
Posted by Frank J on January 8, 2005 11:47 AM (e) (s)
Reply to Comment 13030 on the “Brain Evolution” thread:
Let me pose a few questions. Would it be a “false witness” to teach children that natural forces organized nonliving matter into cells and then produced the complex biological systems that we see today?
Only if it is explicitly stated that those forces rule out God, because they don’t.
Would it be “false witness” to teach children that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the law that states systems become disordered over time unless energy is supplied from some source to create order.
Only if it were used to discredit evolution, because that has been long-refuted.
Would it be “false witness” to teach them that there is controversy over whether or not evolutionary processes could have occurred due to this second law of thermodynamics?
Yes, if it is pretended that that is a scientific controversy.
Would it be “false witness” to teach children exactly what both sides are saying concerning this ‘matter”. (no pun intended)
No. But if you have been following this thread, and read the links, you will realize that the pseudoscience side (anti-evolution, pro ID) does not[ want to teach all of what “both sides” are saying. And what they do want to say, they do not want said in an appropriate forum. And they mostly misrepresent the “both sides” as theist vs. atheist, when most educated theists are solidly on the “evolutionist” side.
Would it be “false witness” to teach children that infinitely improbable events would have had to occur for evolution to explain our complex systems that we see today.
See my first reply.
Would it be acceptable to teach that such an infinitely improbable “event” would have been necessary and would be needed not once but repeatedly to produce the evolutionary record we see.
You have it backwards. Abiogenesis occurred at least once by definition; it’s probability is one. Evolution is fine with it being an extremely rare event. It’s most anti-evolutionists (Behe is a notable exception) who suggest that abiogenesis occurred many times.
Would it be ‘honest’ to teach them about the controversy that is raging at this time?
Yes. There are actually 2 controversies. The scientific one about the details is appropriate for science class. The other, which is based on the misrepresentations, is not. Anti-evolutionists pretend that they are one and the same, and quote out of context to do so.
There is certainly enough written that an upper level student will be able to read and consider for himself/herself other ideas. A student will consider other possibilities unless all ideas are squelched in the early elementary grades by teachers who teach children that questioning in the area of evolution is unacceptable. That is what you mean isn’t it, Frank, when you say: “They also know that, given students’ prior misconceptions, all it takes is to teach a few out-of-context “weaknesses” under the pretense of “critical analysis,” and most students will be infer one of the truly “incomplete” alternatives.”
No. Students should not be taught not to question evolution. Evolutionary biologists question evolution every day. Anti-evolutionists don’t question it, they misrepresent it, and they do so based on the caricatured view of evolution and the nature of science that many students learn mostly from the media. Read “Finding Darwin’s God” where Kenneth Miller, a Christian “evolutionist”, criticizes Richard Dawkins for portraying evolution as the caricature that anti-evolutionists love to exploit.
It sounds like you are saying defend even the weaknesses of evolution in order to prevent students from making a mistake and believing that evolution does not explain all our complex systems today.
The perceived “weaknesses” must be taught in context. The anti-evolutionists censor learning by deliberately taking things out of context. You keep harping on the complexity issue. Evolution only claims to explain part of it, and none of it if the “it” is abiogenesis. Meanwhile ID (the strategy, not the belief) claims to explain all of it, and in fact explains none of it. As I said several times ID is not an alternative to evolution; it is at best complementary, and at worst, a misrepresentation. Sadly, most of it’s advocates choose the latter. If you want a scientific alternative that corresponds to typical anti-evolution models, the proper terms would be independent abiogenesis, or if common decent is accepted, saltation or (Behe’s apparent favorite) “front loading.” IDers do not use that terminology because it would expose the weaknesses in them, which are far greater than those of evolution.
That is not teaching at all, it is endoctrinating. This brings one back to the starting point of this debate. Should other ideas be squelched in order to convince children to believe evolution?
It is “endoctrinating” only if you put words in my mouth. Bottom line: “evolutionist” want students to hear the entire story - the science in science class – the unscientific claims in a non-science class, and whatever else students want to learn on their own time. And no one requires the student to believe anything. Anti-evolutionists are the ones who want to “squelch.” I know that sounds counterintuitive, but if you read carefully what our side (mainstream science and mainstream religion) you‘ll understand.
Comment #13043
Posted by Frank J on January 8, 2005 12:56 PM (e) (s)
Would it be “false witness” to teach children that infinitely improbable events would have had to occur for evolution to explain our complex systems that we see today.
I should expand on this. Actually this would be false witness with or without reference to God, because we simply cannot say “infinitely improbable events.” Worse, most of those who frame this as “‘infinitely improbable’ if by evolution but not ‘infinitely improbable’ by some other ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ mechanism” know that they are peddling a false dichotomy.
Comment #13070
Posted by Frank J on January 8, 2005 06:22 PM (e) (s)
Jan, I also want to expand on what I meant by “infer one of the truly ‘incomplete’ alternatives.” It ties in with the Isaac Asimov link from Steve that I hope you read. By now you should know that ID strategists have all but admitted that the mutually contradictory creationist (YEC, OECs, etc) accounts are much more “incomplete” than evolution. But they also know that, by using a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach that avoids critically analyzing those accounts, most students’ prior misconceptions will lead them to infer YEC, or, if they know some science, one of the OECs. Granted, some of the brightest students will conclude evolution (the real one, not your caricature) regardless of how it’s misrepresented. But no matter how you look at it, it is the anti-evolutionists who seek to make it harder for students to get the whole story and conclude for themselves. That of course does not mean that I think that evolution education is not in d
Comment #11589
Posted by Steve on December 11, 2004 12:53 AM (e) (s)
O, how the creationists do suck!