Guest Other-in-law Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Just to be contrary, I think it's actually pretty defensible to claim that humans are descended from monkeys...not simply some non-monkey common ancestor. While 'monkey' is hardly the most precise term , it's generally held to include both the old world catarrhines and the new world platyrrhines. Since apes are a [url="http://whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatephylogeny.htm"]clade[/url] of catarrhines, at least two previous nodes of ape evolution would have branched off of 'monkey' parent taxa. Of course, there are several nodes between humans and their most recent monkey ancestor, but it's at least as accurate as saying that humans are descended from cynodonts. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 [quote name='thebadlady' post='1650234' date='Jan 15 2009, 13.55']As a lol, my mom knows damn well I am atheist but wants me to go to church with her. They have cookies and coffee afterward she says. Ha![/quote] You should totally eat their sinful cookies and drink their decadent coffee and not feel guilty about it. Presuming it is a Catholic church of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thebadlady Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 [quote name='Altherion' post='1650253' date='Jan 15 2009, 13.12']The latter. I do not disagree with your argument -- if there is a God, said God is either not omnipotent or he does not deem suffering to be something that ought to be avoided at all costs. However, I'm not entirely sure which God you're arguing against because the Judeo-Christian-Muslim one doesn't merely passively allow suffering, He actively inflicts it -- sometimes to people who had it coming and sometimes to make a point (what did the Egyptian firstborns from the story of Moses do to deserve their fate?). Yes. I thought more people on this board had played Alpha Centauri...[/quote] They deserved to die because they were Egyptian and God totally hated them for the dis on Moses. Someone has to pay, right? [quote name='cyrano' post='1650277' date='Jan 15 2009, 13.42']You should totally eat their sinful cookies and drink their decadent coffee and not feel guilty about it. Presuming it is a Catholic church of course.[/quote] I am going to have two cups of coffee even. Its Lutheran (mom converted or something) and they have real bread instead of the unleavened round flatbread and they have real wine EVERY WEEK!!! So, yeah...I am going to have wine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackaxx Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 [quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1649931' date='Jan 16 2009, 01.13']There is no shifting of definitions though, Mack. I said I know it's watching and judging, but couldn't speak to the rest. Nothing's doomed here, except the scientific argument when there's no attributable religion or personages purported to speak for their God to argue against. It's alright, you don't have to say you can't disprove it. The evidence is enough. :P[/quote] Mentioning the specific Christian god was for the benefit of everyone else reading this, the context of the overall discussion shifting which had moved specifically away from specific 'gods' to a generic undefined and hard to disprove vague god. What I am trying to point out is that your god simply existing and watching and judging may possibly be disprovable via science one day. It can't be now of course. A god that allegedly does anything at all, even stuff like you mention, immediately holds themselves up to scrutiny as we can in time possibly test if any of these doings are bullshit, if not now then in the future. A god which does nothing would be immune to scrutiny, in doing nothing that god would have to not exist as existence is doing something. So, god does not exist. :stunned: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Oop North Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 This thread is a barrel of lawls and fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herostratus Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I have been lurking on this site for a while now and greatly appreciate all of the great discussion that goes on here. These kind of threads seems to crop up every few months and usually I read and enjoy the back and forth. I am an atheist who as a child going to CCD (catholic study) found the whole story to be just incredible to be real, it went against what was logical to my childish thoughts. Later in life I realized what religion is to me. Religion is a means of control, its a way of keeping the poor meek and the wealthy afraid. Religion is a tool for attaining power and keeping it all for a select few. Religion uses fear of differences to promote bigotry and destruction of other cultures and thought. My opinion is mankind will be better when we stop believing in imaginary super beings and start to believe in ourselves. Sounds corny I know but until we as humans realize that its up to us to save ourselves we will be stuck repeating that same mistakes over and over because "god" told us that was the way things worked. Here is a link to what I think may have cemented my thoughts on religion as an impressionable teenager [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/url] and as always George Carlin says it much better and and alot more funny then I could, Ok back to lurking and enjoying the opinions of the great posters here in westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser King Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1649873' date='Jan 15 2009, 09.01']SWK, I have to say the "irreduciable complexity" argument seems like crap to me. If I remember correctly we believe single celled life arose two and a half billion years ago. That's a [i]very[/i] long time for changes to randomly build into the amazing complexity we see today. On a long enough time line very little is "impossible."[/quote] Not really, because once created fully functional, it has all the ‘mega-information’ in it’s purest form fro mwhich to draw on for replication- As species don’t need to ‘evolve higher’, they are thus not hampered by the impossibilities that face naturalism- and can and do go from completed to less fully functional via adaptions and mutations- which is exactly what we see in nature and the evidences- going from pure to less pure as entropy results (Which perfectly follows the second law) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1650775' date='Jan 15 2009, 20.43']species don’t need to ‘evolve higher’can and do go from completed to less fully functional via adaptions and mutations- which is exactly what we see in nature and the evidences- going from pure to less pure as entropy results (Which perfectly follows the second law)[/quote] :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Wolf Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote]I mean, doesn't she read about how america is dumber than turkey or someplace like that in science.[/quote] And apparently spelling as well: [quote][b]Aethiest[/b] sister vs intellectually lazy [b]relgious[/b] sister[/quote] :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser King Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 To Max & Rockroi Let me also point out htat the species ability to ‘cope with’ mutaitons also goes to show design- especially hwen it is considered that species cope with mutaitons in very specific species specific manners. While it may prove later to be an absolute, for now it is just being possited that only naturalism is incapable of ‘creating’ what we see for hte resons laid out in the article, this would be establishing a scientific ‘law’, not asserting an absolute, however, it can be so resonably correct and pluaible as to render soemthign else like naturalism unreasonable and in violation of the established objective ‘law’ The requirement for autopoiesis is logical. I'v conclude from your posts that you deem the declaration that particular molecular structures are not possilble (by design), you seem to deem it arbitrary. But you've never answeared why, or offered anyreasons to the contrary. IF it establishes a ‘law’, then it’s the most plausible ‘intuitive’ conclusion to coem to- ALL of Macroevolution relies on ‘intuitivennes’ which quite frankly is misplaced as it violates biological, mathematical, and natural laws already established, and so we must compare hte two ‘intuitive’ approaches to see which is the more plausible and reasonable, and hwich more closely follows the ACTUAL evidences objectively- Coming to a reasonable conclusion isn’t ‘arbitrary, but rather a result of pure, objective deductive reasoning that conforms to laws established, This isn’t arbitray, this is forensic objectiveness- Arbitrary is suggesting that a naturalistic process somehow violated several established laws, and overcame severe iompossibilities and resulted in fully completed systems that give ‘the appearance of’ IC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='thebadlady' post='1649415' date='Jan 14 2009, 19.00']The Christian God is an angry, mean, petty, nasty jealous god. Jesus tells people to be nice, but the Jewish/Christian god is a mean ol bastard. When you come down to it, fear of eternal punishment IS why people stay in their faith.[/quote] I'm sorry, but that has not been my experience. It certainly does not sound anything at all like the Christian God that I know and love (to me, it sounds more like the variation that all of my Catholic friends have always described than anything else I know of). I won't ask you to do it in this thread, but if you would be so kind as to send me a private message... Perhaps you could give me a bit more information on what drove you to this conclusion, or some examples that I could review? [quote name='thebadlady' post='1649415' date='Jan 14 2009, 19.00']I think everyone knows the gospels are old. That is a bone of contention for a lot of crazy religious idealization. Take the gospels literally and you have a bunch of contrary crazy psuedofacts. "Just don't leave your mind so wide open that all reason leaks away." Great quote.[/quote] That is a great quote. I hope that I did not give the impression that I was saying that any part of the Bible should be taken literally. It has a history of having been edited (many, many times) to suit the purposes of various people, movements, and ideologies throughout history. [quote name='thebadlady' post='1649415' date='Jan 14 2009, 19.00']We are not a pre-BC audience - why do we need infantile mysticism? If the gospels are to be taken literally, why not the snake, fruit and naked no no's? Cherry picking from the bible is irritating and wishy washy.[/quote] I was only using a hypothetical scenario in an attempt to make a point about the values, principles, and underlying truths that could be deduced from the basic concepts of the stories, [i]if[/i] we realize the capacity for understanding in the original target audience. I clearly did not do a very good job of that... My apologies. [quote name='thebadlady' post='1649415' date='Jan 14 2009, 19.00']I want to stay respectful but this is really the most ... paragraph I have ever read on this board. Why did the Neanderthals die out? Because they couldn't compete with homo homo sapiens. Basically they were the losers in an interplanetary battle To The Death. OMG, please!! Cain and Abel = humans and neanderthals? I can't take that without my eyes bulging. Read that outloud to yourself and see if it sounds ok. Would you try to convince your coworkers with that line of logic?[/quote] I actually have convinced several of my co-workers of exactly that (The Neanderthals cross breeding with early European/Asian humans part), but then again I work at a University. I'm sorry, perhaps this (one example, there are more such articles) will help to better explain my basis for that bit of weirdness: [url="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/814/humans-and-neanderthals-interbred?page=2"]http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/814/hum...nterbred?page=2[/url] [quote name='thebadlady' post='1649415' date='Jan 14 2009, 19.00']You can label yourself however you want.[/quote] Thank you. I think I'll label myself as "Happy" and call it a day. :cheers: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thebadlady Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1650856' date='Jan 15 2009, 22.04']I'm sorry, but that has not been my experience. It certainly does not sound anything at all like the Christian God that I know and love (to me, it sounds more like the variation that all of my Catholic friends have always described than anything else I know of). I won't ask you to do it in this thread, but if you would be so kind as to send me a private message... Perhaps you could give me a bit more information on what drove you to this conclusion, or some examples that I could review? [b]I read the bible. [/b] That is a great quote. I hope that I did not give the impression that I was saying that any part of the Bible should be taken literally. It has a history of having been edited (many, many times) to suit the purposes of various people, movements, and ideologies throughout history. I was only using a hypothetical scenario in an attempt to make a point about the values, principles, and underlying truths that could be deduced from the basic concepts of the stories, [i]if[/i] we realize the capacity for understanding in the original target audience. I clearly did not do a very good job of that... My apologies. I actually have convinced several of my co-workers of exactly that (The Neanderthals cross breeding with early European/Asian humans part), but then again I work at a University. I'm sorry, perhaps this (one example, there are more such articles) will help to better explain my basis for that bit of weirdness: [url="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/814/humans-and-neanderthals-interbred?page=2"]http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/814/hum...nterbred?page=2[/url] [b] If you watch the videos (most excellent videos really) that mackaxx posted, you will learn why so much of what you said is just...bizzare.[/b] Thank you. I think I'll label myself as "Happy" and call it a day. :cheers: [b]Refer to mackaxx's sig line.[/b][/quote] I am exhausted from trying to force feed science in the 18th century and beyond, so if anyone else has been beaten by the stupid stick...too damned bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_BlauerDragon Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='thebadlady' post='1650858' date='Jan 15 2009, 21.10']I am exhausted from trying to force feed science in the 18th century and beyond, so if anyone else has been beaten by the stupid stick...too damned bad.[/quote] I was referring to his signature line (when I said I'd lebel myself "Happy", I am going to go back through and look for those videos, and I really was not trying to extend the argument further (I actually never wanted to get in it to begin with, and wish I'd have just let the insulting bias in the title slide). I do thank you all for being so civil in your responses, and I bid you good night (or day, as your case may be). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thebadlady Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1650864' date='Jan 15 2009, 22.17']I was referring to his signature line (when I said I'd lebel myself "Happy", I am going to go back through and look for those videos, and I really was not trying to extend the argument further (I actually never wanted to get in it to begin with, and wish I'd have just let the insulting bias in the title slide). I do thank you all for being so civil in your responses, and I bid you good night (or day, as your case may be).[/quote] Night, cold, dark, Other-filled dark. I am on the Wall. :lol: The videos are great, I watched all of them just because they are awesome. (And the accent is awesome to listen to as well. ha!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackaxx Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1650775' date='Jan 16 2009, 13.43']Not really, because [b]once created fully functional[/b], it has all the [b]‘mega-information’[/b] in it’s purest form fro mwhich to draw on for replication- As [b]species don’t need to ‘evolve higher’[/b], they are [b]thus not hampered by the impossibilities that face naturalism[/b]- and [b]can and do go from completed to less fully functional via adaptions and mutations[/b]- which is exactly what we see in nature and the evidences- [b]going from pure to less pure as entropy results [/b](Which perfectly follows the second law)[/quote] This is all made up tosh. Mega information is a made up term. Species don't need to evolve higher really shows to me you have no idea whatsoever about evolution (not that I didnt know that already) Impossibilities that face naturalism is a meaningless statement. The idea the things 'devolve' into less fully functional things via adaptation is again startling ignorant of exactly what evolution is. In regard to your last point on entropy, the earth is not a closed system, the sun gives it craploads of energy every day. Utter bollocks. If anyone read that post, and took it seriously, they are now stupider for doing so. People are not laughing because they fail to see the light, they are laughing because this is all beyond ridiculous in its ignorance, bordering on someone cleverly making an anti-evolution alt to stimulate conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackaxx Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Thanks for not addressing any of my earlier refutations, I guess you concede them. Anyway, onward christian soldiers and all that [quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1650789' date='Jan 16 2009, 13.57']Let me also point out htat the species ability to ‘cope with’ mutaitons also goes to show design- especially hwen it is considered that species cope with mutaitons in very specific species specific manners.[/quote] Except they don't, the way species repair their DNA (which is what 'mutations' occur in' is quite conserved in across species. Most eukaryotes (thats us) have the same DNA repair enzymes, there are small differences to be sure, but ours and 'monkeys' are practically identical. So the notion that a creator made lots of different ways to cope with mutations that differ widely between species is utter bunk. Of course, you may be talking in a completely different context and have 'mutations' wrong. [quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1650789' date='Jan 16 2009, 13.57']While it may prove later to be an absolute, for now it is just being possited that only naturalism is incapable of ‘creating’ what we see for hte resons laid out in the article, this would be establishing a scientific ‘law’, not asserting an absolute, however, it can be so resonably correct and pluaible as to render soemthign else like naturalism unreasonable and in violation of the established objective ‘law’[/quote] Good scholarship involves making something easy to read, that helps in getting your point across. This paragraph does not achieve that. By naturalism not being able to 'create' I assume you haven't been to this web page [url="http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html"]http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html[/url] Which has a great big list of speciation observed science quite recently, thats the creation of a new species. I can also point to the abiogenesis stuff which you still haven't watched. [quote name='Ser Wolf King' post='1650789' date='Jan 16 2009, 13.57']The requirement for autopoiesis is logical. I'v conclude from your posts that you deem the declaration that particular molecular structures are not possilble (by design), you seem to deem it arbitrary. But you've never answeared why, or offered anyreasons to the contrary. IF it establishes a ‘law’, then it’s the most plausible ‘intuitive’ conclusion to coem to- ALL of Macroevolution relies on ‘intuitivennes’ which quite frankly is misplaced as it violates biological, mathematical, and natural laws already established, and so we must compare hte two ‘intuitive’ approaches to see which is the more plausible and reasonable, and hwich more closely follows the ACTUAL evidences objectively- Coming to a reasonable conclusion isn’t ‘arbitrary, but rather a result of pure, objective deductive reasoning that conforms to laws established, This isn’t arbitray, this is forensic objectiveness- Arbitrary is suggesting that a naturalistic process somehow violated several established laws, and overcame severe iompossibilities and resulted in fully completed systems that give ‘the appearance of’ IC[/quote] When theology and science collide, what a mess. Rightyo, in respect to macroevolution you should refer to the speciation evidence stuff, which takes care of that. The incomprehensible jumble of poorly spelled words all falls on its head after this. For shits and giggles, list for me which laws macroevolution breaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackaxx Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1650856' date='Jan 16 2009, 15.04']I'm sorry, but that has not been my experience. It certainly does not sound anything at all like the Christian God that I know and love (to me, it sounds more like the variation that all of my Catholic friends have always described than anything else I know of). I won't ask you to do it in this thread, but if you would be so kind as to send me a private message... Perhaps you could give me a bit more information on what drove you to this conclusion, or some examples that I could review?[/quote] Sorry to be trite but you could review the bible. as you say you can't take it literally but you can interpret it, some people interpret god to be a bit nasty, what with all the quartered concubines, bears tearing kids apart, sexism, wife swapping and so forth. sa you say, we interpret. [quote name='the Blauer Dragon' post='1650856' date='Jan 16 2009, 15.04']I was only using a hypothetical scenario in an attempt to make a point about the values, principles, and underlying truths that could be deduced from the basic concepts of the stories, [i]if[/i] we realize the capacity for understanding in the original target audience. I clearly did not do a very good job of that... My apologies.[/quote] She is just pointing out that its all well and good to say you have to take it as a metaphor. But then, whats the point, you can make it mean anything, nasty stuff too. Rinse and repeat for the Cain and Abel stuff. At least the fundamentalists are honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mackaxx Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 [quote name='thebadlady' post='1650869' date='Jan 16 2009, 15.19']Night, cold, dark, Other-filled dark. I am on the Wall. :lol: The videos are great, I watched all of them just because they are awesome. (And the accent is awesome to listen to as well. ha!)[/quote] This guys good [url="http://au.youtube.com/user/AronRa"]http://au.youtube.com/user/AronRa[/url] So's this one [url="http://au.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2"]http://au.youtube.com/user/DonExodus2[/url] So is this fella (other channel of that other guy) [url="http://au.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks"]http://au.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks[/url] This guys ok too [url="http://au.youtube.com/user/cdk007"]http://au.youtube.com/user/cdk007[/url] Thunderf00t is excellent too, except he's been having a bit of a public tiff with an arsehole creationist trying to shut down his channel or somesuch [url="http://au.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t"]http://au.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Dear me. The argument from design, now? :rolleyes: SWK, since I've covered every other kind of fallacy in this thread, I recommend you read up on the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity"]argument from personal incredulity[/url]. This is the 'argument from design' in a nutshell: 'I can't conceive of how life could have evolved without a conscious design, therefore there must be a designer (i.e. God)'. It is appealing to your own intellectual limitations as evidence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Watching... judging... the MI5 are watching and judging me everywhere I go. I just KNOW they are. They're watching me RIGHT NOW. And JUDGING. You can't find their hidden cameras? That's because they're hidden REALLY WELL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.