Superstition and other definitions « Gaming Outpost Discussions

Gaming Outpost Discussions » Roleplaying Games

Superstition and other definitions

(89 posts) (8 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Brock
Latest reply from JohnA1nut

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 12

Graham
Member

Tad; to the direct question you asked of me, yes, because I respect that my professors know things I do not. For instance, if I was in a theology class and my professor said "Within the realm of this classroom, evolution is ignorant and Genesis is literal," I would be completely satisfied with that.

As to everything else, my mind is so baffled by the wealth of things I would want to correct that I can't take the time to bother drafting a response, so Tad, consider this your battle if it makes you feel better, because I'm apathetic after going through the motions so many times.

Wait why are we talking about dark matter?

Tue Jun 30 2009 6:39 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

But if you look under index of evolutionist claims you find...

1. Piltdown Man
2. Nebraska Man (a pig tooth that helped sway the Scopes Trial).
3. Java Man (the discoverer found something that discredited his discovery nearby, so being a good evolutionist he hid it under his floorboards for thirty years.)
4. Neanderthal Man--not liking the way this one bent his favored version of Evo toward another version, the lead evo on this propagated the public image of a stooped man which he knew to be false.
5. Haeckel's embryololgy was known to be false in the 18th century, yet another fraud, and it was taught in the latter part of the 20th century as true.
6.....You get the point. You can find Evo's claims under 'Fraud'.

If we're going to trade websites, may I reccommend ICR.org, and Post-Darwinist, Darwinian Fundamental...ism or ists...

I suspect P-D would be the most sympatico to Brock as the writer, a very bright and clear woman, is not a Young Earth Creationist. ICR is YEC, and it has a lot of good articles.

Dembski's website might be good, but too me its too technical, and his writing lacks sparkle.

Edit: There are of course, honorable evolutionists, but its surprising just how much fraud and bad science attends evolution.

Tue Jun 30 2009 6:44 pm #
WilliamTWodium
Member

And under Creationist Claims you find all of Tad's complaints and issues with 1-6 addressed, explained, and refuted.

But since the links were offered in the spirit of providing resources to a person seeking knowledge, I certainly don't mind that you're providing links of your own.

Tue Jun 30 2009 6:52 pm #
Brock
Member

Thanks, that is very enlightening, and the sites really help. That should be enough info for my purposes. Thanks again!

Tue Jun 30 2009 11:02 pm #
johnosevens
Member

Tad - It is my belief that the karmic effects of attempting to attack someone with magic would happen to you regardless of whether or not it worked. It was your intent to cause harm, and you acted upon it. The fact that it didn't work might make it easier for you to forgive yourself later (indicative of a slightly lesser karmic backlash) but you're still going to get what's coming to you. Also, it could be that the skill of the coachman stopping the bad things from happening is a manifestation of your spell simply not working at all, in which case, nothing would befall you, as you didn't technically use any magic. It depends on what you believe. I know from personal experience that the one time I used magic to 'curse' someone, I couldn't then do anything else for a period of about a year. In-game I use spells to do things like increase my attacks and damage. In real life, I mostly focus on helping people as inoffensively as possible. I believe, based on my experience with calling upon the divine, that it is much safer that way. As always, your mileage may vary.

Tue Jun 30 2009 11:57 pm #
JTM
Member

If DM was gathered in one spot, or large clumps, it should have a detectable gravitational effect. Nope.

See, here you're just plain wrong. It does have such an effect. That is why we know it exists. The observed effects of dark matter include:
1. Bending of light by gravity that is ten times greater than the observed mass
2. Outer stars orbiting galactic centers at rates greater than would be expected
3. Those megastructures, given the observed evidence of the big bang and size of the observable universe.

Why else did you think we believe it exists?

On a different note, can you provide an actual motive for large scale fraud by scientists, the catholic church, and a large number of other religious figures and theologians?tive for large scale fraud by scientists, and a large number of religious figures and theologians? I've never heard such an explanation before, or at least not one that accounts for the original formation of the theory of evolution.

Wed Jul 1 2009 12:12 am #
Tadeusz
Member

07,
Although most Christians don't reccomend 'imprecatory' prayers, I'm not sure its actually bad. And of course, there's the OT prophets who do things like call fire from heaven which definitely falls in the attacking others category. That's my mileage.

For the story, hmmm, I might go with some magic nullification which is not something I would have likely chosen otherwise.

Tadeusz

Wed Jul 1 2009 12:48 am #
johnosevens
Member

True. And there are cases when such things are called for. Didn't the Old Testament prophets do that in what was essentially a contest of divine power against the prophets of Ba'al (and happened to win)? That sort of thing, defense of the faith, I've never seen a religion that didn't make an exception for that, right up there with defense of self, except perhaps the most extreme of Buddhist philosophies.

Wed Jul 1 2009 12:50 am #
Brock
Member

Hmm, yes, my philosophy on the harming of others makes it only acceptable when thus: One must protect Life, Limb, and Livelihood. The livelihood one must be a very real threat to your ability to perform your chosen career, not lashing out at rivals.

As for protecting the faith, well, that is usually unnecessary, but should it be necessary, I would include it in Livelihood-the right to live your life as you choose.

Oh, and yes, I do believe in karma, though it doesn't necessarily come back threefold, and it usually is more covert than overt, no obvious connection to the action that precipitated it unless it it was an extreme action, or magic related.

Wed Jul 1 2009 1:01 am #
Graham
Member

I think the modern idea of karma is warped from the original idea; that actions made by intelligent creatures will always have consequences, creating a cause and effect chain. Not that you build up spiritual morality points one way or the other until something good or bad happens.

Wed Jul 1 2009 1:05 am #
Brock
Member

spiritual morality points? what? Of course it is a cause and effect chain!

Wed Jul 1 2009 1:35 am #
Graham
Member

Like, the people that say they're improving their good karma by giving to the poor, or when the tree smashes into their car, that it was karma because they yelled at an employee today. Forgive me if I was unclear, a points-based reward system was the best I could come up with.

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:04 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Sow to the wind, reap the whirlwind...something like that, or just that is in the Bible somewhere. I've also heard the Law of Sowing preached, and one point is made...you get back more than you gave.

Now lets sow some discord...:)

JTM,
Big Bang needed a fudge factor was my impression. I'll look up your points later.

There are a ton of different reasons. I'll restrict myself to two. Read Leewontin's quote. Is this guy going to give a fair-minded assessment of the evidence? If this guy were sitting on your tenure approval board, and you were a young professor seeking tenure who had been incautious in confessing some Creationist sympathies would he vote thumbs up, or would he have you tossed to the lions as a heretic (mixing metaphors.)?

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:11 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

Guys, I think we seriously need to slow down on the posting here. MJ has to read through all of this. The longer he spends on the extra stuff, the longer it will take him to get to the games. I know, me telling people not to post is kind of hypocritical, but I'm trying to slow my posting down as much as possible. This has gotten to almost 60 posts in less than 24 hours.

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:13 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator
Superstition: anything believed irrationally, that is, without a rational foundation of some sort. Religion is sometimes called superstition, but only by those who believe it inherently irrational; the evidence for religion can be as solidly rational as that for anything else. It thus is not superstitious even if you, personally, do not believe it, any more than that it would be superstitious to choose the Big Bang theory over the Microbangs theory or the Steady State cosmology--three competing theories of the "origin" of the universe, each of which can be shown to have some rational basis. In the same way, neither Darwinism nor Creationism is superstition, because both are based on rational and articulable reasons.

Coincidence: the etymology of this word, co-incident, gives the fundamental meaning: two events which may or may not be connected which happen to occur in spatial or temporal proximity to each other in a way that suggests a possible relationship. Thus if the First National Bank is robbed at one o'clock and the Second National Bank at two o'clock and the Third National Bank at three o'clock, that is coincident in the literal sense that the three events occurred in a way that suggests possible connection. It might be that there is an actual connection, such as that the same thieves are responsible for all three robberies and it's part of some larger scheme (such as that at four o'clock they will be robbing not the Fourth National Bank, which will by then be heavily protected, but the Federal Credit Union, which will be a pretty easy job with all the cops somewhere else), but there might not be any connection at all. The word is used frequently in a limiting way, to say that something "is a coincidence" is a shorthand way of saying that it "is just a coincidence". That is, it certainly is coincident if someone prays for healing and is healed; that's why it is interesting--it would not matter at all if the two events were not coincident. Saying, though, that it is "just coincident" means that they are not actually connected to each other, but that it merely happens that the person prayed about the same time he was healed, and would have recovered whether or not he had prayed. The problem is, it is very difficult sometimes to distinguished what coincident events are actually related to each other and which are merely coincident.

Thus things may be "coincidental" all the time, but it is much more difficult to prove that they are "just coincidental", that there is not some common cause or actor arranging such events to occur together.

Getting back to superstition, a lot of "superstitions" are "caused" by perfectly rational thinking being reduced to single statements. Here are a few examples:
- Black cats are difficult to see, and the more difficult in dark places. It is easy to trip over an object you cannot see. Thus if a black cat passes closely in front of you, there's a good chance that you could trip and be injured. Thus, It is bad luck if a black cat crosses your path.
- Mirrors are generally made of glass, silvered with heavy metals. We use them in bed chambers and bathrooms, both places where we are likely to go barefoot. If you break something made of glass, you will have a very difficult time sweeping up all the tiny sharp shards of glass, and it may be years later that your bare feet pick up a fragment, leading to a puncture wound and splinter that might become infected. Therefore, Breaking a mirror will bring you seven years' bad luck.
- Ladders are used by workmen, who carry heavy tools, buckets of chemicals, and other dangerous objects up these relatively unstable structures. If you happen to bump the ladder, you might destabilize it, and someone or something might fall. Even if you are careful enough not to bump it, it still might be the case that something could be dropped which might hit you. We conclude that it is bad luck to walk under a ladder.
I've got an article in the Game Ideas Unlimited series somewhere on this, but I don't think I can find it right now.

From Brock:

In order for me to accept any part of someone's theory, it must be non-religious, because I view religion as a form of bias, a belief that a person has that won't be altered.
Ah, but irreligion is also a form of bias. You cannot actually have an unbiased position on religion, and you cannot have an unbiased position on anything else, because your position on religion will inherently impact everything else.

As to Graham's mother, shame on her. I readily admit that I do not know whether evolution, Darwinian, theistic, or other, is a "fact", but I do know that the evidence for it has been pretty thin on the ground. Even people who are not at all interested in a religious answer recognize that the pieces we ought to have found are not there. For example, in one non-religious debate one person claimed that there was not a single example of a progression of forms through an evolutionary sequence. His opponent said of course there was, there was the equine exhibit at the Smithsonian. The first person said, no, that's not what that is; that is only a collection of related creatures from different places and times arranged as if they were such a progression. The opponent's answer? "Oh, yeah. I forgot." So many facts have been presented as supporting evolution that really don't, that it is difficult to identify which facts (if any) really do. Evolution is a theory that explains a great deal if it is correct, but which has not really been shown conclusively to be correct. There are some who believe that life on earth was intelligently designed by life elsewhere--not a "religious" position (in the traditional sense) at all, but an admission that the naturalist/materialist assumptions of traditional evolutionary theory are inadequate for at least some non-religious scientists.

Concerning the time travel theory--are you talking about the theory I actually hold, which I have come more recently to call "the replacement theory" and which I describe and defend at Temporal Anomalies in Popular Time Travel Movies, or the incomplete theory I was exploring here at gaming outpost under the title A Draft: Toward Two-Dimensional Time? Either way, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am so accustomed to receiving e-mail from people saying either that they had never understood it before or that I really have everything all wrong and don't understand it at all. So it's actually refreshing to find someone who not only agrees but has already thought of this independently--particularly if you really did think of all of it already, as usually people who got it only got part of it.

Kirk is wrong about his glasses: the ones he was given were not broken, so the ones he is selling are not the ones he is going to be given. That is, at the moment he brings them to the past, there are two such pairs of glasses, one of which has a broken lens. McCoy will eventually acquire the ones with the unbroken lens and give it to him, and this other pair will wind up elsewhere.

As to the T-800's arm, that's a different sort of puzzle, but it's only really a problem if you're trying to make the story a fixed time story. It is very easily resolved in replacement theory, and not that difficult under parallel dimension theory.

That's a lot of disjointed stuff in response to a very disjointed thread.

Oh, I too am interested in the answer to Eric's question: if a Wiccan intends harm by magic, but some outside interference prevents the harm from being effected, is he still guilty?

--M. J. Young
Wed Jul 1 2009 2:14 am #
M. J. Young
Moderator

And again I cross posted with a lot of posts--thanks for the answer to the question, Harry. This was a very long thread to read, but maybe I benefited from it.

--M. J. Young

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:19 am #
Brock
Member

"Ah, but irreligion is also a form of bias. You cannot actually have an unbiased position on religion, and you cannot have an unbiased position on anything else, because your position on religion will inherently impact everything else"

which is why I reconsidered and said, "Then again, science could be said to be a form of bias, so I think I'll just stop talking now, heh. Don't want an argument."

I reconsidered my standpoint, but it's hard to make that clear without the ability to accurately impart the sound of my voice. Sorry about that. I meant by that exactly what you said, I'm biased either way so I am shutting up.

"Concerning the time travel theory--are you talking about the theory I actually hold, which I have come more recently to call "the replacement theory" and which I describe and defend at Temporal Anomalies in Popular Time Travel Movies, or the incomplete theory I was exploring here at gaming outpost under the title A Draft: Toward Two-Dimensional Time? Either way, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am so accustomed to receiving e-mail from people saying either that they had never understood it before or that I really have everything all wrong and don't understand it at all. So it's actually refreshing to find someone who not only agrees but has already thought of this independently--particularly if you really did think of all of it already, as usually people who got it only got part of it."

The replacement theory. I found that site before I came here, but I only just buckled down and started reading it.
As I said, it's the same basic theory, but outlined in more detail on your site, probably because it was your intent to share with people while mine was just to think about it. Also, you make a study of time travel movies, which I haven't done. It was the time travel itself that was interesting.

and as for the question: From what I recall, yes. In almost all divine things I have witnessed, the intent is what truly matters. But: A Wiccan won't intend harm by magic, it is against the Rede and makes them into a religion that is only similar to Wicca. True Wiccans follow the Rede, and new religions that do not but call themselves Wicca are just using the name, but not the spirit. It's a common misconception, made the worse by published books that disagree with the Rede but call themselves Wiccan. When a Wiccan must defend their faith, they do so passively. On the other hand, one could say that the meaning of Wicca is lost now, due to the people who claim to be Wiccan but are not. The term I hear for people who are very similar to Wiccan except the Rede is usually Neo-Pagan, which is also remarkably inaccurate, and can apply to a lot of people who are not similar.

Edited btw.

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:30 am #
Brock
Member

I think 'true Wiccans' call themselves White Wiccans or something like that nowadays. I'm a bit out of touch, I finished my year and a day apprenticeship and then went on to study other things.

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:40 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Wodium,
Its not between lizard and fish, its between Lizard Ver. 1 and Lizard Ver. 1.00000001. You have two competitors for the same niche, one is minisculely more adapted than the other one, he survives, the other one dies. Evolution proceeds. Repeat process a thousand thousand times, and the lizard is now flying.

That's evo.

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:45 am #
Brock
Member

Hmmm...I may have poked a hornet's nest three times and tapped my foot with this thread.... (that is a very obscure reference, I wonder if anyone will get it)

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:48 am #
JTM
Member

eric

Actually, dark matter was initally used to explain discrepancies in different classes of data relating to gravitational distortion of light, but the plain fact is that the theories work at short distances regardless of dark matter, and not at long distances without it, and that effect can most easily be described by dark matter. It could also be explained by unknown physical forces, but the ultimate effect is the same and one is less complicated. I do recall that the LHC will be trying to generate dark matter, so if we're lucky a definte answer will come of that.

So a more accurate analogy would be someone sitting on a chair flying down the interstate at 60 MPH and otherwise seeming to be in a car.

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:53 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Well, how about discussing world design? Any ideas on that you have? What about an alternate reality where the dominant religion is Wicca.

Would it split like Protestants do, or be unitary (mostly, but with a few major groups like the Moslems)? Would they develop constitutional gov't, or is monarchy or priest kings more likely?

Wed Jul 1 2009 2:56 am #
WilliamTWodium
Member

Tad: try to keep in mind that evolution acts over populations, not individuals. I've forgotten what your objection was, but your lizard example is framed on a suspiciously individual level, and that misconception may be feeding others of your misconceptions.

Wed Jul 1 2009 3:00 am #
Tadeusz
Member

JTM,
Or it could be like the Oort Cloud which has to exist because comets are here, and comets would have been swept up after 10k years. OTOH, maybe the Oort Cloud isn't there, and the theory that says it must be is just flat mistaken.

Maybe there is no car, and that steering wheel is actually a probe from a passing UFO.

At one time, everyone was sure Ether existed.

Edited.

Wed Jul 1 2009 3:11 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Wodium,
I hoped I wouldn't have to be that precise, but yes, I had populations in mind.

Wed Jul 1 2009 3:17 am #
JTM
Member

The speculated source of superstition is that it's the result of a tendency for the human brain to err on the side of caution in detecting patterns, because seeing a lion where there isn't one will generally not kill you, while not seeing a lion where there is one often will.

But that's evolutionary neuroscience, which combines a lack of clear data with a quick-changing field, so no certainty there.

Eric

Well, the analogy with the Oort cloud is accurate, but only because we have even better evidence for the Oort cloud than the 10K lifespan comets. Namely, the 500 or less year lifespan comets we see around.

The thing is, dark matter explains things which are happening now, and was later found to explain oddities in big bang theory, which it actually predates.

Wed Jul 1 2009 3:55 am #
Tadeusz
Member

I'm not going to count DM and Oort Clouds as superstition...

==Short-term Comets

+Somebody should thank him for reminding me of yet another piece of evidence for an ancient solar system. Some of the very shortest-period comets can degrade in as little as 500 years, yet we still observe them in the sky. Therefore, the "comet capture" theory is obviously correct, since we've definitely been around for more than 500 years so the young ones must be coming from an external source.

==Please notice that the author cites no reference for this figure and this author has seen no such figure before.

The above is part of a fisking from CreationWiki of a TalkOrigins claim by a Mr. Wong. I'm assuming Mr. Wong is your source for this claim?

Thu Jul 2 2009 12:24 am #
JTM
Member

Yup, and it seems he was incorrect, or possibly made a typo. Seems the lower end of comet lifespans is 1,500 years.

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap03.htm
http://www.nwcreation.net/lycklama/young.ppt
http://williamsfamilyplayers.com/creation_revised2001.htm
http://www.biblicaldiscipleship.org/Creation_vs_Evolution/Young%20Earth.ppt

No, the choice of sources was not dictated by a sense of irony.

Thu Jul 2 2009 1:07 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Our local Chinese restaurant is Wong Gardens which makes me want to crack wise.

Could be a typo, easy enough to drop a '1'.

If there are comets that are younger than 6,000 years, and I think everyone assumes there are, then that means there is some form of replenishment of comets. I'm hoping to revisit this later with you once I get down to some research, but for now, I'll say touche' on this one issue.

Which means Evos 1! and Creationists 20! or so.

Thu Jul 2 2009 3:37 am #
Brock
Member

....You're kidding right? A count? How can you keep that kind of count if you aren;t kidding? In debates as vehement as this subject often has, each side is already certain of their victory and a point is rarely conceded. Any vehement evo supporter could reverse that score and be totally correct in their mind. I hope you were kidding.

Thu Jul 2 2009 11:58 am #
Graham
Member

Yeah but creationist points are points like unicorns are horses, so I'm not really all that worried about it.

...Kidding

Thu Jul 2 2009 2:47 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

Remember that long list of things I put down in response to your questions, Brock? The ones nobody answered? Each of those is a devastating point.

Brock, I will concede a point because I like to think I'm more fair-minded and open-minded than many of my opponents. This means when I say "I won" it has extra validity because I've proven myself honorable.

The Oort Cloud qualifies as Wild Speculation with perhaps a glimmer of evidence. I gave the point to JTM since, unlike others, he was a gent, and because I had even less than Wild Speculation. But winning a poker hand with a four and a five tain't much. But it is a point.

Thu Jul 2 2009 6:00 pm #
WilliamTWodium
Member

Remember that long list of things I put down in response to your questions, Brock? The ones nobody answered? Each of those is a devastating point.

No. But I'm not arguing them with you.

Thu Jul 2 2009 10:36 pm #
Tadeusz
Member

Well maybe, you're 'not arguing' arguing when you're claiming that the TalkOrigins archive refutes my points. And there were a number of points that were actually raised and dealt with by both sides with my impression being of Creationists' victory on those alone.

Remember, I just wrote almost a whole first draft of a novel on Darwin, and making fun of him. Its not exactly a fair fight. How about we wait until you write a novel defending the honor of the Saint of the Galapagos, and then you can come back and clean my clock?

I did find one thing of interest in my research for the novel, 'Darwin's World'. There were very few jokes about Darwin. Lots and lots of jokes by Evos about Creationists and so on, but few japes and jibes coming the other way. It was not what I expected.

Thu Jul 2 2009 11:12 pm #
WilliamTWodium
Member

Tad, you're not going to bait me into an argument with your derision.

And there were a number of points that were actually raised and dealt with by both sides with my impression being of Creationists' victory on those alone.

I am intensely dissatisfied with nearly all of the attempts at opposition of your points in this thread, with the exception of posts by James (which even you conceded were strong). If I had the time and inclination, I would refute even those who have been attempting to argue against you.

I suppose the short version of that is that you might be winning an argument with some people, or you might not, but that has nothing to do with the validity of your points.

I doubt I could ever convince you personally, but I dearly wish I could take a month or two off and argue with you - right now. I am confident that any impartial judge would award me victory. It would be sometime in December, but I would carry the day.

Well maybe, you're 'not arguing' arguing when you're claiming that the TalkOrigins archive refutes my points.

No, I'm not. What I'm doing in that post is pointing out that being unopposed does not mean your arguments are 'devestating.' If I can't spare the time to refute you in public, the least I can do is point bystanders in the direction of the truth.

Fri Jul 3 2009 1:39 am #
JTM
Member

Okay, time to dispute your points, since i dislike you claiming victory because no one really wants to put up with this again.

1. Evolution can and does lead to gradual extinctions, especially when the population is not large compared to the food source. Furthermore, the difference between homo sapiens and Neanderthals is fairly minor, and both species traded with each other.
2. A canyon carved out of volcanic ash and a recent mountainside collapse is rather different from the grand canyon.

Not having seen the grand canyon, I can't exactly say if such evidence is present, though i highly suspect that it'd have gotten compressed to nothing as part of the sediment to rock process. However, the canyon being cut deep into hard rock isn't exactly a likely result of a flood.

Source the stalactite claim, so i can get details

3. If you mean the brown areas i think you mean, fault lines are known to stay in roughly the same place

4. Source A. B is artificial selection, and not of a type that leads to evolution, because future generations of great Danes aren't exactly able to be less likely to be killed by death robots.

5. It is entirely likely arrow shapes have been formed from rocks somewhere in the universe

6. However, a stronger jaw is useful independently, and jaws are often stronger than is needed to support the muscles. While I'm at it, I'll head off the eye argument. A single photosensitive cell would allow an animal to determine whether an area is most likely full of plants.

7. Polonium halos are exclusively found in rock with uranium halos. A decay product of uranium is polonium. This is not likely just a coincidence.

8. Actually, the myths are mostly based off cultural fear of great floods, and possibly also from catastrophic local floods. They are likely as literally true as the stories of a 50 foot tall lumberjack with a giant blue ox from the American Midwest.

9. Cerebral cortex.

Re: determinism. It doesn't work that way. I'm sure you are willing to agree that, knowing what you did at the time you made a given decision, you would not have made it any other way. That is how it works.

Re: Darwin. He wasn't an atheist. That is precisely why he delayed publishing his results, because it seemed to clash with his religious belief.

Furthermore, atheists are not mad at God, since they do not believe he exists.

Next bit.

1. A flood would not produce the grand canyon.

2. The ice age could also get the icepack from oceanic freezing, which is where the modern icepack come from

Next bit

1. Errors. If you used the wrong method, that would actually be below the margin of error for some of them.

2. Source this, but i suspect errors again, sample contamination, or snails consuming sedimentary rock, which is a known source of errors

3. Collagen doesn't decay radioactively, so it was probably preserved by the fossilization. Rare, but so are raptor feather patterns.

4. But not metamorphic layers.

5. I find it hard to believe no one noticed that during Arctic studies, since we have a known rate at which it thickens annually.

6.
A. if true, there is no way to tell the age of the universe
B. I rather doubt that a black hole could cause that much time dilation without matter getting close enough to the event horizon to spagettify (Actual Term).

Next bit

Guess which side figured all of these out and announced them.

Finally, still no clear motive for darwin and his contemporaries to commit the fraud, only, at most, a motive to perpetuate it.

Fri Jul 3 2009 2:14 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Wodium,
No, I didn't concede they were strong. Winning a hand with a 4 and a 5 is pathetic. Check your poker rules. I said that his pathetic arguement was the best offered, and he actually did well enough to get a point.

JTM,
You made me smile some, but not in a way you're likely to like.

1. Unsupported claim first. Yes, Neanderthals and Humans traded with each other. That's cause Neanderthals are humans with rickets.

2. Nah.

Its just a matter of scale. And the GC was probably pretty soft at the time. Volcanic tufa (a type of rock) is soft to the carving, but hardens when exposed to air.

The picture came from a Kent Hovind video on Creationism. It showed a man standing in a basement next to a pillar. There were numerous other pictures of mines and parking garages.

3. Look at the American West. There is an American Indian legend that gods came down and fought in Alabama, and thats why the place is so 'wrinkled'. There are a number of water bodies on this planet that look suspiciously circular.

I'd say this was wild speculation, but Chixlcub the dinokiller asteroid is considered mainstream science now.

4. Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells would probably have that data. Bones of Contention might too. I read it in a book a while ago.

I talked about a general loss of genes for smallness and yappiness. Brock tells me evolution is 'change over time'. This is change over time. Just what is the definition of evolution. Will we ever know?

Yes, thats sarcasm, but deserved it is/Yoda.

5. Hmmm, maybe. Now how about something that is ten to the thousand times more complex?

This is straightforward logic...the only thing we've seen thats made a message is a mind. You see a message....

6. A jawbone suited for a soft-tissue eater is going to have muscalature suited to such. Changing and upgrading the jawbone to one suited to a bone-cruncher is going to be a waste of energy (and thus be selected against) and the musclature to power that stronger jaw is not going to arrive before the jawbone is selected against.

7. I think he answers this in Creation's Tiny Mysteries. I'm not sure. I'm just going to reccommend you read the book. Laziness kicking in. Besides, its a really solid book.

8. So our ancestors were clueless and they couldn't tell the difference between grandpa's fish stories and his serious warnings. M'kay.

All 200 of them, dispersed over the planet, having roughly the same story. What are the odds of that?

9. I'd heard that was disproven and kinda out of date theory.

Character being destiny is not determinism.

Darwin did not support the God of the Bible. The point of his work was to remove the necessity of God from Creation. I don't know his heart, but I may have read a claim to be an agnostic.

Atheists not angry at God? Many of the ones I've talked to have been.

1. Yes it would. Woohooo! I'm so totally smart! Now its your turn to say 'no way, dude!'

2. Thats a largely unsupported statement. Just how did we get from oceanic icepaks to glacier ice carving up the Ten Thousand Lakes in Minnesota?

1. So you're left with impugning the basic skill of the scientists involved. Could be. Hey, can I impugn the skill of Darwin? He wasn't very good as an experimentalist after all.

2. Same Kent Hovind vid.

3. Collagen doesn't decay radioactively...not to the point. The question is, why is something that should not be there, that should be gone after thirty thousand years, there after Seventy Million Years?

4. Metamorphic. Break up stuff, heat it, squish it together again? That couldn't happen fast near a volcano or in the wake of a global flood (or since a lot of Creationists think they went together, lots of volcanoes blasting off at the same time as a global flood.)

5. People are never self-deluding and find what they want to find instead of what's actually there, right? We're all biased. I want to find proof of Creation. We should strive to be honest and objective and admit when the other guy makes a good point.

It may be hard to believe. But you have two facts that don't match. Scientists claim proof of old age. Its shown that old age is not necessary.

Now to make you happier, this is not proof of young age either. Its merely the refutation of a proof of old age, and a further proof that scientists are human.

6. A. You might have some things that were available. It seems likely that if this were done, it was not done to disguise data, but as a practical matter to make the universe livable. Thus, you'd look for clocks in areas that were not necessary for livability.

You might look and find star clusters that were gravitationally unstable, and that could not have lasted for gigayears.

B. I hope I said it, but if not, let me state. I am not a physicist. I am not qualified to pass judgment on this theory. I pass it along as a suggestion for one major problem, to let people know that there may be a solution.

I took a look at this book at least once, and ran away screaming. I have a similar reaction to MJ's time travel site.

Why did Darwin and his friends attack God?
1. Darwin was bothered by theodicy, or the problem of evil. Why does God allow evil in the universe?
2. I've heard that Darwin believed before Evo in a sorta Creationist theory called the Great Chain of Being which is not Biblical. It had its problems. I'm not really up to dealing with that. But you can see how finding a substandard theory on the one side might drive one to the other side. Its happening now with many scientists forsaking their allegiance to Darwin.
3. J.P. Hogan in Kicking the Sacred Cow talked about how Evo was beneficial to radicals?? and the aristocracy. It benefited the aristos because it was a theory of slow, gradual change, and since the aristos were on top and threatened, they liked that idea of slow change.

He goes on to point out the Geology Club which promoted Evo. And oddly enough had no geologists in its eighteen or so members. Politics. Its time to get a little pomo.

One person pointed out that only in England in that time would a theory based on the struggles of the individual have taken on such life.

It justified racism. Darwin was a racist. He believed blacks were halfway between the Great Apes and Whites. And he figured that in a few centuries therew would be a war of extermination....The Origin of the Species and the Preservation of Favored Races.

Sir Francis Dalton (or Galton), Darwin's close cousin, was a leading Eugenicist.

That bad nasty, ruthless, racist Big Businessman who speaks of the 'law of the jungle' and 'competition'--that bogeyman that lives in our popular dreams has a lot more owed to Darwin than is generally realized.

I'm going to get Marxist. Evo served the class interests of some very powerful people and their lesser friends.

Add in self-delusion and hatred of moral limits and of God the Creator....

We know Ernst Haeckel was a liar. He was working at the same time as Darwin. Why did he lie? I don't know. Why did so many Evos support the lie? I don't really know. I can speculate.

A lot of Evos think they're facing off against the forces of reaction, oppression, tyranny, anti-science and so forth. And if you fight the Devil, a lie might be okay. Unfortunately for them, they are the forces of reaction and oppression and tyranny and anti-science. Carl Sagan wrote about a demon-haunted world lit only by the candle of reason. A lot of Evos seem themselves that way. They tell themselves that if they give way on Evo, all science will die. In this they steal teh glory of real scientists and real engineers who did marvelous things. In this, they ignore history as many of the greats of science have been Christians and Creationists starting with Newton and going on forward.

Its also a class thing. In Iraq, under the dictator Saddam Hussein, twenty percent of the population did okay, crushing the other eighty under foot. In America, 11% are Darwinian Fundamentalists. This serves as part of the badge of the Establishment, and it serves as justification for the Establishment (they have to defend Darwin from all those lowbrow red state hicks, the fifty percent who bellieve in Young Earth Creation, and the rest who believe in other forms of Creation.) This gives the Establishment the power to crush the rest of America under foot.

And some of that power is used to keep Creationist scientists from getting tenure or getting peer reviewed and to try to brainwash little kids to Leewontin's point of view so that even if they see the evidence, they won't see it. But facts are stubborn things. At one time, academics told us over and over that men and women were just alike. And that house of cards collapsed. This one will too.

Its a preference cascade waiting to happen. Perhaps if Palin gets elected President in 2012 that might be enough to trigger the avalanche of people feeling free to express themselves in public without fear, of going into a classroom and not being frightened of losing tenure for being honest. The internet is a great thing. Its taken power away from the gatekeepers, and given it to (ordinarily you say common man at this time, but its not true) and given it to truthseekers and real experts (instead of talking hairdos.) and just plain folk. Its likely that we will see the utter collapse of Evo. It happened with the Berlin Wall, it can happen here.

Fri Jul 3 2009 6:45 am #
Brock
Member

eh-hem.

I believe it is more appropriate for this debate to happen in it's own thread, so that interested parties can read it there, and those looking for the definitions of various words can look here. So I made a thread for you to debate there, if you would.

Of course, you don't have to, but I believe it will be better for the interested parties.

Fri Jul 3 2009 7:48 am #
WilliamTWodium
Member

Besides, nothing is going to get resolved if every post tries to discuss twenty-five issues at a time. If anyone actually wants to resolve differences in belief through discussion, we should stick with a single concept, issue or fact until agreement has been reached or the precise point of irreconcilable difference has been identified.

Fri Jul 3 2009 8:00 am #
JohnA1nut
Member

How about just close the damn thing? These kinds of debates never go anywhere, and just prompt Scott and Eric (Two good friends, otherwise) to go at each other's throats.

Fri Jul 3 2009 10:26 am #
Tadeusz
Member

Brock wants definitions so....

1. Superstition: As MJ said, a belief with an irrational basis. Typically, this is used in this fashion..."My honest beliefs, and your irrational superstitions."

Its also used to cover small rituals that may well be the pagan remants of Pre-Christian Europe. These are scattered bits and pieces of belief that don't add up to a system.

I hardly use this term as most people have good reasons for what they believe. I don't go so far as to say they're accurate beliefs, but most people aren't totally irrational if you get down to understand what they believe and why they believe it. Superstition is a word tossed out by those who see the surface more than the depths, I suspect.

Edit: Jacques Barzun in Dawn to Decadence (which covered the last five hundred years of history) pointed out the similar usage of religion in American Transcendentalism. He called it a religion. The ATers did not. Again its more of 'My learned philosophy/pursuit of truth/way of wisdom/system of thought vs. your ignorant religion.'

Fri Jul 3 2009 2:49 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Again its more of 'My learned philosophy/pursuit of truth/way of wisdom/system of thought vs. your ignorant religion.'

I made a point of this in a different thread. Native, primitive, "savage" peoples performed hours of dancing, praying, and complex rituals for a good harvest. As long as no one got hurt, what's the harm?

Modern, "civilized" people spend a few moments head bowed and praying for a good harvest.

Now I ask you, who is showing more faith and devotion to their god? I'd say the "savages" were, but that's just me.

Fri Jul 3 2009 3:31 pm #
M. J. Young
Moderator

That depends, John. Did the ancients believe they had to cajole their god into answering, and the modern believe that their god would do it if they asked? In that case, it's the modern who has the faith.

--M. J. Young

Fri Jul 3 2009 8:37 pm #
JohnA1nut
Member

Good point MJ. I hadn't thought of that. I still like the "Savage" way better though......

(Doing Therapy)

Fri Jul 3 2009 8:51 pm #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.