I hope Jerry Coyne will forgive me that my frequent thought as I was reading his new book, Why Evolution Is True(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) was, “Wow, this sure is easier to read than that other book.” That other book, of course, is Coyne and Orr’s comprehensive text on Speciation(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is a technical and detailed survey of the subject in the title, and that I wouldn’t necessarily recommend to anyone who wasn’t at least a graduate student in biology. We all have our impressions colored by prior expectations, you know, and Jerry Coyne is that high-powered ecology and evolution guy at the University of Chicago whose papers I’ve read.
The new book is simple to summarize: just read the title. It’s aimed at a lay audience and answers the question of why biologists are so darned confident about the theory of evolution by going through a strong subset of the evidence. It begins with a discussion of what evolution is, then each subsequent chapter is organized around a class of evidence: fossils, embryology and historical accidents, biogeography, natural selection, sexual selection, speciation, and human evolution. If you want a straightforward primer in the experiments and observations that have made evolution the foundational principle of modern biology, this is the book for you.
Why Evolution is True makes an almost entirely positive case for evolution; it has an appropriate perspective on the current American conflict between science and religious fundamentalism that avoids dwelling on creationist nonsense, but still acknowledges where common misconceptions occur and where creationist PR, such as the Intelligent Design creationism fad, has raised stock objections. It’s a good strategy — the structure of this book is not dictated by creationist absurdities, but by good science, and creationism is simply noted where necessary and swatted down efficiently. It’s a more powerful tool for it, too — creationists can lie faster than anyone can rebut them, so the best strategy is to focus on the real evidence and force critics to address it directly.
You all really ought to pick up a copy of this book if you don’t already have a sound understanding of the basic lines of evidence for evolution (or, if you do, you could always get Speciation to get a little more depth). I recommend it unreservedly. Oh, except for one little reservation: it won’t be available until January. Go ahead and put it on your Amazon pre-order list, then.
wot? iz evulutianz real?
jeebuz save us all!
Forget about “irreducible complexity,” what we see in life is irreducible randomness (but not of the quantum kind–rather using “irreducible” as the IDists do), along with natural selection which fashions it all into something competitive.
Explain the randomness, and you can come up with a theory. Don’t explain the randomness, and you’re not even addressing the major problem.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Forget about “irreducible complexity,” what we see in life is irreducible randomness (but not of the quantum kind–rather using “irreducible” as the IDists do), along with natural selection which fashions it all into something competitive.
Explain the randomness, and you can come up with a theory. Don’t explain the randomness, and you’re not even addressing the major problem.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
It won’t be available until January! You’re a big tease. You must have received an advance copy because Coyne knows all your nonscientific minions and ilk will flock to Amazon.com or their local Borders to get a copy! I’ll be first in line.
Since it sounds like I’ve learned most of what’s in that book in high school, I won’t be buying it.
If nothing else, it will make a great gift to give to the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement.
How does this book differ from the one Dawkins is currently writing?
And I’d managed not to double-post all through the recent difficulties, till now. La vie, I say.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
This looks interesting. Since my knowledge of biology is fairly sketchy, my education being mainly in social sciences and humanities (at present I’m a law student), I’m interested in a book that would explain these concepts in comprehensible layman’s terms.
I would be very surprised if you learned what’s in this book in high school. This isn’t superficial, and it’s not the kind of thing that can be covered in a couple of lectures to a public school class. Coyne did not aim that low — this is more like the stuff that every college biology major ought to know.
OK, fair enough. It’s not often I regret my path in life, but I do sometimes regret my very limited knowledge of the physical and natural sciences. I’m on much more solid ground discussing politics, economics and law.
Pretty much agree with what #9 (Walton) said. My knowledge of biology is lacking, my education is mainly in IT, and hopefully in the near future, Linguistics. A book that will give me a straightforward overview of the evidence would be entirely helpful.
Wow, thanks for the link to theflyingtrilobite’s website. I’m going to start keeping tabs on the artist, very good work.
Ok, fair enough. I haven’t read it, after all. Since you wrote that
Walton said;
And yet your lack of knowledge never prevents you opining as if knowledgable, your post that PZ replied to being a perfect example.
Muahahaha
Pre-order complete.
I have the creationists to thank for this.
I have always had an interest in cosmology and physics, and discovered that no matter the forum, no matter the subject, you are likely to have your conversation interupted by a creationist carpetbombing.
As it happened more and more, it caused me to expand my horizons further into the realm of biology.
At first I was bothered by the fact that I was being forced to educate myself on a new subject that didn’t interest me all that much, but now I’m absolutely fascinated.
Thank you Jesusfreaks, for making me a more rounded person.
Wish I could do the same for you.
I’m off for tonight. Still won’t buy that book, though. All the money I have goes to either the tuition fee for the university I study at or books required for said study.
Also, it’s taking ages to post anything on scienceblogs. Blargh.
I just finished The Ancestor’s Tale yesterday and am hungry for more. I wonder how this compares.
Many thanks for the book review! It’s at the top of my Amazon Wish List!
That being said, are there any other books out there along the same lines, e.g., sophisticated and detailed yet readable and not overly technical?
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution by Sean B. Carroll.
I know next to nothing about biology but I was able to understand and enjoy this excellent book.
Its too bad we all couldn’t chip in and send a case of the books to that bastion of ignorance so inappropriately named the Discovery Institute for christmas – excuse me Winter Solstice.
Not that they read science books, but you never know.
I second BobC’s nomination of Making of the Fittest as an excellent place to start.
Please consider donating copies of these two books to your local public high school library so that young minds may be exposed to good bioscience. It’s a small action we can take that will pay great dividends, I think. I am not a scientist, but when I was a kid, I read every book that Isaac Asimov ever wrote, and that made me love and respect science forever.
I’ve been looking for a book like this for some time. One that I can recommend to Fundies who ask me questions that reveal their total lack of understanding of evolution. I’ll plan to read it as soon as it comes out, and see if it fits what I’ve been looking for.
I’ve been looking for a book like this for some time. One that I can recommend to Fundies who ask me questions that reveal their total lack of understanding of evolution. I’ll plan to read it as soon as it comes out, and see if it fits what I’ve been looking for.
evolution is true,yes After hundreds of years of hard work by thousands of scientists and the convergence of paleontology,biology and genetics is it not time for a LAW of evolution?
foreign observer @ #26
Why?
I’m pretty sure a theory is the highest level of understanding in science, higher than laws and facts. Unfortunately the creationist retards think a theory is a wild guess that has no evidence.
Evolution is not a separate law of nature. It’s inevitable if you have a reproducing population, heritable traits, and an environment.
(Actually you don’t even need an environment.)
(You do need mutation, though. If inheritance is perfect, it doesn’t work.
Coming up with theoretical minimum requirements for a process that’s so far removed from them in the real world isn’t easy.)
is it not time for a LAW of evolution?
On the premise that theories grow up into laws? It’s a category mistake. A scientific law is a (mathematical) expression of a deep regularity in nature, one that has never been observed to fail, given boundary conditions.
A theory, on the other hand, unifies diverse observations into a single explanatory framework that can be used to make predictions about future observations and generate novel hypotheses.
Note that a law has no explanatory power, being simply an expression of how things are.
Population genetics might be said to have a few laws, notably the Hardy-Weinberg principle. Regardless, there will be no “law of evolution,” nor is one needed.
In other words, theories explain laws.
foreign @ 26
In his book, Darwin presented the five parts or hypotesis that he intended to probe in his book.
Probably those are what we could call the fives laws of evolution.
1. Evolution as such
This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of entities that live on it also change.
2. Common descent
This is the understanding that every group of living entities that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
Common descent occurs because one lineage would, willy-nilly, be a little more prolific than another, and would thereby wipe out the other. So only one survives.
3. Multiplication of species
This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
4. Gradualism
This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
5. Natural selection
This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others.
Darwin could demostrate most of this, but in some cases que could not get a mechanism to explain it (a law says how, a theory say why). That is was modern science has been doing all this years.
“Regardless, there will be no “law of evolution,” nor is one needed.”
Au contraire, monsieur!
There IS a “Law of Evolution”
It has two parts:
1. Living things change over time.
2. Many of the organisms that are extant today are different from those of the past.
What we do not have is a “Theory of Evolution”, that is a credible mechanism that explains how it occurred.
Something useful at last. Will pre-order today.
Maybe we should all read the book together and have a blog entry per chapter.
Ubi Dubium,
I was thinking the same thing, about recomending this to the ‘Fundies’, as you put it, in my life. Unfortunatley the one thing they have in common (now I’m talking specific IDiots that I know) is that they don’t read books. Maybe if the book comes out in a screaming-foaming-at-the-mouth Youtube version, they’ll sit through it.
Educate laity? You mean we can’t just Dickie D everyone FTW?
If you couldn’t even begin to explain how you might frame a proposed scientific law mathematically, chances are it’s not a law. Is “the design of currency changes over time, and many of the currency designs extant differ from those of the past” a law of economics? Your proposed law is no more precise. Really, your second part is just a corrolary of the first. It’s merely a statement of one consequence of “change over time.” At best, you’ve offered a definition.
As for the kicker, there, you’re being obtuse. The mechanisms described by Modern Evolutionary Theory are as credible and have as much predictive and explanatory power as those described by any theory in the history of science.
The creationist response to this book will be:
(hands over both ears)
“LA LA LA LA LA LA….”
Either Charlie Wagner or some other similar crank. Our present understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, while doubtless incomplete, is regarded as highly “credible” by all of the people that know most about it.
Your personal incredulity is not interesting.
How does Coyne’s book compare with Mayr’s What Evolution Is ?
David @ #29-30:
Instead of “heritable traits”, I would have said “heritable differences in reproductive efficiency”.
Another thing you don’t need is death. Definitions of evolution often talk about competition for resources and differential survival, and of course it’s a historical fact that Darwin was deeply influenced by Malthus. But death isn’t logically necessary to evolution. In a theoretical world of unlimited resources in which no organism dies and no lineage goes extinct, it would still be the case that more efficient reproducers would come to dominate the population, driving less efficient variants into (relative) insignificance. In a contest of exponential growth, the guy with the bigger exponent wins. It so happens that in the real world of finite resources, losing that contest leads to extinction, but that’s a side-effect of evolution, not a prerequisite.
Walton @11
“I’m on much more solid ground discussing politics, economics and law.”
You swine, I’ve just spat my beir all over the keyboard.
Hey Thinking Ape #37,
I bet I know how you can get a fundie to read that book. Tell them you will come to church with them as long if they promise to devote the same amount of time reading that book as you spend in church.
So, will Jerry Coyne follow Harun Yahya’s example and send copies of this to creationists…?
Hi, anyone inteerested in evolution might also be interested in my recent research called “Its Not Darwin’s or Wallace’s Theory” and associated comments on the Richard Dawkins website,which can be found by searching “wainwrightscience” on Google,
Best Wishes, Dr Milton Wainwright,Dept.Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,University of Sheffield,UK
Hi, anyone inteerested in evolution might also be interested in my recent research called “Its Not Darwin’s or Wallace’s Theory” and associated comments on the Richard Dawkins website,which can be found by searching “wainwrightscience” on Google,
Best Wishes, Dr Milton Wainwright,Dept.Molecular Biology and Biotechnology,University of Sheffield,UK
Stimpson, why should anyone give a shit if you morons educate yourselves or not? Just keep your stupidity out of our schools, asshole.
What we do not have is a “Theory of Evolution”, that is a credible mechanism that explains how it occurred.
LOL
so wrong it hurts when I laugh at it.
I also know that you’ve been corrected on this hundreds of times, and yet will always come back to repeat the same lies over and over again.
another pathetic creobot, lying to maintain your house of cards you call your “worldview”.
I’m pretty sure a theory is the highest level of understanding in science, higher than laws and facts.
you can drop the qualifier; you have it right.
Coyne’s book has actual intellectual value. It doesn’t need to be given away, certainly not to people who are too proud of their ignorance to remediate it.
I bet I know how you can get a fundie to read that book. Tell them you will come to church with them as long if they promise to devote the same amount of time reading that book as you spend in church.
I’d be happy to trade all the hours I spent in church until I was an adult, for any ignorant person like yourself to spend that time in an actual science course that teaches the basics of evolutionary biology, and forces you to actually fucking read the literature on the subject.
You see, moron, most of us here have ALREADY read your “sacred” tome, and eventually discarded it for what it was: A work of fiction.
You clowns are still on the hook for the amount of time those of us who abandoned your nonsense already put into it.
So get to reading, punk.
Damn effing straight.
I have hundreds or thousands of wasted hours in church on my account too. I will happily use that credit to get some good hearted but ignorant person some useful education.
Hello Ichthyic,
I am sure the amount of time I have spent reading science easily dwarfs the amount of time you have spent in church. I am not a church goer myself. I was merely making a suggestion to those who would like fundies to educate themselves. I think PZ is one of those guys.
And Bob at #49, didn’t you say at #20 “I know next to nothing about biology”.
I myself am wishing that the average american had a grasp of 8th grade math right now and knew what they getting into when they signed up for an adjustable rate mortgage.
Why evolution isn’t true:
1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared “long before” in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:
“Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers … The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability… ‘It had the tools,’ he said, ‘but it needed the opportunity as well.'” http://www.scientificblogging.com/n%5B…]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development
“A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development … Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n%5B…]l_genome.htm
“Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response … Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n%5B…]l_genome.htm
“Despite being developmentally simple-with no organs or many specialized cells-the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.” http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E%5B…]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com%5B…]descent.html
2. For the fossil ‘evidence’ ruse created by evolutionary ‘science,’ go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos%5B…]vidence.html
Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, “quote-mining” “straw man” and the new buzz word, “trolling”!
Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning…
I’ll add this book to my Amazon wishlist, so when the dollar goes back up, I can get this and The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory.
Just went to order the book from Amazon and was confronted by adverts for two creotard websites promising to teach me about the “truth of evolution”. Eurrgh. As a result I shall be spending my hard-earned in a local bookstore when January comes around instead.
Thanks for the book recommendation, PZ!
SciBlogs is not well today. Are those DOS assholes still causing trouble?
Why evolution isn’t true:
1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared “long before” in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:
“Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers … The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability… ‘It had the tools,’ he said, ‘but it needed the opportunity as well.'” http://www.scientificblogging.com/n%5B…]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development
“A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development … Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n%5B…]l_genome.htm
“Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response … Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n%5B…]l_genome.htm
“Despite being developmentally simple-with no organs or many specialized cells-the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.” http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E%5B…]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com%5B…]descent.html
2. For the fossil ‘evidence’ ruse created by evolutionary ‘science,’ go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos%5B…]vidence.html
Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, “quote-mining” “straw man” and the new buzz word, “trolling”!
Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning…
Why evolution isn’t true:
1. Evolution predicts that genetic complexity is gained gradually, but specific genetic material for creating advanced features appeared “long before” in organisms that supposedly evolved millions of years earlier:
“Long before animals with limbs (tetrapods) came onto the scene about 365 million years ago, fish already possessed the genes associated with helping to grow hands and feet (autopods) report University of Chicago researchers … The capability of building limbs with fingers and toes existed for a long period of time, but it took a set of environmental triggers to make use of that capability… ‘It had the tools,’ he said, ‘but it needed the opportunity as well.'” http://www.scientificblogging.com/n%5B…]genetic_data_ overturns_long_held_theory_of_limb_development
“A recently sequenced genome of sea urchin (see Fig. 1) represents another very clear example of a seemingly excessive genetic complexity. As mentioned above, the relatively simple sea urchin has about 24,000 genes, same as more complex vertebrates. Though sea urchin lacks eyes and, of course, brain, it has six opsins, belonging to several families found in humans, Drosophila, Scallops and other groups. While the presence of the opsins could be explained by their possible function in a simple light sensing, sea urchin has the entire set of orthologs of major genes involved in the eye development … Therefore, it appears that information on the eye development is encoded in the sea urchin genome, while no eye is actually developed, and thus the genetic information seems to be excessive.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n%5B…]l_genome.htm
“Another surprise came from a complexity of components of the immune system in sea urchin. In addition to an extremely well developed system of the innate immunity, these animals possess genes encoding major components of the adaptive immune response … Yet, sea urchin does not have antibodies, and possibly lacks adaptive immunity in general. Genes that are seemingly useless in sea urchin but are very useful in higher taxons exemplify excessive genetic information in lower taxons.” http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/n%5B…]l_genome.htm
“Despite being developmentally simple-with no organs or many specialized cells-the placozoan has counterparts of the transcription factors that more complex organisms need to make their many body parts and tissues. It also has genes for many of the proteins, such as membrane proteins, needed for specialized cells to coordinate their function. “Many genes viewed as having particular ‘functions’ in bilaterians or mammals turn out to have much deeper evolutionary history than expected, raising questions about why they evolved,” says Douglas Erwin, an evolutionary biologist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Washington, D.C.” http://darwiniana.com/2008/09/20/%E%5B…]80%99-animal% E2%80%99s-genome-proves-unexpectedly-complex/
http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/com%5B…]descent.html
2. For the fossil ‘evidence’ ruse created by evolutionary ‘science,’ go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/fos%5B…]vidence.html
Evolution predicts that all of you will cry, “quote-mining” “straw man” and the new buzz word, “trolling”!
Your thoery would be better served by someone actually providing competing evidence from actual research or observation instead of the impending whinning…
I love the comment from Richard Dawkins:
Oh how I LOLed at that. RD is national treasure.
So Charles Wagner is a biologist? What’s his speciality?
Saying the same shit over and over and over for years: he personally doesn’t see how it could have happened, therefore it couldn’t have happened. *shrug*
This “Who is your creator” tard showed up at PT, too. I made a short response there, which I’ll copy to here:
Who is your creator, can you give me references to the journals Science and Nature that repudiate evolution? If not, where is your evidence? Not in the scientific literature, which means you don’t have any. That makes you a triple liar and bullshitter.
Damn fool creationist can’t even get a simple copy-and-paste done right.
Actually, since none of the excerpts on genetics that you posted contradicts the theory of evolution, the proper response is “So what?”
Although “trolling” probably applies as well. Silly creationist.
Evolution is true.
“You see, moron, most of us here have ALREADY read your “sacred” tome, and eventually discarded it for what it was: A work of fiction.”
But Ichthy, religionists are coming up with new and exciting findings in the field of apologetics every day. You really need to spend an hour in church every week to keep up.
So Charles Wagner is an argument from personal incredulity?
Since when?
This comment will undoubtedly get lost in the bashing of the creationist-troll, but might as well.
UChicago is pumping out the fun books lately, but I think I’ll wait to buy this after I graduate. The last thing I need is to have Prof. Coyne think I’m a bigger fan-girl than I already am if he sees me in Zoology with said book in hand.
Sorry guys, no humorous segue, and not quite on-topic, but I figured this thread would be the best of the recent entries to post this in:
It’s not a bunny, but has anyone seen the report of a supposed Pre-Cambrian centipede?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/10/12/scifootprint112.xml
But Ichthy, religionists are coming up with new and exciting findings in the field of apologetics every day.
I already spend enough time recycling cans and bottles without having to spend time listening to recycled arguments too.
:P
So Charles Wagner is a biologist?
no, if you look up his dungeon entry here, he’s a little blond girl.
What’s his speciality?
wanking.
…seriously; look it up.
So what is Eric Williams doing quoting the guy? Is this a new morph perhaps?
I am sure the amount of time I have spent reading science easily dwarfs the amount of time you have spent in church.
not based on your putative arguments in favor of the non-science of “intelligent design”.
from those arguments, you have at best a high school level of science comprehension.
I see no point in rehashing how your missives on that subject have already been shredded.
I was merely making a suggestion to those who would like fundies to educate themselves.
point taken. You’ve stated repeatedly you aren’t a churchgoer.
It’s just so easy to confuse you with one based on what you say.
It’s obvious (and even stated by you on your own “blog”) that you are just trolling here.
you aren’t doing anyone any good, including yourself.
suggest you spend less time trolling and more time reading.
Absolutely a new morph.
See, you have to understand that Charlie Wagner is not a Christian fundamentalist; he’s a sui generis agnostic crank. I am pretty sure that most other anti-evolutionists fall somewhere in the creationist (YEC, OEC)-“ID” spectrum, and would consider Charlie’s panspermia+steady-state-universe cosmology to be utter blasphemous anathema.
So pretty much the only person who would quote/cite Charlie Wagner… is Charlie Wagner.
If you feel like exploring how a human mind can go wandering off into the weeds of fractal wrongness not based on any particular religious ideology, you can easily find his website. It really is one-of-a-kind.
I am pretty sure that most other anti-evolutionists fall somewhere in the creationist (YEC, OEC)-“ID” spectrum, and would consider Charlie’s panspermia+steady-state-universe cosmology to be utter blasphemous anathema.
ah, I remember the really FUN* times when we used to get both Wagner AND Heddle spewing their own versions of “Cosmic ID” in a thread. At least Heddle knew something of astronomy and physics, for whatever that was worth.
*and by “fun” I mean more like tortuous insanity.
Walton said: I’m on much more solid ground discussing politics, economics and law.
Sometimes I think maybe evolution ISN’T true.
I’m trying to read # 56, and # 61 and #62 from who is my creator, but I’ve been drinking this ISP beer since I got home and I’m too frontLoaded, I can’t unedrstnad it, did godiddit, did we getz cheezburgerz ?
Hey could I get some advise? I’m new to forums like this.
If somebody responds to a post of mine, and I don’t get around to reading it until several hours later, should I bother posting a response of my own or is it too late?
And what is ‘trolling’?
TA @ 82: If somebody responds to a post of mine, and I don’t get around to reading it until several hours later, should I bother posting a response of my own or is it too late?
yeah because folks generally post to threads for a day or two, also it is an international group, so you’ll see Europe, Austrailia, the American Coasts, all coming on line at different times.
Sort of depends on the heat of the subject.
what is ‘trolling’?
Trolling is an old school internet term dating back to the late 80’s, before the web, when interactions were all bulletin board, IRC, and USENET.
Trolling refers to the practice of dragging a fishing line behind a boat, in other words, you bait your hook with some bullshit, and see if any suckerfish are biting.
This immediately morphed into a noun, Troll, the ugly mutherfucker under the bridge who grabs you if you’re passing by, which has a different meaning, but suffices as an insult, close enough.
Someone mentioned reading Isaac Asimov’s books about science. In the front of “Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopedia of Science and Technology”, 2nd ed., 1982, there is a list of “some books on sciece by Isaac Asimov”. 61 titles are listed. Is Asimov the single most prolific writer on science.
Nerd @ 67
You know better than that. Lack of proof of a proposition doesn’t make it false; it only means its not proven.
But, there’s this good book that might be of help to you.
The Open Secret; A New Vision for Natural Theology. Its by Alister McGrath, who appears to be a first rate Christian apologist (and a former atheist).
oooh, former atheist. Just like CS Lewis and Lee Strobel. Why do believers think that apologetics are any less moronic because the people who wrote them went through an “I don’t belive in God phase” as teenagers?
It was fun watching Hitchens rip this guy apart, he’s a hack apologist though the term hack is already implied by apologist.
Kel @ 86
“rip this guy apart”
How could you come away with that impression. I saw where D’Souza touts his debate with Hitch in N.Y. If D’Souza can wrap this guy up, McGrath certainly could. Academically, McGrath is head and shoulders over D’Souza. Every time you see Hitch, he is disheveled with a hangdog look like he may need to lay in some prozac.
I saw where D’Souza touts his debate with Hitch in N.Y. If D’Souza can wrap this guy up
well, there’s your problem, moron.
you relied on D’dumbass’s delusional view of how that “debate” actually went. You might try checking your source material beyond AIG, ICR and D’dumass’s site.
In reality, D’dumbass was beyond shredded and into the range of watery pulp after that exchange.
btw, didn’t you used to post as Max Verret?
Well of course. But since when did debating skills rest solely on academic achievement?
Also, have you disproved The Dragon Hypothesis yet?
Silver Fox, we have been through this before. If you want anyone here to believe you, you need to present the proper evidence. And you need to put your proof out there so it can be tested. It is funny how you never do that. One can only conclude you have trouble with evidence, and that makes your talk meaningless. Maybe even you have none, and must bluster and lie to support your falsehoods. Time to put up or shut up, as far as your creator and evidence thereof. Talk is cheap. Show something. Preferably from Science or Nature.
You know better than that. Lack of proof of a proposition doesn’t make it false; it only means its not proven.
you know, of course, that we already thoroughly debunked your moronic position on that just a couple of days ago?
so, I see you continue to make a great case for being tossed in the dungeon.
first morphing/sockpuppetry and now multiple cases of insipidity.
what color curtains would you like for your cell?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
*plonk*
Posted by: Silver Fox | October 13, 2008
Lack of proof of a proposition doesn’t make it false; it only means its not proven.
Yawn… I can pull any old thing out of my ass and claim that it is not false, merely not proven. It does not mean that anyone should show any reverence for it.
Silver Fox, both of us know you can’t prove your creator (god). We have been over this before. You have two honorable (Xian) choices. Either show the information, or stop referring to your creator. Ideally, with the latter option, you would cease posting here. The third option, which is unXian since it involves bearing false witness (lying), is to try to continue in your present snide remarks saying there is one, but dodge all attempts to have you show the evidence. But it also brands you as a non-truth teller. Your choice.
ThinkingApe @82
If you are going to reply to someone after a long period, it is a good idea to give an indication of the comment number that you are referring to and preferably quote the relevant text.
Nerd of Redhead, you can’t just him to actually bring evidence to the table. He’s far too much of an intellectual coward, hiding behind apologists and theologians who he relies on for absolute assurance that God does indeed exist. Of course they don’t have evidence either, but they do have shiny degrees and talk in big words.
Nerd of 90
This is probably not going to sit well with you but I was so impressed by it I thought it worth sharing. Looking through some archives, I found this in Feb.’07 Mail Oneline. When I noted some time ago that I thought The God Delusion was the worst book Dawkins ever wrote several here saw fit to take me to task. This is a piece by Alister McGrath titled: “Do stop behaving as though you were God, Professor Dawkins”.
“Being aware of a moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins’ crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility toward religion. In fact The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal – persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst religion can offer.”
“Dawkins simple presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism”.
“Being aware of a moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins’ crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility toward religion.
soon-to-be-dungeon resident, meet the courtier’s reply:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php
you’re so far behind the discussion on this stuff, one might think you’ve been sleeping for years.
So let me get this straight. You panned The God Delusion, but found that misleading piece of apologetics impressive?
Silver Fox, please explain just how Richard Dawkins is “acting like God”. Has Mr Dawkins at anytime made any claims to god-like powers?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/they_let_anybody_onto_the_facu.php
btw, just so you all can end your night with a big laugh,
this is allister mcgrath
You might as well have asked PZ if he enjoys reading the Qur’an.
Dawkins’ reply:
Sir, Alister McGrath (Faith, Feb 10) has now published two books with my name in the title. If I seem “grumpy”, could it be because a professor of theology is building a career riding on my back? It is tempting to quote Yeats (“Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?”) and leave it at that. I will, however, dignify his article with a brief reply.
McGrath imagines that I would disagree with my hero Sir Peter Medawar on The Limits of Science. On the contrary. I never tire of emphasising how much we don’t know. The God Delusion ends in just such a theme. Where do the laws of physics come from? How did the universe begin? Scientists are working on these deep problems, honestly and patiently. Eventually they may be solved. Or they may be insoluble. We don’t know.
But whereas I and other scientists are humble enough to say we don’t know, what of theologians like McGrath? He knows. He’s signed up to the Nicene Creed. The universe was created by a very particular supernatural intelligence who is actually three in one. Not four, not two, but three. Christian doctrine is remarkably specific: not only with cut-and-dried answers to the deep problems of the universe and life, but about the divinity of Jesus, about sin and redemption, heaven and hell, prayer and absolute morality. And yet McGrath has the almighty gall to accuse me of a “glossy”, “quick fix”, naive faith that science has all the answers.
Other theologies contradict the Christian creed while matching it for brash overconfidence based on zero evidence. McGrath presumably rejects the polytheism of the Hindus, Olympians and Vikings. He does not subscribe to voodoo, or to any of thousands of mutually contradictory tribal beliefs. Is McGrath an “ideological fanatic” because he doesn’t believe in Thor’s hammer? Of course not. Why, then, does he suggest I am exactly that because I see no reason to believe in the particular God whose existence he, lacking both evidence and humility, positively asserts
I see Kel was thinking the exact same thing.
like I said, Fox/Verret is a tired old thing, who doesn’t even realize he’s so far behind the curve on this stuff he’s like an octagenerian trying to hit a pro fastball.
It would be nice if he could refrain from being an intellectual coward for one moment, and define the God he believes in and why. He seems to be taking the same approach as John Knight, go negative of the opponent and therefore claim a victory by default.
Boy, it looks like McGrath really sent Richard over the wall on that one. When you’re in the public eye you really need to try to develop a little thicker skin.
However, this is, possibly, what really got to Richard: “My real concern, however, is for Dawkins. I worry he has become nothing but a caricature of himself, and that he has found that Caricature so profitable that there is little chance that he will ever submit to thorough self-examination.”
Now I wouldn’t say that that was hitting below the belt because many would take that as constructive criticism. But I guess Richard was not in the mood for a self-critique.
Being critical isn’t constructive when the criticism you give is wrong.
I was away for a minute trying to price McGrath’s Open Secret. In the course of doing that I noticed some of the reviews. One in particular caught my attention. It was by John Haught of Georgetown and since I had studied theology at Georgetown my attention was drawn to it. This is what Haught said of Open Secret: McGrath’s Open Secret provides nothing less than the foundations of a vigorous renewal of natrual theology for our times.
Now I know that people “puff” these reviews sometimes, but coming from Haught, I thought that was impressive.
How about giving it to science teachers you know? Especially those wavering on the “balanced presentation” side of the educational argument? Or ditto board of education members, community center leaders, librarians, and anyone else who nurtures impressionable minds.
The same McGrath who wrote a book claiming atheism is disappearing? Maybe he should look at statistics before writing an entire book with an erroneous premise.
Verret’s goal is easy to figure out, but that does not mean he got it totally wrong when he said that not proving something does not mean it’s false. First ask yourself, why was it not proven? Was the proposition even tested in the first place? If that is the case, then the hypothesis inquestion is both not proven, and not false so far as anybody knows.
To be proven false or true an idea must be tested. Some ideas are real easy to test, others take more work. But regardless of the difficulty of testing an idea, you do need to test it.
Verret’s problem arises from his misunderstanding of validity. Is the proposition valid according to what we know of how the universe works? According to its own construction is ID a valid proposal? According to what we know about how the universe works; no, it is not a valid proposal. Future developments could change this, but from what we know now, ID is not a workable model of how life as we know it came to be.
So he is in one sense right. However his idea that ID has not been properly tested by his lights fails because ID presumes events that do not occur in a universe like ours. There is no store behind the storefront. ID provides no mechanism for its workings, and so provides no way to test it. The Theory of Evolution provides a mechanism that can be tested, that has been tested, and which holds up after all this time. Game, set, and match.
Thanks scooter (83) and Malcom (94).
Maxy, still dodging and weaving with all the blather of a true bullshitter. But still no evidence to present. One must think you are delusional. Here’s some advice. If you can’t present evidence, such as a journal reference to Science or Nature, maybe it is time to give up. Go away, never to return.
By the way, who appointed you to godbot at this site? I smell self appointment since our ideas and evidence offend your small mind.
Hahaha. Theology… right up there with astrology and tarot cards.
God is your creator
no
Nerd at 112
“our ideas and evidence offend your small mind”
Your ideas don’t offend me in the least, but your assumptions and misreadings are just kind of sad.
One of your ideas is that evolution is an appropriate mechanism for looking at the development of organisms through the ages. I think you’re absolutely correct.
As an evolutionist I certainly take no offense by that. I’m also a theist and find no conflict between evolution and theism.
The Genesis creation story has no particular appeal to me. There were many creation stories floating around and the Genesis one appears to have been a redaction of some older Babylonian or Assyrian creation myth. It’s inspired and does have a message but the message is not about talking snakes or apples which by the way are not indigenous to Mesopotamia. In the story it would have been more appropriate to use pomegranates.
Now with regard to your evidence that there is no God, I’m not offended because I don’t think you have any. But I believe in many things for which I have no evidence. I believe in String Theory; I believe we live in a ten dimentional universe, but I have no evidence for either of those. If you buy into the math. then you can believe in both and if you can’t buy in, then you don’t believe in them. But in either case I have no certainty. You would like to reduce the world to a test tube; if it can be tested, good; if not, get rid of it. I think there’s a lot going on in the universe that takes place outside the test tube. That is my worldview. You apparently have a different one. But in any case your ideas and evidence do not offend me.
No, Lisa. God is your delusion. Your imaginary friend isn’t real.
Now, things might be different if you had the slightest speck of evidence that this god of yours exists. But of course you don’t. In thousands of years of searching, not one person of any religion has found the slightest speck of evidence to support the existence of ANY god. The reason why is simple: no such being exists.
So, where’s your evidence, Lisa? Got anything? Put up or shut up.
So Silver Fox, if you believe in things that cannot be tested, how do you pick which ones? Invisible pink unicorns can’t be tested, and I have a feeling you choose not to believe that one. I understand your fall back position is basically faith. You believe something with no support and you would like us to respect that belief. Well too bad, we think that’s a horrible way to look at the universe.
Dennis @118
“If you believe in things that cannot be tested, how do you pick which ones”
You pick the ones about which you can develop some measure of conviction. No one can develop any conviction in the existence of pink unicorns. But in God, String Theory and a Ten Dimentional Universe, I have developed a conviction as to their existence. I have no proof for any of them. With God, it is not a question of brainwashing children early on. Many have come to believe as adults. How many adults do you know who, as adults, came to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or Pink Unicorns. So, belief in God and in Pink Unicorns are by experience not in the same category; they are not analogous
What about Ganesh? Wotan? Scientology? A cursory look at, say, the Book of Mormon gives me no clear sense that Pink Unicorns are, a priori, any more ridiculous than many time-honored theological traditions. So, again, how do you choose “the ones about which you can develop some measure of conviction”?
it is not a question of brainwashing children early on.
actually, it is EXACTLY that.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5827/996
face it, you’ve been brainwashed.
…and why won’t you just admit you’re Max Verret?
I need evidence to have conviction in a idea. No evidence, it is just a myth. Might make a good movie or fantasy book when judgement is suspended, but not for philosophy of life.
God fails the test big time, as does pink unicorns, the ineracy of the bible, and string theory. Of the list, I suspect string theory will eventually produce some evidence for it in the future, but not the others. At least string theory is trying, while the others are not.
Silver Fox, you are posting at a scientific/atheist blog. The fact that evidence for this god is demanded of you should be expected. If you wish to promote fairy tales like your god, please take it elsewhere. Otherwise, you will be called on it every time.
Wow.
I didn’t think the goddists could get any stupider. Lisa and Silver Fox proved me wrong.
Ich @121
“Brainwashing children…It is exactly that”
The point that was being made was that so many adults who as children were atheists came to believe as adults. These were people who were not brainwashed as chiilden. Yet, as mature persons knowing both worldviews chose to believe. Their belief was not based on childhood “brainwashing” but upon adult self-reflection.
Re: the MV matter. In mentioning my postings to someone, it was suggested that I not post under anything that resembled a real name as that would present an opportunity for identity thief; ergo the SF
So whichever ideas you feel you want to be true. How do you develop a conviction without evidence? You’re being wishy-washy and not saying anything of substance.
Well then you have a much lower standard for accepting things than we do. String theory is a still developing theory. It hasn’t had 3,000 years to grow. It hasn’t yet made any testable predictions. While it’s an exciting possibility, I don’t believe in it with any conviction, and neither should you. If it’s still around in two millenniums and still hasn’t provided any evidence or testable predictions, those who still believe in String Theory will sound just as ridiculous as you do right now.
Many adults develop a belief in homeopathy and other bullshit. That line of reasoning is useless. The fact that some people believe in something speaks nothing about it’s truthfulness.
Both of those ideas are supernatural deities without any support in reality. They are perfectly analogous.
Silver Fox you are the perfect example of the namby-pamby, yellow bellied christian that I despise the most.
You say you can believe in evolution and creation at the same time, or not. You don’t exactly believe in the Eden story, or maybe you do. Thats horseshit! Do I have to remind you just what a True Christian believes?
Your arguement sounds like a little pregnant.
Of course people have no evidence that there is no God. You can’t have evidence of absence. Hence the null hypothesis. There’s no evidence, i.e. no reason to believe.
Patricia at 126
I have no difficulty reconciling my belief in evolution as an appropriate way of seeing the development of organisms over time and my belief in God. If I’m not mistaken, the Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with that. So, it seems that only you and those fundamentalists evangelicals who think the world is 6000 years old have a problem with it. Now, Patricia, if you want to hang out with that bunch go right ahead, but don’t expect me to join you.
Now, the “Eden” story. Its part of the Genesis story dealing primarily with Abraham, not about talking snakes or apples. But you have to put in a background before you get to Abraham. Why Abraham? Because the Israelite message is going to be that God established a special relationship with a particular people that was going to play a significant role in salvation history. Now Abraham, at God”s request, as the story goes, is going to slaughter his son, Isaac, but is stopped at the last minute. He finds a ram stuck in the bushes and slaughter it instead.
The message: at some point in Israelite history they switched from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice. Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob real people like you and me. Probably not. More likely, they were eponymous personifications, that is, they may have represented nomatic Israelite tribal leadership beliefs and customs.
So you see I have no problem as a theist evolutionist and I have no problem with the Genesis story in terms of what it means. Again if you believe it means talking snakes, big floods, an ark filled with pairs of every animal known to mankind, then again, you are in harmony with those fundies, and you’re welcome to them but you can’t make broad generalizations about what “true Christians” believe.
That’s bullshit Silver Fox. True Christians believe every word of the bible was inspired by god. It is inerrant, and is literally correct in every way. The word of god is never wrong.
True Christians don’t pick and choose what they like from the scriptures, they believe in the entire bible. You are a wanna be. God can see what you’re writing and knows your false heart.
Silver/Max, why do you persist in posting at a web site dedicated to science and atheism? You have no interest in either. It is time for you to answer honestly.
If I had any guesses, you think you might be able to convert one of us over the dark side.
Or you may just be stupid.
I tend to think the latter.
In either case, time to take your godbotting elsewhere. You will find a less hostile environment at other sites.
Pathetic.
So… If you’re fine with the bible being a collection of myths…
What is it that you think God is?
What is it that you think God has done?
And how do you know?
How would you know if you were wrong?
Yet those same fundies would indeed argue that it was you who was the heretic, denying the inerrant literal truth of God’s own words. You can distinguish yourself from them by saying that you accept science as discovered by human attempts to understand the universe — but they would say that any science that contradicts the literal truth of the bible cannot be true, by definition.
Patricia 129
“True Christians believe every word”
Now, that has to be the goofiest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You see these televangelists waving their King James in the air, yelling; “I have here the very word of God”. Well, that Bible he’s waving is written in English.
It has been translated through thousands of years in dozens of languages. Some of those languages can’t translate into other languages. It has to be approximated. The Catholic Bible has 13 Books that his King James does not have. Again, saying “true” christians believe every word puts you in bed with those fundies. That is not a good place to be.
While it’s nice that he can resolve a materialistic world with an interventionalist God, he still can’t disprove The Giant Dragon hypothesis and thus it’s only save to conclude that God is a Dragon in the centre of the sun.
If you do not believe every word in the bible then you are committing blasphemy, and you are a heretic. Denying the words of god are the same as denying god, and you will burn in a lake of hell fire for eternity.
Again, saying “true” christians believe every word puts you in bed with those fundies.
Not really. It’s just expressing a preference for christians simply coming out with it and saying what it is they believe, and why. Inerrantists do this. They believe the whole thing (the KJV is taken to be an “inspired” translation, and inerrant) and they do so because it’s the word of god.
I don’t think it does much good trading scotsmen back and forth, so let’s forget about “true” christians. Let’s take up Owlmirror’s questions and examine the consequences of not believing every word, because it’s not the inerrant word of god, which is I believe the position you’ve arrived at. What parts of it do you trust, and why do those parts lead you to believe that god sent his only begotten son to die for the sins of the world?
The fundies you decry have this all worked out, and it does depend on “the fall” being a literal, historical event at the beginning of human history. One of these would argue that there was no need for god/jesus’ sacrifice if this event did not occur.
What parts of it do you trust, and why do those parts lead you to believe that god sent his only begotten son to die for the sins of the world?
Follow up: And why is this (son of god, sacrifice,etc.), taken as an idea, prima facie, any less ridiculous than flying pink unicorns? Especially if the scriptures that attest to the event are not inerrant or to be taken literally?
No. Whole hog or none.
Silver Fox has played the sissy half christian for weeks on thread after thread. He either is a christian and believes it, or hell. It’s very simple.
Maybe Max/Silver wants to come over the atheist side, but needs a little encouragement. Maxy, let go of your faith in god. He doesn’t exist. Join us in indifference toward all gods…..
How is the holy trinity any less absurd a concept as that goshdarn talking snake in the garden? That’s the problem with the Christian God, he’s already quite the absurdity to begin with. When you rationalise that God is Jesus who in turn is the Holy Spirit where he impregnated a women to give birth to himself, does the fall of Adam or the Great Genocidal Flood really take much more of a step in credulity?
Christian theism is still absurd even if you pretend it’s evolved into something higher. You can put lipstick on a pig…
I make no excuses for god. Silver Fox does.
Liberal and moderate Christians are still “true Christians.” That’s because there’s no such thing as Christianity — there are Christianities. And it’s perfectly possible to take the Bible as metaphorical and rationalize evolution with that form of Christianity. Evolution is both compatible and consistent with a modern, liberal, spiritual faith in God and Jesus.
But it doesn’t work the other way. Neither God nor Christianity can be derived from the discoveries of modern science. Intelligence and complexity evolve from things that are neither intelligent, nor complex. God was built on our fundamental intuitions about “self-evident truths,” and those turned out to be wrong. No disembodied minds moving things about through the power of will alone.
So theists are left with pushing religion away from the Fact category, and into the Meaning category. Believing that God exists is not like believing that your mother exists. It’s like loving your mother. It’s like believing in Love — which is now a Person, but not, of course, Cupid. Or anything like it. Don’t anthropomorphise God. He just hates that.
Sloppy. But it works, as long as you refuse to analyze it.
Silver Fox #124 wrote:
It is unlikely that former atheists convert because they are convinced by scientific evidence for the existence of God. On the contrary, if they arrive at their view through science at all, they find scientific evidence that allows the existence of a God they wish to believe in for other reasons. Those other reasons are what matter.
Not who believes, or how many, but why.
My, you folks are getting a little bent out of shape.
Look, what I’m telling you is that it’s alright to pan something, but at least you ought to know something about what it is you’re panning.
But, I’m a theist and you are atheists; but yet you insist on telling me what “true Christians” believe. Really, that’s absurd. You take a few off the wall beliefs of some fundamentalist Christians and generalize to the whole of Christianity. You must be from the Richard Dawkins school of apologetics because that’s exactly what he does in his presentations.
So, we can talk about the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Beast that is going to put 666 on everyone’s hand or forehead or whereever it is he’s going to put his intaglio. The Books of Daniel and Revelations are, in all probabilities, referencing, allegorically, events that had already happened not what was GOING to happen. So, at the end of the night all we would have done is chew a little fat or spit a little tabacco juice, or whatever.
Silver, if you don’t like atheists telling you what theists/xians should be believe, there is an option available to you. That is to take yourself away from this blog. You are in control of that. Time to take control and leave. Otherwise, when we get through with your sorry, irrational ass, you really will be sorry. Time to go. NOW.
How does being a Christian make you any more able to define what being a true Christian is than an atheist? yes, people here shouldn’t be telling you what you must or mustn’t believe. But they are indirectly raising a good point. How do you resolve the bible with science, and how much of that are you willing to compromise even further as scientific knowledge advances?
You are a disingenuous coward. I have 50 years of experience being a bible believing True Christian. Don’t try to weasel out and snivel that I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Your brand of half-assed christianity doesn’t get a pass. Why do you back down? Peoples souls are in peril of eternal hellfire here. Especially YOURS.
CJO 136
“The ‘Fall’, now that is an interesting subject”
I assume you’re referencing the apple and the talking snake. So, some guy bit into an apple in Mesopotamia millions of years ago and everything went down hill from that time on. Well, there was a rift in the relationship between God and his creation (I don’t know what it was – probably had something to do with pride) and that had to be mended. I’m giving you my take. Don’t ask me for proof; I don’t have any. However, I do know that apples are not indigenous to Mesopotamia; so, there were none at that time; they were imported later. They did have pomegranates; so, maybe he ate one of those.
No, no, no. You misunderstand. Well, you misunderstood me, at any rate. “True Christian” is meaningless, after all…
My point is that you are self-defining what you mean by “Christian”, and the literalists also self-define as “Christian”. Yet your definitions contradict each other; you would, I suppose, consider each other to be utterly wrong. Well, at least one of you is wrong (and it is far more likely that both of you are wrong).
I was also just wondering how you reached your particular self-definition, and the psychological correlates and consequences of that belief, etc.
I asked this to r bucket (who ran off after thinking he had the moral highground), so I’ll ask it to you. Humans are the product of billions of years of evolution. Many of our “sins” are merely just animalistic behaviours that are part and parcel of nature. Given that we can explain all our behaviour now based on evolutionary theory, what purpose does the fall play? Did we evolve into an even higher being that God brought back down to earth? i.e. why put God into the whole process when we can explain it so well without God? Putting a magic hand in there only further complicates things.
Patricia 135
“You blaspheme…. you are a heretic”
Are you telling me that from your own belief system or are you saying that is what the fundies would say? If the latter, I’ll make a deal with you. If you don’t listen to them, i won’t either
“You’re going to burn in a lake of eternal fire”
Just out of curosity, Do you have any idea where that lake is?
Kel 145
“How do you resolve the Bible with science”
Let’s take the position of a major religion, the Catholic Church. Regarding scripture it teacher that the Bible is neither History nor Science. Sounds OK to me
Nerd of Redhead – Well said.
Silver, like all gods/religion/theology, the lake is between your ears. It has no physical place. All imagination, full of sound a fury and meaning nothing. That’s why I stick with evidence.
You never answered my question on why do you keep posting here. If I didn’t know better, Pharyngula might be your equivalent of cocaine. Something you are dependent upon, hate, but can’t give up.
There’s a lot of problems with that stance. The bible does contain some reference to historical events (mostly inaccurately); the question of whether Jesus really lived on Earth is a historical one. I would doubt it’s possible to find a Christian who didn’t literally believe in the historicity of the resurrection.
Not to mention it treads of the toes of science too, it offers both a source and an authority for morality; a system that has evolutionary roots and dictates our behaviour. The church is very quick to condemn certain acts as evil and abomination that many people have no control over.
i.e. while I admire the Church’s stance on the matter, I find their position hypocritical as they try to have their cake and eat it too.
Come on, we all know that the original text says “fruit”. Your digression is utterly irrelevant.
If you don’t trust the Mesopotamian writers on the exact little details, why do you trust them on this vague and general idea?
What makes you think they even got that much right?
Pattricia 146
“People’s souls are in peril”
Yes they are, and you have to do whatever you need to do to save your’s. And I have to do the same.
I am not a catachist so don’t take your religious instructions from me.
Trying to spin it doesn’t work Silver Fox.
Christians believe in the bible. They follow the laws, commandments and rules sent down directly from god through his holy word.
Yes, I know exactly where the lake of fire and brimstone is, Rev. 20:10. Trying to taunt me with scripture is a big mistake – but go ahead.
Ah, we are finally getting to knitty gritty. Saving our souls. Bad news Silver/Max, we don’t believe in souls, prayer, gods, and redemption, or all that theological horseshit. Like the catolicks that claim to pray for us, we reject their prayers as a waste of their energy that does nothing for us, and we reject your feeble attempts to save our souls for the same reason. If you want to do something constructive, go home (and never post her again) and try to save those who might appreciate it. You won’t find that here.
Nerd `53
I enjoy posting here. The posters are interesting and reasonably intellgent. Contrary to your assumption, I am deeply interested in science and religion (I consider atheism a belief system).
On which you are dead wrong.
Owl 155
“why do you trust them on this vague idea?.
Because, rationally, it makes sense.
Silver, if you would stop godbotting when you post, it would help your cause. We have several people who are theists, but they keep their religion to themselves for the most part. This is part of the “holiday dinner” politeness. If we go to a family dinner where most people believe and somebody wants to say grace, we don’t interrupt the process with atheist talk. Likewise, when you come here, where most are unbelievers, you have to leave your god behind out of politeness. You have failed to do so.
Keep in mind, out the thousand plus gods humans have ideated over the years, you reject all but one. We reject one more.
Silver Fox #143 wrote:
Not really. Although he certainly deals with fundamentalist beliefs (such as Creationism), from what I’ve seen Dawkins is very careful in his books (including God Delusion) to acknowledge and address the more liberal, metaphorical versions of religion, too. After all, those are the views of most of his religious colleagues in science and academia. Some of their definitions of God are so vague, so high and garbled, they’re ‘not even wrong’ — and can’t be worshiped in the usual sense, because they’re not God in the usual sense. They don’t really make sense at all — more of a prop for other important things, than the foundation.
He then defines God generically as: “a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it.” He goes on to discuss how this hypothesis fares in light of modern science. Not well.
Some theists have, of course, disputed his definition. “Superhuman” implies anthropomorphism — and their understanding of God is not anthropomorphic at all (oh yeah?) Others claim God is not “intelligent.” At least, not in the human sense. God is very intelligent (and very pink) in the meaning of words unconnected to our experience and understanding. Then you can have oodles of fun defining and redefining the term “supernatural” so that God is no longer supernatural. And, of course, if you get into process theology with God as ‘a doing’ and ‘a becoming’ evolving as reality itself expresses itself creatively, then you find yourself … well, wherever it is you find yourself.
I don’t really have a good idea on where you are with the ‘generic’ definition. You’re Catholic, but that tells me little, since they run the gamut.
What exactly about the idea of the holy trinity makes sense?
Have no fear Silver Fox, I take no religious instruction from you. Any religious instruction I take will be directly from the bible. The true, inspired, inerrant word of almighty god.
You are a worm. You have no spine to stick up for your god. I haven’t even asked you for proof of god, or jesus, and you back down. You can’t even defend your book.
Or can you? Let’s go.
Nerd of Redhead #162 wrote:
Oh, I disagree. I find the discussions and debates interesting — and if you don’t, then you don’t have to reply to anyone.
I don’t understand this whole “get out of here this is our territory” thing several of you have going. Payback?
Not me. I come here (and elsewhere on line) to be able to have real discussions on sensitive topics that most people in ‘real life’ won’t touch with a ten-foot pole. When it comes to the religious, mostly I run into people who roll their eyes at the incomprehensible, bewildering, extremist concept of ‘atheism’ — it makes no sense! — but they don’t want any explanations, because that’s why they don’t like atheists; we argue like fundamentalists.
You have shown yourself to be an ignorant ass Silver Fox. Take the high road and leave.
Rev. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Just for you Silver Fox, so that you know for sure I speak the biblical truth, spoken by jesus himself – Rev. 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
You’ve picked one of the worst places on the web to talk shit Silver Fox. You bore us. Blah, blah, blah.
Sastra – Yes, I take it as a payback. You have me.
I want to shove religion as far up their ass as they shoved it up mine.
An eye for an eye.
You are a lovely person, and I love you for that – but to some of us, what the religious have done is abuse.
I will stand up every day, every time, and grab them by the collar and yell, “NOOOOO!” into their damned smug faces, so that my great neices might not have to.
Please don’t overlook the fact that my ancestors were hanged as witches. Just google Mary Ayer Parker or the Pendle Witches to see for yourself.
I’m bitter and angry. The whole trick is bullshit, and we keep falling for it. It needs to stop. The child abuse needs to stop.
The dam has finally broken, and the religious are getting a payback. Good.
Patricia 157
“Lake of fire”
I would remind you again that you should not take your religious instruction from me.
I have my understanding and while I am confident that there are many would agree with me; there are many who would not, particularly fundamentalists who read scripture literally.
I think scripture needs to be interpreted in light of literary and historical criticism and form criticism. I realize that this is scandalous to literalist.
Rev. 20:10
Sitz-en-Laben: time and place.
What did the author have in mind and remember we don’t know who wrote Revelations. Some think the Apostle John, son of Zebedee. That is unlikely. The Fourth Gospel, the Gospel of John was probably written by a school of writers, referred to as the Johannan School and of which the Apostle John may have been a member. This is a Greek Gospel. Revelations was likely written by someone fluent in a biblical language, probably Aramaic but knew Greek as a second language. So this makes the authorship somewhat obscure. These apocalyptic writings were motivational pieces. They were written at a time when the Jewish people had undergone great distress. Babylon had conquered Palestine (Rev: “the breath of the earth”) and the Holy City (Jerusalem). The temple had been destroyed. But Revelations is saying “hang in there” Satan (the destroyers)will be bound up and thrown into the brimstone pit. The whore of Babylon is going to be taken down. So, keep the faith – things are going to get better. Satan will be tormented in the pit forever. The Jewish people were frequently losing faith in God (who needs a God that lets your temple get knocked down by pagans). The writer is telling the people “hang tough” keep faith, things are going to improve.
Sastra
I’m not afraid of a little godbotting. Nothing wrong with Max/Silver letting god slip every so often. Providing that he sticks to the subject and adds to the discussion the rest of the time like most of us try to do.
The problem occurred when Max/Silver thought he needed to save our souls (I suspected this might have been the case quite a while back). A misguided bit a thinking. That appears to have warped his perception how much godbotting is appropriate. Many of us thought he carried this too far. Way, way too far, and for much, much too long. Hence today’s kerfluffle.
You do have a point about the “get out of our territory”. I know I appreciate this site since I don’t have to pretend to have a religion like most of us have to do in the real world. When somebody like Max/Silver comes along, and every post is about god, it sets our teeth on edge. The irrational “how dare he” does crop up and is hard to control.
You have to pretend to have a religion in the real world? That must suck.
Gah. the ignorance, it burns!
The title of the work in question is The Revelation of St. John, not “Revelations.” Revelation.
And it’s a Christian text. It’s a reference/response to the Roman sack of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple in 70 AD, not to the Babylonian conquest of 586 BC! “Babylon” in Revelation is code for Rome.
Again Silver Fox – nothing but excuses. There is no interpretation. Gods word is gods word or not – coward!
Kill the queers – Lev. 19:20: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Or how about a little shunning? Try this one –
Lev. 20:18: And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.
What sickness? If god made me, how can what he ordained as a bodily function be a sickness or a sin?
The whole thing is bullshit. You won’t stand for it. Either grow a spine and stand up for god, or take a hike.
Silver Fox – I should not take my religious instruction from you!
Ha! You arrogant ass.
All of the religious instruction I need comes straight out of the bible.
You call yourself a Theist? Which god do you worship? Thor? Hestia? Janus?
For surely you do not worship god almighty or jesus.
Nerd of Redhead – You are right. Any time I have to do so much bible quotin’ to an ass should be a warning bell.
I’ve let fly with a full blown fundie adjenda on this thread and no one has told me to shut the fuck up.
Silver Fox needs to go.
Piltdown Man and Walton need to go with him.
Nooo! Don’t get rid of Piltdown Man, he’s full of entertainment value. I almost asphyxiated from laughing when I read that he believes in literal demonic possession. Nothing funnier than someone who is deadly serious in belief in an absolute absurdity.
Pulling the context back in:
No, it does not.
Look. You refer to “God” using a personal pronoun, so I assume that you mean that God is a person — and if you don’t, it makes even less sense. If God is a person, then it is most certain that there is no way that any permanent rift could be made by humans, because God is eternal and perfect, and humans are not. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing that humans could do to effect God. So no “rift” could be made by humans at all.
Of course, it could be that one or more of the assumptions above is wrong. So which is it? Is God not a person? Is God not perfect and eternal?
Is God petty and evil, such that he is the one who caused the said “rift” in the first place?
And if God is not petty, and not evil, and not weak, and not ignorant, then God should be able to speak right here and now to everyone. So it makes no sense that there is nothing direct from God.
Jerry Coyne’s book sounds right on target to me. For the scientifically barely literate, what is needed is a simple, clear, and concise primer on the subject. Not that most creationists will read it, but if it changes the mind of only a few fence-sitters, it’ll have achieved its purpose.
Silver Fox is like a blind, deaf sniper who doesn’t know where he is shooting nor why. What’s your point old man?
Why the pot shots? He ignores all requests for a method to his madness but still has this air of smug know-it-all-ness.
Dude, when pressed, doesn’t admit to any specific beliefs, that way he can not be pinned down. But he has hinted at what he doesn’t believe. The flood, the forbidden fruit, the revelation of John likely allegorical. Any person of intelligence and intellectual integrity would see that these things are no more or less credible than the belief in god, the trinity and the resurrection. And yet we get the pot shots like Dawkins thinks he is god. Just stupidity with no explanation as to how this could be or why it is so.
This is what annoys me.
You know, here is a better analogy.
SF is like a terrorist with a fire cracker strapped to his ass who walks into a crowded comments thread and detonates it. Dude, was that you? You smell like gun powder. What did you eat? You might want to change your shorts, man.
Ya, that is a much better analogy.
He should do a sequel, “Why Creationism Is Not True.”
Stimpy suggested:
How’d you go with that Randy?